By Josh Cockburn

While England men seem to pick their teams primarily on height and vibes, the increased use of data in cricket means that we do have a lot more information that we can rely on to assess players. Of course there are lies, damned lies and statistics and you need to watch games not just scorecards and spreadsheets to judge players, but over time I’d rather have the batters with the best strike rates not the best looking cover drives.

I have combined all performances from the Women’s Hundred, WBBL, WPL and CWPL as well as international matches played by England, Australia, India, West Indies, South Africa and New Zealand in the last 12 months (from August 2023 to August 2024). I’ve not included Pakistan, Bangladesh or any other country with no representation in those leagues as we only have their international averages which are easily available. I’ve not done Sri Lanka either, but I have done Chamari Athapaththu given the amount of cricket around the world she has played.

I’ve not included the Charlotte Edwards Cup, WNCL, SuperSmash or any other leagues which are overwhelmingly competed for without high quality overseas players. There are some issues with comparing between leagues – the WPL was considerably faster scoring than the CPL, but broadly speaking the standards are similar – the CPL might have had the weakest overseas player contingent, but the international players who did compete there didn’t do substantially better there than they did in the other leagues – because it was lower scoring the bowlers tended to improve their figures while the batters saw theirs deteriorate. It’s less useful for analysing players who haven’t played international cricket and only played in one franchise league – especially those who did very well in that league like Lauren Smith or Amy Edgar in the WBBL or Freya Davies in the Hundred.

For the international data I’ve included all players who have batted or bowled at least 12 times or though I’ve included a few players in the national discussions with slightly less appearances.

England

Squad	Innings	Runs	Balls	Avg	SR
S Ecclestone	19	153	106	13.91	144.34
D Gibson	26	353	251	20.76	140.64
A Jones	36	585	425	20.17	137.65
D Wyatt	22	577	425	27.48	135.76
N Sciver-Brunt	20	967	731	53.72	132.28
H Knight	40	1005	803	38.65	125.16
M Bouchier	38	722	592	19.51	121.96
S Dunkley	31	491	421	16.93	116.63
A Capsey	46	1046	924	23.24	113.20
B Heath	23	225	201	11.25	111.94
F Kemp	18	131	120	8.73	109.17
C Dean	13	130	126	14.44	103.17
Contenders
P Scholfield	8	190	138	27.14	137.68
C Griffith	10	100	77	10.00	129.87
T Beaumont	25	531	449	22.13	118.26
G Scrivens	8	157	139	19.63	112.95
G Adams	13	101	112	11.22	90.18
H Armitage	8	62	69	7.75	89.86
B Smith	20	192	220	9.60	87.27

Squad	Innings	Balls	Runs	Wickets	Avg	ER
S Glenn	29	577	565	41	13.78	5.88
S Ecclestone	28	612	668	40	16.70	6.55
L Smith	22	470	516	28	18.43	6.59
A Capsey	21	296	343	16	21.44	6.95
C Dean	27	516	604	26	23.23	7.02
H Knight	13	150	180	5	36.00	7.20
L Bell	21	416	500	26	19.23	7.21
N Sciver-Brunt	28	491	609	25	24.36	7.44
D Gibson	35	588	760	25	30.40	7.76
F Kemp	12	173	271	9	30.11	9.40
Contenders
F Davies	8	140	132	11	12.00	5.66
R Slater	8	105	114	5	22.80	6.51
L Filer	13	247	276	10	27.60	6.70
M Villiers	9	132	149	6	24.83	6.77
K Levick	7	129	154	10	15.40	7.16
So. Smale	9	151	181	9	20.11	7.19
C Pavely	7	135	162	9	18.00	7.20
G Adams	15	188	227	9	25.22	7.24
E Gray	10	135	164	9	18.22	7.29
R MacDonald-Gay	9	140	175	8	21.88	7.50
H Baker	7	110	141	4	35.25	7.69
G Davis	8	140	180	10	18.00	7.71
E Arlott	7	135	185	11	16.82	8.22
M Corteen-Coleman	8	135	186	6	31.00	8.27
K Cross	10	170	235	8	29.38	8.29
K Gordon	8	140	194	3	64.67	8.31

England’s batting problems are fairly obviously at the top of the order. Wyatt’s figures are fine, but neither Bouchier or Dunkley have great figures – you’d probably be tempted to go with Bouchier as the marginally faster scorer. Tammy Beaumont has very similar figures to them both, I guess England have gone for Dunkley’s room to improve over Beaumont’s experience. Winfield-Hill had a poor 12 months, and doesn’t look like she’s in line for a comeback. Then Alice Capsey at 3 where a player renowned for fast scoring has spent a year with the lowest SR of any front line batter. England really need her to rediscover some of that uninhibited hitting as they don’t need solidity from number 3, they need dynamism.

Sciver-Brunt’s brilliance goes without saying at number 4. Knight’s had the best 12 months of her T20 career in my opinion, able to score fast as well as heavily. Previously you’d be reassured by her coming in at a crisis but not excited by her coming in with the run rate needing boosting, but she’s fulfilled both roles this year. From those who haven’t been selected, Paige Scholfield has much the best record and probably should be next in line for a batting place.

Amy Jones has done really well and has exactly the sort of figures you’d hope for from your number 6. For the all rounder slot, Danni Gibson outperforms Freya Kemp by a mile in batting terms (we’ll come to bowling shortly).

Also worth noting is that Ecclestone’s SR is one of the best in the world. Stats can be deceiving, and we’ve seen occasions when she’s been promoted and she’s looked a bit hapless, but her boundary striking ability shouldn’t be underestimated – she clearly doesn’t herself judging by when she’s come in to bat for Originals this summer.

Looking at the bowling, it’s clear why England have gone spin heavy, and it’s not just anticipating spin friendly pitches in Bangladesh then UAE. With the exception of Davies and Filer (neither of whom made the squad), basically every spinner that England might choose from (including Georgia Adams and Katie Levick who aren’t really part of the conversation as well as Capsey’s part-time spin) is more economical than the seamers. This isn’t something inherent to T20, brought about by fast bowlers bowling more in powerplays and at the death or something, it’s not the case for India or Australia. For whatever reasons, England’s spinners are better than their seamers at T20 currently.

