tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4896684740062197881.post6811562986995167152..comments2023-06-01T15:03:21.635+01:00Comments on Women's Cricket Blog: England claim series win in West IndiesMartin Davieshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15850707584058402446noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4896684740062197881.post-63092697718533094822016-10-24T09:43:32.187+01:002016-10-24T09:43:32.187+01:00This comment has been removed by the author.Pete Hannellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17324809718134878444noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4896684740062197881.post-74954670128110428482016-10-24T09:41:47.068+01:002016-10-24T09:41:47.068+01:00This comment has been removed by the author.Pete Hannellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17324809718134878444noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4896684740062197881.post-86352592995044924662016-10-20T23:41:56.975+01:002016-10-20T23:41:56.975+01:00Given the low scores made in the series as a whole...Given the low scores made in the series as a whole, runs were more valuable than normal. They were definitely at a premium. This makes Winfield's 79 in the 3rd ODI more akin to a century under normal conditions, and scores in the 30s like Beaumont's and Knight's more like 50s. <br /><br />Personally I think the days when 100s can even realistically be made on these pitches, especially Trelawny, are past. You won't find many players more dominant or in-form than Stafanie Taylor, and even she couldn't manage it. Who could? The tracks are too low and stodgy, the outfields too big and slow. When you have par-scores of 150 to 200, centuries are going to be very rare indeed, and as England showed, actually fairly unnecessary to win. I'd rather have 2 batsmen scoring 60s than a century and a duck. Perhaps players don't have the patience any more and are more concerned in batting for the team which means taking risks when it might be better for them personally, not to. Either way it was enough of a challenge to bat out 50 overs, that's for sure.<br /><br />In my opinion no players did themselves any harm on this tour, and many enhanced their reputations. Obviously Hartley and Brunt were the stars with the ball, but Marsh, Ecclestone and Gunn did well too. Even some of those who struggled a bit with the bat, like Elwiss, Wyatt and Jones, often looked good for the short time they were at the crease. Wyatt fielded well, Jones kept wicket well and Elwiss took a couple of important wickets for very few runs. She has a golden arm, like Knight but with a bit more pace. It's another string to her bow. Elwiss has batted well at 6 before and I see no reason to move her. I agree Wilson would come into the side ideally, but if Wyatt is not going to bowl I think Fran should replace her if anyone, not Elwiss. This gives the middle order more solidity.<br /><br />Knight's scores of 4 successive 20s / 30s represent a reasonable return for me. She played pretty well in tough circumstances and again showed her solidity. It was a bit frustrating to get herself out too often, but on 2 of those occasions she'd done well enough, anyway. If you look at some of the West Indies player's scores ,they don't make pretty reading either. I think the players need to be compared to their direct peers in the same situation and not previous performances in different conditions. In this series, England came out on top.<br /><br />It's easy to say England threw away the 2 games they lost, but remember they had done pretty well to get into those strong positions in the first place. To be honest I'm more surprised that we actually dominated all the games enough to be in a position to win them at all. That's better than never being in games from the start, which was a risk at either end of the series. Thankfully for England, this risk never materialised.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10952597754091672288noreply@blogger.com