England might have recorded one of the largest margins of victory in their history against South Africa in their opening match last week, but against Bangladesh it was so nearly a different story – a charmed innings of 79 from former captain Heather Knight being the only difference between the teams.

Knight was forced to invoke the “Power of 3 (Reviews)” – dismissed thrice by the on-field officials, she survived each time by appealing to the third umpire.

In the third over of their chase, with England already one down having lost Amy Jones, Knight was given out after the ball squeezed between bat and pad and was taken by the keeper. It was unclear whether the on-field dismissal was for caught behind or LBW – Knight indicating that the ball had hit her pad, suggesting she thought she’d been given out caught, but the TV umpire appeared to think the on-field decision was LBW. Regardless, the TV umpire concluded that there was no LBW case to answer, but also that there was insufficient evidence that she’d hit it to give her out caught, with the Ultra-Edge spike clear but not clearly attributable to the ball hitting the bat. (And if you are confused… welcome to the club!)

Then in the 7th over, with England Tammy Beaumont have joined Jones back in the pavillion, Knight was given out LBW on 8; but was reprieved once more by the third umpire – this time uncontroversially, with the ball clearly missing the stumps according to the ball tracking system.

The third review was perhaps the most disputable. In the fifteenth over, Knight drove towards extra cover and appeared to be spectacularly caught by a low-diving Shorna Akter. Knight (who probably had the best view in the ground) was walking off when the on-field officials asked for the catch to be double-checked, with the third umpire re-adjudicating the decision apparently on the grounds that it wasn’t clear the ball hadn’t touched the turf, even though all the available angles seemed to suggest Shorna’s fingers were underneath it.

Whilst the middle decision was obviously correct, the other two were much less obviously so, and if they’d gone the other way, England could have had few complaints. But Knight survived, and dug in for one of the slowest half-centuries of her career; and although England’s other batters fell one-by-one, a partnership of 79 with Charlie Dean got England the win they needed to go top of the table… albeit partly because Australia dropped a point to the rain on Saturday; because (as I warned on last week’s vodcast) England’s Net Run Rate was only ever going to go down from where it was following the South Africa result, and it is now already lower than Australia’s.

Bangladesh will be pleased to have pushed England so close in a match they definitely didn’t expect to win, but they will also doubtless be disappointed that they got so close to what would have been a famous demon-killing but couldn’t strike the final death-blow.

So often the smaller teams go into these matches with a survival mentality, but Sharmin Akhter got Bangladesh off to a bright start, striking at a run-a-ball early in the powerplay. However, with the loss of a couple of wickets Bangladesh shut up shop and had crawled to 121-5 after 40 overs.

But a strong death phase added 57 runs, 43 of them from the impressive bat of Rabeya Khan, to get them to a total which proved enough to make it tricky for England.

It was a result which told us far more about where England are than the South Africa match, which was very much a self-inflicted implosion on the part of the South Africans. Against Bangladesh, England wobbled badly, got lucky with some DRS calls, but ultimately came through. They now sit atop the table thanks some marginal umpiring calls against a team who expected to win two games in this tournament at best. Of course, the fates always have a part to play in these things; but if England are going to stay on top, they need to find a more convincing way of winning than drawing magic circles in the sand.

I woke up at 5am this morning full of excitement for a day I’d been looking forward to for months – I refer, of course, to the release of the new Taylor Swift album Life of a Showgirl on which the American singer reflects that “oftentimes it doesn’t feel so glamorous to be me”.

I know how you feel Tay! Like… one time back in 2017, I was one of a handful of people schlepping up to oh-so-not-very-glamorous Leicester to watch a Women’s World Cup match between South Africa and West Indies. And let’s put it this way – it wasn’t one of the fixtures everyone was clamouring to cover!

Nonetheless, it turned out to be one of the most memorable matches of the tournament – South Africa bowling West Indies out for 48 on their way to one of the fastest victories in World Cup history, winning with 262 balls to spare.

Appropriately, I was wearing my official 2017 World Cup press polo today, to watch from the sofa as South Africa were again involved in a low-scoring mugging; but this time the boot was on England’s foot, and South Africa were the victims.

England will have been mightily relieved to win the toss and have the opportunity to insert South Africa – there has been big pressure on the team batting first in the opening matches of this World Cup, and we’ve seen wobbles from both India (124-6 at one stage) and Australia (128-5) already this week, whilst Pakistan were skittled for 129.

