NEWS: Injured Sciver Ruled Out of South Africa ODIs

England all-rounder Nat Sciver has been ruled-out of next month’s ODIs against South Africa with an ankle injury.

There is no doubt this is a serious blow for new coach Mark Robinson ahead of his first tour – Sciver was one of the few England players to come out of last summer’s Women’s Ashes with her balance in credit, chalking up two Man of the Match performances in the series.

In the recent WBBL, Sciver’s batting form has been somewhat indifferent – averaging just 13 at a strike rate of 91; but her bowling has been impressive – 18 wickets at an economy rate of 6.2, putting her joint-3rd* on the list.

Sciver is replaced in England’s ODI squad by Tammy Beaumont, who was already selected for the T20 leg of the tour; and the hope is that Sciver may be able to rejoin the squad for the T20s.

————

* Prior to Sunday’s final.

Advertisements

12 thoughts on “NEWS: Injured Sciver Ruled Out of South Africa ODIs

  1. So here is the contradiction in a nutshell. BBC running a feature on a talented female cricketer playing in an Aussie Grade game and seeing the men’s game as a barrier worth breaching. Only in second half of video is there mentions for BBL, England, WC T20 etc and oh a brief nod to the challenge facing WSL in 2016.

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/cricket/35382682

    Some publicity is still better than none I guess.

    Like

    • Personally not sure why so many people obsessed with women playing men’s cricket being a big thing. Take the process through to its logical conclusion. More female players in men’s cricket will hit the women’s game badly and devalue it. At most it will give a tougher edge to the best players and a tool for them alone to hone their skills. But even that is in doubt. Taylor and Cross played men’s cricket and there’s not much evidence that either has really improved much since. Cross probably did better in that than in WBBL even. I’d rather focus on women’s cricket to be honest, the rest is a bit of a distraction for me.

      Like

  2. It’s a shame – Sciver is a player who seems to up her performances while wearing the England shirt. Hopefully she’ll be back sooner rather than later. England need all the batting power they can get against a dangerous looking SA attack. Having said that I’m still not convinced about their batting (Van Niekerk looks like their best player to me), so it could be a low scoring series unless England’s line up fires.

    Like

      • Hmm…It’s possible. She is currently at about Danni Wyatt’s level (their WBBL stats were similar-ish, DvN a bit more solid with the bat maybe) so if she improves much more, will be very good indeed.

        Like

  3. I have been impressed by all the South African players who played in the WBBL – the big unknown for me is, how good are the members of their team that didn’t? Because South Africa hardly ever play the “Big 4” (Big 5?) that’s hard for an outsider to know.

    Praising the ICC doesn’t come easily to me, but setting up the ICC Women’s Championship has been an excellent move, and based on the talent displayed in the WBBL I would think South Africa, as they get more used to top-level competition, stand a good chance of troubling the traditional powerhouses of women’s cricket.

    Like

    • We shall see when we play them shortly. When they came over here in ’14, they were OK but looked short of batting power. Struggled to post a score in T20. If Du Preez, Kapp and DvN can score runs at a higher rate than they have been, they’ll have more of a chance.

      Liked by 1 person

      • As for the other players, if you’re interested, Trisha Chetty (WK) and Chloe Tryon (Allrounder) seemed to be pretty good as well. Actually surprised they were not in WBBL.

        Liked by 1 person

  4. The inclusion of Beaumont means Middlesex’s Fran Wilson misses the cut, just weeks after being first awarded a central contract; and Robinson admits that even though England play 3 crucial 50-over games in South Africa, this decision was partly driven with an eye on the World T20 in March:

    “We’ve got a Twenty20 competition coming up, and Fran’s possibly better suited at 50-over cricket than she is at Twenty20. With back-to-back tours there’s less time to swap players in and out than what we might like.”

    The above is a snippet from your interview with Robinson. I’m getting pretty used to media-spin-cum-garbage coming from the ECB. He justifies the exclusion of Wilson on the basis she is ‘possibly better suited at 50-over cricket’ yet picks Beaumont for the T20 despite every shred of evidence (has he actually watched any England woman’s cricket ?) demonstrating she is better at ODI. Further, if WIlson is, as he suggests, better at ODI then why is she not being brought in to replace the injured Sciver ?

    Like

Comments are closed.