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

[Xtreme]

At least the women know how to win with dignity and grace. The Australian men's cricket team are utter campaigners.

 

[Chicago1]

I'm not really a cricket follower, but I did watch Australia batting. I thought it was very entertaining. I just caught glimpses of India batting. Congratulations to the Aussie ladies.

 

[nobbyiscool]

I’m really glad I made a late call to go tonight. Healy & Mooney in particular were great to watch. But even cooler we’re all the young girls there tonight, and seeing how excited they were.

If you can’t see it you can’t be it (or whatever the saying is.) And those kids got to witness a huge crowd getting really excited for women’s sport. They were treated like we traditionally treat male sporting heroes. It was awesome.

Worst on ground is Metro. Not one extra train on my line tonight.


On iPhone using BigFooty.com mobile app

 

[Dan]

Essentially......it's a cheap Katy Perry concert?

 

[LukeParkerno1]

Worst on ground is Metro. Not one extra train on my line tonight.

On iPhone using BigFooty.com mobile app

Metro is horrible and they continually get it wrong

 

[Drugs Are Bad Mackay?]

 

[BACCS]

That crowd is absolutely nuts! Awesome for women’s sport in general. Healy doesn’t need the boundaries brought in, she clears the fence easily!

 

[EDFL follower]

Was my first time watching women’s cricket tonight and I was very impressed with the standard of play!
Great concert for my daughter afterwards too

 

[Teen Wolf]

Injured great one aside, the semi and final combined was essentially a highlight reel of the last five years for the team's foremost contributors (in approximate order: Lanning, Jonassen, Mooney, Schutt, Healy and a sprinkling of Haynes). Some are only mid-career, some are far from household names, but tonight was the ultimate deserving curtain call for them all.

A perfect T20 Australian pitch for the decider, India wouldn't have got past the group stage facing those conditions all the way through the tournament, hence the one-sided contest. Worth it if their involvement in such a big event spurs the necessary investment over there, which is not a given--they played at a sold-out Lord's in the 2017 CWC Final which hasn't translated into much of a domestic revolution three years later (their WBBL equivalent will consist of four teams over a whopping seven matches in 2020!).

Unlike the AFLW which AFL and media think you can pump a bunch if money and forced media attention into and that will automatically make it good right away.

Utter nonsense. Money and marketable players are the only reasons why women's cricket has come so far in such a short time.

 

[allrighty]

Lanning is such an alpha, in the Waughian mold.

Love it.

Met her in the Camberwell shops last year. Boy he is one tough chick.

 

[MC Bad Genius]

ffs

they’ve promoted this so well and ruined it at the final hurdle

I don’t think CA and the broadcasters realise how unpopular he is

Still miles better than Warne giddily asking how thirsty everyone was after the ODI WC here a few years back. That was one of the most embarrassing things I've ever seen on a cricket telecast.

 

[EDFL follower]

I’m interested in what standard do other people think the Aussie women’s side is. For example would they be competitive wth local “A” grade men’s teams? After going last night I’m inclined to think they could be. I was very impressed and perhaps the only difference is the women don’t have quick bowlers but every other part of their game I think would stand up to my local comp.

 

[LukeParkerno1]

I’m interested in what standard do other people think the Aussie women’s side is. For example would they be competitive wth local “A” grade men’s teams? After going last night I’m inclined to think they could be. I was very impressed and perhaps the only difference is the women don’t have quick bowlers but every other part of their game I think would stand up to my local comp.

They'd be competitive at most levels. Very hard to say. I think the best players would anyway.

 

[revo333]

I’m interested in what standard do other people think the Aussie women’s side is. For example would they be competitive wth local “A” grade men’s teams? After going last night I’m inclined to think they could be. I was very impressed and perhaps the only difference is the women don’t have quick bowlers but every other part of their game I think would stand up to my local comp.

I think the batters would do well in the top local synthetic grades.

The bowlers would find it a lot tougher.

 

[EDFL follower]

I think the batters would do well in the top local synthetic grades.

The bowlers would find it a lot tougher.

That’s interesting. I thought it might be the other way around. Thought the batters might struggle against any real quick bowlers as they wouldn’t be used to facing them.
I was impressed with the bowling last night so thought they might go ok.

 

[revo333]

That’s interesting. I thought it might be the other way around. Thought the batters might struggle against any real quick bowlers as they wouldn’t be used to facing them.
I was impressed with the bowling last night so thought they might go ok.

You don't get as many fast bowlers in the local synthetic comps compared to 20 years ago.

A mate watched the Aussie team train with a County second 11 team in England in 2013 and said the bowlers started off going at 80% and the girls were smashing them around, A few of the guys then started charging in and it was to quick for them and a few had to stop batting because they got hit too many times.

I assume the Aussie team now has better batters than what it did in 2013.

