18 year old Sophie Ecclestone has received this year’s Cricket Society award for Most Promising Young Female Cricketer.

The award, made on the recommendation of Clare Connor, is awarded annually for the young female cricketer who showed the most promise in the preceding 12 months. It has run since 2002, with previous winners including Nat Sciver (2013), Heather Knight (2010) and Katherine Brunt (2004).

While Ecclestone missed last year’s World Cup due to exam commitments, she finished 2017 on a high, helping England draw the women’s Ashes series out in Australia.

She was also leading wicket-taker in Division 1 of the Women’s County Championship, and instrumental in Lancashire “doing the double” last season, winning both the County Championship and the T20 Cup. On the last day of the County Championship she tore through the Warwickshire batting line-up taking 6-12 – the performance that ultimately took them to Championship victory.

The award was presented at yesterday’s Society Lunch and while Sophie unfortunately could not be present to accept it – she is currently in India on England duty – her parents Elaine and Paul were delighted to do so on her behalf.

The Sydney Morning Herald has published an editorial today which suggests that the next step for women’s sport in Australia is to go fully mixed. Non-contact sports like cricket, the piece argues, should lead the way here. It might not work, but if it did, it could “break down the entrenched attitudes”, not just in sport but in other fields too. “It’s worth a try,” the author concludes.

Actually, no, it isn’t. Mixed cricket would be a disaster for the women’s game.

Of course there are a few women who could be successful playing in a mixed international side (Sarah Taylor is the obvious candidate who springs to mind). But, overall, there’d inevitably be less women playing international cricket. Think about it logically. Even if rules dictated that there had to be a mixed gender split in the Australian cricket team – say 6 men and 5 women, or vice versa – that would still mean that only about 50% of the women currently representing their country would get to keep doing so. How is that a good thing?

Secondly it would negatively affect the grassroots of the game, and narrow the available talent pool – at a time when many women’s sides are already struggling for survival. Why is it that so many clubs – including those in Australia which offer the Milo programme for 7-12 year olds – are beginning to run girls-only training sessions? Because they’ve realised that not all girls want to play mixed cricket. Girls develop at different rates, are often less confident, and have sometimes (sadly) had less grounding in the game from an early age. They feel happier playing surrounded by other girls. If we impose mixed cricket on them, then many of these girls will be lost to the game for good.

And lastly, and most importantly, to suggest that for women’s cricket to be taken seriously it needs to merge with the men’s game is actually frankly rather insulting. Our sport is worthy of respect in its own right. It isn’t inferior, it is different, and we don’t want it to be subsumed into male-dominated structures. We want players like Sarah Taylor to be granted media attention and prestige for their world-class performances within the women’s game, not for there to be endless speculation about how well they might perform in the men’s game. One of the great things about the World Cup last summer was that this really did seem to be happening: women’s cricket really did seem to be becoming respected on its own terms. To suggest that the next logical move is to make cricket gender-mixed totally undermines that.

Mixed cricket isn’t something to “try out”, something to be taken lightly and that we can abandon without a second thought if it doesn’t work out. Of course it would shake things up. But would it really be a progressive move? I don’t think so.

Raf and Syd look back at WBBL03; plus Raf chats bats with Charley from Swannack Bats – cricket bats centuries in the making!

Follow @SwannackMade on Twitter; or visit them at https://swannackmade.com

Brunt Bounces Back

Something Mark Robinson’s England have in spades is resilience. To bounce back after throwing away the Ashes in the space of a few overs on Friday can’t have been easy, but the way they came out today, to not just win but wipe out their opponents, made an important statement about the way this side want to play their cricket.

No one epitomised that attitude more than Katherine Brunt. In tears after the loss on Friday, she somehow channelled all her disappointment and frustration into a sparkling innings of 32* – including the only 2 sixes of England’s innings – and then followed it up with a pace bowling T20 masterclass, conceding just 10 runs from her 4 overs. Sarah Taylor’s stumping of Elyse Villani was itself a masterclass, of course, but it was Brunt’s 3 dot balls up top in the over that forced Villani’s hand.

Basically, don’t upset Katherine Brunt. It’ll come back to bite you in the end.

