Monday 27 July 2015

Cricket : Women's ashes update post-ODI series : Aussies looking good to win back the trophy

There's no point in sugar-coating it. A desperately disappointing performance all-round from England handed Australia all the momentum in the women's Ashes series. The visitors will go into the Test match in 2 weeks, 4 -2 ahead in the series, high on confidence and knowing that all they need will be a draw, but expecting a win. England on the other hand appear to be really struggling, and in deep trouble, barely able to scratch together any sort of innings nor able to take many wickets outside the last few overs of games.

Australia batted first and made 241-7 in their 50, whilst England were dismissed for the dismal total of 152 in 43.1 overs, on a damp, grey day in Worcester.

Scorecard:
http://www.espncricinfo.com/womens-ashes-2015/engine/match/798373.html

(Fairly matter-of-fact and uncritical) Report:
http://www.espncricinfo.com/england/content/story/903777.html

Some people have claimed that the series would be close - but the facts are that none of the 3 games so far have been. England won the first comfortably enough, since then, we've seen 2 comprehensive Australian victories with England never really getting anywhere near the target they were set.

I said previously that something like a 12-4 series points win for Australia would be no disgrace. England already have half those points. However, my easy-going, laissez-faire attitude towards England giving up the Ashes this time around was predicated on one thing though, and that was a minimum of competitive, solid and workmanlike performances where we gave our all but just come up short, and Australia were just a bit too good.

In the last 2 ODIs, we've not seen that, we've seen a stuttering and poor England side that have failed to take their chances, failed to take wickets at important intervals and worst of all abjectly failed to put bat to ball with anything like the required effectiveness. Let's not kid ourselves, this was a heavy defeat.

Put frankly, it's simply not been good enough from a side that are now professional. Edwards has plenty of questions to find the answers to: Why are Australia getting such good starts?Where are the players who can hit the ball for us and why are they not performing consistently? Why is the fielding not up to standard? And where are the wickets going to come from?

It's not all Edwards' problem. Some other players also need to take a look at themselves and ask if they are doing everything they can to help England win. The big players simply did not step up to the plate today. One single solitary run from our best 2 players, Taylor and Edwards combined; and not a single solitary wicket between the two "strike" bowlers Shrubsole and Brunt, in 20 overs combined. This tells its own story. The rest of them failed pretty badly to put up the kind of fight that even a respectable loss demanded.

The personnel change tactics fell down too. Of the replacements from the second game - Lauren Winfield, Laura Marsh and Jenny Gunn, the two former players had absolute shockers, Winfield scoring just 7 from 26 balls, and being run out in very poor, lazy fashion unbecoming of normally such a dynamic player, and Marsh getting a duck - and going wicketless for 25 runs in 3 overs;  and Gunn was no better than average. It seems unlikely that the original line-up featuring Jones, Cross and Grundy instead could have done much worse. On top of not getting much out of the changes, the England team selectors could well have dented the confidence of all 6 players - 3 for being dropped and the other 3 for not playing well.

All this seems harsh, I know. I still respect all the players, and will always support them, but they need to do much, much better. 

And they can - they are better than this, I know it.


So how will the rest of the series unfold?

To retain the Ashes, we basically need to win the Test match and one of the iT20s. To do this, we need to take 20 wickets in the Test and so pick a team with enough bowling power to do this. It's difficult to see how Kate Cross cannot be involved in that game. England need to work out a plan for getting Lanning and Perry out. Failing that, we need to be much more effective in curtailing their runs, and frustrate them into mistakes.

iT20 is a different matter - Australia quite recently beat us badly and look much more competent in that mode as well; besides, anything can happen in T20 and a 3-0 series loss is well possible. I would regard a 2-1 loss with 4 points to Australia and 2 to us as a good result.

Let's hope today represents a nadir for the England performances this summer. It may well not, given how poorly they batted in last summer's Test match against India at Wormsley. It would be especially galling to lose the Canterbury Test by an innings, with both of our own innings barely summing 250, but such an event is now a distinct possibility. Lanning, Perry, Schutt, Beams, and Farrell all look like potential match-winners and England are wondering where the runs to last 4 days are coming from.


