2020 Women's T20 World Cup - India v Australia Final - Sun 8 March, 6pm AEDT

[DEVO]

That was tight. Not batting well, but we got the win.

 

[Rocco sifreddi]

Dumb captaincy from sl boundary, riders when they needed 2 to win

 

[LukeParkerno1]

That was tight. Not batting well, but we got the win.

Can we stop being stupid and batting Perry at 7...

 

[Fabab]

A win in the end move on ladies.

 

[LukeParkerno1]

Lets go Bangladesh

 

[eddiesmith]

Great to see the 2 Victorian girls bring it home

#vicsdoitbetter

 

[Teen Wolf]

To be clear, when I said it kinda felt like a 200 pitch, I wasn't talking about both innings combined! Call me crazy but there didn't seem to be anything wrong with batting conditions...

A tip for anybody who wants to avoid heart attacks while watching the Australian women play: Healy and Gardner are essentially pinch-hitters. Agree or disagree with the philosophy, it's really not a big deal if they get out early (I think it's way worse when players like that get a start and then throw it away).

Mooney's dismissals in the first two games, on the other hand, are a bit of a concern. Not very characteristic of her and hard to see coming after the way she ended the tri-series.

 

[LukeParkerno1]

To be clear, when I said it kinda felt like a 200 pitch, I wasn't talking about both innings combined! Call me crazy but there didn't seem to be anything wrong with batting conditions...

A tip for anybody who wants to avoid heart attacks while watching the Australian women play: Healy and Gardner are essentially pinch-hitters. Agree or disagree with the philosophy, it's really not a big deal if they get out early (I think it's way worse when players like that get a start and then throw it away).

Mooney's dismissals in the first two games, on the other hand, are a bit of a concern. Not very characteristic of her and hard to see coming after the way she ended the tri-series.

We probably don't need two pinch hitters in the top 3 though.

Think we can just forgive Mooney today, that's the one ball that actually turned a foot, just a bit unlucky.

Whilst I can see some sense in Gardner at 3, I'd rather her at 6, and float her. Put Perry up to 3.

 

[Teen Wolf]

We probably don't need two pinch hitters in the top 3 though.

Think we can just forgive Mooney today, that's the one ball that actually turned a foot, just a bit unlucky.

Whilst I can see some sense in Gardner at 3, I'd rather her at 6, and float her. Put Perry up to 3.

We probably don't need any pinch-hitters if this trend of 130 winning scores continues, which we'd all have considered unfathomable before the tournament.

 

[LukeParkerno1]

We probably don't need any pinch-hitters if this trend of 130 winning scores continues, which we'd all have considered unfathomable before the tournament.

Think Healy opens, you have to give her a licence, she either comes off or she doesn't. I don't like two sloggers in the top 3 though.

 

[k31th]

there's no way the Aussies won that game if the Sri Lankan's held their catches and use their review correctly... but good job by Rachael Haynes to bat well like that after starting very scratchy in that innings.

 

[samFFC]

Lucky win for the Aussie girls.
Unfortunate that Bangladesh didn't get over the line though!

 

[DEVO]

Can we stop being stupid and batting Perry at 7...

Tried her at 4 in the first game and she got a golden duck.

 

[LukeParkerno1]

Tried her at 4 in the first game and she got a golden duck.

So one game and you are down to 7...

She’s our best bat.

Yet Gardner fails what 8 times in 10 let’s leave her at 3...

 

[DEVO]

We probably don't need two pinch hitters in the top 3 though.

Think we can just forgive Mooney today, that's the one ball that actually turned a foot, just a bit unlucky.

Whilst I can see some sense in Gardner at 3, I'd rather her at 6, and float her. Put Perry up to 3.

T20's are all about scoring quickly, especially in the power play overs which is why Perry in the top 4 is a terrible idea because she has a tendency to get bogged down early in her innings. It's okay in the 50 over game because has time to build her innings, but in the T20's we need her stability at 5 if we get ourselves into some trouble.

I think we have our top 6 perfectly set up, Healy and Gardner to provide the power early in the innings, Mooney provides support but being left-handed also provides an alternative avenue to attack. Lanning, Perry and Haynes are the experienced players who can rebuild if necessary or continue the attack if the platform has been built.

 

[DEVO]

So one game and you are down to 7...

She’s our best bat.

Yet Gardner fails what 8 times in 10 let’s leave her at 3...

Interesting you say that, Perry has been failing more the Gardner in 2020. Perry's most recent scores have been 18, 49, 13, 10, 1, 5 0, 5* - 101 @ 14.43.
While Gardner hasn't been setting the world on fire her recent numbers (16, 22, 93, 10, 26, 0, 34, 2 - 203 @ 25.38) have been better than Perry's.