With Nat Sciver-Brunt having admitted in the pre-match press conference that she wasn’t going to be able to bowl 10 overs, somewhat contradicting what coach Charlotte Edwards had said the day before, England’s selections were driven partly by the need to find some extra overs from somewhere, meaning Alice Capsey and Emma Lamb getting the nod over Danni Wyatt-Hodge, who to be fair has some decent experience running drinks in India, having spent an entire WPL doing it for UP Warriorz in 2024!

But neither Capsey nor Lamb were required, with either bat or ball, as South Africa imploded in the 30° heat of Guwahati.

After a bit of a loosener of an opening over from Lauren Bell, Linsey Smith picked up the ball at the other end, and within two deliveries she had South Africa in trouble. Natalie Germanos on comms called it “the big wicket”, because… that’s what she always says! But on this occasion she was right, with captain Laura Wolvaardt being the first dismissal – a classic Linsey Smith Caught & Bowled.

In her following over, Smith took another – Tazmin Brits, bowled by a drifting quicker delivery that ended up somewhere between an arm-ball and an inswinger.

By the time the 3rd wicket fell, leaving South Africa in what looked like real trouble at 17-3, Charlie Dean was not so much celebrating in the England huddle as shaking her head in disbelief, whilst I texted a friend that South Africa must have been wishing they had selected Tumi Sekhukhune so they could just send her in to block out the next 45 overs.

The wobble was well and truly happening, as it had for both India and Australia; but unlike those two, South Africa could not pull out of the skid they were in. One by one, they fell, mostly to pretty basic bowling – simply bringing the stumps into play, and letting the ever-increasing pressure do the hard work.

Only Sinalo Jafta (22) made it to double-figures, and she should have been stumped by Amy Jones on 8 – a relatively straightforward chance, of the sort which you’d generally expect Jones to be taking in her sleep.

It was one of two or three mistakes from the England keeper, who for the first time since she took the gloves following the retirement of Sarah Taylor, might be starting to feel some selection pressure, at least in terms of her keeping, with the brilliant form of Rhianna Southby. Southby was always capable of moments of brilliance, but is now backing them up with the more bread-and-butter sustained spells of competence which you need from a keeper in 50 over cricket – hence her “selection” as a non-travelling reserve for this tournament.

In the end, South Africa were bowled out for 73. It was 25 more than West Indies had made in Leicester that day in 2017, but I don’t suppose that even if it occurred to any of them (and several of them were there that day, including Wolvaardt and Marizanne Kapp) it was much consolation. Oftentimes it doesn’t feel so glamorous to be South Africa, and this time was one of those times.

Having got themselves into the position they did, it was important for England to go out and back up the bowling with a 10-wicket win, as South Africa had done in 2017. There were obviously a few nerves, and Marizanne Kapp threatened to  make it interesting with her usual fire. England didn’t go particularly hard, and in terms of runs scored, the teams were even-stevens at the end of the powerplay – England on 39 where South Africa had been 38; although of course the difference was that South Africa had lost 5 wickets!

In what could turn out to be a critical moment in England’s progress through this tournament, Amy Jones was dropped by Masabata Klaas off her own bowling, just as she was looking to accelerate. Jones is a Confidence Player™ and if she’d gone then, there could have been ramifications well beyond this match; but she went on to finish strongly on 40* hitting back-to-back 4s off Ayabonga Khaka as England reached for the… well, it is hard to call 73 “the stars”, but you can only chase the total you are chasing, and England will be heading now into a run of (theoretically!) easier games against Bangladesh, Sri Lanka and Pakistan with some momentum behind them.

Batting Rankings

Bowling Rankings

A big hundred from Ireland captain Gaby Lewis was the difference between the two sides as Lancashire beat Hampshire by 6 wickets to lift the inaugural county One Day Cup at the Utilita Bowl.

Lewis had the Luck of the Irish™ on her side – she should have been given out on 62 – running a sharp single off a misfield, she was out of her crease when the bails were broken via an underarm throw from Abi Norgrove, but the umpire’s decision didn’t go Hampshire’s way, and Lewis survived.

It was a difficult call for the umpire – there was only a frame in it, with the next frame showing Lewis’s bat in the crease – but equally Lewis can obviously have had no complaint if she had been given out; as she would have been if TV reviews had been available, as they apparently were in the men’s final.

