Women's World Cup Final: Australia v West Indies

First topic message reminder :

The tournament starts next Friday.

England will be favourites, though Australia, New Zealand and in home conditions India all also have a chance.

For a variety of reasons the fixture list has been altered and remains uncertain. Sorry to blow my own trumpet but an article I wrote on that has been published on Cricinfo - http://blogs.espncricinfo.com/inbox/archives/2013/01/the_womens_world_cup_deserves.php.

gboycottnut wrote:[....., I don't think that England would have given the Aussies that much of a better game than what the Windies did as our batting apart from Edwards and towards the end of the tournament Taylor just hasn't been performing. Anyway even if England had reached the final, Australia no doubt would have played both of their star fast bowlers Perry and Ferling in the same starting XI, thus making it harder for our batters to score easy runs without risking losing their wickets.

Not sure how you can say that! We only lost by 2 runs in what turned out to be the must win game for both teams. I'm therefore sure England would have given them a much better game. Sad thing is because of a weakness in the rules England were denied their chance. If they had got beaten in the final, it would have been hats off to a better team but that didn't happen and all we can now do is speculate.

teassoc wrote:
Sad thing is because of a weakness in the rules England were denied their chance.

I dislike the rules as much as the next person, however England were denied their chance because they lost two games which they shouldn't have. All down to them, not the tournament regs, and that's the way they should (and I'm fairly sure will) be looking at it if they want to improve for next time.

Frankly all this harping on about the West Indies not being worthy opponents is a bit distasteful. They performed as well as anyone throughout the competition, including surprising not only the Aussies but also the Kiwis before them. They thoroughly deserved their place in the final, and competed for large parts during it, before ultimately falling victim to a tremendous spell (and innings) from one of the great athletes in the game.

The only way they surprised the Aussies the first time was by nearly managing to lose a game their opponents were trying to hand to them.

You watched the game?

I watched the final.

Exactly how I called it. A complete mismatch.

Australia only lost the penultimate match by 8 runs but I still maintain that was just a below par performance. They regrouped for the Final and played the perfect game.

Some of those catches (and the Lanning 'no catch') were of the highest order (in all forms of cricket) and I'm still buzzing about Sthalekar's control of the ball when she got her prize wickets. (She announced her retirement yesterday at the tender age of 32)

One commentator suggested "the Men's team could do with her... even though she is 10-15 kms slower"... but that is what I would like to see Lyon & Co. do. More variation in pace and unerring accuracy with the odd 75km/h air-ball thrown in for good measure.

Linebreaker wrote:Australia only lost the penultimate match by 8 runs but I still maintain that was just a below par performance. They regrouped for the Final and played the perfect game.

Sounds like you might be a little biased? What did the Australian press make of that penultimate game?

Shame the final was such a let down.

You sound like a very poor loser.

Who says the Final was a let down? The sixth one is always the best one!

It was a superb performance but it seems you can't see beyond your own blinkers.

Wouldn't say 'superb' performance.

It was a par performance for both teams - just that one of the teams was obviously far superior to the other one.

Did you watch the match?

Australia saved their best for last. It was a brutally effective performance for a Final.

Superb.

No point in carrying this on. Let's just agree to disagree.

Doesn't really concern me.

I'm just happy that they won and to see them at the top of their game. (put yourself in my shoes and I'm sure you'd agree)

Must confess I yielded to tiredness and didn't stay on for the West Indies innings...was fairly confident Australia had made much too many for them.Correctly.
Very well done the Australians

Just the one loss , in a "dead" game , and they now hold the fifty and twenty over titles.

Not sure I'd go overboard on "domination"...the very close match with England shows that there really isn't a lot between those two teams at least , but they have certainly earned the number one rank for the present..

Also good to see teams like WI and Sri Lanka have advanced their standards and can no longer be seen as pushovers...they will continue to be inconsistent of course , at least for a while , but it can only be good for women's cricket to have a group of competitive teams.

and the Ashes, alfie. The trifecta.

True , lb , I hadn't forgotten the Ashes ...but unfortunately the women play so few Tests - and the numbers are actually declining - that I must question whether Test results really matter much in their game any more ?

I am sure the players will be keen , especially as the Oldest Rivalry is involved , when the two teams contest their one match to decide the Ashes again this northern summer; but I wonder how much notice anyone else will take. A pity , but this seems to be the way the women's game is going , and I guess the economics will ensure the trend continues.