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!!

You can’t rush a New York Cheesecake – not when you are baking it, anyway! (When you are eating it – yes, rush away!) But in the baking, it needs to cook low and slow.

In that sense, Sterre Kalis’s match-winning half-century for Yorkshire in their One Day Cup semi-final showdown against Middlesex was the perfect New York Cheesecake – cooked low, and cooked slow.

As Kalis faced her first ball from Saskia Horley at the start of the 11th over, Yorkshire were in just a wee bit of trouble, having lost two set batters – Lauren Winfield-Hill (for 16) and Erin Thomas (for 38) – within the space of 4 balls. That left the visitors 55-3, with both batters at the crease on nought.

The situation wasn’t desperate by any means – chasing a lowish 194, Yorkshire had time on their side. But given that the head-t0-head between the teams this season read “Middlesex 2 – Yorkshire 0”, including a 10-wicket drubbing in the final of the Tier 2 Blast, the honorary Yorkie from Den Haag in the Netherlands must have been wondering if history was about to deliver it’s infamous second encore, this time as farce?

So she dug in.

You could almost hear her telling herself – low and slow; low and slow – as she and Maddie Ward added just 15 runs in 9 overs between the 10th and 19th. A 4 driven down the ground by Ward at the start of the 19th over was the first boundary since the 8th over.

Even with 8 off the 19th over, the entire early middle phase produced just 23 runs for Yorkshire – it was soporific stuff, and for a brief period the game turned against them. Though it wasn’t really relevant, with no rain forecast, they fell behind on DLS, and also on the WinHer Win Predictor.

Nonetheless, Kalis didn’t panic – despite facing dot after dot (45 of ’em in all!) of defensive shots back to the bowler, or drives to fielders on the ring; and despite going at a Strike Rate of well under 50, she kept her cool, and lowly… slowly… the small crowd at Radlett began to wake up and smell the cheesecake.

Two-and-a-half an over, became three-and-a-half an over, helped by some woeful fielding and a succession of dropped catches from Middlesex. But at the point Ward was dismissed (Artemis Downer finally holding on to a skier at cow corner) Kalis was still only on 29 off 57 balls, at a Strike Rate of just 51.

The entrance of Ami Campbell did then flick a switch – the shots got bigger and so did the run rate. Kalis’s next 36 runs were scored from just 22 balls – 3x the Strike Rate she’d been going before – to get Yorkshire home with more than 10 overs to spare, with Campbell 34* at the other end. A New York cheesecake, perfectly baked.

Some credit must also go to Yorkshire’s bowlers – particularly Beth Langston, who bowled 10 in a row up-top, taking 2-38 and deserving some of the credit for the wickets that fell at the other end too. By the end of the 12th over, Middlesex had lost Issy Routledge and Artemis Downer, both edging pacy deliveries from Langston to Lauren Winfield-Hill behind the sticks; as well as Finty Trussler and Pippa Sproul. Those 4 between them have scored nearly 60% of Middlesex’s runs in the One Day Cup this season, so losing all for barely a peppercorn meant it was always going to be an uphill struggle for the home side.

Captain Saskia Horley fought back with 83 off 100 balls to get Middlesex back into the mix, assisted by an unbeaten 48 from Gaya Gole, and if the Middlesex tail had been able to wag just a little more it might have made a big difference. Chasing something more like 220 or 230 wouldn’t have allowed Kalis quite the luxury to slow-bake her innings the way she did.

It was a disappointing end to the season for Middlesex, but given the way the dice were loaded against them as basically an amateur side playing Yorkshire’s professionals, they should be immensely proud to have achieved a first-placed finish in the table, in addition to their Blast win.

And as he lined up commiseration beers for his side, Middlesex’s Director of Cricket Alan Coleman praised them for what he described as an “unbelievable season” in which the Tier 2 side have won 18 of their matches 21 matches:

“The pride that they can take in the cricket they’ve played is immense. As a club, we couldn’t be prouder of what they’ve achieved.”

For Yorkshire, they march on to next weekend’s final, where they face Glamorgan, with nothing less than a win the minimum expectation.

This week:

• Tier 2: Yorkshire, Glamorgan & Middlesex v The Rest
• ⁠Tier 1: Warwickshire go out
• ⁠Grace Harris in Australia’s World Cup squad
• ⁠Is it right to price World Cup tickets so low?

Batting Rankings

Bowling Rankings

On the CRICKETher Weekly:

• Northern Superchargers triumph in The Hundred
• Davina Perrin’s once-in-a-lifetime century
• CSA make a mess of bringing Dane van Niekerk back into the fold
• NSB bites back after being blamed for the Kate Cross non-selection

Southern Brave have been involved in a few low-scoring games this season – chasing 106 against Rockets with two balls to spare; chasing 111 versus Fire with just one ball remaining; and perhaps more significantly in the context of this match, defending 106 against Fire in their final group match. They won them all – the first time any team has gone through the group stages undefeated.

