By Andy Frombolton

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

First, The Hundred …

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 …

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.

By Andy Frombolton

Last week Will Macpherson broke the news in The Daily Telegraph about Project Darwin (the ECB’s plan for the women’s domestic game in 2025-29); the one-line summary being that counties will be invited to take over the running (and the partial funding) of the 8 regions from the ECB and rebrand them.

Project Darwin thus builds on the ECB’s 2019 Action Plan for Transforming Women’s and Girls’ Cricket which sought to develop an integrated pathway from club to country; core to which were 2 components: (i) raising standards in the girls’ County Age Group and (ii) the creation of eight senior regional teams along with their associated academies (Regional Development Centres, RDCs.)

Regarding that first goal, in reality, the elite tiers of the game have received virtually all the focus in the intervening years whilst County cricket has been starved of funds, competition and attention; surviving primarily through the determination, creativity and passion of some very committed individuals. Given this track record, the ECB’s vagueness about what will happen below Tier 1 and that, whatever form this takes, won’t be rolled out until a year later should sound alarm bells. ‘Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me.’

Regarding the proposals for the 8 Tier 1 teams, reaction so far has been largely positive. And the proposals are backed by serious amounts of money. But some obvious questions arise:

1. What are the benefits vs the cost implications of being a Tier 1 county? And what will happen if no suitable bids are received for some of the regions?
2. What happens to the RDC Academies?
3. The new structure risks reducing ‘depth’ of player participation within the host counties as well as ‘breadth’ of representation from across the country. Does the ECB deem this a price worth paying?
4. A truly-integrated. holistic strategy would be rolled-out simultaneously. Why roll out Tier 1 and Tier 2 strategies in different years?

Surrey and Lancashire have already expressed an interest in hosting one of the regions and probable bidders for several others have been mooted.

But, what’s in it for any bidder? For the foreseeable future International cricket and The Hundred will constitute the main stage for women’s cricket – and the hosting of England women’s and Hundred games is independent of, and totally regardless of, whether a county is one of the eight Tier 1 women’s counties.

What then are the other reasons to bid? To demonstrate a commitment to equality? Of course – although the corollary position would be that any county which doesn’t bid isn’t committed to equality (which would be both simplistic and a grossly unfair characterisation).

In Will Macpherson’s scoop he stated that host counties will be required to assume responsibility for a significant share of the running costs – initially around 400k but rising to 1.1m by 2029 as salaries and associated costs rise. These are significant sums in themselves, but need to be considered in the context of the women’s county game’s ability to generate additional revenue in this timeframe.

Consider for instance the 3 obvious candidates for the ‘Western Storm’ franchise: Gloucester, Somerset and Glamorgan. Both Gloucestershire and Somerset have proved themselves to be superb advocates of the women’s game over many years. Yet, Gloucestershire lost 570k last year, Glamorgan lost 39k and Somerset made a surplus of just 399k. None look well placed to take on a further 400k of costs in 2025.

Similar challenges face a bidder for the ‘Sunrisers’ franchise. MCC might be keen, but they’re not a county and have no infrastructure so would need Middlesex to partner any bid and provide all the resources. Middlesex’s finances are similarly precarious and would therefore require MCC to underwrite all costs.

Just as importantly, at a practical level, Middlesex currently produce the fewest ‘home grown’ players of any RDC, meaning that the issues cited at point 2 would be particularly germane for them.

Objectively, Essex might be a more logical host than Middlesex given its really strong support for girls and women’s cricket and also in terms of broadening the geographical spread of the Tier 1 counties, but it lost 32k last year which renders a bid unlikely.

What then happens if no county bids for e.g. the ‘Western Storm’ franchise? No one could expect a club to take on costs it can’t cover. And no one is going to think less of any club which is ‘only’ a Tier 2 county – provided they do everything for women’s cricket that’s expected of a Tier 2 club.

Or what happens e.g., if the Welsh Government partnered with Glamorgan to produce a winning bid? The players of Cornwall, Devon, Dorset, Somerset, Gloucester and Wiltshire would be excluded in any realistic sense from harbouring professional ambitions.

Based on the information in the public domain, what Project Darwin means for the RDC Academies is unclear. However, if the new Tier 1 counties are to assume responsibility for everything the regions currently do, then this must comprise not just the senior women’s teams but also the associated talent pathways which feed into the senior squads (i.e., the 8 RDCs and the 23 Emerging Player Programmes, EPPs).

A review of the 2023/24 intake for each of the RDCs shows how well represented the non-host partner counties are (a dramatic change from a few years ago).

