6 thoughts on “The CRICKETher Weekly – Episode 149”

1. Despite what happened in the final I was delighted by this young England U19 side and their performances. The side have lots of spirit and fight, and are clearly a very talented and very special group. The group stage performances were ruthless. The nail-biting semi-final victory over Australia was astonishing. The batting collapse in the final was similar as we’ve seen from the senior England side before – disappointing but true to their style of play. India got the upper hand on the day due to their superb performance in the field, but I still think there’s actually not a great deal between the two sides.

   From India’s perspective I think they certainly missed out on giving experience to other young players who’d not yet featured for the senior team. The inclusion of Verma and Ghosh turned out to be rather incongruous compared to every other side’s selections. Not to say they weren’t required exactly, but I think their coaches were surprised at the consistent impact of the other players like Shweta Sehrawat and Titas Sadhu who are big prospects for the future.

   It was a great advert for the women’s game.

   What has not been a great advert has been the antics of CSA – leaving out DVN from the SA squad because of some little fitness issue. SA haven’t been losing cricket matches because of lack of fitness, it has been due to lack of investment and these ridiculously applied selection requirements.

   LikeLike

2. You mentioned ‘optics’ in the context of Hundred match scheduling, but then didn’t go on to say what I thought was coming. Raf and Syd, from your experience of watching games where the men were on first, was there a mass exodus after the first game? That could be the kind of ‘optics’ that could give the women’s game in general a bad name. Of course, while women’s cricket journalists can leave at ‘half time’ if they wish, we still have the issue of anyone wanting to watch the women’s match having to effectively pay for a ticket for the men as well.

   LikeLike

3. You mentioned ‘optics’ in the context of Hundred match scheduling, but then didn’t go on to say what I thought was coming. Raf and Syd, from your experience of watching games where the men were on first, was there a mass exodus after the first game? That could be the kind of ‘optics’ that could give the women’s game in general a bad name. Of course, while women’s cricket journalists can leave at ‘half time’ if they wish, we still have the issue of anyone wanting to watch the women’s match having to effectively pay for a ticket for the men as well.

   LikeLike

4. I had a bit of a twitter argument with someone about how I felt our U19 girls had suffered for a flawed batting technique. Too many have a closed bat face and strong bottom hand, which was shown up against the better bowlers on a slow pitch. This basic fault can only be a result of (poor) coaching and is also prevalent in the men’s game. Whilst men can often get away with it because of their strength, bigger bats and faster bat speed, mistimed shots in the women’s game are more likely to prove fatal.

   My examples for a classical technique are Heather Knight, Harmanpreet, Meg Lanning and Amy Jones. The women’s game is the same but different. I wonder if there are men trying to coach girls but without understanding the differences in the way the game is played. Not many have the power of Nat S-B. Heather K has scored 100s in all three formats with a classic technique.

   LikeLike

   • I think Grace has the technique to play at the highest level. Agree that some others are going to be found out when they move up to the next level.

     LikeLike

     • By the way, I agree about Baker as next on the full England path. I also really like Stanhope. Love her action, she got movement with the new ball and she’s got a look of real determination in her eye. A real competitor, just like Dean. She’s definitely one for the future.

       LikeLike

Comments are closed.