England v South Africa, Women's World Cup 2013, Cuttack February 10, 2013

Shrubsole sets up England win

ESPNcricinfo staff
24

England 81 for 3 in 9.3 overs (Brindle 28*) beat South Africa 77 (Shrubsole 5-17, Wyatt 3-7) by seven wickets
Scorecard

England Women kept their tournament hopes alive with a crushing seven-wicket win over South Africa in a Super Six match in Cuttack. While Australia are dominating the Super Six stage and leading the points table, the race for the second place is turning into a close, three-way contest between West Indies, England and New Zealand. England will need to win their next match against New Zealand with a large margin to improve their existing run rate, which may come into play in case two teams finish on same points.

England's win today was engineered by medium-pacer Anya Shrubsole who decimated the South African batting. By the eighth over, Shrubsole had dismissed South Africa's top order to leave the side struggling at 18 for four wickets. South Africa never managed to recover from that position, losing wickets in clusters before eventually folding for 77.

Given the small target, England struggled early on in their chase. Chloe Tryon took a couple of wickets in the fourth over to leave England wobbling at 26 for three. However, the total was too small for the South African bowlers to defend and Lydia Greenway and Arran Brindle ensured that England got home in under ten overs, giving their run rate a substantial boost.

Comments have now been closed for this article

  • Indiana_jones99 on February 11, 2013, 1:11 GMT

    England's problem is self inflicted. They shot themselves on their foot by going deliberately slow against WI when they should have scored the 103 required in about 20 hours instead of the 35. That would have given them a net RR about +1.5 instead of the current +1.079. Then they would not require a massive win against the NZ team. If they fail to qualify this would have been the crucial mistake after of course losing those 2 close matches. If they fail to qualify they will have themselves to blame. There is a moral in their story. If NZ win against WI the final place is going to be between England and NZ. In the unlikely situation of WI beating the NZ WI might sneak through on net RR if they avoid a thumping loss against the Aussies. Most of the teams batting first have lost the match because of the conditions with the 9 AM start the only exception being Australia against England. Hope winning the toss is not going to affect the final. Eg. SL's last 2 matches put in and lost

  • JG2704 on February 11, 2013, 21:52 GMT

    @Indiana_jones99 on (February 11, 2013, 1:11 GMT) As I already said - getting the W is the main thing and they shot themselves in the foot more in the defeat in the SL game and surely they more than made up for the slow RR in the WI game by the way they went about the SA total.

    @CS - I think and certainly hope you're wrong re Australia's (possible) attitude vs WI. I'd like to think that any team at this level will want to keep the winning momentum going. If they don't then the likelihood is that unless Eng beat NZ by way of a trouncing WI will be their opponents in the final so I wouldn't have thought they'd want to give them confidence going into the final - that's what I'm hoping anyway

  • CricketingStargazer on February 11, 2013, 12:51 GMT

    Sometimes run rate calculations pull up surprises and this is no exception: now West Indies, England and New Zealand - in that order - are separated by tiny fractions on run rate. It really sets up the last round of matches nicely. although one can't help thinking that the Australians might look at the current points table and take a relaxed attitude in their final match.

  • JG2704 on February 11, 2013, 9:25 GMT

    @zenboomerang on (February 11, 2013, 4:01 GMT) You know I'm not one of these jingoistic types but I think if England beat NZ (unless WI beat Aus) , we'll be very unlucky not to qualify. If we don't beat NZ and WI beat Aus then we don't deserve to qualify period. The way I see it is that (unless NZ beat us and WI beat Aus) - whoever ends up in the final will have 2 defeats. As it stands WI are likely to beat NZ and there could be a scenario where WI qualify for the final having lost 3 matches by way of thrashings ahead of England whose 2 defeats have been as tights as you can get and who comfortably won all their matches too and have been the only team to give Aus a fight so far. If NZ beat Eng or WI beat Aus I say fair play. If we beat NZ and WI qualify without beating Aus then I'll be very bitter about it

  • CricketingStargazer on February 11, 2013, 7:43 GMT

    Sorry, "in prime position now"... You win some. You lose some. And that particular play that could have paid spectacular dividends, has turned into a small disaster.

