This week:
- An explosive start to WPL, including LED bails controversy!
- Who should sit on the ECB’s Ashes review panel?
- Lottie throws her hat in the ring as the next England coach
- Aimee Maguire’s bowling action: an explainer
This week:
This week:
As reported by Cricinfo, the London Spirit Hundred team have been bought by a group of American businessmen, including the CEO of Microsoft Satya Nadella, who have paid £150m for a 49% share in… well… what? What have they actually bought?
Let’s start with a couple of things they have not bought.
1. A share in the future TV and merchandising rights of London Spirit.
There is no way that these hard-headed businessmen can possibly believe that they are going to get their money back from TV rights and sales of replica shirts. The ECB’s own (optimistic) estimates, as leaked by Lalit Modi last year, suggest total profits for London Spirit of just £48m before tax over the next 8 years. Tax would reduce that to £34m, but remember that the investors have only bought 49%, so would actually get just £16m back, leaving them £134m in the red. And that’s assuming the ECB’s estimates of a substantial increase in TV revenue hold. The bottom line? Our American friends are not in this for the money!
2. Lord’s
If instead of London Spirit, Satya Nadella & Friends had decided to hop on a bus over to Islington and bought Arsenal Football Club, among the things they would now actually own would be the the Emirates Stadium. That’s not the case with The Hundred. The new owners do not now own Lord’s – the self-styled “Home of Cricket” where London Spirit play their home matches – they don’t even own 49% of it. They don’t own a single brick of the pavillion, nor one blade of grass on the square – they own nothing physical whatsoever.
So, what have they bought?
The simple answer is that we don’t really know.
When I was at school, a friend returned after Christmas one year with a star – an actual star in the sky, along with a certificate to say that he owned it. (And all I got was a new bike!) So is this what Nadella & Friends have bought? The cricketing equivalent of a star in the sky? A certificate which says “London Spirit – Property of Satya Nadella”? It is possible. But given that these men rose to the top of some of the most powerful businesses in the world, I’m going to suggest that they aren’t that stupid – they have bought “something”, so what it it?
The best answer I can come up with is that they have bought a sort-of “timeshare” over Lord’s – the right to be the “Kings of Lord’s” and to use it for a specified time (roughly coinciding with the month of August) over a specified number of years. (The documents leaked by Modi suggest 8, because they finish in 2032, but… as with so much of this, who knows?)
But what does that timeshare entail? The right to go into the pavilion, normally reserved for MCC members? The right to take over the pavilion on match days? These are not men who are used to having to queue for a seat – if they want to sit in the Long Room to watch the game, they’ll expect to be able to walk in and do that, and have it all to themselves, with big blokes in black glasses on all the doors to make sure of it.
If this is what happens, it has all been done legally and above-board – the members of the MCC voted to allow the current leadership full rein to negotiate the terms of this timeshare; but none of them know what it actually entails. And they may never know, until they walk up to the pavilion one day next summer to find out their name isn’t on the list and they can’t come in.
