Author: Syd Egan

OPINION: Women’s County Champs v WNCL – The Strange Case of Kara Sutherland

Posted by

2

How does the standard of England’s Women’s County Championship compare to Australia’s Women’s National Cricket League? Perhaps one player’s stats tell a story?

New South Wales’ Kara Sutherland had a pretty indifferent season in the WNCL in 2014-15. In 7 matches, the all-rounder took only 3 wickets at 52 and (admittedly batting down the order) scored just 1 run in 4 innings, averaging 0.5 thanks to a couple of not-outs. Looking back at previous years, the story is a similar one: Sutherland is a very good club player, who probably isn’t quite classy enough to play at the highest level of domestic cricket in Australia.

Consequently, it was something of a surprise when Kent – England’s reigning county champions, and home to (among others) England captain Charlotte Edwards and four other contracted England players – signed Sutherland as their “overseas” for the 2015 Women’s County Championship.

But watching Sutherland play for Kent against Berkshire and Ireland in the T20s, however, was something of a revelation – she looked pretty good, bowling at a similar pace to Daisy Gardner, who I rate as probably the best “county” bowler (excluding England and Academy players) around at the moment; and Sutherland’s stats reflect this. So far this season, she has taken 9 wickets at 21. Meanwhile with the bat, she averages 16 – not spectacular… but a lot better than 0.5!

As commentators, we’ve often wondered about the relative standard of the Women’s County Championship compared to the WNCL; and it is usually taken as a “given” that WNCL is the stronger.

But it can be difficult to find hard facts to back-up this hunch; and that is why The Strange Case of Kara Sutherland is so interesting. A player who struggles in WNCL but looks pretty good in the Women’s County Champs? I’d say this was rather strong evidence that domestic cricket in Australia is of a much higher standard than it is here… and that is a big part of why we need the ECB’s new Womens Cricket Super League to succeed in its mission to strengthen our domestic game.

OPINION: What Has Wyatt Got To Do?

Posted by

5

When England’s Women’s Ashes ODI squad was announced earlier this week, the omission of Danielle Wyatt was no great surprise to followers of the women’s game. But it does beg the question: just what has TAFKAW* got to do to get selected for England outside of the T20 arena?

Even in T20s, Wyatt has had little opportunity to shine at international level recently. Since the contracts were put in place last year, she has played 6 T20s – three against South Africa last summer, and three versus New Zealand over the winter. But in those games, she has bowled only once, taking 0/5; and batted just twice, scoring 0 and 7. So whilst it is true that she could have made more of her opportunities… when those opportunities are so few and far between, is it really fair to expect her to instantly be able to just ‘turn it on’ at the highest level?

Meanwhile, Wyatt’s form at county level has been superlative – hitting runs all over the place, and averaging over 40, with a highest score of 102 in domestic cricket this season. Even her bowling seems to be getting back on track – we have seen her bowl twice this season and while she wasn’t turning it like Holly Colvin at Billingshurst, not many would be; and she has nevertheless done a job, taking 6 wickets at 29, and bowling very few bad balls.

In contrast, Georgia Elwiss, who was selected, has NOT had a great start to the county season – she averages just 19 with the bat, with a highest score of 34; and has taken only 3 wickets with the ball.

But Elwiss did have one opportunity which Wyatt did not – she was selected for the Academy tour of the UAE, where she made a hatful of runs against Australia’s youngsters – the Shooting Stars.

However, we must then raise the question: is scoring hundreds at county level really so much less valuable than making runs against a very inexperienced Shooting Stars team, in a series of “jumpers for goalposts”** matches on a road in the UAE?

Apparently, the England selectors think so… but I’m not so sure!

————
* The Artist Formerly Known As WAG!
** These games were NOT played under standard international playing conditions, with teams effectively making substitutions and batting on when technically All Out.

England Women’s Ashes Squad

Posted by

2

The ECB have announced England’s squad for the Women’s Ashes ODIs, beginning in Taunton on Tuesday 21st July. There are 14 names on the list, and the big news is the recall of Sussex’s Georgia Elwiss. Elwiss was one of only two players to come out of this winter with her reputation enhanced – the other being Middlesex’s Alex Hartley. Both Elwiss and Hartley shone for “The Academy”, England Women’s equivalent of the men’s Lions, the former with the bat and the latter with the ball. It is with the bat that England have struggled more of late, which explains Elwiss’ inclusion in this squad; though Hartley could yet get her shot later, more likely in the T20s than the Test.

Another point of note is the inclusion of Becky Grundy ahead of England’s World Number One Ranked T20 bowler, Dani Hazell. Grundy was set to play a big part in England’s plans last summer, when injury cruelly intervened to rob her of that opportunity, but the selectors clearly rate her, and now she has her chance once again to prove why.