What can England take out of the series going forward? Well, we've seen a welcome return to form from Lydia Greenway, albeit a bit scratchy at times. And one good innings each from captain Charlotte Edwards and Natalie Sciver. And Heather Knight looks to have some fight about her, at least, with both bat and ball, even if she's not in flowing form. Katherine Brunt has looked dangerous with bat and ball, but not taken many wickets yet. Sarah Taylor has looked good at times. There seems little else to shout about. Anya Shrubsole looks off her best with the ball, and in the field; Kate Cross a yard slower and inconsistent in line and length, and Georgia Elwiss promising with bat and ball at times, but not too clever at all in the field.

Edwards' home advantage and familiarity with the ground at Canterbury now seems to mean little, given Australia's dominance. She's not made the best readings of conditions so far in the series. The choice to bowl not bat again today was the wrong one, and was always challenging us to do what we'd failed to do in the previous game which set up a psychological barrier. The rain didn't come, meaning Duckworth-Lewis (always a reason to bowl first when rain's around) played no part, and I doubt there was a over of our innings where we were ahead of the rate anyway. Australia had already proved they could set us too high a total, and it wasn't a bad pitch. Batting wasn't going to get easier as the day went on.

There are some strange similarities with the men's ashes series. Both our men's and women's sides started with an unexpected win, both then lost the subsequent game; and England women have now gone one step further behind in the series. The men are now in the better position. I thought at the start of both series, in contrast to many other observers, that England's men would do better than expected and really push the Aussies, if not win it, whilst I was less hopeful for our women, giving them little chance against Meg Lanning's Southern Stars. Maybe I'm not so wrong after all.

Edwards is still talking us up for the remainder of the series, but then, I guess she has to:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/cricket/33682087

My word, I'm glad I was at Taunton and took loads of photos to prove it!

http://jpiesports.blogspot.co.uk/2015/07/picture-blog-england-v-australia-1st.html

It's hard to take that the series may well already be over, but that could well turn out to be the case. Rather than Worcester being the nadir, that golden day in Taunton last Tuesday could prove to have been very much the zenith. 

Let's hope England can prove me wrong!


Review: Ashes 2015 - England vs. Australia 2nd test, Lord's, 16- 19 July 2015

Ashes 2015 - England vs. Australia 2nd test, Lord's, 16- 19 July 2015

Well, where can we start? I just want to end already, to be honest. It started badly, and got gradually worse. Here is the scorecard, although I warn you as an England fan that it makes for some painful reading (Australia won by 405 runs).

http://www.espncricinfo.com/the-ashes-2015/engine/match/743965.html

Good Analysis from Ian Chappell:

http://www.espncricinfo.com/magazine/content/story/903055.html


The problem in this game was that we were fighting to stay in it right from the first innings. Anderson did not pick up any wickets, although did not bowl badly. Indeed, Root and Broad were the only 2 bowlers to really give Australia pause. Moeen Ali went at 3.8 runs per over and conceded 138. I'm still not convinced he should be our main spinner - he is easy to milk runs from, bowls too many bad balls and only looks like taking wickets when Australia really go after him.

Australia ended up getting 566-8 dec. with the main highlights being a typically pragmatic and dynamic 173 from Chris Rogers and an unorthodox but magnificent 215 from Steve Smith. As it turned out, this truly mammoth total was easily enough, and Australia need not have batted again.

England's dubious selection of players like Ballance and Bell near the top of the order did not pay off at all. We made a fighting total of 312, with Alastair Cook falling 4 runs short of another memorable century at the Home of Cricket. Ben Stokes also made a fine, counter-attacking  87 from 128 balls. Even this decent innings though was never enough to trouble the visitor's massive effort, and we were still 254 runs behind. Australia decided not to enforce the follow-on though.

The bowlers did not all turn up either in the second innings, allowing Australia to pile on the misery with another 254 runs. The final innings was then a disaster, with England being bowled out for 102 in just 37 overs. Mitchell Johnson was chief among the Australian wicket takers, taking 3-27 and a total of 6-80 in the match. His full-pitched and short bowling were both typically fast and furious, and England really struggled against it. Particular low-lights were falling to 64-7 with a Moeen Ali duck and a bizarre, lazy Ben Stokes run-out, also without troubling the scorers.