Ecclestone and Glenn have world class figures – especially Glenn who is in the top 5 in the world for both average and economy. I don’t think Glenn gets enough recognition for the quality of her performances, hopefully she can demonstrate it on a global stage at the World Cup. Linsey Smith clearly outperforms Charlie Dean for the third spinner. Dean being an off spinner may count ahead of playing a second left armer, but Capsey actually has better figures than Dean if England just need an offspin option for particular matchups.

As for the faster bowlers, Davies was very economical for the Fire in the Hundred, it’s a shame she didn’t play any international cricket or other franchise leagues to give us more data to judge her current level, and she didn’t have a great Charlotte Edwards Cup. Otherwise, in the choice between Lauren’s for the new ball, Bell has a much better average than Filer, and although Filer has the better economy rate you can see why England would value Bell’s ability to get wickets early on. Filer would clearly be a useful option to have and I’d be very surprised if she hadn’t been picked if a 16 player squad had been chosen. Kate Cross can’t have any complaints at her exclusion on her T20 form this year. Sciver-Brunt is a bit more expensive than you’d want as a second seamer, assuming she’s fit to take on that role. England had better hope she is, as neither Gibson or Kemp have figures that inspire confidence, both averaging over 30 this year and with high economy rates, (stratospheric in Kemp’s case) as well as their own fitness issues. Spin to win for England then.

Australia

Squad	Innings	Runs	Balls	Avg	SR
G Harris	30	795	511	31.80	155.58
G Wareham	31	575	409	26.14	140.59
A Healy	20	543	398	28.58	136.43
B Mooney	42	1397	1048	43.66	133.30
A Sutherland	28	573	433	23.88	132.33
P Litchfield	37	768	588	24.77	130.61
E Perry	40	1297	1007	41.84	128.80
T McGrath	30	624	525	24.96	118.86
A Gardner	39	666	577	18.50	115.42
A King	16	132	123	14.67	107.32
Contenders
L Harris	12	122	60	10.17	203.33
J Jonassen	33	462	352	14.00	131.25
M Lanning	30	785	641	27.07	122.46
K Mack	15	452	381	30.13	118.64
G Redmayne	27	589	560	23.56	105.18

Squad	Innings	Balls	Runs	Wickets	Avg	ER
K Garth	24	507	548	17	32.24	6.49
M Schutt	26	564	612	30	20.40	6.51
A Sutherland	37	717	780	40	19.50	6.53
S Molineux	13	300	328	18	18.22	6.56
A King	23	464	529	26	20.35	6.84
E Perry	26	365	419	31	13.52	6.89
G Wareham	43	841	1009	39	25.87	7.20
A Gardner	42	866	1081	51	21.20	7.49
T McGrath	22	291	377	17	22.18	7.77
G Harris	17	191	252	7	36.00	7.92
Contenders
L Smith	8	150	146	11	13.27	5.84
A Wellington	24	449	458	33	13.88	6.12
L Cheatle	21	443	473	28	16.89	6.41
A Edgar	15	286	322	20	16.10	6.76
H Graham	21	396	503	25	20.12	7.62
J Jonassen	38	780	970	52	18.65	7.46

For Australia, the two main talking points have been the inclusion of Brown and Vlaeminck despite practically no top-level cricket in the last year and the exclusion of Jess Jonassen. As this article is primarily a statistical analysis of top-level cricket in the last year, I can’t assess Brown and Vlaeminck’s inclusion except to note that at their best they are very dangerous bowlers and the do allow Australia that fabled point of difference. More crucially, the fact Australia have 6 other bowlers who conceded less than 7 runs an over in the last year, plus Wareham, Gardner and McGrath means that they have plenty of alternatives if the gamble doesn’t pay off.

On statistical grounds, Jonassen can’t really complain about her omission. Her economy rate is 23rd among all the Aussie bowlers in the sample, below 7 bowlers in the squad, and only above Gardner and McGrath. Her average is much better – only worse than Perry and Molineux in the squad, but only marginally better than her rivals for a place in the squad. Wellington has a much better claim to be in the squad/team for her bowling and although her batting isn’t as good, it’s perfectly fine for a number 8 or 9.

For the batting, Healy and Mooney are certain of their places and both had good seasons. Perry has had a really strong season too, speeding up her scoring while maintaining a high average. Depending on how many all-rounders Australia play, they may only choose one of Grace Harris or Litchfield. If that is the case then I suspect they might go for the younger player, though Harris probably has been the outstanding T20 batter of the year, one of only two batters to have a SR of over a run and a half per ball, while maintaining a decent average of 31. The only batter with a higher SR was her sister, Laura managing over 2 runs a ball which basically puts her on a different level to the rest of the women’s game at the moment. However, Laura Harris only just averaged over 10 and that’s not enough runs to get picked however fast they are scored, especially for Australia. There’s no-one else from out of the squad who has produced the sort of elite performances that would warrant inclusion as a batter – even Meg Lanning.

What I would question is whether either Tahlia McGrath or Ashleigh Gardner is worth their places in the team. Both are top all rounders of course, but in the past year they have been substantially out- performed by Perry, Sutherland and Wareham in both batting and bowling. McGrath is vice-captain and Gardner obviously has masses of credit in the bank so I’d be surprised if they don’t play, but on form I think Australia’s team should have looked something like this (assuming they include one of Brown or Vlaeminck). Cheatle and Schutt basically have identical economy rates over the year, but Cheatle has a better average.