Misery was piled on misery for Hampshire a couple of overs later, as history repeated itself as tragedy – Seren Smale given not out, despite once again replays showing she was clearly out of her ground when the wickets were broken. Smale went on to make 72 in a partnership of 144 with Lewis, which broke the back of Hampshire’s defence.

Smale was finally dismissed in the 33rd over – popping a leading edge up to a diving Freya Kemp at short midwicket; but Lewis went on to finish unbeaten on 141 – the joint-third-highest score in the One Day Cup this season.

With 3 overs remaining, Lancashire still needed 21 to win, and Hampshire were still just about in the game; but Lewis piled into a slightly wayward 48th over from Georgia Adams, hitting three 4s as the over went for 16. There was one last moment of hope for Hampshire as Lewis launched the final ball of the over towards Maia Bouchier, running across to deep mid on; but Bouchier could only get a fingertip to it as it went for 4, leaving Ailsa Lister to put the icing on the cake of a breakthrough season by striking the winning runs from Freya Davies’s final deliveries in professional cricket.

There was no fairytale ending for the 29-year-old former England seamer Davies, who now leaves cricket to pursue a career in law; but she leaves the game with her reputation held high and a collection of 35 England caps as well as winners medals from the old Women’s County Championship and the Kia Super League.

On a crisp, bright autumn day, which contrasted sharply with the mudbath of the semi-final earlier in the week, Hampshire were put into bat by Lancashire captain Ellie Threlkeld, and started circumspectly in the face of Lancashire’s dangerous opening bowling partnership of Mahika Gaur and Kate Cross.

Cross passed the bat of Bouchier a few times in the early salvos, leaving the England opener looking down at her bat with a bamboozled expression. A thick outside edge flashed just out of reach of Seren Smale at slip; but Bouchier survived and went on to make 66. It was a solid contribution, but was emblematic of Hampshire’s day, as she failed for the 6th time in the One Day Cup this season to convert 50 to 100 – giving her wicket away with a limp push to mid on off a pretty innocuous delivery from Gaur.

As with Bouchier, so too with both Georgia Adams (77) and Freya Kemp (41). Both did the hard yards, but couldn’t push on in the way Lewis later did – Adams bowled trying to reverse sweep Fi Morris; and Kemp pushing a catch to Lister on the ring.

Hampshire did have a decent final 10 – or more accurately, a decent penultimate 5, as Adams and Abi Norgrove hit out to get them close to the 300 that they really needed on a pitch which played wonderfully well, despite having spent Wednesday under a carpet as the rest of the square was turned to mud in Hampshire’s semi-final win.

Hampshire somewhat got out of jail that day, but they couldn’t pull off that trick twice in a week, and a crowd of 2,500 – most of whom were clearly rooting for a home win – ultimately went home disappointed, as Lancashire celebrated their second trophy of the season, after winning the T20 “FA Cup” at Taunton back in May.

Having underperformed through the regional era, a change of coach seems to have done the trick for Lancashire, with Chris Read finally fulfilling expectations that have so often been stronger than the outcomes. To have done it without their two big run-scorers this season, Eve Jones (injured) and Emma Lamb (on England duty) who between them scored ten 50s and three 100s for the team in the One Day Cup, was against the odds, but showed that they have the depth to potentially be the New Vipers – the team to beat in the new county era.

This week:

• Hampshire’s Mudbath
• Tiers 1&2 ditch their Playing Conditions
• Freya Davies retires
• Sarah Glenn signs for Yorkshire
• Why Australia & India’s World Cup prep is better than England’s

This week:

• Yorkshire & Glamorgan vs the rain at Worcester
• Middlesex to go pro by 2029 – but what does that mean for the rest of Tier 2?
• Why is 2026 Blast Finals Day on a weekday?
• The ICC get their facts wrong about female umpires

Both the One Day Cup and the Women’s T20 Blast use a system of Bonus Points, which is described in the Playing Conditions.

A winning team that achieves a run rate of 1.25 times that of the opposition shall be awarded one bonus point. 

There’s a problem with this though: it’s wrong!

But… how can it be wrong? The Playing Conditions are akin to “laws”, are they not? If it says it in the Playing Conditions, it is right by definition!

It all comes down to one simple word: maths!

As soon as you say the word, people’s eyes glaze over. (In fact, I’ll be willing to bet there were a few people who didn’t even click on this article, because they were worried it would include maths. Which to be fair, it does!)