| Bowling Rankings | Matches | Wickets | Dot % | Boundary % | Wide % | Economy |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1. A King | 7 | 23 | 70 | 6 | 0 | 3.25 |
| 2. S Ecclestone | 7 | 16 | 62 | 9 | 1 | 4.49 |
| 3. A Gardner | 4 | 9 | 73 | 4 | 0 | 2.60 |
| 4. KJ Garth | 6 | 9 | 70 | 7 | 3 | 3.84 |
| 5. D Brown | 4 | 6 | 71 | 5 | 4 | 3.16 |
| 6. LK Bell | 6 | 9 | 57 | 10 | 3 | 4.92 |
| 7. G Wareham | 4 | 8 | 44 | 10 | 1 | 5.60 |
| 8. ML Schutt | 6 | 8 | 57 | 14 | 3 | 5.86 |
| 9. L Filer | 5 | 6 | 59 | 11 | 4 | 4.77 |
| 10. CE Dean | 6 | 7 | 47 | 13 | 1 | 5.97 |
| Ranking = Wickets / Economy | ©CRICKETher/cricsheet.org | |||||
| Batting Rankings | Matches | Runs | Dot % | Single % | Boundary % | Strike Rate |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1. BL Mooney | 7 | 409 | 43 | 36 | 11 | 96 |
| 2. HC Knight | 7 | 229 | 61 | 22 | 9 | 75 |
| 3. NR Sciver-Brunt | 7 | 227 | 61 | 24 | 8 | 68 |
| 4. A Gardner | 4 | 190 | 54 | 28 | 9 | 81 |
| 5. A Sutherland | 7 | 218 | 68 | 17 | 9 | 67 |
| 6. TM McGrath | 7 | 145 | 52 | 26 | 15 | 99 |
| 7. DN Wyatt-Hodge | 7 | 166 | 52 | 31 | 10 | 83 |
| 8. AJ Healy | 4 | 148 | 59 | 27 | 11 | 77 |
| 9. SIR Dunkley | 4 | 121 | 66 | 15 | 16 | 92 |
| 10. G Wareham | 2 | 49 | 14 | 32 | 36 | 223 |
| Ranking = Runs * Strike Rate | ©CRICKETher/cricsheet.org | |||||
This week, in the wake of England’s Women’s Ashes drubbing::
Australia completed their 16-0 Ashes whitewash, wrapping up an innings victory inside 3 days in the Test at the MCG.
England (170 & 148) v Australia (440) #Ashes 🏏
After piling on 350 on Day 2, Australia had said last night that they were going to try to get on with it this morning; but after Tahlia McGrath got out playing a “we need to get on with it” shot, their scoring rate ground to a halt as England ran through the tail. Australia did have one more ace up their sleeves – sending Ellyse Perry (who the Australian camp had hinted would likely play no further part in the match) in at 10, with just the two Test centuries (including a double) to her name. But she ended up making a small dent in her shiny Test average, which fell from just over 60 to just under, as a consequence of being dismissed for 2 – caught and bowled by Sophie Ecclestone.
Perry’s dismissal completed Ecclestone’s 5fer, becoming the 3rd player in the match to get her name onto the honours board after Annabel Sutherland and Beth Mooney.
Darcie Brown got Maia Bouchier early – hitting top of middle, no doubt to the consternation of her bowling coaches who would have been drilling her all series to hit the top of off! (Kids eh? Never do what you tell ’em!)
But Knight and Beaumont looked pretty comfortable against the seamers. However, things inevitably got dicier the moment the spinners entered the fray. King’s first over was a maiden bowled to Knight that contained more appeals than an ad break on Homes Under the Hammer.
Beaumont tried to take the fight to King, and was dropped twice in the first over she faced from the leggie. Between King and Ash Gardner, the spinners created so many chances that eventually something had to give, and it was Knight – caught at short leg by Phoebe Litchfield.
Once England had lost a couple of wickets the likelihood was always that the dam would burst, as it has done so often on this tour, and it was Alana King who laid the depth charges. King has been unplayable at times in this series – you can’t attack her obviously – that’s madness – but you can’t defend against her either. Sciver-Brunt, Dunkley and eventually Beaumont were all dismissed defending, and within a few overs a promising start had disintegrated.
Raf mentioned on Bluesky that England are so steeped in Jon-Ball it was going to be difficult to adjust mentally, and Danni Wyatt-Hodge’s dismissal to Gardner was a classic example: like the scorpion upon the back of the frog, she just couldn’t resist playing that shot – it was in her nature, and she perished in similar fashion.
With England’s last recognised batter, Amy Jones, dismissed on the dinner bell, Sophie Ecclestone and Ryana MacDonald-Gay must have felt like the condemned walking out to the gallows when they came out to face the Lord High Executioners King and Gardner in the evening session. There was no chance of saving the game, so with the crowd gasping at every play and every miss all England could do was stave-off the inevitable for a few moments more.