Healy
Mooney
G Harris
Perry
Litchfield
Sutherland
Wareham
Wellington
Molineux
Cheatle/Schutt
Brown/Vlaeminck

India

Squad	Innings	Runs	Balls	Avg	SR
R Ghosh	27	616	435	32.42	141.61
Sh Verma	30	894	649	34.38	137.75
S Sajana	10	117	86	19.50	136.05
J Rodrigues	28	663	512	36.83	129.49
D Sharma	21	572	449	71.50	127.39
D Hemalatha	15	301	240	25.08	125.42
S Mandhana	35	999	808	31.22	123.64
Y Bhatia	9	240	197	26.67	121.83
H Kaur	35	863	738	31.96	116.94
P Vastrakar	16	100	117	9.09	85.47
Contenders
K Navgire	8	110	75	13.75	146.67
A Kaur	11	89	66	17.80	134.85
S Meghana	6	168	149	33.6	112.75
S Sehrawat	7	108	106	15.43	101.89

Squad	Innings	Balls	Runs	Wickets	Avg	ER
D Sharma	37	797	820	44	18.64	6.17
R Yadav	22	438	488	32	15.25	6.68
R Singh	25	522	600	21	28.57	6.90
P Vastrakar	29	542	630	31	20.32	6.97
S Patil	20	381	457	29	15.76	7.20
A Sobhana	13	222	267	16	16.69	7.22
A Reddy	12	243	304	11	27.64	7.51
H Kaur	11	107	136	9	15.11	7.63
Contenders
T Sadhu	9	162	147	9	16.33	5.44
T Kanwar	12	270	283	11	25.73	6.29
S Pandey	14	309	363	13	27.92	7.05
S Ishaque	12	210	270	14	19.29	7.71
R Gayakwad	10	203	265	9	29.44	7.83
M Singh	8	144	242	5	48.40	10.08

For India, Ghosh and Verma are their fastest batters and both average over 30 so they are obvious selections. Deepti has had an astonishingly good year in franchise cricket averaging over 100 and scoring at 134. International form has not been nearly as good, dragging her down to a mere average of 71 and SR of 127, but that’s still elite figures – it is bemusing that no-one picked her up in the WBBL draft. The rest of their batting is all very similar with SRs in the 120s (compared to the Aussies who are mainly in the 130s). Harmanpreet has only managed 116.94 so it’s less surprising she was passed over in the WBBL, though Mandhana is only slightly quicker. There’s not many alternatives out of the squad who have performed better. Kiran Navgire might have been worth a place as she scored at 146 even with a low average.

Among the bowlers, Sadhu is one of a handful of bowlers to have conceded less than a run a ball in T20 this year, and probably deserves a place. Tanuja Kanwar also put up some very good figures, but the competition for places among Indian bowlers is fierce. Deepti is world class again. Radha Yadav, Renuka Singh and Pooja Vastrakar all went at under 7 rpo, with Yadav having the best average. Patil and Sobhana were more expensive but still have very good averages. Probably the luckiest bowler to get in is Reddy but there’s not a huge queue of Indian seamers behind her – indeed Meghna Singh who might have been in the running in the past had a very poor tournament for Gujarat. Shihka Pandey could have come in for her though. India’s main issue is that (Deepti apart) they lack allrounders. Harmanpreet is the only batter who has bowled much this year, and only Vastrakar of the bowlers has had much batting. Vastrakar has traditionally been called upon when a bit of tail end hitting is required but she’s had a very bad season with the bat, averaging below 10 and scoring at below a run a ball.

West Indies

Squad	Innings	Runs	Balls	Avg	SR
H Matthews	27	1403	1149	34.22	122.11
D Dottin	5	119	109	23.80	109.17
S Taylor	9	216	211	27.00	102.37
A Alleyne	30	114	121	10.36	94.21
Q Joseph	10	151	161	15.10	93.79
S Campbelle	28	243	260	22.09	93.46
C Henry	21	49	62	9.80	79.03
C Nation	15	94	124	9.40	75.81

Squad	Innings	Balls	Runs	Wickets	Avg	ER
Q Joseph	10	192	173	9	19.22	5.41
A Fletcher	11	214	235	16	14.69	6.59
A Alleyne	15	268	296	15	19.73	6.63
C Henry	11	144	159	7	22.71	6.63
H Matthews	47	949	1124	56	20.07	7.11
K Ramharack	13	246	295	10	29.5	7.2
S Connell	11	162	221	10	22.10	8.19
Z James	9	96	151	2	75.5	9.44

You don’t need recourse to statistics to know the West Indies have problems with batting – but they do lay bare how deep the problems are. Taking Matthews out of the equation (and while her figures are fine they are a bit short of the best batters globally), none of their batters who have played enough qualifying innings manage to score at over a run a ball, and Campbelle is the only batter among them to average over 20. No surprise then that they are hoping Taylor and Dottin can roll back the years. The bowling looks much better, Fletcher and Joseph have fine figures, and Alleyne, Henry, Matthews and Ramharack are reasonably economical. The only qualifier is that a lot of those figures come from the low scoring CPL plus a middling international calendar (5 matches vs Pakistan, 3 apiece against Australia and Sri Lanka), only Matthews has been playing in the other leagues.

New Zealand

Squad	Innings	Runs	Balls	Avg	SR
S Devine	43	990	771	26.05	128.40
J Kerr	13	88	70	9.78	125.71
A Kerr	35	940	768	32.41	122.40
I Gaze	10	111	102	13.88	108.82
S Bates	31	580	579	20.00	100.17
M Green	15	190	199	19.00	95.48
B Halliday	11	162	174	16.20	93.10

Squad	Innings	Balls	Runs	Wickets	Avg	ER
F Jonas	14	294	339	11	30.82	6.92
E Carson	7	132	162	7	23.14	7.36
J Kerr	11	230	292	4	73.00	7.62
A Kerr	34	699	896	30	29.87	7.69
L Tahuhu	11	180	258	10	25.80	8.60
S Devine	34	536	773	27	28.63	8.65
H Rowe	9	114	181	5	36.20	9.53

New Zealand have obviously slipped in recent years with their great players retiring or declining and not being adequately replaced. Devine and Amelie Kerr both have respectable figures, but neither can manage the 130 SR that seems to be the elite level for women’s T20 at the moment. Bates sadly has dropped to mediocrity with a SR of just a run a ball and would surely be in line for being replaced was anyone else doing better, but the three other qualifying NZ batters (Gaze, Green and Halliday) all average sub-20 and only Gaze scores at (marginally) above a run a ball. Only Jonas averages under 7 rpo among the bowlers and Tahuhu, Devine and Rowe all average above 8.5. Carson and the Kerr sisters return respectable economy rates in the 7po range but nothing that would frighten the opposition. Jess Kerr may want to claim bragging rights for being above her sister for both SR and ER.

