7 thoughts on “VIDEO: The CRICKETher Weekly Vodcast – Episode 61”
All very interesting. But you missed this week’s big scoop: News Corp outlets here in Oz have been reporting that a Women’s Test match between Australia and India is currently being organised. If it goes ahead, it would be held at the WACA Ground in Perth “after the AFL Grand Final”, which means in or after late September. Does that mean that on that occasion we’ll see a Shafali Verma Test century, Ellyse Perry’s fourth century in three Tests, and maybe another Test match with a winner (as in 2014)? I hope so. The only disappointment would be that Kate Cross will be featuring, if at all, only in the Ashes Test match, which will be played on the east coast later in the Australian season.
As for the Hundred, I hope that at least one Thai player will be selected to replace an international who pulls out.
I would like to correct you regarding the winners of the County T20, Lancashire, Notts, Herts, Kent & Gloucestershire all won, as they didn’t lose a game !
I don’t think there’s any doubt that Kent were “champions” of what was overall the strongest group. However, if it came to a “Finals Day” or some way of deciding an ultimate winner, I think Warwickshire and Yorkshire – possibly Lancashire too – might have something to say.
Women’s Tests are stuck between a rock and a hard place. They are so rarely played none of the players are used to the format and perhaps because of this the scoring rates are awful. Continue with this and it will be difficult to attract spectators, or even worse, the number drops as the faithful become the faithful departed.
Test cricket is rare amongst sports in that it gets slower at international level. In 1951 England played a Test against Australia and the teams bowled 374 overs in 3 days. Even in 1957/58 in a Test against New Zealand a total 394 overs were bowled in 3 days. How can it be possible that that generation were capable of such feats yet modern players, men and women, especially men, dawdle their way through a Test ?
Assuming that the scoring rate is not suddenly going to increase, then, perhaps, it would be a good idea to look into bowling more overs in a day (I know the minimum for men is 90 and for women is 100 and I know this begs the question ‘if the women can do it why can’t the men’ – presumably men are simply slower than women (another strange curiosity, possibly unique aspect, of cricket, a sport in which men are slower than women).
Scoring rates are of course significant. However, I think the key is to stage Tests as frequently as possible at venues with a pitch conducive to a result, such as the WACA. Of the 40 men’s Tests played at that venue since and including the first one in 1970, only eight have been drawn, and most of the others were won and lost by big margins. Additionally, visiting teams, particularly the West Indies and South Africa, have good records in those Tests.
I watched the most recent women’s Test played in Australia, at North Sydney. That ground is very picturesque, and the match will always be fondly remembered for Ellyse Perry’s double century. However, it was obvious from the very first day that the pitch was so dead that the teams were really going to struggle to produce any result other than a draw.
In my view, the other important point is that in a multi-format series, the Test should be played first wherever possible. If the Test is played in the middle of the series, as at North Sydney, then there will be a strong incentive for the points leader at that stage to play for a draw rather than a win, unless the pitch is strongly conducive to a win and loss. In the two forthcoming series in Australia, the India series will have such a pitch for the Test, and the England series will have the Test played first. It will be interesting to see whether that fixturing will produce a win and loss in both matches.
CRICKETher 
All very interesting. But you missed this week’s big scoop: News Corp outlets here in Oz have been reporting that a Women’s Test match between Australia and India is currently being organised. If it goes ahead, it would be held at the WACA Ground in Perth “after the AFL Grand Final”, which means in or after late September. Does that mean that on that occasion we’ll see a Shafali Verma Test century, Ellyse Perry’s fourth century in three Tests, and maybe another Test match with a winner (as in 2014)? I hope so. The only disappointment would be that Kate Cross will be featuring, if at all, only in the Ashes Test match, which will be played on the east coast later in the Australian season.
As for the Hundred, I hope that at least one Thai player will be selected to replace an international who pulls out.
LikeLike
Excellent vodcast as always and well said Raf on speaking out about the ecb’s shabby treatment of the women’s county T20 tournament
LikeLike
I would like to correct you regarding the winners of the County T20, Lancashire, Notts, Herts, Kent & Gloucestershire all won, as they didn’t lose a game !
LikeLike
Of course.
LikeLike
Teams with 100% records from matches where results were possible, number of matches completed in brackets:
Kent (6)
Hertfordshire (5)
Gloucestershire (4)
Nottinghamshire (5)
Lancashire (4)
Warwickshire (4)
Dorset (2)
Yorkshire (2)
I don’t think there’s any doubt that Kent were “champions” of what was overall the strongest group. However, if it came to a “Finals Day” or some way of deciding an ultimate winner, I think Warwickshire and Yorkshire – possibly Lancashire too – might have something to say.
LikeLike
Women’s Tests are stuck between a rock and a hard place. They are so rarely played none of the players are used to the format and perhaps because of this the scoring rates are awful. Continue with this and it will be difficult to attract spectators, or even worse, the number drops as the faithful become the faithful departed.
Test cricket is rare amongst sports in that it gets slower at international level. In 1951 England played a Test against Australia and the teams bowled 374 overs in 3 days. Even in 1957/58 in a Test against New Zealand a total 394 overs were bowled in 3 days. How can it be possible that that generation were capable of such feats yet modern players, men and women, especially men, dawdle their way through a Test ?
Assuming that the scoring rate is not suddenly going to increase, then, perhaps, it would be a good idea to look into bowling more overs in a day (I know the minimum for men is 90 and for women is 100 and I know this begs the question ‘if the women can do it why can’t the men’ – presumably men are simply slower than women (another strange curiosity, possibly unique aspect, of cricket, a sport in which men are slower than women).
LikeLike
Scoring rates are of course significant. However, I think the key is to stage Tests as frequently as possible at venues with a pitch conducive to a result, such as the WACA. Of the 40 men’s Tests played at that venue since and including the first one in 1970, only eight have been drawn, and most of the others were won and lost by big margins. Additionally, visiting teams, particularly the West Indies and South Africa, have good records in those Tests.
I watched the most recent women’s Test played in Australia, at North Sydney. That ground is very picturesque, and the match will always be fondly remembered for Ellyse Perry’s double century. However, it was obvious from the very first day that the pitch was so dead that the teams were really going to struggle to produce any result other than a draw.
In my view, the other important point is that in a multi-format series, the Test should be played first wherever possible. If the Test is played in the middle of the series, as at North Sydney, then there will be a strong incentive for the points leader at that stage to play for a draw rather than a win, unless the pitch is strongly conducive to a win and loss. In the two forthcoming series in Australia, the India series will have such a pitch for the Test, and the England series will have the Test played first. It will be interesting to see whether that fixturing will produce a win and loss in both matches.
LikeLike