The CRICKETher Weekly – Episode 187

This week:

  • Broken things – Alyssa Healy’s hand and Grace Harris’s bat
  • Should WBBL be reduced to 10 games?
  • Cath Dalton & Alex Hartley break down coaching barriers in men’s cricket
  • Men’s & women’s PCA reps clash about the future of The Hundred

Cricket at the Olympics – The Game Changer?

So after much wrangling, cricket is set to be included at the 2028 Olympic Games in Los Angeles. This has been widely celebrated among the cricket fan community but there remain a number of reasons to be sceptical.

In a piece written a few months ago for Inside The Games, ICC chair Greg Barclay argued that this was a “win-win-win”.

“For cricket, the benefits of inclusion into LA28 are clear. Being part of the greatest event in the world will enable us to showcase cricket to new audiences, to attract new players and fans of all ages, and open new commercial opportunities, all while giving our star players the ultimate platform to shine.”

“The United States in particular is a key pillar of our Global Growth Strategy, making this iteration of the Olympics – in LA – especially exciting for us.”

Perhaps the most bizarre part of this quote is the literal head of the International Cricket Council admitting that their own World Cup is not the “ultimate platform” for the sport. (Can you imagine Gianni Infantino saying that the FIFA World Cup wasn’t the “ultimate platform” for football?)

It is also a little optimistic to imagine that cricket’s inclusion in a multi-sports event where it will, at the very best, play third-fiddle behind Track & Field and Gymnastics (the blue-riband Olympic events) will do very much for its profile. If you think that just being an Olympic sport increases your profile, then I challenge you to tell me everything you know about handball, which has been an Olympic event for nearly 50 years, with no noticeable increase in profile outside its heartlands.

Barclay also argues that because the US is seen by the ICC as a key growth market, that LA is a good place for cricket to start (or technically, re-start, as it was played in 1900) its Olympic journey. But is it? There are some good reasons to think it might actually not be.

First, LA is 12½ hours time difference to Mumbai – it is going to be impossible to schedule the games in a way that will please Indian broadcasters, meaning any revenue projections from TV income are likely well wide of the mark.

Second, the games take place in August, in the heart of the English season, meaning they will rain all over The Hundred (or whatever has replaced it by 2028). This is a massive problem for the ECB, who will need to make some very hard choices.

Third, specialist press (of whom there are next-to-none locally) won’t be able to cover the games in-person. LA is one of the most expensive cities in the world, even when there isn’t an Olympics going on – there is no way the specialist media will be able to afford to be there; and specialist broadcasters such as TMS may face similar issues. (Will the BBC be able to afford to send the TMS team to cover the matches? And if so, what will they cut to find the six-figure sum it would cost?)

Finally, an argument Barclay doesn’t make, but which we’ve seen from fans, is that this will help cricket in the “Associate” countries by giving them access to Olympic funding. But… will it? So-called “Olympic funding” actually comes from governments, who are under no obligation to fund one sport over another, and are much more likely to divert money to sports their country actually has a chance to at least qualify in.

There is zero chance of any associate country qualifying for a 6-team Olympic event, even if we pretend that the qualification will really be genuinely meritocratic. Which… it won’t be! (Does anyone really believe that if (somehow) India slipped into 7th place behind the Netherlands in the T20 rankings that the ICC (who after all control the rankings through a conveniently unpublished algorithm) wouldn’t just… change the algorithm? Of course they would!) So why would the Netherlands Olympic funding committee prioritise cricket over all the other sports that are clutching at their purse-strings?

None of this means that cricket at LA ’28 won’t potentially be a fun ride for anyone lucky enough to be involved. But if the ICC is really relying on this to be the “game changer”… they are going to be sorely disappointed.

The CRICKETher Weekly – Episode 185

This week:

  • Hayley Matthews beats Australia – is it the end of an era?
  • Are T20s REALLY less predictable than ODIs?
  • We bemoan the lack of consistent communication about England & regional contracts
  • Who might apply to be the next Thunder coach?

ANALYSIS: Are T20 Internationals Really A Leveller?

It is a recurrent trope in cricket commentary that T20 is a “levelling format”. In T20s, we say, upsets are more common because anyone can beat anyone on the day; whereas ODIs are a more predictable format where the better team tends to pull through. But is this true?

In order to answer this question, let’s look at all ODIs and international T20s played since the pandemic (2020-23) between the top 10 sides, and use the current ICC rankings*. We’ll define an “upset” as a team beating a side ranked 3 or more places above them.