South Africa

Squad	Innings	Runs	Balls	Avg	SR
N De Klerk	13	154	113	25.67	136.28
C Tryon	33	592	465	21.93	127.31
M Kapp	36	720	568	24.83	126.76
L Wolvaardt	42	1378	1126	37.24	122.38
A Bosch	12	326	267	27.17	122.10
T Brits	16	527	443	35.13	118.96
S Luus	13	176	159	19.56	110.69
Unavailable
L Lee	13	409	280	37.18	146.07
M Du Preez	17	382	309	23.88	123.62

Squad	Innings	Balls	Runs	Wickets	Avg	ER
M Kapp	39	825	803	36	22.31	5.84
C Tryon	34	571	634	28	22.64	6.66
N Mlaba	17	300	353	9	39.22	7.06
M Klaas	14	248	305	10	30.50	7.38
N De Klerk	14	269	357	13	27.46	7.96
T Sekhukhune	7	132	186	7	26.57	8.45
A Khaka	10	212	309	3	103.00	8.75
Unavailable
S Ismail	29	640	619	35	17.69	5.80

South Africa with all their players available would be a very dangerous side. Kapp is probably the best T20 quick bowler in the world right now, averaging 22 and conceding less than a run a ball, but there’s not much penetration elsewhere. Mlaba, Tryon and Klaas are economical enough, but don’t take enough wickets (Tryon’s figures got a big boost by taking 8 wickets for 66 runs in the WCPL) while de Klerk, Sekhukhune and Khaka are all pretty expensive. Add Ismail’s 17.69 average and 5.8 ER and things suddenly would look much better.

In batting, Wolvaardt averages 37 and has shown improvements in scoring quicker but a strike rate of 122 makes her a good anchor, but needing runs to come fast at the other end. However, only de Klerk scored at faster than 130 with Tryon, Kapp and Bosch all in the 120s. Luus struggling with a SR of 110 and a sub 20 average doesn’t help. Getting Lizelle Lee back who averaged 37 with a SR of 146 in the WBBL surely would.

Conclusion

Now putting all the data together to find the most effective players in world T20 over the last year. Players in bold are in the World Cup squads.

Best Strike Rate

	Batter	Nat	Inns	Runs	BF	Avg	SR
1	L Harris	Aus	12	122	60	10.17	203.33
2	G Harris	Aus	30	795	511	31.80	155.58
3	L Lee	SA	13	409	280	37.18	146.07
4	S Ecclestone	Eng	19	153	106	13.91	144.34
5	R Ghosh	Ind	27	616	435	32.42	141.61
6	D Gibson	Eng	26	353	251	20.76	140.64
7	G Wareham	Aus	31	575	409	26.14	140.59
8	Sh Verma	Ind	30	894	649	34.38	137.75
9	A Jones	Eng	36	585	425	20.17	137.65
10	A Healy	Aus	20	543	398	28.58	136.43
11	N De Klerk	SA	13	154	113	25.67	136.28
12	D Wyatt	Eng	22	577	425	27.48	135.76
13	H Graham	Aus	19	276	204	21.23	135.29
14	C Knott	Aus	20	315	233	19.69	135.19
15	B Mooney	Aus	42	1397	1048	43.66	133.30
16	A Sutherland	Aus	28	573	433	23.88	132.33
17	N Sciver-Brunt	Eng	20	967	731	53.72	132.28
18	J Jonassen	Aus	33	462	352	14.00	131.25
19	P Litchfield	Aus	37	768	588	24.77	130.61
20	J Rodrigues	Ind	28	663	512	36.83	129.49

Dominated by Australians who fill half the top 20, England have 5 representatives, India 3.

Best Average

	Batter	Nat	Inns	Runs	BF	Avg	SR
1	D Sharma	Ind	21	572	449	71.50	127.39
2	N Sciver-Brunt	Eng	20	967	731	53.72	132.28
3	B Mooney	Aus	42	1397	1048	43.66	133.30
4	E Perry	Aus	40	1297	1007	41.84	128.80
5	H Knight	Eng	40	1005	803	38.65	125.16
6	L Wolvaardt	SA	42	1378	1126	37.24	122.38
7	L Lee	SA	13	409	280	37.18	146.07
8	J Rodrigues	Ind	28	663	512	36.83	129.49
9	E Villani	Aus	12	324	279	36.00	116.13
10	T Brits	SA	16	527	443	35.13	118.96
11	A Athapaththu	SL	51	1615	1317	35.11	122.63
12	S Verma	Ind	30	894	649	34.38	137.75
13	H Matthews	WI	47	1403	1149	34.22	122.11
14	R Ghosh	Ind	27	616	435	32.42	141.61
15	A Kerr	NZ	35	940	768	32.41	122.40
16	H Kaur	Ind	35	863	738	31.96	116.94
17	G Harris	Aus	30	795	511	31.80	155.58
18	S Mandhana	Ind	35	999	808	31.22	123.64
19	K Mack	Aus	15	452	381	30.13	118.64
20	T Wilson	Aus	13	323	273	29.36	118.32

This is much more widely spread around geographically and is probably closer to what most people would say are the best batters in women’s cricket, but it is debatable how useful it is to a T20 team to average over 30 if you are scoring at under 120. The best batters at the moment, appearing on both lists are Grace Harris, Richa Ghosh, Shafali Verma, Beth Mooney, Nat Sciver-Brunt and Jemima Rodrigues.