Healy's numbers are worse than both and Mooney's World Cup form has been abysmal. Healy and Gardner were out to good balls last night that swung in late, where as Mooney was out to one of the dumbest shots I've seen her play.

Gardner is not our biggest problem at the top of the order, and Perry is not solution.

 

[LukeParkerno1]

Interesting you say that, Perry has been failing more the Gardner in 2020. Perry's most recent scores have been 18, 49, 13, 10, 1, 5 0, 5* - 101 @ 14.43.
While Gardner hasn't been setting the world on fire her recent numbers (16, 22, 93, 10, 26, 0, 34, 2 - 203 @ 25.38) have been better than Perry's.

Healy's numbers are worse than both and Mooney's World Cup form has been abysmal. Healy and Gardner were out to good balls last night that swung in late, where as Mooney was out to one of the dumbest shots I've seen her play.

Gardner is not our biggest problem at the top of the order, and Perry is not solution.

Gardner is a huge problem we are 2 for stuff all most times. Take out that 93 and the rest of her scores ain’t flash. Her shot yesterday was pathetic and it’s a ball a Perry would keep out. This WC has had lower scores we don’t need 170+ to win

Healy at least has the ability to get us off to flyers. Now she’s out of form but you have to back her to come good.

At least Sutherland isn’t there boy jeez that was an utter disgrace game 1. Called it in game 1, Carey is a mile better with the ball and just as good with the bat in that role

 

[LukeParkerno1]

T20's are all about scoring quickly, especially in the power play overs which is why Perry in the top 4 is a terrible idea because she has a tendency to get bogged down early in her innings. It's okay in the 50 over game because has time to build her innings, but in the T20's we need her stability at 5 if we get ourselves into some trouble.

I think we have our top 6 perfectly set up, Healy and Gardner to provide the power early in the innings, Mooney provides support but being left-handed also provides an alternative avenue to attack. Lanning, Perry and Haynes are the experienced players who can rebuild if necessary or continue the attack if the platform has been built.

5 is way too low. She needs time to get in and then accelerate. Funny her WBBL stats have improved the more she’s moved up the order. You don’t want a Perryntupe coming in with 5 to go...you want your Gardner types who can slog.

I’d much rather have Perry and Lanning at 3/4, then float Haynes/Gardner at 5/6. It just solidifies that top order which is too much of a gamble for mine.

 

[Teen Wolf]

Already made my statement in this thread about the inflated importance on strike rates, but a reminder: we were chasing 133 and 123 the last two matches. Just needed the set batsmen to mostly knock it around at a run a ball and punish the bad ones (yet Gardner made 34 off 36 in the first game, getting out to a full toss that should have been put into the stands).

Still waiting to hear the example where Perry cost her team a win by batting too slow (hasn't happened). We have lost at least two matches in the last two years by having a brilliant innings by her come too late (2018 T20 WC pool game v India, 2019 3rd Ashes T20I). Nevertheless, as a general rule, her bowling does seem to benefit by spending less time in the middle with the bat which is worth weighing up.

If we want to talk about 2020 form then let's also remember Mooney (2 x Junction Oval), Perry (Manuka) and Haynes (last night) are the only batsmen who have played key match-winning knocks.

 

[LukeParkerno1]

Already made my statement in this thread about the inflated importance on strike rates, but a reminder: we were chasing 133 and 123 the last two matches. Just needed the set batsmen to mostly knock it around at a run a ball and punish the bad ones (yet Gardner made 34 off 36 in the first game, getting out to a full toss that should have been put into the stands).

Still waiting to hear the example where Perry cost her team a win by batting too slow (hasn't happened). We have lost at least two matches in the last two years by having a brilliant innings by her come too late (2018 T20 WC pool game v India, 2019 3rd Ashes T20I). Nevertheless, as a general rule, her bowling does seem to benefit by spending less time in the middle with the bat which is worth weighing up.

If we want to talk about 2020 form then let's also remember Mooney (2 x Junction Oval), Perry (Manuka) and Haynes (last night) are the only batsmen who have played key match-winning knocks.

Exactly my feeling, and this World cup weirdly has seen scores get a lot lower. The pitches have offered a bit for bowlers and that isn't a bad thing really. We can afford one slogger in Healy, but having 2 in our top 3 is way too risky. Much rather the safer Perry who will knock it around and as you put it punish the bad ones. We are over-complicating our batting lineup

 

[DEVO]

Still waiting to hear the example where Perry cost her team a win by batting too slow (hasn't happened). We have lost at least two matches in the last two years by having a brilliant innings by her come too late (2018 T20 WC pool game v India, 2019 3rd Ashes T20I). Nevertheless, as a general rule, her bowling does seem to benefit by spending less time in the middle with the bat which is worth weighing up.