The one remaining question to be answered: would it be King or Gardner who got on the honours board? Each had 3 wickets going into the final session, and with Brown having taken that solitary wicket earlier, it couldn’t be both!
Having survived 22 balls of quality pressure bowling for a single run, MacDonald-Gay finally got a loose delivery from King… and planted a full toss straight into the hands of Darcie Brown at deep midwicket.
Advantage King, with 4 wickets to Gardner’s 3.
Then in quite similar circumstances, Ecclestone pounced on a too-short delivery from Gardner and sent it straight up in the air, where it was pouched by none other than King herself.
Deuce – 4 wickets apiece.
With England’s two number 11s – the Laurens – at the crease, the scoreboard in the stadium cheekily announced the “final” cumulative attendance figure for this game (a massively impressive 35,365) even though it remained technically possible for the match to still go to a 4th day.
Gardner went upstairs after a huge appeal against Filer, but it was doing too much; a leading edge from Filer off King fell a yard short of Darcie Brown; Filer again pulled King into the solar plexus of Georgia Voll at short leg, but Voll couldn’t hold on. Lauren Bell meanwhile was just blocking everything, eventually reaching 30 balls without scoring.
And then finally… it was Filer who pushed Alana King into the hands of Annabel Sutherland. Sutherland held on, and it was over. After she was denied a 5fer in the 1st innings, poetic justice was served.
Game, set and match King.
Game, set and match Australia.
Yesterday during the dinner interval at the MCG we were entertained by Melburnian pop sensation G Flip. Today it was the turn of Loughborough-based English rap collective “O Flip”, who made multiple appearances throughout Day 2 of this Test match.
Danni Wyatt-Hodge drops a catch, and… O Flip!
Maia Bouchier drops a catch, and… O Flip!
Sophie Ecclestone drops a catch, and… O Flip!
Sophie Ecclestone drops another catch, and… would you believe it… it’s Deja O Flip all over again!
At one stage in the afternoon, after yet another fielding mishap, the TV cameras caught Heather Knight just shaking her head in disbelief and muttering to herself. I’m not sure exactly what she was muttering, but “O Flip” probably wasn’t too far from it.
England (170) v Australia (422-5) #Ashes 🏏
Two dropped catches in particular cost England. Danni Wyatt-Hodge dropped Annabel Sutherland on 29, diving to her right. It was not an easy chance, but was one of those chances that you’ve got to take to compete at this level, and the kind of chance Australia have been holding on to all tour. Sutherland went on to score 163, with the cost to England 134 runs.
Then Sophie Ecclestone dropped Beth Mooney at slip on 11. Mooney finished the day on 98 not out, with the cost to England 87 runs… and counting! Ecclestone’s hopelessness at slip has been noted before – last summer TV replays showed that she appeared to close her eyes whilst shelling a pretty straightforward chance against Pakistan at Taunton. I don’t blame her for being ball-scared – I’d be absolutely terrified if that thing was coming at me at the better part of 70mph! But if you are going to field at slip in international cricket, that’s not acceptable; as even Heather Knight has now realised – moving Ecclestone away from slip after the second dolly-drop of the day.
It wasn’t just the dropped catches. Off the final ball of the 41st over, Annabel Sutherland pulled Sophie Ecclestone towards the deep midwicket boundary. Lauren Filer chased diligently after it, but everyone else just stood and watched, so when Filer pulled it back with a dive just inside the rope, there was no one to clean-up, and the Aussies were able to run a 3rd, turning two runs into three. Lazy was the only word for it – these players are paid hundreds of thousands of pounds a year to play for England. They can’t win every game or every series; but can they please at least try to look like they are trying?