Best Economy Rate

		Nat	Inns	Balls	Runs	Wkts	AVG	ER
1	S Ismail	SA	29	640	619	35	17.69	5.80
2	A Wellington	Aus	29	563	546	38	14.37	5.82
3	M Kapp	SA	39	825	803	36	22.31	5.84
4	S Glenn	Eng	29	577	565	41	13.78	5.88
5	D Sharma	Ind	37	797	820	44	18.64	6.17
6	A Athapaththu	SL	43	745	778	37	21.03	6.27
7	T Kanwar	Ind	12	270	283	11	25.73	6.29
8	S Bates	Aus	14	312	330	5	66.00	6.35
9	L Cheatle	Aus	21	443	473	28	16.89	6.41
10	K Garth	Aus	24	507	548	17	32.24	6.49
11	M Schutt	Aus	26	564	612	30	20.40	6.51
12	A Sutherland	Aus	37	717	780	40	19.50	6.53
13	S Ecclestone	Eng	28	612	668	40	16.70	6.55
14	S Molineux	Aus	13	300	328	18	18.22	6.56
15	L Smith	Eng	22	470	516	28	18.43	6.59
16	J Barsby	Aus	12	168	186	7	26.57	6.64
17	C Tryon	SA	34	571	634	28	22.64	6.66
18	R Yadav	Ind	22	438	488	32	15.25	6.68
19	L Filer	Eng	13	247	276	10	27.60	6.70
20	A Edgar	Aus	15	286	322	20	16.10	6.76

The depth of Australian cricket illustrated here, with 5 bowlers here who didn’t make the squad, in addition to 4 who did. Again England come in second with 4 bowlers.

Best Average

		Nat	Inns	Balls	Runs	Wkts	AVG	ER
1	S Day	Aus	14	294	337	27	12.48	6.88
2	E Perry	Aus	26	365	419	31	13.52	6.89
3	S Glenn	Eng	29	577	565	41	13.78	5.88
4	A Wellington	Aus	29	563	546	38	14.37	5.82
5	R Yadav	Ind	22	438	488	32	15.25	6.68
6	S Patil	Ind	20	381	457	29	15.76	7.20
7	A Edgar	Aus	15	286	322	20	16.10	6.76
8	H Darlington	Aus	13	264	365	22	16.59	8.30
9	A Sobhana	Ind	13	222	267	16	16.69	7.22
10	S Ecclestone	Eng	28	612	668	40	16.70	6.55
11	L Cheatle	Aus	21	443	473	28	16.89	6.41
12	S Ismail	SA	29	640	619	35	17.69	5.80
13	S Molineux	Aus	13	300	328	18	18.22	6.56
14	L Smith	Eng	22	470	516	28	18.43	6.59
15	D Sharma	Ind	37	797	820	44	18.64	6.17
16	J Jonassen	Aus	38	780	970	52	18.65	7.46
17	L Bell	Eng	21	416	500	26	19.23	7.21
18	S Ishaque	Ind	12	210	270	14	19.29	7.71
19	N Hancock	Aus	17	373	446	23	19.39	7.17
20	A Sutherland	Aus	37	717	780	40	19.50	6.53

A bit of a theme developing as Australia dominate once more with 10 representatives, 7 of whom don’t make the squad. Averaging under 20 makes you a very useful bowler whatever your economy rate, but only Darlington and Ishaque went at over 7.5 an over.

The elite performers, appearing in both lists, Shabnim Ismail, Amanda Wellington, Sarah Glenn, Deepti Sharma, Lauren Cheatle, Annabel Sutherland, Sophie Ecclestone, Sophie Molineux, Linsey Smith, Radha Yadav and Amy Edgar.

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.

Martin Saxon reports

Senior Knockout: Lindow 106-8, Didsbury Swordettes 108-4

Didsbury landed their third Senior Knockout title, with their bowlers taking control and restricting Lindow to a below par score, before completing a fairly comfortable run chase.

Heidi Cheadle and Carys White added 47 for the first wicket in the opening seven overs, but any hopes that this would lay the platform for a significant total were swiftly dispelled. Hannah Marshall took the first two wickets inside four balls, swiftly followed by two more for Rosie Ackerley.

Besides Cheadle’s 43 retired from 33 balls, scores of 19 from White and Claire Ashworth were the only double figure scores, and most observers felt that the final total of 106 would not be enough. Several wickets fell to impressive catches in an eye-catching all-round fielding display from Didsbury.

In contrast, Didsbury not only started the innings at six runs per over, but largely maintained it throughout. Zoe Conway’s cameo played an important role in getting them off to a fast start. Grace Hemsted caused some difficulties for a time, and the door was briefly open for Lindow when their opponents were 66-4.

Kashmira Shinde responded by completing her innings of 42 retired with a flourish, and the South Manchester team got home with all of 13 balls in hand.

Development Knockout: Didsbury 2nd XI 114-8, Chester Boughton Hall 2nd XI 80-5

A superb day for the Didsbury club was completed here with a dominant performance in the final of the competition for division three and four teams. In doing so, they made a strong case for having one of the best second strings ever seen in the league, with this 2nd XI also riding high in Division 3 East.

After being restricted to 14 in the first five overs, Didsbury responded with 100 more in the remaining 15. Romilee Cabral tops cored with 30 retired at the top of the order, and despite the loss of regular wickets, the scoring rate continued to be rapid, with Amy Walkman and Noreen Latif amongst those playing their part.

Abbey Mayers contributed three wickets and Shree Dayama bowled her four overs for 10, but the overall impression was that Didsbury had posted a formidable total.

What was already a difficult start for Chester got worse when Amy Walkman struck twice in successive deliveries, and they eventually fell more than 30 runs short.

T20 Divisional Competition – Nantwich Vipers 122-3, Lindow 117-7

After winning the Senior Knockout in 2022 and 2023, Nantwich won the league’s other prestigious T20 trophy this time. The feat of landing one or both of the senior trophies in three successive years has certainly not been accomplished since Chester Boughton Hall’s dominance of the late 2000s and early 2010s.