• Blaze: Derby (2); Essex (1); Leicester (4); Lincs (1); Notts (5); Staffordshire (1)
• Central Sparks: Staffordshire (5); Shropshire (2); Worcester (2); Wales (1)
• Northern Diamonds: Yorkshire (8); Northumbria (4); Durham (3)
• South East Stars: Kent (5); Surrey (9)
• Southern Vipers: Berkshire (3); Hants (5); Kent (1); Oxford (1); Sussex (2)
• Sunrisers: Cambridge (1); Essex (5); Hertfordshire (2); Kent (1); Middlesex (4); Norfolk (2)
• Thunder: Cheshire (3); Cumbria (1): Lancashire (11).
• Western Storm: Devon (2): Exeter (1); Gloucester (5); Somerset (3); Wales (1); Wilts (3)

So, what is proposed to replace the RDCs under Project Darwin? County Under 19 teams? County U21 teams? This won’t work since, as these figures clearly show, no county has enough indigenous talent to organically underpin its senior women’s team.

Hence Tier 1 counties will still need to draw upon talent from adjoining counties – meaning they would need to: (1) continue to fund and support EPPs in contingent counties to identify and nurture the best regional talent; and (2) create replacements for the inter-RDC matches and tournaments to allow each Tier 1 county’s best non-contracted players plus affiliated EPP players play against similar squads from other Tier 1 counties.

For the majority of players across the country playing for their County is the pinnacle of their ambitions (whether capped by ability or other factors) and such a goal should be attainable wherever a player lives.

Currently, this is the case even when your county is also a regional host i.e., a player can play for Hampshire without being in the Southern Vipers squad or for Middlesex without being a Sunriser. (Although the distinction between regional squads and county teams is somewhat blurred at some counties.).

However, with the abolition of the regions if a county becomes a Tier 1 county this bifurcation will end. Suddenly there’ll be no place for the non-professional – however talented – at Tier 1 counties meaning players who don’t seek or don’t have the skills to be professional player will have only 2 choices: play for an adjacent Tier 2 county (if that’s viable) or accept that the highest standard they can play at will be premier league cricket.

This is unfair and discriminates against a Tier 1 county’s entire non-professional pool. In addition, it means that there’d be no structure to nurture a Tier 1 county’s late developing talent – after CAG U17, any player not in the county squad would have no support and hence no chance to improve.

I’ve written several times before about the folly of effectively closing the women’s talent pool at such a young age when evidence from the men’s game suggests there is barely no correlation between performance at age 19 and long-term success. (No one has yet countered with any argument why the women’s game would be different if similar support existed for late developers.)

This proposal risks significantly reducing the breadth of the talent pool by (i) the abandonment of the RDC level and (ii) the proposal that all other counties play Tier 2 cricket. A primary argument for the creation of the regions was that the standard of county cricket was too low. What chance has a talented cricketer in e.g., Cornwall or Cumbria of a professional career if the nearest host county is 2 hours’ drive away, their local coaching is limited to whatever a Tier 2 county can provide, who plays in matches against other Tier 2 sides (meaning no coach or scout from Tier 1 will ever see them play and any reports of good performances will invariably be dismissed as having ‘only’ been made at Tier 2)?

And even this pessimistic scenario requires that the ECB shows considerably more interest (and puts money) in the game beneath the professional level than they’ve done since the creation of the regional structure.

Finally, a staggered roll-out of the Tier 1 and Tier 2 structures suggests that the ECB hasn’t solidified its plans re the future structure of the Tier 2 game (other than issuing some ‘holding’ language that it will act as a level between the recreational game and Tier 1). What, like the counties were expected to do under the current regional set up? Can we expect another begrudgingly-endorsed regional county T20 tournament running the whole month of May? This would not be good enough.

I don’t propose to have all the answers, but here are a few suggestions to start the ball rolling.

1. All Tier 1 counties should be obliged to fund, support and deliver EPPs in a designated number of contingent partner Tier 2 counties. This will ensure that talent isn’t squandered simply because a promising player happens to live in a non-host county.
2. Tier 1 host counties should be required to fund and support a separate, entirely non-professional ‘A’ team (playing under the same county name) which would compete in Tier 2 competitions. This would ensure that all amateur players have the same opportunity to play for their county if their county is a Tier 1 county. Players on EPPs who haven’t secured regional contracts could play in the A team – which would be the next highest level of competition beneath Tier 1 in the absence of RDC games. This would help raise the standard of Tier 2 games and provide a stage on which Tier 2 players could showcase their skills – with the realistic expectation that good performances would be noted by Tier 1 coaches and talent scouts.
3. The ECB needs to launch properly-funded T20 and 50 over competitions for Tier 2 counties (and Tier 1 ‘A’ teams) which run the whole season and culminate in proper quarter-, semis and national finals.
4. Implementation of the new Tier 1 and Tier 2 structure should be on the same year.