RHF TROPHY: Vipers v Diamonds – If It’s Going To Rain, Bring A Mac

Posted by

0

Ella “Mac” McCaughan has been a constant fixture for Southern Vipers in the short history of the RHF Trophy; and she has been a consistent but not spectacular performer through the past four seasons, averaging 23 across 36 games for the team she made her 50-over debut for as a 17-year-old, back in 2020.

The one caveat about her career so far was that she had never made a really BIG score in senior cricket before today, and… if we’re being brutally honest… she still hasn’t; but her 83 off 97 balls, opening the batting for the Vipers against a perennially strong Diamonds side, was the difference between the two teams on a day that ended in a rain-adjusted win for the Vipers at the newly-renamed “Utilita Bowl” in Southampton.

Lizzie Scott was the victim of an early assault by McCaughan, who struck five 4s off Scott’s first two overs. On an outfield which was lightning-fast, despite overnight rain, Vipers hit 49 off the first 6 overs of the powerplay, with McCaughan 31 off 24 balls, eclipsing Maia Bouchier at the other end, who had made a mere 14 off 12 at that stage.

Runs were a little harder to come by after that, with the two balls in use at either end not quite pinging off the bat the way they had when they were new. Nonetheless, Vipers reached 72 before Bouchier was dismissed – caught by Lauren Winfield-Hill having skied an attempted pull.

A second big partnership, this one for 93, ensued between McCaughan and Aussie import Charli Knott, who has made herself very-much at home in English domestic cricket. Today’s 40 off 40 balls was actually her lowest score of the season so far, and thanks to a not-out against Sparks in the week, she currently averages 69. Given that Knott is (realistically) nowhere near the Australian national side, that might be indicative of a continuing gap in standards between English and Australian domestic cricket; or it might be a sign of greater things to come. Time will tell, but it is worth noting in passing that one of the day’s other better performances was another Australian who has never added to the handful of caps she won in 2019 – Erin Burns.

McCaughan and Knott were ultimately dismissed in successive overs by Turners – not balls that span, but deliveries from medium-pacers (and not sisters, despite both ending up playing cricket for the same team) Sophia and Phoebe Turner. But by that time Vipers had a platform of 168 with 7 wickets in hand to push on towards something really big. They didn’t quite achieve that, finishing on 287 after losing wickets towards the end; but it was still a big total, well in excess of the 250 which is an average 1st innings score in the RHF.

With spots of rain already in the air, and a deluge forecast from about 4pm, Diamonds walked out to bat facing not only the Vipers’ bowling lineup, but also Professors Duckworth, Lewis and Stern, with “stern” being the operative word for the test they were about to undergo. As Winston Churchill might have said of DLS, it remains the worst form of deciding a rain-affected cricket match, apart from all the other ways which have from time to time been tried. My view is that it is fair, but it certainly feels harsh when you see the par score go from 19 to 40 in one ball due to the loss of an early wicket.

Having lost 3 wickets early, and with the weather palpably closing-in, Diamonds found themselves frantically chasing DLS for the rest of their innings. They did actually get the gap down to single-figures at one point, as Winfield-Hill and Burns put on 82 for the 4th wicket, but their dismissals suddenly added another 40-odd runs to the target, and there was clearly going to be no way back for the Diamonds, with the umpires calling time after 30 overs as the rain took hold.

The result was a big one for Vipers, against the only other side to have won the RHF Trophy. It lifts them to second in the table, just ahead of Sunrisers on Net Run Rate, but still behind Stars, who continued their unbeaten start to the season with a DLS win of their own versus Sparks. With two semi-finals, rather than a single “eliminator” this season, there’s a bit more to play for than there has been mid-table than in previous years, and the Diamonds I saw today should certainly make that top four, but Vipers have shown once again why they remain the team to beat.

OPINION: Project Darwin – Making it up as they go!

