WOMEN’S ASHES: Come Back With Your Shield – Or On It!

Posted by

3

By Andy Frombolton

As Sun Tzu notes in ‘The Art of War’: “A military force has no constant formation, water has no constant shape. The ability to gain victory by changing and adapting according to the opponent is called genius.”

Hence for England to have any chance in the forthcoming Women’s Ashes, team selection needs to take account of the very different skills required across the 3 formats.

Playing against a formidable opposition can bring out the best in some players; whilst for others it exposes their limits. Compare these 2 tables. (Green colouring indicates improved stats compared to performances against all other teams; red means the opposite.)

With the exception of Healy in T20s and McGrath in ODIs, the best Australian players maintain or improve their performances when playing their biggest rivals, England. (Perry’s ‘underperformance’ in ODIs means her performances against England have merely been ‘very good’, not ‘exceptional’.)

    T20 ODI
    Bat Bowl Bat Bowl
    Av SR Av SR Av SR Av ER
Healy vs England 16 103     37 96    
vs Others 28 134     37 75    
Mooney vs England 47 137     56 88    
vs Others 40 122     52 75    
Perry vs England 35 106 24 21 43 80 27 4.5
vs Others 29 115 17 19 53 57 24 4.3
McGrath vs England – 186 11 10 20 63 23 4.5
vs Others 52 137 21 16 39 71 43 5.7
Schutt vs England     16 15     20 3.9
vs Others     16 16     25 4.3
                   
                 
    T20 ODI
    Bat Bowl Bat Bowl
    Av SR Av SR Av SR Av ER
Knight vs Australia 15 107     29 67    
vs Others 25 118     39 74    
Jones vs Australia 10 74     9 55    
vs Others 25 128     31 82    
Wyatt vs Australia 21 122     11 65    
vs Others 22 126     27 91    
Beaumont vs Australia 18 96     35 73    
vs Others 25 111     42 73    
Winfield-Hill vs Australia 15 98     12 52    
vs Others 22 110     25 61    
Sciver-Brunt vs Australia 24 106 24 19 52 87 41 5.7
vs Others 27 118 21 21 43 128 28 4.1
Cross vs Australia     53 39     57 5.2
vs Others     21 21     20 4.2
Ecclestone vs Australia     21 18     49 4.6
vs Others     14 15     18 3.4
Glenn vs Australia     17 13     – –
vs Others     17 17     23 4.1

Already however the England contracted players are being incrementally withdrawn from the CEC in order to prepare for the Women’s Ashes – notwithstanding that many have looked considerably undercooked in their outings and could benefit from more competitive match practice – indicating that England plans to select their various squads from this cohort over the coming contest.

Quite simply however, England cannot afford to field teams containing players whose limitations have been brutally exposed by this all-vanquishing opposition. To do so, and expect better results than last time, would be madness.

This isn’t to advocate a wholesale replacement of the centrally-contracted cohort, but – particularly in the T20 format – many lack the 360-degree batting skills, fielding agility or bowling variations which the modern game requires.

Instead, what could be achieved by a team comprising the best of the central cohort and an influx of players unburdened by past failures and inspired by an unexpected call up? (And if this team loses? There’s no more points of offer for the magnitude of a win or loss!)

This would necessitate some difficult conversations and some potentially-embarrassing outcomes if centrally-contracted players aren’t picked, but Jon Lewis has already demonstrated that he isn’t going to be bound by the decisions or selection choices of his predecessors. Nor should he feel uncomfortable if he has to go outside of the England contracted players to assemble what he deems to be his best team. This is about trying to win the Women’s Ashes, not individual egos.

Based on performances so far this year, Bess Heath, Bryony Smith, Katie Levick, Danni Gibson and Holly Armitage need to be told that if they continue to perform over the next few weeks then an England call-up awaits.

3 thoughts on “WOMEN’S ASHES: Come Back With Your Shield – Or On It!”

  1. Interesting article Andy. Can’t say I disagree with your general point.

    “This isn’t to advocate a wholesale replacement of the centrally-contracted cohort, but – particularly in the T20 format – many lack the 360-degree batting skills, fielding agility or bowling variations which the modern game requires.”
    Ouch…Cutting. Any specific examples you had in mind?

    I think the players you’ve mentioned near the end of the article all deserve a chance, and like you say could come in fresh and unscarred by the many historical heavy losses most of the current squad have endured. Plus Australia wouldn’t have developed plans against them so much.

    That’s not to say England will get anywhere near beating an Australia side, even if these players were selected. Even sans-Lanning, and with some players perhaps just past the peak of their powers now, this Australia side are incredibly tough to beat and when anyone gets close they seem to find that something extra to get themselves home.

    The England “centrally-contracted cohort” as you call them have so far this summer been a bit too fragile with the bat from what I’ve seen (with a few exceptions), and the bowlers have looked wayward at times. This is the first season I can remember that the regular England players aren’t obviously looking like the best or most in-form players in the country. For that reason alone, a squad shake-up must be on the cards.

    For me this Ashes series is more about the manner in which England play rather than the results. England can still gain some credit by staying in games as long as possible and trying to avoid those heavy drubbings that disgruntle us so. As far as the results go, as you say it would be mad to expect anything different than the usual – especially if England don’t innovate with their personnel.

    Like

  2. If England want to have any chance of winning the Ashes then they have to win the Test. To do that they must bowl Australia out twice. Trent Bridge is not a spinners’ wicket & England don’t possess a spinner who rips the ball, so seam & swing is the answer. England need their best three swing & seam bowlers playing with the Dukes ball.

    Like

  3. “Trent Bridge is not a spinners’ wicket & England don’t possess a spinner who rips the ball, so seam & swing is the answer.”

    Not totally convinced, I think spin will play a big role as it invariably does in women’s cricket. Pure turn not the only factor, flight and drift also important in deception, and England will need 2 spinners (maybe with 1 part-time) to give the pacers some rest. It’s a big ask to bowl Australia out twice though, we may be more likely to see an attacking declaration gone awry as we almost did last time…

    In recent history most women’s Tests have been draws, sides don’t necessarily have the multi-day experience in the bank to push for the win and the other side can go all defensive if they get close to losing. BUT as this one will be 5 days, a result is inherently more likely.

    Like

Comments are closed.