  • CricketingStargazer on February 11, 2013, 7:14 GMT

    @zenboomerang Not at all. Having lost two matches that they should have won it *is* no great surprise. On the go-slow v the Windies, at the time it looked like a sensible move because India were expected to beat Sri Lanka. Had that happened, England would now be in poition now! Sometimes fortune plays a huge part!

  • zenboomerang on February 11, 2013, 4:01 GMT

    I think most are surprised that Eng is going to be lucky to make the final...

    The Kiwi's are way out in front in NRR & have 2 games to seal a finals spot (as do WI) while Eng have just 1 game - seeing how well NZ played against Oz this summer (in Oz) they have every chance of winning both their last 2 matches - actually if they beat WI in the just started match they will make the final...

  • Indiana_jones99 on February 11, 2013, 1:35 GMT

    last message was posted before reading the previous 5 messages which make the same points and cover the same scenarios. Oops that should have been "... 20 overs instaed of the 35 overs" NOT hours.

  • brusselslion on February 10, 2013, 22:16 GMT

    @gsingh7 on (February 10, 2013, 13:41 GMT): I completely understand why you have transferred your loyalties to Australia. If I supported India, I'd be embarassed by their performance in this tournament. Still, look on the bright side, you could have finished 8th (of 8) rather than 7th.

  • CricketingStargazer on February 10, 2013, 20:41 GMT

    @JG, actually, I was wrong. England's fate is in the hands of the West Indies. If they beat New Zealand and Australia, we are out whatever we do v NZ. In fact, there is a scenario in which it would be in the interest of Aus to lose to West Indies to get them into the Final as a weaker opponent than NZ or England.

  • Indiana_jones99 on February 11, 2013, 1:11 GMT

    England's problem is self inflicted. They shot themselves on their foot by going deliberately slow against WI when they should have scored the 103 required in about 20 hours instead of the 35. That would have given them a net RR about +1.5 instead of the current +1.079. Then they would not require a massive win against the NZ team. If they fail to qualify this would have been the crucial mistake after of course losing those 2 close matches. If they fail to qualify they will have themselves to blame. There is a moral in their story. If NZ win against WI the final place is going to be between England and NZ. In the unlikely situation of WI beating the NZ WI might sneak through on net RR if they avoid a thumping loss against the Aussies. Most of the teams batting first have lost the match because of the conditions with the 9 AM start the only exception being Australia against England. Hope winning the toss is not going to affect the final. Eg. SL's last 2 matches put in and lost

  • JG2704 on February 11, 2013, 21:52 GMT

    @Indiana_jones99 on (February 11, 2013, 1:11 GMT) As I already said - getting the W is the main thing and they shot themselves in the foot more in the defeat in the SL game and surely they more than made up for the slow RR in the WI game by the way they went about the SA total.

    @CS - I think and certainly hope you're wrong re Australia's (possible) attitude vs WI. I'd like to think that any team at this level will want to keep the winning momentum going. If they don't then the likelihood is that unless Eng beat NZ by way of a trouncing WI will be their opponents in the final so I wouldn't have thought they'd want to give them confidence going into the final - that's what I'm hoping anyway

  • CricketingStargazer on February 11, 2013, 12:51 GMT

    Sometimes run rate calculations pull up surprises and this is no exception: now West Indies, England and New Zealand - in that order - are separated by tiny fractions on run rate. It really sets up the last round of matches nicely. although one can't help thinking that the Australians might look at the current points table and take a relaxed attitude in their final match.

  • JG2704 on February 11, 2013, 9:25 GMT

    @zenboomerang on (February 11, 2013, 4:01 GMT) You know I'm not one of these jingoistic types but I think if England beat NZ (unless WI beat Aus) , we'll be very unlucky not to qualify. If we don't beat NZ and WI beat Aus then we don't deserve to qualify period. The way I see it is that (unless NZ beat us and WI beat Aus) - whoever ends up in the final will have 2 defeats. As it stands WI are likely to beat NZ and there could be a scenario where WI qualify for the final having lost 3 matches by way of thrashings ahead of England whose 2 defeats have been as tights as you can get and who comfortably won all their matches too and have been the only team to give Aus a fight so far. If NZ beat Eng or WI beat Aus I say fair play. If we beat NZ and WI qualify without beating Aus then I'll be very bitter about it

  • CricketingStargazer on February 11, 2013, 7:43 GMT

    Sorry, "in prime position now"... You win some. You lose some. And that particular play that could have paid spectacular dividends, has turned into a small disaster.