Posted by

0

By Andy Frombolton

In 2019 the ECB launched its action plan for Transforming Women and Girls cricket “underpinned by [2 years of] robust research and consultation”. Central to professionalising elite women’s domestic cricket was a new [8 team] regional structure built on “collaborative cross-County working”. “Each region,” it was stated, “will have its own identity, allowing cricket fans in the region the opportunity to support their local women’s team.”

The plan reassuringly added: “It won’t signal the end of an individual County’s relevance” – although how the ECB had the confidence to make this statement is unclear since it subsequently starved county cricket of funds and deemed it so irrelevant in the exciting world of regional cricket and The Hundred that it wouldn’t even organise proper national T20 and 50 over competitions. Fortunately for the ECB the dedication and determination of a small cadre of dedicated individuals at those counties not hosting a region ensured that women’s county cricket didn’t wither away.

The 2019 Action Plan did caveat: “[This] it is not the destination. …[W]e will continue to evaluate the structure” … and … “potentially the number of regional teams”.

And so here we are, just 4 years later, with the ‘WOMEN’S PROFESSIONAL GAME STRUCTURE 2.0’ – and, guess what, those unloved Counties are back. Why? Because apparently a regional structure doesn’t provide “strong and clear ownership or accountability” nor “provide stability and a sense of belonging for the women’s teams and female players” (which is somewhat at odds with the numerous statements from many players in the past few days saying how upset they are about the break up of the current regional structure).

John Maynard Keynes said: “When the facts change, I change my mind. What do you do, sir?” But what has changed? The ITT argues there are “some significant challenges inherent to the underpinning delivery structure” which are “now prohibitive to future growth”. Or, put another way, the ECB is saying that 2 years of [* refers to the ECB’s list*] desk research, consultation, primary research and engagement with primary stakeholders and subject matter experts culminated in a structure which within 4 years is apparently incapable of accommodating the very growth or fan loyalty that it sought to deliver?

Exactly when did this realisation come to the ECB isn’t clear but the ITT states that it is the result of 6 months of consultation, so let’s assume early 2023. Working back from a self-imposed deadline that all the changes would be in place for the 2025 season enforced an accelerated tender and selection process which started (formally) with a tender document at the end of January and the selection of winning bids less than 3 months later. That’s less than ten weeks for parties to decide whether to bid, develop proposals and make a pitch to the ECB.

As it us, the fans and supporters, who are ultimately paying for it, we should expect the rationale to be explained and for the selection process to be professionally-managed and transparent.

Recap. The Project Darwin Invitation-to-Tender (ITT)

It’s obviously imperative that what comes next is well-thought-out, robust and flexible enough to accommodate whatever happens not just in the next 4 years, but across the next decade. What was the envisaged structure?

  1. The ITT defined the criteria and timeline which would be used to select those counties to be granted Tier 1 status for the period 2025-2028.
  2. The ITT was also specific about the number of Tier 1 counties – eight – and stated that Tiers 1, 2 and 3 would be closed, i.e. no promotion or relegation, for at least the first 4 years. Beyond this period the ITT referenced the possibility of promotion and relegation, i.e. the elevation and demotion of (the same number of) teams between divisions, which is fundamentally distinct from ‘expansion’ (where the number of teams in a league or division grows).
  3. The ITT was very clear that achieving a geographically-even distribution of the 8 proposed Tier 1 counties would be paramount in any decision.

    This would mean that if, for instance, Kent submitted the best proposal of all the bidders, there could be no prospect that any of the adjacent counties (Sussex, Middlesex or Essex) would also be awarded Tier 1 status even if theirs was objectively the 2nd best bid.
  1. When the ITT was issued, two key documents (the County Partnership Agreement 2025-2028) and the Venue Agreement weren’t even finalised. I stated at the time this pointed to a rushed and ill-conceived bid process – although it is only now becoming clear just how embryonic the ECB’s thinking was.

What’s just been announced?

Many people worried that the bid process might be a charade and that the end result would simply see the current regional hosts re-appointed.