England must pick themselves up for the third Test at Edgbaston starting on Wednesday. Ballance has been replaced by Bairstow in the squad, the latter looking in fine form, and England will need him to put that to good use. Bell and Buttler must also be under pressure now, the former maybe getting another chance at his home ground, the latter experiencing an uncharacteristic lull in form. Bowling wise, England will hope Anderson can return to good bowling form with plenty of wickets, seeing as Broad has done more than his fair share in the series thus far. In truth though, who wins the toss and undoubtedly bats first may well have a big advantage in the game.

Team ratings

Ratings Explained: 1-3 very poor, 4 poor, 5 average, 6 OK, 7 good, 8 very good, 9 excellent, 10 unbelievable

England - Overall rating: 5

Cook*- 7
Lyth - 4.5
Ballance - 5
Bell - 4.5
Root - 5.5
Stokes - 6.5
Buttler+ - 5.5
Moeen Ali - 5.5
Broad - 7
Wood - 6
Anderson - 5.5

Australia team rating - 8.5

Monday 20 July 2015

Women's Ashes preview

Women's Ashes (mini)-preview 2015

You can read some proper previews here! 

http://www.wisdenindia.com/preview/glory-stake-womens-ashes/173110

http://womens-cricket.blogspot.co.uk/2015/07/its-going-to-be-rollercoaster-ride.html
 

http://www.sportspromedia.com/quick_fire_questions/womens_ashes_series_2015_ecbs_clare_connor_on_pushing_the_boundaries_in_eng?utm_content=buffera746f&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter.com&utm_campaign=buffer
 

As the Women's Ashes series starts tomorrow here are some good articles to get your teeth into and also my brief thoughts on each side's chances.
 

I am attending both the first and second games at Taunton and Bristol respectively and hope to post some piccies from them on the other blog: http://jpiesports.blogspot.co.uk/
 

I think this series will be great for women's cricket whatever the result. We will get some close games, and whether England (hopefully!) or Australia ultimately triumph it will be a fantastic advert for women's cricket. Some good crowds are expected, and the standard is likely to be as good as you'll see, now that both sides are fully professional. The media interest should speed along some overdue applications for hosts in the planned women's super league T20 competition. Hopefully it will do wonders for the sport's coverage, participation at grass roots, and interest from the general public. Unlike some, I do not view the increased interest in football's WSL as a problem, rather a happy challenge to match. The audience for this most beautiful of games can be increased, and these women can do it.

I'm not too worried about the ICC women's championship points table. We may not be doing well down in sixth position at the moment, but we've yet to play some of the worse sides who we should definitely beat. Other sides are beating each other, so it's not all bad. I stick by my original claim that we can afford to lose to West Indies, Australia and New Zealand and still get fourth. That is as long as the fixtures are fair of course and we actually play all the other teams! Like Pakistan, Bangladesh and Sri Lanka...
 

It might not be a rollercaster ride, despite what some observers think. It might not even be close, overall. Looking at the fixtures, Australia could thump us by, say, 12 points to 4 - that's hardly impossible, nor would it be a disgrace. In this case, our 2 victories could come at Worcester and Cardiff say, when the respective mini-series could have already have been won by the Aussies.
I accept that it's likely for Australia to grow into the series as it goes on, as a whole. But, players may drift in or out out of form, and we don't know how England will wax or wane throughout. So I'm not so sure we have the best opportunity to win in the first games, but we'll see.


I think the series could be determined by how well England play at big hitting. Whether we manage to get a lot of blows away to the boundary or just loft it straight up in the air, or just miss the thing completely.  In ODIs we rarely look likely to get more than about, say, 220 - or I am at least wise in being very worried when the opposition score this many. 


England have traditionally been much better at attritional cricket, where runs are at a premium and every ball looks like it could result in a wicket. Australia, on the other hand, are at their best when their batting can pit itself against their opponents' in ideal batting conditions. The way women's cricket is moving is towards the Australian way, and to me it's going to be about how well England can adapt to that. It will require a sea change in thinking not dissimilar in magnitude from that which the men's team displayed against New Zealand.
 