It isn’t true that “nobody” likes maths. I’ve met thousands and thousands of people in my life, and at least 3 of them liked maths (hi Tom & Tom & Matthew!) But in general most people think maths sucks!

So instead of “doing the math” we outsource it to a computer – in this case the NV Play system that is used for scoring matches in the One Day Cup.

This means that in practice the Playing Conditions don’t actually matter – NV Play is The Truth and (despite what it says in the Playing Conditions) NV Play doesn’t award a Bonus Point to a winning team that achieves a run rate of 1.25 times that of the opposition.

Instead it awards a bonus point to a winning team that achieves the target in 0.8 times the number of available deliveries.

To be fair, this often results in the same number, but not always, even in a totally “normal” match. If the team batting first scores 200 runs, 1.25 times the Run Rate can be achieved in 40.1 overs; so (according to the Playing Conditions) you should have an extra delivery; but you don’t!

This comes into much sharper focus when there is a DLS adjustment. In yesterday’s crucial match between Durham and Surrey, the match was reduced to 29 overs and Durham’s Required Run Rate ratcheted up significantly, meaning that (going by the Playing Conditions) it would have been impossible for them to achieve a win without scoring at 1.25 the times of the opposition.

Sidebar: The Playing Conditions do give a hint that things might be different in DLS situations, stating that “Where matches are shortened and targets revised through the Duckworth-Lewis-Stern system, bonus run rates and bonus defensive targets are derived as a function of the revised target score” but the phrase “as a function of” is mathematically meaningless, and doesn’t actually state how the calculation should be made.

But NV Play in fact required them to achieve the adjusted target of 225 in 23.1 overs – which would have required scoring at almost twice the Run Rate Surrey had achieved. It was an all-but impossible ask, and if nothing else answers my question as to why they didn’t appear to be trying to do it.

Whether or not this is fair, we can leave as a question for another time – it isn’t really the subject of this article.

But I do think it is quite bad that the Playing Conditions state a definition for Bonus Points that is flat-wrong; if for no other reason than it leads to confusion, because most people (including us) don’t have access to NV Play, so we have to do the calculations ourselves. How can we hope to calculate it correctly, and give correct information to fans, if the definition in the Playing Conditions is completely wrong?

The Playing Conditions need to be updated, to clearly state how Bonus Points are actually calculated.

Will they be?

I’m not holding my breath.

(And in the meantime, I’ll be fixing my Bonus Point Calculator!)

With 4 games remaining to be played on Saturday, Surrey, Durham and Somerset are still all in with a mathematical chance of qualification.

They key fixtures are Surrey v Durham and Somerset v Warwickshire

Here are the possible scenarios.

Surrey Win (w. Bonus Point)

• Surrey Qualify on points

Surrey Win

• Surrey Qualify on points

Surrey v Durham – No Result/ Tie

• Surrey Qualify on points or NRR – Although Somerset could draw-level with Surrey on 31 points with a Bonus Point win, it is practically impossible for Somerset to overturn Surrey’s NRR advantage. (If Somerset scored 350 and then bowled Warwickshire out for 1, it still wouldn’t be enough!)

Durham Win (w. Bonus Point) + Somerset Lose (or N/R)

• Durham Qualify on points

Durham Win (w. Bonus Point) + Somerset Win (no BP)

• Durham Qualify on points

Durham Win (w. Bonus Point) + Somerset Win (w. BP)

• Durham Qualify on NRR… probably – A Bonus Point win for Durham will have increased their NRR sufficiently that it would be very difficult for Somerset to overtake them. (The narrowest possible Bonus Point win for Durham would leave Somerset needing to score 300 and bowl Warwickshire out for 100.)

Durham Win + Somerset Win (no BPs)

• Durham Qualify on NRR – If Somerset win without a Bonus Point, Durham will almost certainly qualify on NRR. It is possible for Durham to win and their NRR to drop slightly, but not by enough for it to be possible for Somerset to overturn with a non-Bonus Point win. (And if Somerset win with a Bonus Point, they qualify on points anyway – see below.)

Durham Win + Somerset Win (w. Bonus Point)

• Somerset Qualify on points

CAVEAT: The above is hopefully accurate, but as always:
DO NOT BET YOUR HOUSE ON SYD’S MATHS!!