Then came the first media leak – Durham had beaten Yorkshire (Northern Diamonds), Essex had beaten Middlesex (Sunrisers) and Somerset had beaten Gloucester (Western Storm).

It looked like the ECB had made some radical selections and that regional incumbency had not been any guarantee of success.

… But then came the official announcement and swiftly it became apparent that all was not quite as it seemed.

For the ECB had deviated significantly from the ITT against which the counties bid.

  1. Yes, there would initially be 8 Tier 1 counties.
  2. But two years later, 2 more anointed counties (Yorkshire and Glamorgan) would be added …

    … regardless of their performances and results in 2024 and 2025.

And, in the interim these 2 counties would receive new additional funding to help them prepare.

  1. And the ECB’s intention is to add 2 more teams (selection criteria TBC) in 2029.

Together these changes represent significant and fundamental changes to the selection process and to the structure of the game as presented in the ITT.

The ECB’s explanation

The ECB’s justified these changes as follows: “The decision to select two additional Counties – Glamorgan and Yorkshire – as the ninth and tenth Tier 1 Clubs by 2027, and our stated aim to move to 12 teams in Tier 1 by 2029, is testament to the strength of the bids and the pace at which we all want to move to effect change.”

Professional and transparent?

In any commercial tender situation, the most basic expectation of any bidder is that key terms or conditions are fixed since these form the basis upon which a party will decide whether or not to bid and to make forecasts about likely investments and returns.

However, the ECB made numerous changes which constitute material revisions to the terms and conditions.

  • Thought you were getting a 4 year (minimum) regional ‘monopoly’? Sorry! The ECB has decided to add 2 additional Tier 1 counties from 2027. Apologies if that totally undermines your business case or the rationale for bidding. (The Essex Chairman has admitted that expansion “wasn’t really talked about” until the winning bids were announced.)
  • And since we didn’t mention the first expansion, bidders will have been similarly surprised by the goal of adding 2 more counties in 2029 (the timing and criteria for elevation both TBC). Sorry again!
  • Does this mean you’ve abandoned the idea of promotion and relegation? Did we really propose that? We’ll get back to you.
  • Just checking – winning bidders will receive £1.3m in the first year? And successful counties will be expected to contribute at least (an estimated) £400k a year towards the cost of hosting a Tier 1 team. No, we’ve decided to raise the funding to £1.5m. Surely a trifling £200k less contribution per annum wouldn’t have made that much difference to any county with tight finances?
  • Apologies, that we didn’t mention the alternative option of being one of two further teams to be elevated in 2027 nor that in those intervening 2 years those 2 counties will be allocated extra money to prepare themselves for their promotion. So, whilst the original 8 will have spent at least £400k of their money during the first two years the next 2 counties will have been recipients of extra ECB funding. We can’t envisage how this might have changed any county’s bidding strategy – notwithstanding that this difference equates to some club’s entire annual profit last year.
  • Remember how the ITT prioritised the regionally-distribution of Tier 1 counties over all other factors? Well, maybe we should have explained that this only applied to the first 2 years? After that time, we can add new Tier 1 teams wherever in the country we want – even if that totally undermines your planned fan base, your access to talent and the commercial value attributable to having a regional monopoly.

[Had the selection panel been tasked to identify 9 dispersed Tier 1 counties in England (plus Glamorgan), not 8 as now, from Day 1 this would unquestionably have generated different regional permutations and would not have seen 2 adjacent counties secure Tier 1 status.]

[Given the precedent that a new entrant can be a neighbour of an existing Tier 1 county, presumably the ECB will have no issue if e.g. Gloucester is one of the teams most warranting promotion in 2029 despite the resultant regional concentration of Glamorgan, Gloucester and Somerset? Ditto Worcester creating a Glamorgan, Worcester and Warwickshire ‘block’. What if both Gloucester and Worcester earned promotion? Similarly Kent and Sussex?]

I’m really unhappy with the way the ECB has run this tender!

Bidders might have hoped for an independent appeals process, but the ITT looks like it copied the terms for a competition on the side of a crisp packet to win a holiday.