Now, in the final at Lord’s, they needed to do it all over again, after posting a slightly disappointing 115-6 against Superchargers. Lord’s isn’t The Oval, of course – anyone hoping for a repeat of yesterday’s run-fest in the Eliminator doesn’t know their North London from their South; but nonetheless Brave would have been hoping for more.

Ultimately, they probably needed a lot more – Superchargers chased it with 12 balls to spare, and with very little urgency required. There were a couple of moments in Superchargers’ chase that the Brave might rue. First they failed to go upstairs for a DRS review on Nic Carey, which would have been out. It would have been a golden duck – it was Carey’s first ball – but she went on to top score with 35 and be named the Meerkat Match Hero. Then later a delivery from Lauren Bell nicked the bails, which lit up but didn’t fall. Annabel Sutherland survived, and went on to hit the winning runs with a 6 over mid on.

The Sutherland wicket might not have mattered – Superchargers needed a straightforward 16 from 20 balls by that point, with two proper batters (Hollie Armitage and Bess Heath) plus the highly experienced and pretty unflappable Kate Cross still to come. But the Carey one definitely did; and would have made up somewhat for a disappointing season from the bowler in question – Chloe Tryon, who will go home with £20,000 in her pocket having taken 4 wickets and scored 31 runs in 9 games for Brave this summer.

None of Brave’s overseas stars really fired today. Laura Wolvaardt at least can legitimately claim that she got an unplayable delivery from Kate Cross, who will have perhaps enjoyed a moment of ‘Look What You Could Have Won?’ on the day Isa Guha let-slip live on the BBC that she has lost her central contract. (We understand that she was told this well before the World Cup squad was announced, which… shall we say… certainly adds an additional dimension to those discussions.)

But Sophie Devine chewing up 28 balls – over a quarter of the innings – for just 23 runs made it very difficult for everyone around her; and Tryon “chipping in” by stuttering to 5 off 10 balls at the death was pretty inexcusable – you have to hit out or get out in this shortest of short formats, especially at that stage!

Prior to the game, all the talk in the press box was of Davina Perrin, after her incredible performance in the Eliminator. Men’s cricket journalists who would have struggled to spell her name 24 hours before were sidling up to media managers trying to wrangle an exclusive interview with the girl who now looks set to be cricket’s next global superstar.

And why not? That unbelievable innings will turn her into a millionaire within a year or two, and deservedly so. But expecting her to do it twice in one weekend was probably a bit much; and personally I was simply keeping my fingers crossed that she didn’t let the pressure get to her and dry-up like a mountain stream in a heatwave. And she didn’t – 17 off 16 balls wasn’t a match-winning knock but it was no disgrace either. It got them all-but through the powerplay and gave them the foundation they needed to go on and win the game by playing (mainly!) sensible disciplined cricket.

Phoebe Litchfield was named Player of the Tournament, after a cameo today where she dragged out all the classics like an old music hall performer – the sweep, the reverse sweep, the switch sweep – we saw ’em all! No doubt she has been great entertainment, and she did finish as the leading run-scorer; but if I was Lauren Bell I’d feel slightly aggrieved I think. No one has taken 19 wickets in a Hundred season before, whilst both the last two top run-scorers (Nat Sciver-Brunt in 2024 (303) and Danni Wyatt-Hodge in 2023 (295)) scored more than Litchfield’s 292 runs. If Bell’s team had won the final, might that have made the difference? Should it have? I’m not sure.

So ends the era of The Hundred… at least in its current form. The format itself may drag on for another season or two; but it is certainly doomed after that, and I’d just bite the bullet and change it now, mainly because so much else will change in 2026.

As I look out from the Lord’s press box with the men’s final being played, I see thousands of kids in Invincibles’ bucket hats and sea-green shirts. They’ll be chip-paper next year, with the team from south of the river likely renamed MI London and playing in blue; as will all those Superchargers shirts being worn by the boys and girls who cheered their women’s team’s win earlier. The full house for both games proves that the public has taken this competition to their hearts. The challenge now will be to keep it there for The Hundred 2.0.

This week:

• ⁠England’s World Cup squad: Kate Cross omitted
• Alice Capsey & Danni Wyatt-Hodge included, and will Heather Knight actually get on the plane?
• Shafali Verma misses out on a home World Cup
• ⁠A new World Cup venue = havoc for players, fans & journalists
• ⁠Aussies dominate in The Hundred