Gunn Earns Her Spot

There have been question marks over Jenny Gunn’s inclusion in this T20 team, given that it’s Georgia Elwiss – the star of Day 4 at North Sydney – who appears to have given way for her. But Gunn’s bowling in T20 is incredibly precious – she is economical AND takes wickets – and today she really did provide the turning point for England, with her direct hit run out of Beth Mooney; plus that little matter of 4 wickets to boot.

Two Differing Approaches

There were times when you felt today that Matthew Mott had sat the Aussies down before their innings and told them they needed to hit all the runs in boundaries – far too many reckless shots were played, with Healy, Gardner and Haynes all caught trying to hit big. England were much more content to rack up singles and twos, leaving them with wickets in the bank for the crucial final 5 overs.

Nonetheless, the attacking approach has served Australia well over the years, and England might want to consider taking a leaf out of their book. The stats that Syd put out on Twitter earlier about Nat Sciver v Alyssa Healy provide a good point of comparison:

It’s not that Sciver isn’t capable of hitting big, more that she hasn’t often done so in a T20 situation for England – something that needs to change.

So England may have won this match, but there is no room for complacency: their batting, and power hitting in particular, has to be a key area of focus ahead of next year’s WWT20.

Wyatt Up Top

It’s still a bit of a mystery why Heather Knight opened in the first T20 of the series given that she has repeatedly said she doesn’t want to open while captaining – perhaps Robinson felt it was the best option, or perhaps it was just an experiment gone wrong. Either way, it was great to see Danni Wyatt rewarded for her 50 on Friday with a boost to the top of the order; and she certainly did the job required of her today, with quick runs up top to get England off to a positive start. She’s opened before in T20 – the last time was in Cardiff against Australia in 2015 – but has never had a sustained run at it, so maybe that time is now.

A Dead Rubber?

Some will argue that Australia took their foot off the gas today, relaxed about the whole endeavour now they have secured the Ashes trophy. If there’s any truth in that, it’s pretty poor – England could still go on and draw the series on points. They could also still win the T20 leg of the series; and a T20 series win in the year before a T20 World Cup is not to be sniffed at. In short, it’s all to play for come Tuesday.

Last week I posed four big questions ahead of the Ashes Test match. Now that Test cricket is – sadly – behind them for another two years, did England find any answers?

1. What is their best Test XI?

Mark Robinson’s big call was to not only select Georgia Elwiss ahead of Jenny Gunn, but to bat her at 4, a position she’s never before occupied in her England career. At a crucial time for England, she came good. Her unbeaten 41 was, in my book, even more impressive than Knight’s own stoic effort – Elwiss was under more pressure (she must have known she was playing for her place in the side), and much rustier, having played no international cricket at all over the past 12 months. It’s perhaps too early to say whether she’s done enough to retain her place for the foreseeable future, but you’d have to conclude that she’s put herself back in strong contention.

Would having Gunn in the side have made any difference to the result? Probably not. Her great talent is bowling for long periods very economically, but that wasn’t really the issue here – England managed to restrict the Australian run rate reasonably successfully. What they really needed was wickets, and it’s difficult on this pitch to see Gunn having been much more successful than her counterparts there.

2. Can anyone “do a Heather Knight”?

Yes – sadly her name is Ellyse Perry, and she plays for the opposition (despite my job share suggestion!)

England lost this match by not batting long enough in the first innings. Though Tammy Beaumont and Heather Knight both passed 50, once again none of the England batting line-up could push on to 3 figures. Last week I said that at least two England players would have to get their heads down and dig in, if they were to have any chance of winning this match – that didn’t happen.

Somehow, with the limited opportunities available for multi-day practice before the next Test comes around, England need to resolve this. If they can’t, they aren’t going to win very many Tests!

3. Can they stop Australia batting them out of the game?

Yes, but it was perhaps more down to luck than judgement! England were fortunate enough to win the toss, which prevented the somewhat nightmare scenario of the follow-on rearing its ugly head. Australia then essentially ran out of time to bowl England out. Had Perry arrived at the crease on day one, who knows what might have happened?

4. Can they avoid a draw?

No. Obviously.