The days of 180 plays 181 in a cold damp day on a slow dead pitch may be exciting by dint of being closer, and more likely to result in an England win, but just as men's sides have moved on from 250+ to 350+, I think the women's game will be moving on from 200+ to 300+ on a regular basis sometime soon. Market forces would be pushing towards it. Looking at the England side, I wonder where that type of firepower is coming from. Our batters are better at finding a way to get some runs in difficult conditions than maximising runs. We may not have quite seen the last of 220 being a winning score in an ODI, but I think it will become an increasing rarity particularly amongst the top 3 or 4 sides. While this may not benefit England in the short term, it will be good for women's cricket overall.
 

England's very conservative squad selection, going for experience over well, anything like form, or innovation, is the same approach as used to mixed success against New Zealand in February. It should result in at least solid, reliable performances but will it give us the cutting edge in bowling, or the firepower with the bat to beat Australia? I'm not so sure. The records of the Australian players, and the Southern Stars team as a whole is and are beyond question. Their statistics are impressive and they are the clear favourites in my eyes. It's not without good reason that some pundits who had previously (wrongly I might add!) picked Australia to win the last 2 Ashes series are deliberately choosing to do so again.
 

Player-wise, I'm picking out the following as being very good & important performers. So look out for the following batters:

Sarah Taylor, Lauren Winfield (England)
Meg Lanning, Elyse Villani (Australia)
 

All-Rounders:
Georgia Elwiss, Heather Knight (England)
Ellyse Perry, Jess Jonassen (Australia)
 

And bowlers:
Kate Cross, Becky Grundy (England)
Erin Osborne, Holly Ferling (Australia)


Last but not least, I guess I have to do a review of the debacle that second Ashes Test at Lord's turned out to be, painful though that will be. I'll try and do that over the next week or so. I might wait until the third Test though!

Saturday 11 July 2015

Review: Ashes 2015 - England vs. Australia 1st test, Cardiff, 08-12 July 2015

Ashes 2015 - England vs. Australia 1st test, Cardiff, 08-12 July 2015

Result: England won by 169 runs

Wow! What a start to the 2015 Ashes series we have just witnessed. England completed a remarkable win on the fourth day by the very comfortable margin of 169 runs.

Joe Root's incredible innings of 134 was made all the more damaging to Australia since they dropped him early on in a curious lapse from the usually-reliable Haddin. Contributions also came from Ballance, Stokes (in both innings) and Ali, who was particularly impressive in this game. He batted well for 77 in the first innings did not let a few boundaries against his (much-maligned) spin bowling affect him. He kept at it - the Australian batsman saw him as a weak link in England's attack and played some inappropriate shots against his bowling, resulting in match figures of 5-160. This included the important wickets of Smith and Clarke; and Warner in the second innings just before lunch, which was a trigger for their later collapse. 

The other bowlers performed well also, with Jimmy Anderson effective in the first Australian innings and Broad bowling particularly well in the second. Meanwhile, Stokes and Wood also chipped in and did not let the pressure off either. Root was deservedly man of the match, with 194 runs and 2-28. Cook captained well, making some good fielding and bowling changes and keeping the Australian batsmen on their toes, as it were.

Australia were disappointing. They allowed us too many runs in our first innings and fell short in theirs, with Rogers not making a deserved hundred and too many other batsmen getting decent thirties then seemingly losing patience and getting themselves out. They also did not make as serious an attempt to reach their 4th-innings target as they should have. They were guilty of trying to force the game too quickly at times, with Clarke, Smith and Warner all pushing too hard for extra runs either before they were properly settled or when the shot was simply not on. 

Their much-lauded bowling attack did not adjust to an eccentric pitch, which was slow and low early on but became more inconsistent as the game wore on,  as well as England. They also suffered from the loss of Harris, and Starc's injury affected his bowling and may rule him out of the next match at Lord's. Still, with Siddle likely to replace him, I expect them to force some sort of comeback in this series, and they usually perform well at the home of cricket.

England meanwhile will celebrate this win and great start to the series, with the hope that they can maintain this level of performance and bring the momentum to Lord's. A win in the second game would be huge, and make it incredibly difficult for Australia to come back.