 

[corbies]

When Ellyse Perry was about 20 she played a game of Poidevin-Gray Shield which is the u21s comp in Sydney Grade. She took 2/14 off 4 and was 5n.o. as they chased the runs. Both players she dismissed were playing 1st grade that season. Make of that what you will.

 

[Teen Wolf]

How about some report cards to wrap this all up.

Australia: A+
The slow start, the bad tactics, the almost getting knocked out by weather... worthy of eyebrow raising, to say the least. But they eventually overcame all of that, as well as some terribly-timed crucial injuries, with clutch mental strength as much as anything else.

South Africa: A-
Didn't do a whole lot wrong, except de Klerk only got games because of Kapp's illness. She should be starting XI, create the spot by leaving out Chetty and have Lee focus more on keeping.

Pakistan: B+
Perhaps saved a big downgrade by the washed out run chase against Thailand, but I believe they would've still won that match comfortably.

England: B
Even though Wyatt and Beaumont at their best can be spectacular viewing, they're red herrings for England (and so that must mean Jones is an orange kipper). Once again we saw how this team relies on Knight and Nat with the bat, simple as that. Bringing in a new coach at the 11th hour was poor planning by the ECB, therefore they ended up doing pretty well to miss out on the final purely through poor planning by the ICC.

India: B-
Deserving the faintest of praise for knocking off the Aussies on a s**t pitch while getting past NZ, Bangladesh and England unconvincingly. As for their Crumble In the Concrete Jungle, the only letdown was Mandhana because I think Harmanpreet and Pandey were pretty unlucky on the day. For everybody else, what did you expect of the teenagers and a nervous opening bowler? Our youngsters are like 22-23, had played in a T20 WC Final before, and are given much smaller roles to perform.

Sri Lanka: C
Miss out on a solid B for the shellacking they copped from India.

Bangladesh: D
Hardly anything to like here. Conceded some dreadful new records, key player severely under-performed, got smashed in the game they had their best chance of winning, had a somewhat close result against India but I didn't get to see that match.

West Indies: E-
Just scraping in above a Fail because their preparation sucked (for which they weren't entirely to blame) and they are the kinda team that could've suddenly turned it on for the last game (but were denied that opportunity due to rain).

New Zealand: F
Could have beaten India if not for poor fielding. Would have lost to Sri Lanka if not for poor fielding. Bowled out by Bangladesh with 10 balls to spare. What the HELL was that? Devine as captain was predictably the wrong call, she didn't know when to bring herself on to bowl. Suzie Bates had her worst ever tournament with the bat by a mile. All this a month after beating South Africa 3-1 in a bi-lateral. All this while wearing that ******* pink shirt.

Thailand: NA
Impossible to judge because I have nothing to compare to in terms of what I think they're capable of. Ireland, Zimbabwe and Afghanistan all get Fs though--as far as I'm concerned, having a women's team that can compete on the world stage should be a prerequisite for Test status.

 

[LukeParkerno1]

How about some report cards to wrap this all up.

Australia: A+
The slow start, the bad tactics, the almost getting knocked out by weather... worthy of eyebrow raising, to say the least. But they eventually overcame all of that, as well as some terribly-timed crucial injuries, with clutch mental strength as much as anything else.

South Africa: A-
Didn't do a whole lot wrong, except de Klerk only got games because of Kapp's illness. She should be starting XI, create the spot by leaving out Chetty and have Lee focus more on keeping.

Pakistan: B+
Perhaps saved a big downgrade by the washed out run chase against Thailand, but I believe they would've still won that match comfortably.

England: B
Even though Wyatt and Beaumont at their best can be spectacular viewing, they're red herrings for England (and so that must mean Jones is an orange kipper). Once again we saw how this team relies on Knight and Nat with the bat, simple as that. Bringing in a new coach at the 11th hour was poor planning by the ECB, therefore they ended up doing pretty well to miss out on the final purely through poor planning by the ICC.

India: B-
Deserving the faintest of praise for knocking off the Aussies on a s**t pitch while getting past NZ, Bangladesh and England unconvincingly. As for their Crumble In the Concrete Jungle, the only letdown was Mandhana because I think Harmanpreet and Pandey were pretty unlucky on the day. For everybody else, what did you expect of the teenagers and a nervous opening bowler? Our youngsters are like 22-23, had played in a T20 WC Final before, and are given much smaller roles to perform.

The rest of them are fine, but I'll just do mine for the top 5, which are slightly different.

Australia A-

Yes we won. However no we weren't perfect. We were dreadful in that opening game, and very lucky to get through against SL. Took us way too long to settle into a lineup. Next WC we need to use the warmup games better to get that lineup. I keep harping on but why Carey wasn't there in the first game was beyond silly. We basically won the final with 10 players as Gardner hasn't done anything al tournament and Whareham didn't bowl in either final.