The one exception was Tammy Beaumont, who gave it everything. She’s not a natural outfielder – she was originally a wicket-keeper, playing her first games for England behind the stumps – but she has worked incredibly hard to excel at this part of her game and I think genuinely acted as a bit of an inspiration, as England did improve later in the day by following her example. If England are going to seek a new captain from within the group, perhaps Beaumont has given them the answer here today?
But I digress…
The fact that England made enough fielding errors to fill a Sears Catalog shouldn’t detract from some wonderful performances by the Australians, in particular Annabel Sutherland, who played with class and confidence, becoming just the 3rd woman ever to score 150+ runs on two occasions, following her 210 against South Africa last summer. She looked nailed-on to go one further and become the first to score two double-hundreds, but tiredness got to her and she let one from Ryana MacDonald-Gay slide through her defences in the final session.
Sutherland played assertively but nonetheless patiently to take Australia past England’s total, in partnership with Alyssa Healy. Once Healy was dismissed, freeing Sutherland up to run the singles she clearly wanted to run but couldn’t risk with her one-legged captain at the other end, and Australia passed England’s 170, she began to open up and play some shots, allowing Australia to notch up over 350 runs in the day.
The only disappointment for the 11,000-strong crowd at the MCG was that they didn’t get to see Beth Mooney join Sutherland on the honours board this evening, as she finished unbeaten on 98. An extra incentive for them perhaps to come back tomorrow and in all likelihood see Australia put this game… and this series… out of its misery for England.
By Andy Frombolton
Dedicated Eurovision fans will, of course, recognise the opening lines of the UK’s second-placed 1977 entry which perfectly sum up England’s current WAshes predicament.
But should anyone really be surprised at how badly the team has performed? Prompted by an observation by Melissa Story on the Storylines podcast regarding the difference between most England players’ performances against Australia and their performances against all other teams, I decided to delve into the data.
The results make for grim reading.
There are just 2 instances where a player’s batting performance against Australia is superior to their performances against all other teams: Dunkley in T20s and NS-B in ODIs. At the other end of the scale, Jones’s averages are 50% worse in both short formats. (Bouchier has obviously had a very tough first WAshes tour, but I don’t think these figures reflect her potential.)
| Age | Format | Mat | Inns | NO | Runs | HS | Ave | % DIFF | SR | % DIFF | ||
| Knight | 34 | T20 | All ex Aus | 97 | 86 | 25 | 1787 | 108* | 29.30 | 122 | ||
| vs Aus | 32 | 29 | 4 | 435 | 78 | 17.40 | 59% | 113 | 93% | |||
| ODI | All ex Aus | 116 | 109 | 24 | 3090 | 106 | 36.35 | 73 | ||||