Scorecard
http://www.espncricinfo.com/the-ashes-2015/engine/match/743963.html

Reports
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/cricket/33492984
http://www.espncricinfo.com/the-ashes-2015/content/story/897337.html

Ratings Explained: 1-3 very poor, 4 poor, 5 average, 6 OK, 7 good, 8 very good, 9 excellent, 10 unbelievable

Team ratings

England - Overall rating: 9

Cook*- 8
Lyth - 6.5
Ballance - 6.5
Bell - 7
Root - 9.5
Stokes - 8
Buttler+ - 7
Moeen Ali - 9
Broad - 8.5
Wood - 8
Anderson - 8

Australia team rating - 5

England Lionesses FIFA WWC15 performance review

England Lionesses FIFA WWC15 performance review 

Well England women were so impressive in Canada that I thought it deserved a little blog post of its own. So, here it is. A pretty brief run-down of the matches as they happened. At the end I give some general ratings and select my best sides of the tournament. Then I briefly discuss the final, USA v. Japan.
Other talking points raised in the competition will be discussed later if I have time, such as the media coverage, pitches, goalkeeping etc.

Ratings explained
1-3 = very poor, 4 = poor, 5 = average, 6 = OK, 7 = good, 8 = very good, 9 = excellent, 10 = unbelievable

England were drawn in group F with France, Mexico and Columbia. Pre-tournament expectations were probably getting out of the group in at least second (most third-placed teams also got through) and progressing past the last-16 stage into the quarter-final.

---

First group game vs. France 

England 0 France 1

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/33044255

Overall team rating = 5

England coach Mark Sampson made some controversial team selections and tactical decisions, in picking a very defensive lineup. In a clear attempt to nullify France's attacking prowess, our own strengths going forwards were not capitalised on. Whilst Sampson was largely successful in nullifying France, with them failing to cut us open on many occasions,  the lack of attention payed to our own attacking game cost us. England were very unambitious and relatively poor going forward, with Eni Aluko looking a very isolated figure up front with little support from elsewhere. It only took a single mistake from Bassett and Chapman to allow Le Sommer to get the winner, which we didn't really threaten to reply to.

However, these tactics were not particularly surprising to those who'd been following England's recent progress. The 3-0 loss to Germany at Wembley hurt, and was the result of playing too high and attacking a game against an opponent who was technically superior and much more clinical on the day. Later displays against the like of USA were more defensively oriented and we kept the scoreline down to respectable levels and were generally more competitive throughout. This was the intention at the start of the WWC15 competition in what was our toughest group game. It was a generally solid defensive display, however the team were very disappointing going forward and created very few chances - and only one shot on target. 

---

Second Group game vs. Mexico

England 2 (Kirby, Carney) Mexico 1

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/33055451

Overall team rating = 7

After a frustrating first half in which we dominated possession but surprisingly created little, the side cracked on in the second, to dominate play and create numerous chances, 2 of which were excellently taken. The biggest impact was made by 2 substitutions where Karen Carney and Alex Greenwood both came on and gave excellent showings. Carney was a consistently dangerous attacking threat and Greenwood, effective at crossing from the left. Our goal did not look under much threat in general, and 2-1 is slightly flattering to Mexico. They scored a late consolation goal due to a combination of defensive errors and moderate goalkeeping by Bardsley.

After the hype and promise that the side would play in more positive fashion following the disappointing France  game, I was left a little non-plussed at half-time. The side were still not really gelling going forward. It was a shame, as it looked like we easily had the beating of Mexico. In fact it took the introduction of 2 substitutes to ignite the game in our favour. This was the first occasion that we really saw some of the tactical nous from Sampson that would become a major feature of the campaign later on.

---

Third (final) group game: England vs. Colombia, 18 June 2015

England 2 (Carney, Williams (pen)) Columbia 1

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/33158945

Overall team score - 7

This was a game where England achieved what they'd been trying to do since the start of the tournament. They managed to start strongly, make a load of chances, score a couple of goals and get a half-time lead. We let slip a late goal thanks to mainly Bardsley once again in the second half, and weren't as creative going forward, but truth be told we'd already done enough to get through against a Columbia side who struggled to create a lot against us.