Section 5.6: “The ECB Board is the only entity empowered to award Tier 1 women’s team status and its decision on such awards shall be final. The ECB Board shall have no obligation to give any reasons for its decisions or to enter into any correspondence or other communications in relation to its decisions.”

The link between having a Tier 1 team and securing a future Hundred franchise

Finally, it’s been widely suggested that by being awarded a Tier 1 team Somerset and Durham are guaranteed to get a Hundred franchise in the future.

I offer 3 observations:

  1. If so, why doesn’t the same argument apply with respect to Essex?
  2. Having a women’s franchise (Western Storm) didn’t secure Gloucestershire a Hundred franchise the first time around.

    Politics trumped Equality and the franchise went to Cardiff/Glamorgan.
  3. The ECB is currently looking for private investment in The Hundred teams. Regardless of what anyone says, if / when the Hundred competition is expanded the ‘Number 1’ criteria for awarding additional franchises will be their attractiveness to investors.

    Ultimately investors won’t care about the geographic-distribution of women’s franchises or a specific county’s commitment to equality, they will purely be interested in the ability to create and monetise a brand. If that means a third London (men’s and women’s) franchise is viewed as more valuable than one based in Durham, that’s what will happen. Similarly, if a Bristol-based franchise is deemed more desirable than a Taunton-based one, that too is what will happen.

    Money will trump Equality.

MATCH REPORT: Stars v Vipers – A Story Of Two Bowlers Turned Batters

Posted by

0

South East Stars got their 2024 Rachael Heyhoe Flint Trophy campaign off to a winning start with a 4-wicket win against reigning champions Southern Vipers.

But, on a freezing cold day at Beckenham, Vipers made them fight for the win tooth-and-nail, taking the match right down to the 50th over before Ryana MacDonald-Gay finally hit the winning run.

Elsewhere, Storm were bowled out for 114, Blaze for 135 and Thunder for 165 in three one-sided contests. By contrast, this had all the feel of the two strongest sides in the competition laying out their cards early.

Jon Lewis doesn’t seem to frequent regional cricket, but if he did, he would certainly have watched this match with interest. The story of the day was two England bowlers-turned-batters – Freya Kemp and Tash Farrant.

Kemp, who sadly reignited her old back injury over the winter and didn’t even warm up to bowl today, came to the crease in the 30th over with Vipers 150 for 3. Ella McCaughan (30), Charli Knott (41), Georgia Adams (33) and Georgia Elwiss (44) had got Vipers off to a solid but by no means rollicking start, but it was the more aggressive approach from Kemp (50 off 47 balls) which catapulted their total above 250.

It might have been enough were it not for Tash Farrant’s spectacular effort – 94 off 97 balls, the only bum note being the missed sweep which saw her adjudged LBW to Knott, six runs short of a century.

Given that Farrant has played only a handful of matches in the past couple of seasons due to a stress fracture in her spine, and the highest she has batted for Stars previously is no.4, chucking her in at the top of the order felt like a big call from Johann Myburgh. But it paid off handsomely: Farrant hitting an opening stand with Bryony Smith of 165 runs, which is Stars’ highest partnership for any wicket, ever.

When you suffer recurring back injuries as a fast bowler, life is tough. Could Farrant rewrite her future career as a very good domestic batter? Could Kemp rewrite hers as an international pinch hitter in T20 cricket?

It was after Farrant and Smith were dismissed, within 6 overs of each other, that things got a bit sticky for Stars. With 10 overs remaining, they still needed 60 runs at a run-a-ball – they had 7 wickets in hand, but it felt like the pressure was on.

But at the best possible moment Sophia Dunkley finally found some form, hitting an unbeaten 48 from 60 balls which was almost certainly the difference between her side starting the season with a win and starting with a loss.

Even with wickets falling at the other end in the death overs – ADR bowled swiping across the line, Phoebe Franklin run out looking for a second run that wasn’t there, and Aylish Cranstone skying one to mid-off – Dunkley kept her head, doing enough to keep Stars on track until they finally got over the line with 3 balls remaining.