It was therefore double heartbreak for Lindow, with the crucial period coming in the last 10 overs of the first innings, when 77 runs were added. After some impressive opening overs from Emilia Rossi and Libby Ackerley, Nantwich hit the accelerator pedal from the halfway point, with vital contributions from Grace Michell and Charlotte Neal. It all left Lindow needing to chase a total that was 17 runs larger than the team total they made in the morning’s final.

When three wickets went down in the first five overs of the reply, with Eleanor Sinker and Charlotte Kirk causing significant problems, the Wilmslow club’s task looked even harder. Having held a number of these triple-header Finals Days over the years though, the League knows all too well that it’s practically an unwritten rule that at least one match will go down to the wire.

From the start of their fourth wicket partnership, Grace Hemsted and Emily Murray looked in good form, and they gradually rebuilt the innings, adding another 79 runs to take their team to 93.

Hemsted departed after reaching the retirement score of 40 from 35 deliveries, but Lindow really needed Murray to reach this milestone as well. One of the most crucial deliveries of the match came when Sinker returned for her second spell and dismissed Murray for 35.

Although the likes of Katie Farmer kept swinging to the end, it always seemed that Nantwich were slight favourites, and a composed final over from Emily Clamp put the seal on a five-run victory.

The League extends its thanks to host club Hale Barns and to umpires Duane Jones, Keith Wells, Chris Moore and John Bone.

By Andy Frombolton

Underpinning Project Darwin is the ECB’s belief that ownership and accountability is key to the future growth and success of women’s cricket.

But whether a regional or a county-based structure is better will be moot unless the standard of cricket is high enough to attract tv deals and spectators. And with considerable extra funding being put into the women’s game and an ever-increasing cohort of professionals, expectations are quite rightly growing against a rapidly-rising datum.

In many areas the results of increased funding are apparent; there’s an abundance of quality bowlers, both slow and fast; several keepers are making their case for higher honours; and the quality of fielding is so much higher than it was even a few years ago.

But for all the investment in regions and academies, and despite hundreds of talented youngsters passing through the academy system, the same trend is simply not evident in terms of batting.

To illustrate this point, consider the highest run scorers in the domestic T20 competitions since 2019 (NB there were no games in 2020).

For each year, the table below shows the total number of batters scoring more than a specified number of runs* and lists all ‘young’ batters (aged under 25) meeting the criterion for the first time (hence ‘emerging batters’) in that year plus the number of runs they scored. The table then tracks their run scoring in subsequent year to distinguish those who have become consistent run scorers and those for whom this was a ‘flash in the pan’.

(* The criterion is 75 runs for 2019-2023 and 150 for 2024 to reflect the higher number of games played.)

Armitage and Bouchier stand out for consistency; one deservedly achieving England honours and one seemingly destined not to. Of the 2020 cohort, Freeborn, Gardner and Kelly have all gone on to the epitome of a cricket professional: reliable and consistent. But all these players are primarily products of their county age group systems and pre-date the professional era. The one ‘new generation’ name is that of Scrivens.

Thereafter, emerging batting talent diminishes in inverse proportion to the increasing professionalisation of the game. From 2020 and 2021 only Gibson probably has the potential to be a genuine (bowling) all-rounder whilst Wong, Glenn and Heap should be more accurately categorised as bowlers who can bat a bit. 

Only in the last 2 years do we see 3 names: Perrin, Smale and Kemp who appear to have the potential to become top class batters; plus of course Alice Capsey.

So after 5 years of academies and considerable investment, we end up with a list of just 5 possible long-term England batters. 

This doesn’t seem like a good return. There are only 2 explanations: (1) The talent doesn’t exist, or (2) the academies and the regions have failed to develop that talent. The first is self-evidently not true – there’s a huge amount of talent on display in every CAG match.

So, what’s going wrong?

Players are selected far too early. Latent and slow-developing talent is squandered. 

With increased prize money on offer, teams (understandably) prioritise winning over player development. And in most teams this means stuffing your batting top order with proven players who can ‘do a job’. The trouble with this approach is that the vast majority of these players have plateaued in terms of skills (as evidenced by their run scoring and strike rates) and consequently the game as a whole isn’t evolving. Younger players either get shoved down the batting order or don’t get picked at all.

What can be done about it? 

The ECB’s plans to address this (Tier 2, etc.) remain vague whilst their ongoing refusal to discuss continuing to run an amateur women’s team in each Tier 1 county will see hundreds of talented girls and young women give up on the sport and huge amounts of talent will go undiscovered.

It’s a simple fact that you get better, faster by playing against people who are better than you. The great former players learnt their game playing “men’s” cricket (Lydia Greenway for instance captained a premier club and scored a century in premier league cricket) but now talented young players are ensconced in the academy set-up from an early age with their workload managed and often banned from playing club cricket. The best batters need to play against the best bowlers possible – which for the foreseeable future means Saturday club cricket. 

The Academy players similarly need to be challenged. One easy way would be for them to enter a mid-week T20 league. (Southern Vipers did this some years ago – and the team went on to win that league.)

Playing for a team in e.g. New Zealand over the winter might be fun, but it’s essentially the same issues outlined above with a different accent. The over-dominance of slow bowling in the women’s game will remain a problem until players learn how to play it better. (An often-barely-spinning ball delivered at 45mph should be going to the boundary, not picking up wickets.) Similarly, going on a 10-day pre-season tour might be good PR but it’s a costly indulgence especially when all the team does is play their domestic rivals in a warmer climate. Instead, why not form a partnership with a school in Sri Lanka and send 5 batters to spend 4 months there – coaching during the day and then getting 2 hours in the nets against the best bowlers every afternoon. (This would also help with life skills and getting coaching qualifications for post-career.)

And finally put some youngsters up the order. If they fail, then the dependable experienced players can come in and restore order. But if they come off, we’ll see higher scores and – hopefully – if this analysis was repeated in a few years far more new names appearing.

By Andy Frombolton

Over the next few months each of the new Tier 1 counties will be assembling their squads.