| vs Aus | 33 | 33 | 3 | 947 | 88* | 31.56 | 87% | 69 | 94% | |||
| Dunkley | 26 | T20 | All ex Aus | 55 | 44 | 8 | 792 | 61 | 22.00 | 117 | ||
| vs Aus | 9 | 8 | 1 | 194 | 59 | 27.71 | 126% | 138 | 118% | |||
| ODI | All ex Aus | 27 | 25 | 2 | 709 | 107 | 30.83 | 85 | ||||
| vs Aus | 7 | 7 | 0 | 80 | 28 | 11.42 | 37% | 62 | 72% | |||
| NS-B | 33 | T20 | All ex Aus | 101 | 97 | 24 | 2232 | 82 | 30.58 | 121 | ||
| vs Aus | 31 | 29 | 4 | 557 | 68* | 22.28 | 73% | 107 | 89% | |||
| ODI | All ex Aus | 89 | 77 | 13 | 2698 | 42.16 | 98 | |||||
| vs Aus | 26 | 25 | 6 | 1113 | 148* | 58.57 | 139% | 87 | 89% | |||
| Jones | 31 | T20 | All ex Aus | 98 | 78 | 16 | 1431 | 89 | 23.08 | 128 | ||
| vs Aus | 19 | 17 | 3 | 161 | 40* | 11.50 | 50% | 88 | 68% | |||
| ODI | All ex Aus | 80 | 65 | 9 | 1892 | 94 | 33.79 | 86 | ||||
| vs Aus | 17 | 16 | 1 | 245 | 47* | 16.33 | 48% | 66 | 76% | |||
| Wyatt | 33 | T20 | All ex Aus | 131 | 113 | 11 | 2446 | 124 | 23.98 | 130 | ||
| vs Aus | 39 | 36 | 3 | 744 | 100 | 22.54 | 94% | 127 | 98% | |||
| ODI | All ex Aus | 96 | 80 | 14 | 1729 | 129 | 26.20 | 91 | ||||
| vs Aus | 22 | 21 | 0 | 309 | 43 | 14.71 | 56% | 76 | 83% | |||
| Beaumont | 33 | T20 | All ex Aus | 88 | 73 | 9 | 1630 | 116 | 25.47 | 111 | ||
| vs Aus | 16 | 15 | 2 | 229 | 58* | 17.61 | 69% | 96 | 86% | |||
| ODI | All ex Aus | 108 | 98 | 12 | 3635 | 168* | 42.27 | 76 | ||||
| vs Aus | 19 | 19 | 0 | 639 | 114 | 33.63 | 80% | 75 | 99% | |||
| Bouchier | 26 | T20 | All ex Aus | 41 | 35 | 6 | 709 | 91 | 24.45 | 123 | ||
| vs Aus | 3 | 2 | 0 | 13 | 13 | 6.50 | 27% | 81 | 66% | |||
| ODI | All ex Aus | 14 | 12 | 2 | 456 | 45.60 | 110 | |||||
| vs Aus | 3 | 3 | 0 | 26 | 17 | 8.66 | 19% | 70 | 64% | |||
| Ecclestone | T20 | All ex Aus | 76 | 30 | 22 | 209 | 33* | 26.13 | 133 | |||
| vs Aus | 20 | 10 | 1 | 76 | 22 | 8.44 | 32% | 112 | 84% | |||
| ODI | All ex Aus | 56 | 33 | 10 | 267 | 33 | 11.61 | 76 | ||||
| vs Aus | 16 | 16 | 3 | 110 | 32* | 8.46 | 73% | 57 | 76% | |||
| Capsey | T20 | All ex Aus | 34 | 32 | 3 | 647 | 67* | 22.31 | 117 | |||
| vs Aus | 4 | 4 | 0 | 60 | 46 | 15.00 | 67% | 146 | 125% | |||
| ODI | All ex Aus | 17 | 11 | 2 | 218 | 44 | 24.22 | 79 | ||||
| vs Aus | 6 | 6 | 0 | 65 | 40 | 10.83 | 45% | 59 | 75% | |||
| Dean | 20 | T20 | All ex Aus | 33 | 11 | 3 | 133 | 34 | 16.63 | 112 | ||
| vs Aus | 6 | 3 | 1 | 5 | 2* | 2.50 | 15% | 56 | 50% | |||
| ODI | All ex Aus | 33 | 18 | 6 | 302 | 47* | 25.17 | 69 | ||||
| vs Aus | 7 | 7 | 1 | 57 | 21 | 9.50 | 38% | 62 | 90% | |||
| Kemp | 19 | T20 | All ex Aus | 22 | 13 | 6 | 129 | 51* | 18.43 | 129 | ||
| vs Aus | 3 | 2 | 1 | 16 | 11* | 16.00 | 87% | 133 | 103% |
On the bowling front, only Capsey (in ODIs, and based on a small data set) improves her stats against Australia. But the absolute stand-out figures are Ecclestone’s. If Ecclestone is the #1 bowler in both T20 and ODI formats according to the ICC (and similarly Glenn is the #6 T20 bowler) this neatly illustrates Mark Twain’s observation that there are three types of lie: lies, damn lies and statistics.
