Exciting finish does not make up for dud pitches

At the post-match press conference, Heather Knight could not stop smiling. She probably did not know she was smiling. By her own admission, she wasn't particularly with it as the game was coming to a close. Gleeful to have got over the line by two wickets, with an over to spare, she broke from her high to point out that the pitch was not one conducive to "exciting" Twenty20 cricket. Then, she checked herself: "Though I suppose it was an exciting game."

Knight's words brought up an interesting issue: should this match be judged solely on its finale?

The argument that it should has some merit. The tension in the HPCA stadium reverberated off the Himalayas, as England turned a walk in the park of 49 off 87 balls, with nine wickets remaining, into trekking Everest on a Space Hopper. After a great deal of discomfort, England had made it and the relief was palpable.

While the dugout embraced, Anya Shrubsole, who flayed the final runs through backward point, looked relieved. She had connected much better with the previous delivery, only to find Harmanpreet Kaur, in close at cover, staring back at her. But Kaur was unable to hold the catch - one that would have meant England still required three to win from seven balls with just one wicket left.

Earlier, it was Kaur's legspin that derailed England: her first over a microcosm of the game, starting with Tammy Beaumont hitting three consecutive fours and ending with a hat-trick attempt. India arose from their slumber, England regressed into their shell and the scent of this slow-cooked thriller began to filter through.

Nat Sciver and Knight started their rebuilding effort, but by now India had reduced the gap between the runs needed and the number of balls. And England had noticed. Then came another kicker: Knight gone and Lydia Greenway, too, across her crease first ball.

Just as they did against Pakistan, India turned up the noise in the field. Danni Wyatt, one of the quickest across the ground, couldn't beat a direct hit from Ekta Bisht at the nonstriker's end. Jenny Gunn, too, was shot out by an excellent bit of work at gully. England had some incredible moments in the field of their own: Katherine Brunt with a special catch over her shoulder at deep midwicket and Sarah Taylor taking a superb under-edge catch off Jhulan Goswami, while standing up at the stumps.

There was some controversy stirred in, too. Goswami trapped Brunt with a slower off-cutter in front of leg stump, when 11 was needed off 23. A dash of niggle, too: Kaur ensuring Taylor got a good look at her airplane impression as she charged past the England keeper, having just had her stumped. Certainly, very few would have consumed this game and gone rooting around the pantry for extra sustenance. The low-scoring thriller is a universal, nourishing delicacy.

But to ignore what went into the pot to make this match - one in a global competition no less, with a far greater reach than most in women's cricket - is dangerous. The players were responsible for some of the poorer elements - Wyatt and Sciver had a horrendous drop each, while some of the shots from India's top order should be hidden from the eyes of children of a certain age.

But the most toxic element of this match was that it was played out on the sort of surface that sucks the life out of T20 cricket.

It is a format that needs to excite and engage. It needs to bring new fans to the sport. That is, of course, why it was thought up in the first place: to give people something digestible and unstuffy so that they want to keep coming back. It's a mission statement that women's cricket operates under.

But for the second day in a row, a marquee fixture that could have shown the fastest growing side of women's cricket - the ability to clear the ropes - was allowed to pass off, having done more harm than good.

In Australia and New Zealand, the tournament had a final-worthy bout in the group stages. It deserved a boxing ring - instead, it got a ball pit.

England and India have had many engaging battles in the last few years. The hosts have cultivated a crop of exciting young batsmen. England are a blend of youth, experience and street smarts that, together, are looking to push themselves. As a collective, they want to push the boundaries of the game. But after the ground staff spent yesterday scrubbing away any life from this pitch, the only things pushed were singles.

It was not lost on Mithali Raj who, while admitting that England were just too good with the ball, warned that pitches like this do more harm than good to the women's game.

"When you're promoting women's cricket around the globe, it is imperative that you put up the best brand of it for the world to watch. And attract people that come to the stadium. A wicket like this, where the ball is keeping low and turning square, it makes the job of the players very difficult. To market women's cricket ideally, it's not a good situation. If you have good wickets, where you know you can score 150 or 160, that is even a better way of showcasing women's cricket."

It's not just India who are guilty of producing these poor pitches. The pitch at Canterbury in 2015 for the sole Ashes Test set women's cricket back in England, not least because it was the first one televised by Sky Sports. Perhaps only Australia can say they are doing it right.

It's OK to look at this game and say you enjoyed it. Cricket has enough of a pomposity issue without others telling you what you should and shouldn't like. But there is a bigger picture here. Women's cricket is desperate to break out into a more expansive, watchable product. Pitches like this in a World T20 event, with 182 runs scored in 39 overs, are clipping its wings.