South Africa B+

They overachieved, but a B+ is very fair. They still need more batting, and I'm far from convinced long term Van Niekerk is an opener. Liselle Lee isn't international quality. They have found one in Laura Wolvarrt though, looks a star in the making.

India B+

Can't agree with your rating of India. The only match they lost was the final, yes it was a belting but that doesn't drop them almost 2 grades. They did make the most of conditions in the opening game but they still had to bowl and bat well. Pooran is a find, but they need to develop some quicks going forward, their attack is a bit "same" if you look at it as a whole.

Pakistan B

Considering the expectations they did well, but they were likely to lose to Thailand if they had to bat. I can't have them more than a B. Good tournament. The key though now is for them to build and get more womens participation in cricket domestically. The WBBL giving opportunities to these players should be a priority too

England C+

Yes they had some off field things with the coach being replaced, but their tournament was average at the absolute best. They were awful against South Africa, were lucky to not lose by more hat game. Nat Schiver saved their batting lineup a lot, and she is a star, but they still relied on her and Heather Knight, the latter failed against SA. The rest of the batting was beyond awful. Thy may as well not had openers. In terms of bowling Sophie Ecclestone and Anya Scrubsole were good but the rest were ordinary. This was about where I expected England to finish before the tournament. They need a big cleanup and there needs to be some questions on players at the top level.

 

[Gough]

Wow,
You just wanted another post....

If you're going to just follow another poster about threads and bag him without offering anything yourself, your time on this board will be brief.

 

[Teen Wolf]

However no we weren't perfect.

Maybe I didn't make this point clear: I didn't give them an A+ for being perfect, I gave it for triumphing in the face of adversity.

The only match they lost was the final, yes it was a belting but that doesn't drop them almost 2 grades.

Again, curse my imprecision: I didn't give them a B- for their flop in the final. I gave it because their performance in the other matches were barely worthy of making the final, particularly unimpressive with the bat (captain scored 30 runs from 5 innings, dismissed every time; vice-captain continually got starts and didn't go on with it once). England were playing much better cricket leading into the semi.

 

[LukeParkerno1]

Maybe I didn't make this point clear: I didn't give them an A+ for being perfect, I gave it for triumphing in the face of adversity.

Again, curse my imprecision: I didn't give them a B- for their flop in the final. I gave it because their performance in the other matches were barely worthy of making the final, particularly unimpressive with the bat (captain scored 30 runs from 5 innings, dismissed every time; vice-captain continually got starts and didn't go on with it once). England were playing much better cricket leading into the semi.

There is no way we were an A+. I can accept an A but it’s barely that. We’ve basically played with 1-2 players doing nothing, not to mention our batting was pathetic until the final.

I disagree on India. They played well all the way through and were comfortably the second best side overall hence my grade for them. Had an awful final, every team would have lost that final by a lot. Our top 2 bats went off. Every side was pretty poor with the bat, whether that was a case of tired pitches or good bowling who knows. Didn’t like the pitches until we got to the final. Junction the best of the rest.

England were lucky to be where they were. Utterly pathetic against SA (and so were we but at least we had the rain as an excuse). They had 2 batsmen the whole tournament and 2 bowlers, that’s it. I’ve been generous with my grading them where I have. Almost went a fraction lower.

 

[Teen Wolf]

Utterly pathetic against SA (and so were we but at least we had the rain as an excuse).

Ok that's the dumb opinion. Any sadness I had about the Aus cricket season's impending cessation, suddenly washed away...

 

[LukeParkerno1]

Ok that's the dumb opinion. Any sadness I had about the Aus cricket season's impending cessation, suddenly washed away...

They didn't even get 130, and it was chased easily. SA were never in any danger of losing that, England had 2 bowlers, just see them off and you are sweet. Was only them trying to choke late that made it closer than it was. It was always going to be a developing tournament for England, and whilst my ranking is fair there were some good signs. The emergence of Glenn is one, she's not there yet but she will get there. I like the fact she is accurate enough.

Australia was the ultimate "did enough to win" tournament where we played one top class match the entire way through. That is completely fine as sometimes that is the smart play. It doesn't make it a 10/10 tournament though. Would give us an 8.5 out of 10 for the tournament, hence the A-.

 

[Teen Wolf]

They didn't even get 130, and it was chased easily. SA were never in any danger of losing that, England had 2 bowlers, just see them off and you are sweet. Was only them trying to choke late that made it closer than it was.

7 runs required off the last 4 balls, with their most prominent boundary hitters back in the shed. Yeah nah I think they were in some danger of losing that.

The only reason England didn't get 130 is because they were trying to choke... such mental gymnastics get you nowhere, doesn't constitute real observation of what's happening out on the field.