Let’s be honest, this hasn’t been a T20 series either team will look back on with fondness. Following what Syd described in this week’s The CRICKETher Weekly as “the least entertaining T20 ever where 350 runs were scored”, England then almost stuffed up what should have been an easy chase in the second match on Saturday – after India were, embarrassingly, scuttled for 80.
Finally, on Sunday, England were bowled out for 126, in an innings which featured no less than four golden ducks (Maia Bouchier, Dani Gibson, Freya Kemp and Mahika Gaur).
Poor old Bouchier. Her chances to open the batting haven’t exactly come thick and fast for England. Then, when she finally DOES get to do the job, she has to face an on-fire Renuka Singh, who sent down a beauty of a ball which moved off the pitch and snuck through the gate. It shouldn’t count against Bouchier – you can’t do much about a ball like that – but you just sense that a good little innings here would have at least put her in contention as a possible Test opener (now that Emma Lamb is, sadly, back on the plane).
By contrast, it was another dismal effort from Sophia Dunkley, who looked like she was trying to rehearse getting out to Renuka with a huge swing-and-a-miss outside off stump which then turned into a swing-and-a-hit – straight to point. Jon Lewis might want to rethink that second career as an inspirational speaker; because whatever he said to her at his Emergency Bootcamp, it doesn’t seem to have done the trick.
England did eventually post a respectable total of 126, thanks to a 50 partnership off 34 balls between Heather Knight and Charlie Dean for the 9th wicket: the death-phase was by far the most productive of the innings.
There are two schools of thought about Knight’s innings (52 off 42). One is that she showed her younger teammates the “sensible” way to play on this pitch, taking the time to play herself in, before slamming two sixes down the ground in the final over to eventually finish on a healthy strike rate of 124.
The other is that by batting at well below a 100 SR between overs 6 and 18, Knight actually created a situation whereby the younger batters coming in below her felt backed into a corner: they needed to go at a million miles an hour from ball one, partly to complement and partly to counteract Knight’s slower style of play. That’s why you get Gibson exposing her stumps first ball, Bess Heath whipping out the reverse sweep, and Kemp cutting a ball which wasn’t there to be cut.
Sorry, Trev, but I’m afraid I tend towards the latter position.
Either way, it’s hard not to hold Knight partly responsible for being happy to encourage a philosophy (Jon-ball) in which reckless batting is, seemingly, valued above sensible batting. Four golden ducks don’t happen by accident.
After their win in the first T20, a lot of journalists wrote that England had overcome the batting woes which had plagued them against Sri Lanka in September. I wasn’t convinced then; I’m even less convinced now.
And so, with a mere three days to switch mindset, it’s onto the Test match – not the best timing for England. There’s been a lot of talk about it only being four days, instead of the five we enjoyed in the Ashes in June. But if England (and India) carry on batting like they have done over the last few days, it could easily be over in three.
CRICKETher 
It is tough when players (when batting) go through a rough patch and low (or no!) scores. Should they be dropped? Are there players to replace them? Are those selecting a bit biased/stubborn?
But if you KEEP failing is it best to have a rest? Or do those affected with poor form get a feeling of “I’ll be picked whatever happens….” I hope not. Tricky situations with no obvious solutions, apart from play responsibly especially when attacking!!!
LikeLiked by 1 person
Purely from a statistical point of view (so I’m making no criticism at all of the players or squad rotation) is this the most unsuccessful player switch in T20 international history ? Four players were changed (3 rotation, 1 injury). Those 4 scored 1 run consuming 8 balls with 3 golden quackers and bowled 4 overs for 29 runs and no wickets. So, quite a challenge for the statisticians to answer this question me thinks.
LikeLike
In agreement with Clanger! The low non/non scorers seemed be thrown in the very deep end! With no paddle (or bat!). It shows the gap between good at regional level and international??
LikeLike
Decent series win for England. Played some good stuff in the first 2 matches but couldn’t quite put together the ideal performance with batting AND bowling. Personally I blame the team selections for what happened in the 3rd match – it was a throwback to the Sri Lanka series, resting too many experienced players who were doing well, and throwing too many young players who only know one way, in at the deep end under pressure.
I would be fine with resting either Wyatt or NSB, and replacing with one of Bouchier or Heath for example; but with no Beaumont, it’s just taking liberties to replace them both and expect this not to happen. The coaches/selectors are not learning from their mistakes. This slapdash, haphazard approach has been proved not to work.
It didn’t help that Ecclestone had a rare bad day at the office – India played her well and didn’t let her settle. By the way I would err on the side of Knight’s innings being a good thing, which some of the younger players could learn from.
LikeLike