By Andy Frombolton

Let’s start by looking at some data from The Hundred and the Charlotte Edwards Cup.

First, The Hundred …

	PLACE	PLAYERS USED	PLAYERS PLAYING ALL GAMES	ALL ROUNDERS	LOW IMPACT PLAYERS
Spirit	1	13	9	3	3
Fire	2	12	9	3	4
Invincibles	3	12	10	1	3
Superchargers	4	12	10	1	5
Rockets	5	12	10	3	5
Originals	6	13	8	2	7
Phoenix	7	13	7	2	4
Brave	8	13	9	0	3

All-rounders: 100+ runs plus 5+ wickets or wicket-keepers scoring 100+ runs. A ‘low-impact’ player took <5 wickets (i.e. wasn’t primarily a bowler) and scored <50 runs (i.e. did not contribute significantly with the bat.

Sticking with the same team is obviously fine if you’re winning, but 3 teams (Originals, Superchargers and Phoenix) won only 3 games and SB won just 1. It’s thus extremely telling about the deemed quality of the possible replacements that the coaches stuck with so many under-performing players in these circumstances.

The Hundred is promoted as the premier short-form competition and one might expect international players to dominate the batting and bowling tables. As this article will show, this was certainly true of the women’s competition, but far less so in the men’s Hundred (16 of the top 20 run scorers were English, 6 of whom were ‘uncapped’ [at international level] and 11 of the top 20 wicket-takers were English, 2 of whom were uncapped).

The Aussies are rightly renowned for their endless stable of all-rounders; producing 7 of the 15 all-rounders – compared to just 3 English players (Gibson, Sciver-Brunt and A. Jones).

Similarly, only 6 of the top 20 run scorers were English and only 1 (Schofield) is uncapped. (Next on the list were Scrivens #21 and Griffiths #33). As noted in my previous article, despite all the investment the English system is totally failing to develop significant numbers of new batters.

Similarly, of the 12 bowlers taking 10+ wickets only 5 were English and just 3 (Davis, Arlott and Levick) were uncapped. Moving down the wicket-taking table, 19 bowlers took between 5-9 wickets with slightly better representation at this level from domestic uncapaped players (Gray, Pavely, McDonald-Gay and Corteen-Coleman).

Only 4 keepers scored more than 100 runs (3 non-English players: Redmayne; Mooney; and Bryce; plus Jones). (More on keepers who can’t bat in the next section.)

Finally, 34 out of 100 players were ‘low impact’. A good argument can be made that for some younger players mere participation is a valuable learning experience and it’s true that when teams are packed with International players and an innings lasts just 100 balls many players will have limited opportunities to make an impression. Nevertheless, this still seems a very high proportion.

In summary, the tournament was dominated by international players (with non-English international players very much in the ascendancy) and very few uncapped players made a credible case for higher honours. Most worryingly, squad depth – as illustrated by squad deployment – is extremely thin.

Turning to the CEC …

	PLACE	PLAYERS	PLAYERS PLAYING 9+ GAMES	ALL ROUNDERS	LOW IMPACT
Blaze	1	14	9	2	2
Stars	2	16	7	1	3
Vipers	3	17	7	3	3
Sparks	4	15	10	1	2
Thunder	5	19	5	1	8
Diamonds	6	15	9	3	2
Storm	7	16	5	1	4
Sunrisers	8	14	8	1	5

All-rounders: 100+ runs and 7+ wickets or keepers with 100+ runs. The criteria for low impact players is far less onerous than for The Hundred: 0-1 wickets and <60 runs.

With only a sprinkling of overseas players and limited appearances by England players, the CEC provides a platform for domestic players to shine.

Most of the small number of international players participating did well; the Aussies providing 4 of the 11 all-rounders. A further 3 of the all-rounders were keepers, starkly highlighting the domestic system’s failure to produce batting/bowling all-rounders.

Another phenomenon is the continuing existence of keepers who can’t bat. Even allowing for the higher prevalence of slow bowling in the women’s game (which arguably means superior keeping skills can compensate for weaker batting) it seems an untenable anachronism that there were 4 keepers who averaged less than 8.5 with the bat. (NB Any good upcoming young batters with ‘good hands’ would be well advised to consider becoming a batter-keeper to maximise their prospects.)

But what’s been apparent for several years is the uneven spread of talent across the 8 teams. Take the bottom 4 teams …

Thunder’s team composition was very volatile which partly explains the high number of low impact players (more players playing a small number of games). But they had just 1(!) bowler with more than 7 wickets (F. Morris with 9). And whilst they do have several players capable of chipping in with wickets – unfortunately none displayed much batting prowess. With only 3 players scoring more than 100 runs (plus one other scoring 75 runs), Thunder’s tail effectively starts at 5. By any metric this is a weak team – but, notwithstanding this lack of batting and bowling strength, there were 3 teams beneath them!

Northern Diamonds tends to do better in the longer game – although they were CEC runners up in 2021. The younger generation has been brought up on T20, but only 2 domestic batters with 60+ runs (Heath and Armitage) had a SR of 100+. Heath was denied the gloves on occasions and unless she improves rapidly, I predict she risks being usurped as England keeper-in-waiting by Bryce switching her allegiance post the world cup. The bowling attack is skilled, but shallow, and Slater stands out as the best emerging talent.

Western Storm have long struggled to develop or attract talent to the south-west (which may not bode well for Somerset’s Tier 1 recruitment prospects). Knight scored most runs (155) in just 3 games which tells its own story (all other teams had at least 2 batters with more runs than this – and Sparks had 5) although one bright spot was Corney. However, of batters scoring 60+ runs, only Knight and Wellington had a SR of 100+. Only 3 bowlers took 7+ wickets; Smale being the domestic success. And Storm’s decision to play Wong and Anderson (neither of whom could get a game for their employer, Sparks) over their local talent reflects a lack of viable options.

And finally, Sunrisers. Sunrisers utilised the smallest number of players and surprisingly had 5 batters with 100+ runs; although their top 2 run scorers (Gardner and Scrivens) had SRs of 108 making it hard to post imposing targets. The resurgent Villiers, Gray and Munro were the only bowlers to take more than 7 wickets, although only Munro’s SR suggested a degree of penetration.

But here’s the most worrying statistic: 30 of the 126 players who made an appearance met the (unchallenging) criteria for low impact players. Whilst injuries and limited appearances partly explain this number 18 of this 30 are currently-contracted players.

Quite simply, the current talent pool isn’t deep enough to meet the current requirement for professional players, yet Project Darwin will see each of the 8 Tier 1 teams recruit 15 players (in addition to which Yorkshire is apparently assembling a team in preparation for becoming Tier 1 in 2026).

Put another way, that’s over 50 more contracted professionals.

For women’s cricket to grow standards in Tier 1 need to be uniformly high – both to prove the sceptics wrong but, more importantly, to ensure that the first impressions of those coming to the game will be positive (since a few disappointing experiences would be hard to subsequently change). A rational ECB realising this and looking at the data should have decided to start with 6 Tier 1 counties and specified the conditions (spectator/viewer numbers, broadcast/sponsorship revenues, etc.) which would need to be met before Tier 1 was expanded without pre-determining what the end state (timescales and number of Tier 1 teams) must be.

A successor article will illustrate why prioritising optics and selective narratives and mandating how many and which clubs will ascend to Tier 1 (and by when) is both sub-optimal and risks doing significant harm to the women’s game.