What Happened Next? The 3rd T20

27

Let’s play ‘What Happened Next?’. England are a promising 119-2 off 13 overs chasing a competitive but not insurmountable 202 on a fast scoring ground. Two experienced batsmen are at the crease. Both are well set. Surely a close finish is on the cards?

Nope.

Instead of setting up a grandstand finale, we somehow contrived to lose 8 (that’s right, EIGHT) wickets for the dismal sum of 8 (that’s right EIGHT) runs. It was fifteen minutes of pure, unadulterated, cricketing comedy. Far funnier than anything Question of Sport have ever run.

Although the dismal nature of this latest capitulation was pretty shocking (even by England’s standards) I guess we should’ve expected it. Our cricket team has turned snatching embarrassment from the jaws of respectability into a fine art form over the years.

In retrospect, collapsing from 119-2 to 127 all out is a fitting way to end what has been a thoroughly dismal and often humiliating tour … made worse by the fact that absolutely zero heads have rolled (so far) as a result.

Captain calamity remains entrenched as test captain, our test batting line-up is still full of giant holes, and our limited overs sides – despite occasionally pretending to get their act together – are apparently just as crap as they’ve always been … on today’s evidence at least.

A few days ago I foolishly suggested that our T20 team is possibly better than our test and ODI sides. Excuse me while I grab a serviette and wipe substantial quantities of egg off my face. Our test team have really plumbed the depths this winter but they’ve never lost 8 (that’s right, EIGHT) wickets for 8 (that’s right EIGHT) runs.

I’m not normally one to worry too much about T20 cricket. Some people take it seriously but I’m not that fussed. However, when a game of hit and giggle becomes a game of hit and laugh hysterically at the English, I rapidly lose my sense of humour.

Today the England cricket team were a national embarrassment. And you know what makes it worse? The fact that Andrew Strauss says we’re taking this white ball stuff more seriously these days.

You could’ve bloody fooled me.

James Morgan

27 Comments

  1. As I said elsewhere, you can’t first moan about our limited overs side being old-fashioned, dour, risk-averse and pedestrian, only to then complain when something like this happens when they throw caution to the wind.

    Chasing big totals require taking big risks, big risks occasionally lead to losing 8 for 8.

    We needed 12 an over with most of the easy scoring options cut off. Genuine question: what would you have preferred happen? A period of careful consolidation during which the game was effectively abandoned as the required rate climbed beyond 20 an over? Batsmen batting for red-inkers? A “respectable” finish on 150-5?

Leave A Reply