  • CricketingStargazer on February 11, 2013, 7:14 GMT

    @zenboomerang Not at all. Having lost two matches that they should have won it *is* no great surprise. On the go-slow v the Windies, at the time it looked like a sensible move because India were expected to beat Sri Lanka. Had that happened, England would now be in poition now! Sometimes fortune plays a huge part!

  • zenboomerang on February 11, 2013, 4:01 GMT

    I think most are surprised that Eng is going to be lucky to make the final...

    The Kiwi's are way out in front in NRR & have 2 games to seal a finals spot (as do WI) while Eng have just 1 game - seeing how well NZ played against Oz this summer (in Oz) they have every chance of winning both their last 2 matches - actually if they beat WI in the just started match they will make the final...

  • Indiana_jones99 on February 11, 2013, 1:35 GMT

    last message was posted before reading the previous 5 messages which make the same points and cover the same scenarios. Oops that should have been "... 20 overs instaed of the 35 overs" NOT hours.

  • brusselslion on February 10, 2013, 22:16 GMT

    @gsingh7 on (February 10, 2013, 13:41 GMT): I completely understand why you have transferred your loyalties to Australia. If I supported India, I'd be embarassed by their performance in this tournament. Still, look on the bright side, you could have finished 8th (of 8) rather than 7th.

  • CricketingStargazer on February 10, 2013, 20:41 GMT

    @JG, actually, I was wrong. England's fate is in the hands of the West Indies. If they beat New Zealand and Australia, we are out whatever we do v NZ. In fact, there is a scenario in which it would be in the interest of Aus to lose to West Indies to get them into the Final as a weaker opponent than NZ or England.

  • JG2704 on February 10, 2013, 20:15 GMT

    @CS - You're spot on. I was thinking that it goes from S6 to semis but it goes right to the final I'll be gutted if WI qualify above us on RR as they lost more matches than England in the group stages but because one of their defeats was against India who didn't qualify - that didn't count? Why? Anyway the good thing is that WI play Australia , so we just have to hope that Australia don't take their feet of the gas.

    @Nick Larter on (February 10, 2013, 11:47 GMT) I'd say if we don't qualify that the defeat vs SL was more of a factor than not scoring fast enough vs WI. Also had we upped the tempo too much we may have come unstuck - better to get the win. May I add that today's result will have redressed the slower RR vs WI.

  • CricketingStargazer on February 10, 2013, 19:06 GMT

    @JG According to the BBC Sport website, my analysis is correct. England need no less than 3 results to fall the right way. Their future is in their hands, but only just.

  • Trickstar on February 10, 2013, 16:45 GMT

    @Harry Jackson She isn't pushing to play with the men, the article on here a few weeks ago was about her training with the mens 2nd team, nothing more, but a lot of people read far too much into it. Apparently she's trained with them before also with one or two other players. Yes she's had three very poor games but she's been very good for some time & even in the mens no one would be calling for the head of one of the best players after that. She's also an all rounder with the wicketkeeping, so she always adds something to the team.

  • gsingh7 on February 10, 2013, 13:41 GMT

    england odi women team is much better than mens team, i wanted english men team to atleast win 1 odi wc but they always disappoint, hope women show them how to do it. aus are favourites this time as they are unbeaten in whole tournament, i cant see any team stop their juggernaut.

  • on February 10, 2013, 12:34 GMT

    Sarah Taylor really hasn't shown why she is pushing so hard for a spot in mens cricket, thats three ducks in a row, two of em first-ballers, to bowlers that wouldn't get a sniff of mens 2nd cricket. Will be very interesting to see how she copes with an 80MPH plus swinging seaming ball. Also very interesting is that the media hasn't at all picked up on it, only briefly mentioning that the 'top order struggled'. If an international mens player had the same run of form, everyone would be calling for their heads, not still backing them to play at a higher level. Maybe her introduction can wait a while....