The obvious hope from the ECB’s perspective is the creation of 8 evenly-balanced squads (or certainly a lot more evenly-balanced than is currently the case). For the individual counties, the goal will be to assemble a powerful team capable of winning competitions (and thus the winner’s cheque which would represent a significant contribution towards running costs). The best players will be trying to ascertain which county offers the optimum mix of reward and opportunity, whilst others might simply crave certainty and some will need to accept that to continue playing as a professional will require moving to a new county.

Of all the parties involved, the greatest bargaining power lies with the best players (although they might not realise it), in second place are good cricketers at Continuity Counties (i.e. the regional hosts transitioning to Tier 1 counties), in third place comes the ‘Continuity Counties’, in fourth place come the remaining players and in last place are the 3 ‘new’ non-transitioning counties.

The most likely outcome is a further concentration of talent at a few counties and the creation of at least 2 very weak counties. And, then in 2027, if all the extant counties are clever and ruthless, the 2 additional counties being elevated to Tier 1 could find it almost impossible to assemble a competitive squad.

Here’s why…

Each Tier 1 county is required to have 15 full time contracts i.e. 120 professionals in total (vs 88 now). Hence demand greatly outstrips supply and one has to question where 32 additional players of professional standard will be found.

This makes the ECB’s mandating that each Tier 1 county shall have 15 professional contracts look more like a desire for positive headlines than the result of a rational analysis regarding which arrangements would best deliver against a wider range of equity goals. Why couldn’t the ECB have allowed Tier 1 counties to experiment with different squad configurations e.g. why couldn’t a county have 8 professionals and 14 part-time players who could combine academic, work and/or personal commitments whilst also exploring the desirability and feasibility of a full-time career? Conversely the county could give opportunities to far more players and hence would be more likely to unearth talent.  Such an arrangement could have addressed a wide range of challenges regarding making cricket accessible and viable for players with other commitments. 

Each Tier 1 county starts with a clean team sheet and conversely every cricketer (barring some Northern Diamond players – messy!) is out of contract by November and thus available.

The new Tier 1 counties have been granted a ‘closed period’ during which they can seek to retain players contracted to the transitioning regional team e.g., Viper players to Hampshire. (Presumably the 3 non-transitioning counties have the same arrangement regarding their closest non-continuing region, e.g. Sunrisers to Essex?) Counties are forbidden from approaching any other players during this time.

I posited that the top players hold all the best cards at this stage. Consider first a top player at one of the 5 transitioning regions. If they’re happy to remain, then one option would be to commit to a new contract during the closed period. But if you were one of those players, and knowing your current team wants you, why wouldn’t you wait to see what other offers might come in? Whether they ultimately stay or move, this is their best chance to secure a good deal. 

Second, consider a player at a transitioning region who isn’t one of the top players but is a steady performer. Remember each county needs to contract 15 players and it’s reverse Musical Chairs (i.e. chairs have been added when the music stopped) and so will be keen to retain these individuals. Again, these players are in a strong negotiating position and, unless they want certainty quickly or are keen not to move, they too could hold out to see what other offers emerge.  

Next consider the 5 Continuity Counties. Their goal will be to retain the majority of the squad they’ve assembled during the regional era and add judiciously. Fortunately for them, there are 3 squads of players (at the non-transitioning counties) who – faced with the necessity to move (geographically) at the end of the season – are probably going to be more open to new opportunities than players at the Continuity Counties. The top players at these 3 regions will be much sought after and should be able to secure more than one offer. 

Fourth on my list are the bottom quartile of the currently-contracted professionals who have the advantage over talented amateurs and academy graduates of being known quantities at this level. Indeed, such is the surplus of contracts on offer that, provided they’re prepared to move, they too are virtually guaranteed a new contract. (Whether being recruited primarily to satisfy mandated squad numbers will subsequently equate to a fulfilling career is another issue.)

Finally, consider the 3 non-continuity Tier 1 counties. It’s naïve to imagine that the 3 impacted regional squads will simply move en masse to the successor county. This is not intended as a detrimental observation on any of these clubs, but reflects the reality that not all players will want to move to the new Counties whether this is for cricketing, location or personal reasons. And once a player is required to move from a place where they’ve established roots and connections, then for some it may become irrelevant whether they have to relocate 30 miles or 100?

As already noted, the top players at the 3 new non-continuity Tier 1 counties will be in hot demand from Continuity Counties and some will be tempted. Ditto some of the good players. For instance, a top Western Storm player might receive offers from Somerset, Hampshire and Warwickshire. From a purely-cricketing perspective, before deciding which offer to accept, they’d want to know what their envisaged role in a squad, who else was in the squad and might even make some assumptions regarding the potential for earning a share of win fees. For a Northern Diamonds player, there’s an added complication that some might have their heart set on a return to Yorkshire once they’re elevated to Tier 1 in 2 years and hence see any move as only being temporary. Leeds to Durham is 88 miles whilst Leeds to Manchester is just 44 miles and Leeds to Nottingham is 71 miles; the latter 2 options having the geographical advantage of not being in the opposite direction to all the other counties. 

The worst-case scenario for the 3 new counties is that only a rump of the donor region squad, stripped on the top and some of the good players, is prepared to move.

And let’s add one final curveball. The next round of central contracts. Without seeking to speculate about names, there’ll inevitably be some churn amongst that group at the end of the year. Perhaps a couple of current England players might already be working on the assumption that their contract won’t be renewed and be putting their name into the hat with certain counties, but for the majority their fate won’t be known until the domestic international season and the world cup is concluded. What happens to those players who lose their central contract? All the Tier 1 counties will have assembled their squads and will have allocated their budgets. Consequently, most teams wouldn’t have any funds left by the time any England player loses their central contract (unless one of their squad was simultaneously awarded a new central contract. But even then, a county would probably want a like-for-like skill swap – so a county losing one of its premier batters is unlikely to want to contract a released England bowler.)