Full ODI Squad:

  • Charlotte Edwards (C)
  • Heather Knight (VC)
  • Katherine Brunt
  • Kate Cross
  • Georgia Elwiss
  • Lydia Greenway
  • Rebecca Grundy
  • Jenny Gunn
  • Amy Jones
  • Laura Marsh
  • Nat Sciver
  • Anya Shrubsole
  • Sarah Taylor
  • Lauren Winfield

ANALYSIS: How Australia’s Top Batsmen Get Out

Posted by

Australia’s leading batsmen – Jess Cameron, Meg Lanning, Ellyse Perry, Alex Blackwell, Alyssa Healy and Elyse Villani- have collectively been dismissed over 400 times in limited overs internationals*. We run the numbers showing how Anya Shrubsole and the rest of England’s bowling attack will be looking to get them out in this summer’s Women’s Ashes.

Player Caught Bowled LBW Run Out Stumped
Blackwell 38% 17% 15% 23% 7%
Cameron 57% 20% 8% 9% 7%
Healy 54% 17% 10% 13% 6%
Lanning 60% 16% 9% 13% 3%
Perry 52% 14% 5% 23% 7%
Villani 63% 25% 8% 4% 0%
TOTAL 51% 17% 11% 16% 6%

As with England (and as we would expect) the most common mode of dismissal is caught. For individual players the statistically significant figures are highlighted in red.

Jess Cameron and Alyssa Healy (like England’s Heather Knight) have fairly average profiles, and are not particularly susceptible to getting out in one way any more than another.

In contrast, Southern Stars captain Meg Lanning and opener Elyse Villani get caught a lot! (Although Villani hasn’t played that many matches, her % Caught is well beyond any doubts regarding its statistical significance.)

Like England’s Sarah Taylor (who also gets caught more than average) both players like to play their shots; but their style is very different to Taylor’s. Where Taylor tries to go elegantly over the infield, Lanning and Villani are looking to smash it to – and often over – the boundary rope. Tellingly, Taylor’s boundary rate is much lower – 10% of balls faced, while Villani’s and Lanning’s are at 14% and 15% respectively.

The other side of Villani’s game is that she doesn’t get Run Out very often at all – just 4% of her dismissals; probably because… who needs to run when you are hitting it to the rope?

By contrast, Australia’s vice-captain Alex Blackwell is significantly susceptible to being Run Out. Stylistically, she is quite a careful, conservative and unflashy player, at both domestic and international level, so in a way she is the antithesis of Villani, and she just doesn’t play the kind of shots that get Villani caught.

Also, she bats at a similar position in the order to England’s Lydia Greenway, who suffers the same Run Out problem; and so part of the explanation may well be the same too – coming in later on, when the pressure is on to take all the singles that might be on offer, however tight; and more often than not batting with less experienced tail-enders.

Ellyse Perry’s stats look pretty standard at first glance, but hidden behind the numbers shown above is actually something very interesting – compared to her peers, Ellyse Perry doesn’t get out – not very often, anyway! In fact, of all the world’s leading batsmen, she has far and away the highest Not Out % – 40% of her innings ending undefeated.

The underperformance of Australia’s top batsmen was a key reason for their downfall in the 2013 Ashes series in England; it’ll be interesting to see how they fare this time around.

ANALYSIS: Ellyse Perry & Not Outs

Posted by

1

Last week we looked at how some of England’s leading batsmen get out. While researching a similar article on Australia’s top order, we noticed something else interesting: Ellyse Perry – the word’s number 12 ranked ODI batsman – doesn’t get out… or not very often anyway! A staggering 40% of her (limited overs) innings end Not Out.

Intrigued, we ran the numbers for the rest of the Top 20 ranked ODI batsmen, plus threw in some other leading names for good measure. Across the group, the Not Out average is 18%. Meg Lanning (admittedly coming in earlier in the order) ends just 9% of her innings Not Out; and even for more comparable players, the numbers max out in the high 20s. Dane van Niekerk, often batting at a similar spot in the order, is 2nd in the list, and her N.O. is 29% – way, way behind Perry.

This raises the question of whether Perry’s cross-format limited overs average of 30 is distorted by this? To an extent it is. If her N.O. was the same as van Niekerk’s (29%) Perry’s average would fall to a somewhat less impressive 25. So if we are using the average as an indication of how many runs Perry might score, it is distorted. But that doesn’t mean to say it isn’t a fair indication of her value to the Southern Stars – after all, you only have one wicket, and giving it away as little as Perry does is clearly a big part of what makes her one of the world’s most extraordinary players.