The win meant we were able to finish second in the group and get a favourable run-in to the semi-final stage, which as it turned out was vital in the longer view of the campaign. We were to face Norway in a tough-looking round-of-16 knockout match.

This was a great match for Alex Scott, who gave a terrific performance at right-back with her positional play and work-rate. The defence was solid, with Greenwood giving another option at set pieces, although in this game she was mainly used as a dummy for Fara Williams who herself delivered some good free kicks and corners in a class performance from midfield. The promising Jade Moore also gave a strong showing. Up front, Carney (who got the opening goal) and Duggan also worked hard and gave good accounts of themselves.

---

Norway v. England ratings 22 June 2015

Last 16 knockout game - England 2 (Houghton 61', Bronze 76'). Norway 1 (Gulbrandsen 54')

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/33085746

Overall team score - 7

After what seemed a strange starting XI selection, going back to a similar side as against France in the opener, the team turned what seemed to be another competent but uninspiring defensive display into a powerful performance in the second half following Norway's goal, which seemed to jump-start us. The puzzling selection of Chapman in midfield, coupled with dropping Alex Scott after her best England performance for a while, was strange and, seemingly, did not bode well for us. 

But Bronze, Scott's replacement, played brilliantly and Sampson's tactical genius in moving Chapman further forward in the second half, killed 2 birds with one stone. Her break-up play was able to disrupt Norway's passing rhythm in their defence and midfield, and any give -aways that would have been defensive errors in our own half were nullified by dint of the advanced position. Her tough tackling and experience really unsettled Norway and they were completely unable to follow up on the goal that put them ahead. Moore, Williams and Scott happily joined in, and we were soon in complete control of midfield.

Again the substitutes played a huge role, and two defenders got on the score sheet, with Bronze hitting a screamer from just outside the box - before we managed the last 20 minutes or so very effectively. In Jill Scott and Lucy Bronze we had two players who look like world beaters down the right, and Scott, Moore and Chapman in midfield must be among the best players at closing the opposition down. Still, questions must be asked as to why we can't start out with these intentions and really put teams like Norway to the sword. This type of display will compete against Canada, but is unlikely to worry Japan, USA or Germany. Or, so it seemed at this stage!

---

England v. Canada ratings 27 June 2015

Quarter-final, England 2 (Taylor 11, Bronze 14) Canada 1 (Sinclair 42)

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/33085911

Overall team score - 8

The Lionesses continued what has become a remarkable run with a strong, tough and spirited display against a Canadian team playing their best game of the tournament and in front of 54000 partisan home fans. Two early goals set the tone for the match in which Canada just managed to get back into before half time thanks to a defensive error. However, England defended more strongly in the second half and shutout the Canucks whilst creating a few chances of their own as well. It was a special display in many ways, and a remarkable performance, despite the referee's efforts to give Canada any and all opportunities, with some very soft free kicks.

Although we did not have much possession, we used what we did have better than Canada and a low pass success rate may raise eyebrows with some, but when your passes are threatening to cut up the opposition defence regularly, not many have to be accurate. In truth England dominated midfield, with Moore, Jill Scott  and Chapman in particular offering extremely impressive performances in harrying and closing down the opposition. These 3 almost look like world beaters now, and no other side in the tournament has been as effective in destroying the oppositions attacks before they even begin. To me, Moore, Scott and Chapman are among the very best 3 defensive midfielders in the competition and act as England's "Wrecking Crew". The grit and resolve of this Lionesses side is impressive.

Carney and Taylor always looked dangerous and threatening going forward. And the back line held their nerve well, restricting Canada to half-chances in the second half especially. Coach Sampson, after making some puzzling, strange and seemingly dubious decisions earlier in the tournament, is now looking like a master tactician whose every decision is paying off big time. This has now been a highly successful tournament for the Lionesses, and even a defeat to Japan in the semis would leave us with another game to cement our position as a major force in the game with a 3rd/4th place playoff. 

Their performances have drawn a lot of attention for their determination, if not style, (as seems to be the wont of England teams generally) and they have been inspirational for many people back home in the UK. Of course the disgrace that are the national print media can't decide when to stop criticising, and everything I hear from abroad reinforces the opinion that their lack of coverage has been in very poor form. Any results form now on are a bonus. Even if Japan get through, we will get to see a memorable match between either England and USA, or England and a deflated Germany and opportunity for some payback for Wembley.