CRICKETher understands that the England players were mostly given a choice about whether they turned out for their regions this weekend. After a long winter (she only got back from New Zealand 10 days ago!), no one would have blamed Dunkley for sitting this one out. But no – she showed up, and Stars (and the comp) were richer for it.

NEW ZEALAND V ENGLAND: 3rd ODI – England Wither on Devine

Posted by

1

An 8th ODI hundred for Sophie Devine, brought up with a 6 off the final ball of the game, gave New Zealand victory in the final T20 at Hamilton.

Although New Zealand had already lost the series 2-1, they will take consolation from two crucial ICC Championship points, which could well be the difference between direct entry to the World Cup in India and having to schlep off to a qualifying tournament. Having drawn the short-straw of missing out on playing thus-far-winless Ireland (every team “skips” one of the 9 possible opponents) New Zealand are currently evens, having won 8 games and lost 8, with 2 no-results. However, their last two series are against Australia and India, so there is a good chance that they will finish on 18. I’ve not run the Alligator analysis software on the Championship table – with so many games remaining, it would take several days to run – but my guess is that 18 points will… just… be enough.

New Zealand’s win was assisted by a vintage England collapse, after England had chosen to bat first, presumably with the intention of proving something. And to be fair, they did prove something – just not the thing that Heather Knight would have had in mind when she won the toss.

England didn’t get the ideal start, but these things happen, and Heather Knight and Nat Sciver-Brunt had rebuilt to 82-2 by the end of the 17th over. Just 6 overs later, they were 95-6, having lost 4 wickets for 13 runs. Sciver-Brunt was first to go, holing out trying to accelerate her strike rate; but, again, these things happen – you will lose wickets, but the key is to not let 1 turn into 2 turn into 4. And that is exactly what England did.

Dunkley failed to move her feet and ended up playing the ball she hoped she was going to get, not the one she actually got, which was a pretty regulation delivery on off stump; Wyatt tried to sweep a full toss without accounting for the fact that Amelia Kerr might not get much turn if she doesn’t pitch it, but she will still get plenty of dip; and finally Knight was run out by a couple of inches after momentarily ruminating on a quick single.

Knight wasn’t happy with Amy Jones, but England have drilled themselves to grab these sharp singles, to the point where it is an instinct thing, and the run was there if Knight hadn’t taken that fraction of a second to procrastinate.

It was left to Jones and Charlie Dean once again to salvage something from the sinking ship, and for the second time in the series they did that; although it came to a somewhat disappointing end when Jones was guided straight into a trap, with a big neon sign above it saying “Trap”, by Suzie Bates and Eden Carson both wearing t-shirts with “Welcome To Our Trap!” written on them.

Dean did sterling work once again at No. 8, holding up her end while Amy Jones went at a run-a-ball at the other, to take England to within walking distance of respectability. It is taking nothing away from Dean in this series however, to point out that anyone suggesting that England should push her further up the order after this, needs to put their glasses on and read the scorecard. Scores of 38 off 64 balls (today) and 42 off 70 (in the first ODI) are what England needed from her in that role, but they aren’t strike rates that are going to cut it at the top levels of international cricket these days, and as soon as Dean tried to accelerate today she signed her own death warrant. Dean might yet become a top 6 ODI batter – at the same age (23) Tammy Beaumont was averaging 18, with a highest score of 44, and still 3 years away from her breakthrough summer of 2016 – so Dean has time… but she is not there yet.

Thanks to Jones and Dean, England got close to the 200 that might have been enough had Sophie Devine not put on the Ritz with a perfectly timed century. Devine is closing in on 35 years young, but still averaging 55 in ODIs in the past 12 months; and while she’s smashing 6s on decent boundaries like she did today, who knows how long she can go on?