Extrapolating the likely outcome of all these moving parts: Surrey, Hampshire and Lancashire will undoubtedly seek to position themselves as premier Tier 1 counties – with the contacts and connections to facilitate winter overseas placements, the chance to earn extra money from coaching, personal sponsorship and (in theory) a better chance to share in tournament winnings. Warwickshire and Notts should be well positioned to retained most of their current young squads and could use cleverly-targeted offers to entice top players from the 3 non-transitioning counties (whether cricket-focussed, such as guarantees about being first choice keeper, specific batting or bowling roles or captaincy or better personal security e.g. longer contracts or support for post-playing life via coaching qualifications). 

Of the 3 new counties, Essex are possibly best placed – able to offer incentives to persuade Sunrisers to move, plus draw on the deep talent pools in their own county, Kent and possibly discarded Oval players. Unfortunately, this scenario leaves Durham and Somerset starting with a diminished core of transferring players and subsequently fighting over a pool comprising primarily players who no other county has offered a contract to.

If they’re going to avoid this fate, these 2 counties will need to be part-visionary and part-moneyball and to act quickly. Durham, of course, faced a similar issue when their men’s team joined the county championship. What could they do? Grab a marque overseas player from a country which doesn’t tour much and isn’t coming to the UK for the next 2 years (or who has retired from international cricket); avoid anyone likely to be on England’s radar for the next few years; target a couple of good older players who can act as player-coaches; recruit 5-6 good players who are frustrated at their current club and guarantee them then roles they crave; and, then complete the squad with the ‘best of the rest’ (prioritising academy / local players with roots in the area over a player who’d be looking to leave at the first opportunity.) Somerset have deftly recruited Heather Knight and it will be interesting to see whether this has the same magnetic appeal as the Charlotte Edwards effect at Southern Vipers.

And finally, whoever each Tier 1 county ends up with, they should all offer everyone in their squads 2-year contracts in 2026 through to the end of 2027; thereby ensuring that Yorkshire and Glamorgan will have a tiny pool of proven players to choose from, thereby probably condemning them to be the 2 weakest teams in Tier 1 for years to come.

It’s going to be fascinating, messy and probably going to result in some massive variance in squad strengths. For the sake of the game, I hope not.

By Andy Frombolton

The whole structure would be stronger, more inclusive and more likely to unearth additional talent. Here’s why…

Under current Project Darwin proposals, most, possibly all, of the current women’s squads at the 8 counties selected for Tier 1 status will find themselves homeless at the end of the year; displaced by a cohort of professionals. In the case of the 3 Tier 1 counties which aren’t migrating from being regional hosts, many of these players will be ‘guns for hire’ representing counties with which they have no affiliation.

For those in power focussed on the ‘headline’ goal – the creation of 8, soon to be 10, premier counties, the fate of these players might seem of little interest. Surely these players can move to an adjacent county if they’re that keen to carry on playing county cricket comes the simplistic response; disregarding any issues of practicality or feasibility, the implications for the cricketers in the receiving county who they would displace, or the sheer inequity of the situation where an amateur player’s opportunity to play for her county (the ultimate goal for 99% of all players) will no longer be based solely on her skill and determination but also on where she lives. And what of the gifted amateur playing in the North East from 2027 when neither Yorkshire or Durham have an amateur county team?

But if the notions of fairness, inclusion and equity aren’t enough to trigger an ECB rethink, let me instead show this will undermine and weaken the top tier of the game.

Consider first the 15-strong squads at the Tier 1 counties. Simple maths means at least 4 players aren’t being selected every match. Nor are many academy players. For this reason, regions used to host inter-squad matches or blended ‘region vs host county’ matches – but the increase in the number of RHF and CEC matches now makes that unviable. The current preference seems to be that there will be 2^nd XI matches between the Tier 1 counties – but the standard is going to be variable –any such team would have at most 3 contracted players (fewer if contracted players are injured) with the balance of the squad comprising academy players (since there’ll no longer be any older amateur county players to supplement the ranks). And it would involve a lot of travel.

Consider next any competition featuring the Tier 2 counties – the precise number of which isn’t yet determined. ECB has indicated they expect Tier 2 to comprise 10 to 14 counties i.e., the remaining 10 (and then in 2027, 8) [men’s] counties plus some of the stronger smaller counties. Both logic and experience suggest that the larger counties will have a huge advantage – since they typically act as a magnet for the best amateur players in a region, have stronger county age groups and have better resources and facilities. The result will be mismatched fixtures. Ask any player at a smaller county how much fun it is to turn up for a match knowing they’re going to be thrashed by a much stronger team, and the answer is ‘none’. And the best players in the stronger counties aren’t going to be stretched or tested, meaning that late developers are less likely to be developed and new, diverse or unusual talent is less likely to be unearthed. Coaches and scouts at the Tier 1 counties are likely to dismiss any outstanding performances on the grounds that they were ‘only’ achieved in a Tier 2 match.

In reality the potential for any Tier 2 player to progress to Tier 1 will thus be very limited. The dream of a seamless path from All Stars to Country disappears as the professional game becomes unrelatable and unattainable for anyone who hasn’t secured a professional contract by the age of twenty.

But it doesn’t have to be this way.

If the Tier 1 counties also ran an ‘amateur’ team, this team could play against (a much smaller number of) Tier 2 counties in a 18-20 team second tier competitions split into 4 regions (to minimise travel) but culminating in national semi-finals and finals.

The Tier 1 teams obviously wouldn’t be amateur since they’d include (a capped number of) contracted players but the ECB has also stated that Tier 2 will become semi-professional, so it should be that Tier 2 teams might also include a couple of professional players (probably combining the role of playing professionally with a county development/coaching role – incidentally such a role which would also create opportunities for players leaving full-time professional cricket ; a looming issue which will grow as more players enter, and then leave, professional cricket).

The standard of these games should be just as good as any inter-Tier 1 2^nd XI match, particularly as the ECB has promised to increase funding for the county game. They would provide quality match practice for any contracted Tier 1 player not playing RHF or CEC. And the best Tier 2 players who hadn’t been picked up by a Tier 1 county in their teens would have a stage on which to showcase their talents and thus the opportunity to progress to a professional career.

The structure exists today. It would easy to implement. And it would maximise the chances of finding talent across the nation. The complete reverse of the current proposals.