---

Semi-Final Review

England vs. Japan 01 July 2015

England 1 (Williams 40' pen) Japan 2 (Miyama 32' pen, Basset 90' og)

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/33085949

Overall team score - 8

It was a very unlucky result for the Lionesses, who were much the better side in a good match that ended in disappointing fashion, when Laura Bassett netted a late own goal with literally one minute of extra time left on the clock. It was a very unfortunate way to get knocked out and their performance deserved better. Up until that point, England had been very competitive and created more chances. We were all looking forward to extra time. 

An even first half saw a penalty apiece converted. Japan's came first when Rafferty brought down a Japanese player after a through-ball, however it was a poor decision - as the contact was outside the box. England were correctly given a penalty shortly after, when Houghton was felled following a corner. In the second half, we played better and created a host of chances, hitting the bar twice from Duggan and Rafferty, with Jill Scott and Ellen White also going close. 

Ultimately Japan created relatively little and can consider themselves rather fortunate to get into the final. They will certainly need a much better performance against USA to have a  serious chance at winning the trophy, unless the US really let themselves down. England meanwhile will face Germany in a game where there is not much to lose. They may go to win again, or try a damage limitation exercise. Any result better than a 3-0 defeat will be at least some consolation, if there is much to be taken from this result. 

England could have easily won this game 3-0, with a bit more fortune. We are left to rue those missed chances in the second half. It was strange that in the one game we actually played positively to definitely deserve the victory outright, we were denied at the last by a fluke own-goal. Sampson did make a few curious decisions that did not really pay off this time, however, like substituting Taylor off and starting with Duggan rather than Carney. 

Overall the team can be really proud of how they played in the tournament. Their resolve, character and work ethic was extremely impressive. The story of our success  for me was how well we disrupted other teams' passing rhythm with combative and resolute midfield pressure from the "wrecking crew". You can make a missed pass and yet earn a corner or throw in from nothing, if you force a clearance, the same result as 10 successful passes. The "wrecking crew" won the ball so often from the opposition defence or midfield, in such dangerous positions,  that they only need a 20% pass success ratio to create enough chances to win a game. England are very much a side better than the stats say, and better than the sum of its parts. We don't look as good on the stats sheets as we do in the match. No team really got on top of us and we can bow out holding our heads high. 

---

Third-Fourth place play-off match, Sat 04 Jul 2015 (Edmonton, Canada)

Germany 0 - 1 England (AET) (WIlliams 108' (pen))

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/33085963

Overall team rating - 9  - (Well it had to be, to beat the Germans!)

England's Lionesses made history again by beating a strong German side for the first time in 20 attempts, to finish third and collect their bronze medals in what has been an incredibly successful tournament. It's always a day to remember when we manage to get one over on the Germans (it happens so rarely, in any sport!) and might I remind the detractors that being the top-ranked European nation at these finals is no small achievement. Remember it was only a matter of about 8 months ago that England lost 3-0 to Germany at home. The turnaround in that time has been remarkable. OK, so Germany weren't quite at full strength and were a bit deflated from their semi-final loss, but you could say the same for us as well.

Sampson again made some interesting and unexpected changes prior to the kick-off, most notably playing a back five with the full backs pushing on into wing-back roles, hence Greenwood was preferred to Rafferty. Potter started for the first time, out of her normal midfield position as 3rd centre back; Moore, Duggan and Taylor were rested and White started up front. It seemed though, that his tactics payed off again as Germany, despite a strong start, were unable to break us down very effectively and we posed enough of a threat throughout to keep them right on their toes.

Near the end of the second half and in extra time, England fought back strongly - creating  a few chances as subs Aluko and Sanderson made big impacts from the bench. In the end, we converted a hard-earned Sanderson penalty, and despite a few nervy moments as the clock ran down, we held out at the back - keeping the first clean sheet of the tournament. England were highly deserving of the victory.

I may have bumped up the ratings a touch for this game but it's just a reflection of how much I admire our teams' performance. The Lionesses have given absolutely everything for their country at these finals and we could have wished for no more. What heroines they all are!