Devine was one of the very first “professionals” – prior to the first KSL in 2016, at a glamorous (really!) launch party in Manchester (really-really!), Raf and I went around all the players in the room asking them what their favorite Nandos was. (It was for a piece… we aren’t that socially awkward… well… Raf isn’t, anyway!) Most said chicken, a couple said salad. Sophie Devine said: “I’m a professional athlete – I don’t eat that s***!” And yet in a strange sort of a way, Devine has also ended up becoming one of the very last “amateurs” – those who keep playing above-all because it’s fun. And for that, you can’t not love her. Even if you’re England today.

NEW ZEALAND V ENGLAND: 2nd ODI – England Do The Hard Yards In Hamilton

Posted by

5

England recovered from 166 for 7 to post 252 in Hamilton, eventually winning the match at a canter (by 56 runs) and with it the series.

But the scoreline rather belies the fact that England very much did the hard yards to get the win under their belts.

Tammy Beaumont was named Player of the Match for her 81 from 96 balls, continuing an emotional rollercoaster of a tour which has so far involved picking up her 100th T20 cap after a two-year wait, only to find herself dropped from the team for the final two matches of the T20 series.

Her runs were crucial today but – as Beaumont herself admitted post-match – it was all rather scrappy at times; and someone really needs to have a gentle word about her overuse of the ramp shot. And of course, she could really have done with pushing on to three figures – instead, her wicket sparked off the loss of six English wickets for 59 runs. Deja vu, anyone?

For once, New Zealand put up a fight with the bat without relying on the usual suspects – Izzy Gaze and Brooke Halliday’s 100-run partnership between the 20th and 40th overs slowly ramping up the pressure.

But New Zealand didn’t have a Beaumont-esque platform to fall back on: they were already way behind the required rate when Gaze and Halliday came together, and the pair never quite managed to catch up, meaning it was always possible that things would go belly up at the death – as indeed they did.

There was a slightly weird moment of anti-climax at the end where no one seemed to know if Bernadine Bezuidenhout (having limped off nursing a hamstring injury during England’s innings) would be batting or not. The cameras showed her sat padded up, but when it came to it, with an unlikely 50-odd runs required in 5 overs, the decision was made not to send her in. The commentators were incredibly critical of this, and in one case even vocally criticised her “lack of commitment to her country”, which seemed unfair given that we have no way of knowing how serious her injury might be.

From England’s perspective, it was great to see another confident knock from Amy Jones, following hot on the heels of her 92* in Monday’s game. A hallmark of Jones’s career has been the “coming of age knock” – every couple of years, she has one good outing with the bat, and the media then proclaim that Jones Has Finally Arrived™️. Next game, she clambers firmly back into her shell… and so the cycle goes on. After Monday’s match, Jones talked about having put in “a bit of work around my mental game” – let’s hope she is right and the boom-and-bust cycle is well and truly broken.

After a record-breaking partnership with Charlie Dean on Monday, this time Jones shared the stage with Kate Cross, who as Alex Hartley reminded us on comms, knows her way around a bat. England scored 63 runs in the final 10 overs:

The flip side of this, of course, is that the middle order failed again. Serious questions have to be asked about their mindset – one collapse can be disregarded as an accident, but three in the space of one tour looks like carelessness. England have done what they went to New Zealand to do, claiming two series wins… but there is certainly no room for complacency.

NEW ZEALAND v ENGLAND: 1st ODI – Jailbreak!

Posted by

2

England got out of jail free, passed ‘Go’, and collected 2 ICC Championship points, in the 1st ODI against New Zealand in Wellington.

The win leapfrogs England over New Zealand and Pakistan, from 5th place into 3rd in the ICC Championship, though the table does have to be read with some caution right now, with New Zealand having played 3 more games than England, and Pakistan 6 more.

Chasing a sub-par 207, England had collapsed to 79-6 at the end of the 17th over when Wyatt, who had already hinted that she couldn’t pick Amelia Kerr’s wrong’un, confirmed the fact as Kerr ghosted one through her defences. To be fair to Wyatt, she’s not the first and she won’t be the last. In fact, I remember one Amy Jones once admitting in a press huddle after a game that she couldn’t pick Kerr, before rather sheepishly adding “Perhaps I shouldn’t have said that?”