A couple of weeks ago against India. Gardner hit 93 at a SR of 163, Lanning was also scoring at over 160, but when they both got out, the brakes went on Australia's innings as Perry and Haynes struggled to get the Indians away costing us about 10-15 runs in the final 4 overs. The momentum swing allowed India back in the game and they won with 2 balls remaining. I wouldn't say Perry was the sole reason we lost the game as Haynes was still working her way out her slump, but when you are 4/152 in the 17th over you don't block the first two or three deliveries, you stay on the attack. Perry also bowled poorly in that game, as did most of the other bowlers with the exception of Shutt.

My biggest issue with Perry is she has a strike rate of 105, when the field is up and the ball is new you need attacking batters who can take the bowlers on and get Australia off to a fast start. Perry can't do it. Even for the Sixers it is Healy or Gardner who take on the bowlers and Perry provides the support. Mooney provides that support at International level and up until the last two games has been doing a wonderful job at it.

Everybody is entitled to their opinions, but thankfully no one here has an opinion that counts. Mott, Lanning and others in the selection panel have opinions count and thankfully they agree with me. Gardner at 3.

 

[DEVO]

Exactly my feeling, and this World cup weirdly has seen scores get a lot lower. The pitches have offered a bit for bowlers and that isn't a bad thing really. We can afford one slogger in Healy, but having 2 in our top 3 is way too risky. Much rather the safer Perry who will knock it around and as you put it punish the bad ones. We are over-complicating our batting lineup

I'm hopeful it's going change over the next week or so as games are played at grounds that traditionally allow for higher scoring, such as Manuka

 

[LukeParkerno1]

I'm hopeful it's going change over the next week or so as games are played at grounds that traditionally allow for higher scoring, such as Manuka

Thts not a good thing doesn’t suit out side. Our best grounds would be ones where our quicks can get some movement. Otherwise your Carey, Kimmice types are utter common fodder.

 

[Teen Wolf]

A couple of weeks ago against India. Gardner hit 93 at a SR of 163, Lanning was also scoring at over 160, but when they both got out, the brakes went on Australia's innings as Perry and Haynes struggled to get the Indians away costing us about 10-15 runs in the final 4 overs. The momentum swing allowed India back in the game and they won with 2 balls remaining. I wouldn't say Perry was the sole reason we lost the game as Haynes was still working her way out her slump, but when you are 4/152 in the 17th over you don't block the first two or three deliveries, you stay on the attack. Perry also bowled poorly in that game, as did most of the other bowlers with the exception of Shutt.

Perry faced 10 balls in that match at a SR of 130, Mooney and Haynes faced 28 balls at a SR of 96. And we still would've won if all the bowlers went at the 8.25rpo that Perry conceded. So I wouldn't say she was even partially the reason for that loss.

My biggest issue with Perry is she has a strike rate of 105, when the field is up and the ball is new you need attacking batters who can take the bowlers on and get Australia off to a fast start. Perry can't do it. Even for the Sixers it is Healy or Gardner who take on the bowlers and Perry provides the support. Mooney provides that support at International level and up until the last two games has been doing a wonderful job at it.

Everybody is entitled to their opinions, but thankfully no one here has an opinion that counts. Mott, Lanning and others in the selection panel have opinions count and thankfully they agree with me. Gardner at 3.

Anybody can take on the bowlers in the PP and occasionally get away with it. If that's what a coach wants then it makes sense to use the most disposable batsmen.

 

[DEVO]

Perry faced 10 balls in that match at a SR of 130, Mooney and Haynes faced 28 balls at a SR of 96. And we still would've won if all the bowlers went at the 8.25rpo that Perry conceded. So I wouldn't say she was even partially the reason for that loss.

Mooney was playing support to Gardner, she only contributed 16 of the 62 run partnership so most would say she was doing her job ensuring Gardner had a majority of the strike. Gardner and Lanning put on their 80 run partnership in 7 overs and changed the momentum of game, by the time they were out the Aussies were scoring at around 9.5 an over and were looking at a score of around 195-200, perhaps more. Haynes and Perry came in and the run rate slowed to below 9. Perry may have ended with a SR of 130 but most of that came from two poor deliveries she was able to put away, the other 3 runs came from 8 deliveries. At a time when you want a player to accelerate, even an out of form Haynes was a better option.

Anybody can take on the bowlers in the PP and occasionally get away with it. If that's what a coach wants then it makes sense to use the most disposable batsmen.

It's been Australia's blueprint for about 5 years so for any Nation who wishes to challenge us for the title, they would need to have their most attacking batter as an opener or at number 3. Some of the better ones include Wyatt (England - SR 124), Devine (New Zealand - SR 128.3) and Verma (India - SR 149.6), which is why these three Nations are our biggest challengers in this years World Cup.

I think the fact that our batting depth (we bat down to Jonassen and Kimmince) allows us to have two attacking batters at the top of the order is a real positive for us.