The Not Out List

Name N.O. %
Perry 40%
van Niekerk 29%
Priest 29%
Raj 28%
Sciver 27%
Greenway 27%
Kapp 26%
Gunn 25%
Knight 20%
Blackwell 19%
du Preez 18%
Cameron 17%
Maroof 16%
Dottin 16%
Kaur 16%
Taylor, SR 15%
Devine 14%
Edwards 14%
Taylor, SJ 13%
McGlashan 12%
Kahn 12%
Lanning 9%
Satterthwaite 9%
Bates 6%
Atapattu 1%

ANALYSIS: How England’s Batsmen Get Out

Posted by

2

England’s 4 leading batsmen – Charlotte Edwards, Heather Knight, Sarah Taylor and Lydia Greenway – have collectively been dismissed over 500 times in limited overs internationals*. We take a look at the numbers showing how they got out.

Player Caught Bowled LBW Run Out Stumped
Edwards 49% 19% 19% 9% 5%
Greenway 45% 16% 13% 17% 9%
Knight 47% 20% 12% 16% 6%
Taylor 56% 17% 10% 11% 6%
TOTAL 49% 18% 15% 12% 6%

With the usual caveats about lies, damned lies and statistics, what does this tell us?

Collectively, the most common mode of dismissal is Caught. This is the case throughout all international cricket, men’s and women’s – though the men tend to be caught behind rather more often than the women.

For individual players, the statistically significant numbers (see An Aside on Statistical Significance below) are highlighted in RED.

Sarah Taylor tends to get caught rather more than her peers. She likes to go over the infield, with lofted drives particularly over mid on. It is a tactic which has brought her enormous success, but it isn’t without its risks if she doesn’t actually clear the fielder.

Charlotte Edwards is particularly susceptible to being out Leg Before Wicket; and although the frequency of LBWs has fallen slightly, from 20% earlier in her career to 18% more recently, it remains significant. Is it because she opens the batting? In doing so, she faces the best bowlers at their freshest, swinging it in at pace towards her legs; and if they’ve done their homework, they are probably looking for that decision too! Maybe the England captain also suffers slightly from the man at the other end not having got his eye in yet? (Perhaps that’s the reason for those trade-mark looks of withering disbelief as the ump’s finger is raised!)

Lydia Greenway gets Run Out a lot. Is this because, batting a bit further down the order, England are more likely to be under pressure and chasing every run when she comes to the crease; and so Lydia finds herself taking more risks than her peers? Or perhaps it’s because she finds herself batting more often with all-rounders and tail-enders? Either way, it’s a particular concern this summer given that the fielding of the Aussies is top-notch, and won’t leave much room for confusion between the wickets.

Finally, Heather Knight is… Heather Knight – balanced in dismissals, as she is in life. While it is true that 16% of her dismissals are Run Outs, compared with a group average of just 12%, this is not statistically significant! Why? Well, read on…

An Aside On Statistical Significance

Statistical significance is a complex science, but Heather’s dismissals are actually an interesting case here, helping to explain it in simple terms. As we’ve seen, 16% of her dismissals are Run Out – shown in PURPLE above. This looks like a lot compared with the average of 12%, but actually she has only been Run Out 8 times. Had she been run out just 2 times fewer, her percentage would fall right down to 12% – i.e. the average for the group. So her 16% Run Outs are not considered statistically significant.

——————

* ODI + T20I

OPINION: Ancient Rivalries Threaten Super League Prospects

Posted by

2

In the immortal words of the Aussie soap theme, “Everybody needs good neighbours!” But in sport (as in Ramsay Street) it is often the BAD neighbours that make the biggest stories – think the Mets v the Yankees in Major League Baseball; Carlton v Collingwood in Aussie Rules; or Celtic v Rangers in Scottish football.

And women’s cricket is no exception – Kent and Sussex are neighbours… but GOOD neighbours? Hardly!

So if Sussex were to be contemplating a franchise bid, it is a pretty safe bet that it won’t be a joint bid with Kent! Ditto Middlesex and Surrey; not to mention that oldest and fiercest of great cricketing rivalries, Lancashire and Yorkshire.

Yet with only 6 franchises to share around in the proposed Women’s Cricket Super League, this could well be a major sticking-point.

The counties listed above are probably six of the most likely franchise candidates, especially when you factor-in financial viability; but it would mean 4 of the 6 franchises within 60 miles of London, and the other two based either side of the Pennines – leaving huge swathes of the country, from the Midlands to the south west, without a sniff of top-level women’s cricket.

And this DOES matter – perhaps not commercially, but certainly from the perspective of building England’s next generation around localised “Centres of Excellence” for coaching and development.

Is there a way to cut through this? It won’t be easy.

A “South East” franchise that somehow combined Sussex and Kent would still need to be based somewhere; and there aren’t too many options once you start to consider the minimum standards being mandated for facilities – it is going to be either Brighton or Canterbury*, which means it will be Sussex or Kent in all but name. (And likely in name too, because that would be the obvious way of marketing it to the existing (men’s) fan-base.)