  • CricketingStargazer on February 10, 2013, 12:05 GMT

    @JG We have one game left, v New Zealand. Win, or we are out. NZ and WI have two left. They play each other, then NZ plays us. WI plays Aus. If NZ beats WI they will have 2 more points than us and a huge NRR advantage. That means that only a big win against them will suffice, to get ahead on NRR, I believe. If WI win, things get complicated. WI have a better NRR than us, but will probably lose to Aus, with subsequent damage to their NRR. We still have then to beat NZ by a sufficient margin to get ahead of WI on NRR. Or is it head-to-head before NRR in case of a tie on points???

  • on February 10, 2013, 11:47 GMT

    If England win against NZ and don't make the final, it'll pretty much be down to the way they crawled along chasing down a small total in their group match against WI - that was the big missed opportunity to get the NRR up. Course if WI win their last two Super Six games, that's academic anyway as they'll be on 8 points, same as Aus.

  • JG2704 on February 10, 2013, 10:40 GMT

    Pleased to have got the win however the form of Wyatt and Taylor in particualr in the top order is a bit of a worry. Also bowling 1st is a big advantage on these wickets so winning the toss is a huge advantage. As Butcher said - could they not start the games an hour or so later whereby the side batting 1st would not be at such a big disadvantage

  • JG2704 on February 10, 2013, 10:36 GMT

    @CricketingStargazer on (February 10, 2013, 9:12 GMT) PS - SL only carried over the same amount of points as we did as they lost to WI and beat us. The points being carried forward works well for WI (unfairly IMO) as they only won 1 game in the group stages whereas SL and Eng both won 2.

  • jmcilhinney on February 10, 2013, 10:29 GMT

    @CricketingStargazer on (February 10, 2013, 9:41 GMT), ah, I thought WI still had to play SA. You'd expect Australia to beat WI so yes, WI to beat NZ in a close one and then get pummelled by Australia and England to win big over NZ. Even then they may not make it through. Never nice to have to rely on other results. Even if they make it through, Australia will be tough in the final anyway. Taylor needs to turn it around by then.

  • JG2704 on February 10, 2013, 10:29 GMT

    @CricketingStargazer on (February 10, 2013, 9:41 GMT) I caught them saying that it's now in England's hands which makes sense. If they beat NZ then they're through. SA and SL now both can only win 1 match in the S6s and both carried similar points to England into the S6s so if Eng win vs NZ they'll have won 2 matches and can not go out at this stage.

  • CricketingStargazer on February 10, 2013, 9:41 GMT

    Looking at the points table we probably need West Indies to beat New Zealand and then beat New Zealand ourselves. And then hope that Australia don't let up against the West Indies themselves. The alternative route is, if New Zealand beat the West Indies, to have a huge win over New Zealand ourselves. Either way, there are easier ways to do it...

  • CricketingStargazer on February 10, 2013, 9:12 GMT

    The team seems to be struggling a bit. Two very close matches have been lost, both of which probably should have been won. The consequence of the Sri Lanka match is that we start with 2 points fewer and that means that the route to the Final is so much harder. Fortunately, the standard outside the top 3 is not so great, so England have a fair chance of getting through. The critical match is the New Zealand game... lose that one and it's over.

  • jmcilhinney on February 10, 2013, 8:22 GMT

    Bit of a stutter at the top but they were presumably looking to push on to up their NRR so losing a few wickets was almost inevitable. Sarah Taylor's having a shocking tournament with the bat so they'll be hoping for some improvement from her. I reckon England now need NZ to win a tight one over WI (as WI will likely beat SA) and then to win big over NZ themselves. I wonder what Mithali Jay thinks of England's dependence on Brunt for breakthroughs now? To be fair, she is their main weapon but Shrubsole has been a monster.