And who was at the other end from Wyatt today? The last recognised “proper” batter in England’s lineup? Ah… hello Ms Jones – fancy seeing you here!

England had carded Sophie Ecclestone to come in next, but they tweaked the batting order slightly and Charlie Dean walked out to the middle. With 129 runs still required, it felt like an impossible ask, but 25 overs later Dean hit the winning runs, with Jones 92* at the other end, and England celebrated the unlikeliest of victories.

Sending in Dean was a masterstroke, because she is so unflappable – a trait she has inherited from her father, who had a long minor-counties batting career and someone once described to me as “The best batter never to have played professional cricket”. The great Australian bowler Merv Hughes allegedly once summed-up Dean Sr. even more succinctly, after a tour match against a minor counties XI, exclaiming simply: “Who is this c***?” And whilst I’m sure that kind of language would never pass the lips of any of today’s White Ferns, they could be forgiven similar sentiments after Dean finished 42* off 70 balls.

Dean really was the key, despite scoring half the runs Jones did, because her indefatigability seemed to rub off on Jones, who is prone to the odd rush of blood to the head, especially in high-pressure situations, of which today was among the highest. Between the two of them, they suddenly made batting look easy, and towards the end it felt like they could have chased at least another 30 with ease, as they passed the winning post with a country mile to spare.

New Zealand’s bowlers will probably be held culpable for letting the win slip through their hands, but the truth for me is more that the White Ferns’ bowlers almost pulled off a heist after the batting department had really let them down.

The Milwaukee tells the story – New Zealand hit just 30 runs in the powerplay, putting them behind the game from the off. And it could have been even worse – the Kiwis were extraordinarily lucky not to lose any wickets early on, as Kate Cross made Bernadine Bezuidenhout in particular look totally clueless. Alex Hartley kept mentioning on comms that Cross hadn’t played any white-ball cricket for six months, having sat on the bench at WPL – almost like Hartley was getting the excuses in early for her old mate; but she didn’t need to: Cross delivered the full pizza, conceding just 10 runs from 5 overs in the powerplay, with 24 dots from 30 balls in that phase.

Bezuidenhout and Suzie Bates were able to up the run rate a bit during the 10 overs that followed the powerplay, and having (somehow!) kept wickets in hand, more by luck than anything else, New Zealand were in a position to start throwing the bat a little bit in the second half of their innings. Unfortunately for them however, they decided to throw the bat a little too much and wickets tumbled, leaving them all out for 207.

A typical score in women’s ODIs between the championship sides since the start of 2021 is 247, so this felt somewhat light.

It was a good day for England’s bowlers no doubt, but the TV commentators, distracted by Cross’s early numbers (which were remarkable) did make a tad too much of The Dot Thing. England’s bowling dot percentage in this game was 58%. Their overall percentage in ODIs since the start of 2021? 58%!

England’s reply got off to the worst possible start as Tammy Beaumont was bowled off an accidental full toss from Jess Kerr. It was a legal delivery as the laws stand, there’s no doubt about that, but it does feel like maybe it shouldn’t be – at least, not a delivery you can get out from. Maybe it should be a dead ball under those circumstances, though I admit I haven’t really thought that one through. (Feel free to have your say below, if you have an opinion – I’d be interested to hear your views.)

Heather Knight never really got the motor started, but Maia Bouchier was going along nicely and Nat Sciver-Brunt had just hit consecutive 4s off Jess Kerr, to take England to 54-2 at the end of the 11th over, when it started to go south for England. With the T20 side having procured a titanic collapse in the 3rd T20, their ODI sisters gave it the full “Hold My Beer” losing 4-25. Defeat looked certain; but we’ve seen miracles at Easter before – there was a famous one about 2,000 years ago – and we can now add another to that list.