In men’s T20 internationals 16% of the 250-odd matches played during our period resulted in an upset. That sounds quite “levelly”; but how does that compare to men’s ODIs? The men play a lot less ODI cricket, but there were still 170 games between the top 10 ranked sides during the past 4 years, of which 21% produced an upset.

So much for the levelling effect – in the men’s game, an ODI is 5% more likely to produce an upset than a T20.

What about the women? In T20 cricket, based on 180-or-so matches between the ‘Championship’ sides since 2020, just 8% resulted in an upset. That compares to 16% in men’s T20s, which is interesting of itself – international women’s T20 cricket is a lot more predictable than the men’s game.

But how does this compare to women’s ODIs? In the 130 ODIs played in the past 4 years, the number ending in an upset is… 8% – exactly the same as for T20s! So a Women’s T20 international is no more likely to produce an upset than an ODI. The levelling effect which we talk so much about, once again just isn’t there in the data.

This leads us to two conclusions:

  1. The “levelling effect” of T20 is a myth, in both men’s and women’s international cricket, and we all need to get over our confirmation bias and stop repeating it!
  2. Women’s cricket is very predictable, compared to the men’s game, and perhaps we should do something about that?

——

* This isn’t ideal – because the rankings are based on the results, there is something of the cart pushing the horse, but it keeps things simple, and it actually doesn’t matter much anyway because we are looking at the results comparatively.

Cheshire Women’s Cricket League: End of Season Review – Title Returns to Didsbury

By Martin Saxon

After another closely fought season, Didsbury emerged as champions of the Cheshire Women’s Cricket League for the first time since 2019. The South Manchester club achieved the feat despite having only one of the 15 highest run scorers in division one, which was their captain Roshini Prince-Navaratnam, who was also the league’s leading all-rounder this year. Instead, much of their success was due in no small part to their bowling attack – besides Prince-Navaratnam, Hannah Jones, Hannah Marshall and Zara Matthews all had fine seasons.

2022 champions Leigh had to make do with second place, despite more runs from Rachael Walsh and the bowling efforts of Kasey Bentham and Sophie Heaton. They beat Didsbury by bowling them out cheaply in the first encounter between the teams, but Didsbury reversed this in a thrilling last-ball finish in the second match. Had that match gone the other way, or finished as a tie, Leigh would now be celebrating retaining the title.

Nantwich and Stockport Georgians finished third and fourth respectively in the first division, and for both clubs, this represented their highest ever finishes. Georgians had the highest run scorer in their Australian wicketkeeper Heidi Cheadle.

Upton finished in eighth and last place in the top-flight, finding the going difficult after their promotion from division two. They recorded just one league win and are set to return to the second division next year, despite having the league’s leading wicket taker, Lily Scudder.

After missing out on promotion last year by a single point, Lindow made no mistake this year by winning division two with a 100 per cent record. As well as celebrating their arrival in the top-flight, Lindow broke new ground for the league this year by becoming the first Cheshire League club to reach the semi-finals of the Women’s National T20 Knockout.

The only other divisional winners to end with a perfect record were Buxton in Division 3 East, Runcorn in Division 5 Mid Cheshire and Aston in Division 5 South.

One of the league’s most noticeable features is just how unpredictable and competitive it remains. Only one club has retained the first division title since 2012, while no club has accomplished the treble since 2013. That said, Didsbury came extremely close this year, winning the T20 Divisional Competition to add to their League Championship success, but losing by one run to Nantwich in the Senior Knockout final.

TROPHY WINNERS


WINNERSRUNNERS-UP
Division 1 DidsburyLeigh
Division 2 LindowHawarden Park
Division 3 West Porthill Park Northern StarsNantwich 2nd XI
Division 3 East BuxtonDidsbury 2nd XI
Division 4 WestAlvanleyOakmere 2nd XI
Division 4 EastLangleyNorth East Cheshire
Division 5 West IrbyOld Parkonians
Division 5 East Cheadle Hulme LadybridgeBredbury St Mark’s
Division 5 Mid CheshireRuncornGrappenhall
Division 5 SouthAstonElworth
T20 Divisional Competition Didsbury SwordettesChester Boughton Hall Deemons
Senior Knockout Cup Nantwich VipersDidsbury Swordettes
Development Knockout Cup Chester Boughton Hall 2nd XINantwich 2nd XI
Softball Knockout CupNestonGrappenhall

The CRICKETher Weekly – Episode 184

This week:

  • ECB’s response to ICEC – talking the right talk but will they walk the walk?
  • Will we get an England Test at Lord’s?
  • Domestic salaries: why we need to level up
  • South Africa v New Zealand & why NZC’s lack of a pathway is coming home to roost