  • jmcilhinney on February 10, 2013, 8:22 GMT

    Bit of a stutter at the top but they were presumably looking to push on to up their NRR so losing a few wickets was almost inevitable. Sarah Taylor's having a shocking tournament with the bat so they'll be hoping for some improvement from her. I reckon England now need NZ to win a tight one over WI (as WI will likely beat SA) and then to win big over NZ themselves. I wonder what Mithali Jay thinks of England's dependence on Brunt for breakthroughs now? To be fair, she is their main weapon but Shrubsole has been a monster.

  • CricketingStargazer on February 10, 2013, 9:12 GMT

    The team seems to be struggling a bit. Two very close matches have been lost, both of which probably should have been won. The consequence of the Sri Lanka match is that we start with 2 points fewer and that means that the route to the Final is so much harder. Fortunately, the standard outside the top 3 is not so great, so England have a fair chance of getting through. The critical match is the New Zealand game... lose that one and it's over.

  • CricketingStargazer on February 10, 2013, 9:41 GMT

    Looking at the points table we probably need West Indies to beat New Zealand and then beat New Zealand ourselves. And then hope that Australia don't let up against the West Indies themselves. The alternative route is, if New Zealand beat the West Indies, to have a huge win over New Zealand ourselves. Either way, there are easier ways to do it...

  • JG2704 on February 10, 2013, 10:29 GMT

    @CricketingStargazer on (February 10, 2013, 9:41 GMT) I caught them saying that it's now in England's hands which makes sense. If they beat NZ then they're through. SA and SL now both can only win 1 match in the S6s and both carried similar points to England into the S6s so if Eng win vs NZ they'll have won 2 matches and can not go out at this stage.

  • jmcilhinney on February 10, 2013, 10:29 GMT

    @CricketingStargazer on (February 10, 2013, 9:41 GMT), ah, I thought WI still had to play SA. You'd expect Australia to beat WI so yes, WI to beat NZ in a close one and then get pummelled by Australia and England to win big over NZ. Even then they may not make it through. Never nice to have to rely on other results. Even if they make it through, Australia will be tough in the final anyway. Taylor needs to turn it around by then.

  • JG2704 on February 10, 2013, 10:36 GMT

    @CricketingStargazer on (February 10, 2013, 9:12 GMT) PS - SL only carried over the same amount of points as we did as they lost to WI and beat us. The points being carried forward works well for WI (unfairly IMO) as they only won 1 game in the group stages whereas SL and Eng both won 2.

  • JG2704 on February 10, 2013, 10:40 GMT

    Pleased to have got the win however the form of Wyatt and Taylor in particualr in the top order is a bit of a worry. Also bowling 1st is a big advantage on these wickets so winning the toss is a huge advantage. As Butcher said - could they not start the games an hour or so later whereby the side batting 1st would not be at such a big disadvantage

  • on February 10, 2013, 11:47 GMT

    If England win against NZ and don't make the final, it'll pretty much be down to the way they crawled along chasing down a small total in their group match against WI - that was the big missed opportunity to get the NRR up. Course if WI win their last two Super Six games, that's academic anyway as they'll be on 8 points, same as Aus.

  • CricketingStargazer on February 10, 2013, 12:05 GMT

    @JG We have one game left, v New Zealand. Win, or we are out. NZ and WI have two left. They play each other, then NZ plays us. WI plays Aus. If NZ beats WI they will have 2 more points than us and a huge NRR advantage. That means that only a big win against them will suffice, to get ahead on NRR, I believe. If WI win, things get complicated. WI have a better NRR than us, but will probably lose to Aus, with subsequent damage to their NRR. We still have then to beat NZ by a sufficient margin to get ahead of WI on NRR. Or is it head-to-head before NRR in case of a tie on points???

  • on February 10, 2013, 12:34 GMT

    Sarah Taylor really hasn't shown why she is pushing so hard for a spot in mens cricket, thats three ducks in a row, two of em first-ballers, to bowlers that wouldn't get a sniff of mens 2nd cricket. Will be very interesting to see how she copes with an 80MPH plus swinging seaming ball. Also very interesting is that the media hasn't at all picked up on it, only briefly mentioning that the 'top order struggled'. If an international mens player had the same run of form, everyone would be calling for their heads, not still backing them to play at a higher level. Maybe her introduction can wait a while....