The CRICKETher Weekly – Episode 98

On the CRICKETher Weekly:

  • Reflections on an absolutely bonkers #Ashes Test
  • Should women’s Tests be 5 days?
  • What changes will the teams make going into the ODIs?
  • What do we make of the truncated schedule for The Hundred?

6 thoughts on “The CRICKETher Weekly – Episode 98

  1. Credit to Lanning for the declaration when Australia could have batted the match (and probably women’s Test cricket) into the dirt. Interesting question is whether, given the same circumstances away from home, she have made the same decision ?

    Credit to England for having a go at the target. A few decades ago such a target wouldn’t have been a target but ODI batting has changed that and got England to the point (45 from 10 with 7 wkts in hand) where it should have been a breeze – a point where sensible ODI batting would have sufficed but, instead, last over T20 batting mentality kicked in and England lost the plot.

    Australia will be relieved, England will be gutted and Knight will be distraught. A chance to pull off one of the great Test victories, certainly their greatest. As Raf has noted, it will take a mammoth effort to drag themselves into the correct mindset for the ODIs – but they have to remember they have just drawn a Test not lost The Ashes. The Ashes are still there to be won.


  2. For the second England Test running, we have the media using terms such as ‘absorbing’ and ‘enthralling’ to describe women’s Test cricket, which is fantastic. Did Lanning actually wait until she thought the target was out of sight before declaring, and got a shock as we then got so close – so much for crediting her with setting up the game? After all, 257 would have been a world record chase, never mind getting them in 48 overs. If we now want more Test cricket, surely one five-day match would be better than two four-day matches? Do we know what the actual reason is for not allowing five-day Tests under ICC regulations – have the broadcasters actually said they wouldn’t cover five-day matches? I note it’s currently possible for the teams to agree to play a men’s Test over either four or five days, so why can’t women’s cricket be the same? After all, much as we might have enjoyed watching this match, and the Test in the summer, they both ended with the traditional women’s Test result, i.e. a draw. There’s no point playing two Tests if both end as draws! I noted Brunt’s comments before the match about being bored with Test cricket, and I don’t know if her opinions are indicative of the entire squad’s views. Have the players ceased to regard it as the ‘ultimate Test’ of their skills, and have instead got fed up with the endless draws? Also, there’s no reason why we can’t now have multi-day domestic cricket, even if we start with two-day matches where a result is possible on first innings.


  3. Was a brilliant test, even before the amazing finish. Each day saw just a really good days play, if it’s generated a lot more interest, that’s brilliant.
    It’s always been a matter of interest the often very wide gulf between a English and Australian attitudes to cricket. Remember Richie Benaud saying he was shocked on his first tour to England at how much more less competitive the ethos was, how the crowds had a festival atmosphere, whereas in Australia even club games are a battle fought incredibly bitterly.
    What I’m saying is really competitive declarations have never been an Australian thing & have often been locked down on as making a game less competitive, more of an exhibition. So I think Lanning timed it perfectly, game them enough of a chance? But made it tough enough that it didn’t seem like she was lessening the challenge
    For me another interesting point from the test was that I think both sides erred in selection, England in terms of personnel, Australia in structure. It shows how hard it is to get it right when there’s no domestic long-form structure.
    England should’ve chosen Bell, with her height & angle, ahead of Cross, and I can’t understand why Lauren Winfield keeps getting a gig.
    Australia was all over the shop: too many bits & pieces players for test cricket, not enough specialist bowlers.
    *I think they can only pick one of Jonassen & Gardner in a test side, allowing for another specialist bowler (Megan Schutt?? Still don’t get that selection at all)
    *Darcie Briown will be a champ, but is too young to lead an attack right now. She was wasteful in the first dig. The loss of Vlaeminck was a serious one for the structure.
    *Alyssa Healy needs to drop down the order to give them a better structure of 5/6 batters above her (including Perry, Jonassen/Gardner, then McGrath and 3/4 specialist bowlers below. Healy has always struck me as a typical hand/eye power hitter, the type that goes off the boil quickly once they hit a certain age. Perhaps that’s already happened? Either way, opening after a keeping a full test day is a huge ask


  4. A lot’s been made of the push to make women’s Tests 5 days, and while I’m certainly not opposed to this, I actually would rather in preference see a greater number of 4 day Tests played first.

    A few reasons for this: The fifth day is often not needed or simply prolongs/ draws out a game that might have otherwise finished more excitingly in 4 days; if we did have a fifth day, it would lend weight to the argument against a greater number of Test matches being played; both men’s and women’s Tests are currently a day longer than the longest domestic match they would ever play (I know there aren’t many if any 3 day women’s games played now); the Women’s game is faster with more overs bowled in a day – so 4 days are nearly the equivalent of 5 anyway; and also there is already a campaign/movement to reduce men’s Tests to 4 days to ease fixture congestion – so it would be weird for women’s Tests to go the other way. Just some random thoughts.


Comments are closed.