My overall best England team of the tournament:

GK- Bardsley
RB - Bronze, CB - Houghton, CB - Bassett, LB - Greenwood
MD - Moore, MD - Chapman, MD - J. Scott, MD - Williams
FW - Taylor, FW - Carney

BBC Review - England ratings 
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/33397931
























1-3 = very poor Name Match







4 = poor
France Mexico Columbia Norway Canada Japan Germany Average Total
5 = average Steph Houghton 6 7 8 9 9 9 9 8.1 57
6 = OK Fara Williams 6 7 7 6 8 8 10 7.4 52
7 = good Lucy Bronze 6 8
9 9 8 9 8.2 49
8 = very good Jill Scott 6 7
8 9 8 9 7.8 47
9 = excellent Karen Carney
8 8 7 8 6 9 7.7 46
10 = unbelievable Jade Moore 6 7 8 7 9 8
7.5 45

Laura Bassett 5 6
8 8 8 9 7.3 44

Karen Bardsley 5 6 6 6 6 7 8 6.3 44

Katie Chapman 4

7 9 9 9 7.6 38

Claire Rafferty 7 7
7 7 7
7.0 35

Toni Duggan 5 7 8 7
7
6.8 34

Jodie Taylor

7 8 8 8
7.8 31

Ellen White 6


7 8 8 7.3 29

Fran Kirby 6 8 7 6


6.8 27

Alex Scott 4 6 8

7
6.3 25

Alex Greenwood
8 6


8 7.3 22

Casey Stoney

7
7
8 7.3 22

Eni Aluko 6 6



9 7.0 21

Jo Potter

7


8 7.5 15

Lianne Sanderson

6


9 7.5 15

Siobhan Chamberlain



8

8.0 8

Jordan Nobbs

6



6.0 6









Grand Average

Average 5.6 7.0 7.1 7.3 8.0 7.7 8.7 7.3

Top defender - Houghton
Top midfielder - Williams
Top striker - Carney

---

Final Overview

USA 5 Japan 2

USA - Lloyd 3', 5', 16'. Holiday 14'. Heath 54'
Japan - Ogimi 27'. Johnston 52' (o.g.)

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/33085994

In an amazing, historic, thrilling and fairly one-sided match, a powerful US team gave another strong performance and easily blew past an error-ridden Japanese side early on, to record a remarkable 5-2 win, and claim back the prize that had eluded the USWNT for 16 years.
In the end the US were just too strong, fast, fit and dynamic for a flagging Japanese team, in my view lucky to reach this stage, that were effectively out of the contest after 15 minutes. I can't help but think our England side would have given a better account of themselves and a much closer match than Japan did. We would certainly not have been 4-0 down after the first sixth of the game.
Carli Lloyd's performance was also incredible, scoring a hat-trick inside the first quarter-hour which included some almost comical, inept and schoolground defending from Japan (um, there's Lloyd! Scored in last 3 games! Mark her! No?) and in contrast, a remarkable and stunning blast from dead on the halfway-line (60 yards) from Lloyd, that was so accurate it bounced just in front of the goal, hit the post and went in, despite a despairing dive from an out-of-position Kaihori!

See it here

Overall teams of the tournament

4-4-2 formations
An interesting choice, given women's teams often use 4-3-3. But it was a tournament for midfielders, rather than strikers, on the whole and with 4-4-2 you can do more justice to the best performing players.

First team

Manager/Coach - Sampson (ENG)

GK - Angerer (GER), 
DF - Bronze (ENG), DF - Sauerbrunn (USA), DF - Houghton (ENG) , DF - Sameshima (JPN), 
MD - Lloyd (USA) , MD - Williams (ENG), MD - Henry (FRA) , MD - Miyama (JPN), 
ST - Sasic (GER), ST - Mittag (GER)

Second team

Manager/Coach - Ellis (USA)

GK - Solo (USA), 
DF - Krieger (USA), DF - Renard (FRA), DF - Johnston (USA), DF - Catley (AUS), 
MD - Leupolz (GER) , MD - Brian (USA), MD - Necib (FRA), MD - Moore (ENG), 

ST -Carney (ENG) , ST - Morgan (USA)