The other option for the ECB is to “pick one” – one of Kent or Sussex; one of Middlesex or Surrey. But how do you do that fairly and transparently? (And how big is your budget for legal fees when the “loser” sues?)

One thing is for certain – Clare Connor and her team at the ECB are going to need to walk on political water to make this one work! Can they do it? Yes! (But it ain’t gonna be easy!)

——————

* Or possibly Beckenham… but that doesn’t buck the point!

REPORT: Notts Colvinated as Sussex Streak Continues

Posted by

2

Sussex’s unbeaten streak continued this weekend as a Holly Colvin four-fer helped them see off Notts by 5 wickets at Billingshurst.

Having won the toss, Sussex captain Sarah Taylor opted to field on a windy morning with some swing in the air for opening bowlers Freya Davies and Izi Noakes, who led off with a pair of maidens.

Notts soon found themselves two down, as Georgie Boyce was run out without scoring and Sonia Odedra also departed cheaply, well caught by Georgia Elwiss at gully off Davies.

Danni Wyatt (36) and Jenny Gunn (39) got things back on track for Notts, but it was Colvin who then did the damage, taking 4/20 in a 10-over spell which saw off Wyatt and Gunn as well as Amy Gauvrit and Zoe Richards.

Aussie Erin Osborne also took 3/28, before Davies came back to finish Notts off in just the 36th over, with 132 on the board.

It didn’t look like a big total, and so it proved, as Sussex knocked off the runs in less than 30 overs: Sarah Taylor leading the way with 39, assisted by Elwiss (27) and Paige Scolfield (25).

On a positive note for Notts and England, Wyatt bowled well again – taking 2/36 in 10 overs, including the big wicket of Elwiss, who struggled to get the spinner off the square and was eventually bowled trying to hoik her through mid on. Jenny Gunn (2/18) also got into the wickets, before Osborne and Colvin wrapped things up for Sussex.

Speaking to CRICKETher after being awarded her Man of the Match champagne, Holly Colvin said:

“I’d like to take that wicket with me every week – it was very helpful and turned quite a lot.”

Referencing her comeback after a year out, she added:

“It’s more enjoyment for me this year, which is really making a difference – enjoyment brings confidence and it’s good to be in a winning team and taking wickets.”

OPINION: Super League Sees ECB Embrace Risk At Last

Posted by

1

As a sport, cricket is all about risk – the bowler who pitches it on a tempting length, inviting the drive; the batsman who looks to go over the top, even while knowing that in this game there are no second chances.

So it is perhaps surprising that cricket’s governing body in this country, the ECB, has been so conservative over the years. In particular they have never got to grips with their most fundamental problem – that in a country where cricket is very-much a second-level sport, there are simply too many teams; tied to an organisational structure that, being based around the ancient counties, is quite literally Medieval.

The women’s game has arguably suffered more from this than the men’s. Forced to adopt the county structure wholesale after the merger with men’s cricket in the late 90s, there were never really enough elite players to support such a broad base, and even now several of the Division 1 counties frequently “carry” players who neither bat nor bowl.

And yet, when change has been suggested in the past, the answer has always been: “We can’t upset the apple cart”; and “Better the devil you know” so “Cling to nurse, for fear of something worse”!

That’s why the new Women’s Cricket Super League is so important – for women’s cricket and maybe yet for the men’s game too. At a stroke, it cuts the Gordian Knot that has bound the game for so long and takes a big leap into the unknown.

For let us be clear, this is a risk. It could fall flat on it’s face before it even gets started. There are certainly parties interested in hosting teams (not all of them current First Class counties) but at least 5 of them are based within a 60 mile radius of London, which might make commercial sense, but would make a mockery of attempts to rebuild a reinvigorated organisational pyramid around the franchises as local centres of excellence.

And even once the system is established, its success is far-from guaranteed. The ECB are putting a lot of money in themselves, and will require their franchisees to support a robust business plan. But four years is a long time in business. People and sponsors come and go; and with the hosts themselves being expected to put in some money to match the ECB’s contribution, it would be remarkable if all six franchises made it through financially unscathed. If you want to know what the results could look like… just ask anyone who follows women’s soccer in America!

But almost because this is a risk, CRICKETher has never felt so excited about the future of our sport. The contracts were great; the Kia’s were great… but both were for the tiny elite. This is for the wider game and for the future. It isn’t just for those who are playing now, but also for those who will contest the Women’s Super League in 2025, the Women’s Ashes in 2027, and the World Cup in 2029.

And if at that time we are looking back on our careers as journalists, covering a robust, healthy game, then we’ll know that THIS was where that journey really started.