Of course, a draw actually looks like a good result, given what might have happened at the start of day 4! Even better, England have got the Canterbury 2015 monkey off their backs – they didn’t fold, they fought, and there’s no shame at all in the way that they dug in today.

Having said that, I still stick by my belief that it isn’t a good enough result for England. Above all else, it’s going to be very tough mentally for them to go into the T20 leg of the series knowing they have to win all 3 games.

Let’s hope they can prove me wrong!

Member of ICC Women’s Committee and leading voice at Cricket Australia Belinda Clark has confirmed that the ICC’s policy going forward is to continue to focus on the shorter formats of the game, with no intention to increase the amount of Test cricket played.

Speaking on commentary during the third day of the Ashes Test at the North Sydney Oval, Clark said:

“If we’re thinking about growth of the international game, the answer to that question is T20.”

“The one-day game also has a place – the World Cup in England shows that.”

The current match has already broken recent records for attendance at a women’s Test in Australia, with over 6000 people present over the first two days, but Clark nonetheless rejected the suggestion that the ICC might seek to encourage the playing of more women’s Tests:

“This game is absolutely critical for these two nations [England and Australia], but beyond that, I’m not sure that Test cricket holds a place in people’s hearts.”

ECB’s director of women’s cricket Clare Connor has previously placed her full support behind the longer-format, stating:

“I would never want to be part of an administration that strikes a line through Test cricket. I would hate that.”

“I will fight to continue to [keep Tests alive].”

Nonetheless Cricket Australia has consistently refused the ECB’s suggestion that the Women’s Ashes might be expanded to incorporate two or even more Test matches.

The statement by Clark today appears to confirm that policy, at least for the immediate future.

For England to keep their women’s Ashes hopes alive, they 100% need to win this Test match.* Can they do it? It will all depend on whether they can find an answer to the following questions:

1. What is their best Test XI?

Mark Robinson has several selectorial decisions to weigh up right now. As Syd suggested the other day, the big one is the choice between batting Georgia Elwiss or Fran Wilson at number 6. It’s a tough call – one might argue that Elwiss’s medium-pace could be valuable as a back-up bowling option for Knight to have up her sleeve. Personally I’d probably go with Wilson – she’s showed better form with the bat of late, and England are going to need all the batting they can get over the next 4 days (see below!)

The other tough call is going to be the ever-present Alex Hartley v Sophie Ecclestone dilemma. As Martin points out, playing two left-arm spinners is probably a bit too much of a luxury in a Test situation, plus England might well need Laura “The Wall” Marsh’s runs. Personally I’d keep the faith in World-Cup-winning Hartley (she has 6 wickets so far this series, vs Ecclestone’s 2) – but given that she didn’t play in the warm-up game, I’m not sure Robinson will see eye to eye with me on that one!

2. Can anyone “do a Heather Knight”?

Whoever makes the final team sheet, the key thing that England will need to do is bat long. Easy to say, and not so easy to do. My chief worry for England, in fact, is their batting – recent history does not portend well. Nobody has made a Test century for England since Knight’s famous innings at Wormsley in 2013 – in fact, only one current England player has even made a half-century in a Test since then. (Guess who? – Jenny Gunn of course!) “Starts” are no good in a Test match – at least two England players are going to have to get their heads down and dig in, if England are to have any chance of winning this match.

3. Can they stop Australia batting them out of the game?

If Australia win the toss tomorrow morning, they will bat – that’s certain. The worry is that England will revert to type, not make early breakthroughs, and be left facing an uphill struggle: the suggestion seems to be that the pink ball wears a lot quicker than the red / white ones, and that this Test will end up being a batsman’s game. It’s going to take some skilled captaincy by Knight, and persistence and accuracy by the England bowlers, to stop Australia’s mouth-watering batting line-up in its tracks.

4. Can they avoid a draw?

If Australia race away, bat for the first day and a half and England are left playing catch-up, there might well be a temptation to revert to defensive cricket – batten down the hatches and avoid defeat. In this instance, that would be tantamount to accepting defeat in the series.* England have to attack, attack, attack, from the start of day 1 to the end of day 4. Hopefully that’s exactly what Robinson is currently telling his players!

*NB: A draw would still keep England in the series (just), but they’d then have to win all 3 T20s – a format which hasn’t been their forte of late.