| Age | Mat | Bwld | Overs | Mdns | Runs | Wkts | Ave | % DIFF | Econ | % DIFF | SR | % DIFF | |||
| NSB | 33 | t20 | All ex Aus | 101 | 90 | 249.5 | 3 | 1569 | 70 | 22.41 | 6.3 | 21 | |||
| vs Aus | 31 | 27 | 67.1 | 0 | 527 | 20 | 26.35 | 118% | 7.8 | 125% | 20 | 94% | |||
| ODI | All ex Aus | 89 | 76 | 409 | 34 | 1646 | 59 | 27.90 | 4.0 | 42 | |||||
| vs Aus | 26 | 24 | 149.2 | 2 | 825 | 20 | 41.25 | 148% | 5.5 | 137% | 45 | 108% | |||
| Bell | 24 | t20 | All ex Aus | 24 | 24 | 82.2 | 0 | 558 | 31 | 18.00 | 6.8 | 16 | |||
| vs Aus | 5 | 5 | 19 | 0 | 178 | 6 | 29.66 | 165% | 9.4 | 138% | 19 | 119% | |||
| ODI | All ex Aus | 13 | 13 | 101.2 | 2 | 520 | 22 | 23.64 | 5.1 | 28 | |||||
| vs Aus | 6 | 6 | 53.3 | 1 | 316 | 12 | 26.33 | 111% | 5.9 | 115% | 27 | 97% | |||
| Ecclestone | 25 | t20 | All ex Aus | 76 | 76 | 281.4 | 9 | 1569 | 112 | 14.01 | 5.6 | 15 | |||
| vs Aus | 20 | 19 | 73.4 | 1 | 520 | 25 | 20.80 | 148% | 7.1 | 127% | 18 | 117% | |||
| ODI | All ex Aus | 56 | 55 | 494.4 | 67 | 1678 | 99 | 16.95 | 3.4 | 30 | |||||
| vs Aus | 16 | 16 | 151.2 | 7 | 707 | 21 | 33.66 | 199% | 4.7 | 138% | 43 | 144% | |||
| Filer | 24 | t20 | All ex Aus | 7 | 7 | 25 | 0 | 166 | 5 | 33.20 | 6.6 | 30 | |||
| vs Aus | 1 | 1 | 2 | 0 | 21 | 0 | – | 10.5 | 158% | – | |||||
| ODI | All ex Aus | 12 | 12 | 73.5 | 4 | 353 | 20 | 17.65 | 4.8 | 22 | |||||
| vs Aus | 3 | 3 | 24 | 0 | 141 | 4 | 35.25 | 200% | 5.9 | 123% | 36 | 163% | |||
| Dean | 24 | t20 | All ex Aus | 33 | 33 | 114 | 1 | 774 | 44 | 17.59 | 6.8 | 16 | |||
| vs Aus | 6 | 5 | 19 | 0 | 150 | 6 | 25.00 | 142% | 7.9 | 116% | 19 | 122% | |||
| ODI | All ex Aus | 33 | 32 | 275.3 | 14 | 1238 | 66 | 18.76 | 4.5 | 25 | |||||
| vs Aus | 7 | 7 | 41.5 | 1 | 240 | 5 | 48.00 | 256% | 5.7 | 128% | 50 | 200% | |||
| Glenn | 25 | t20 | All ex Aus | 63 | 61 | 210.2 | 3 | 1187 | 80 | 14.84 | 5.6 | 16 | |||
| vs Aus | 9 | 8 | 28 | 0 | 247 | 9 | 27.44 | 185% | 8.8 | 156% | 19 | 118% | |||
| ODI | All ex Aus | 15 | 15 | 106.1 | 6 | 440 | 18 | 24.44 | 4.1 | 35 | |||||
| vs Aus | 2 | 2 | 16 | 1 | 86 | 2 | 43.00 | 176% | 5.4 | 130% | 48 | 136% | |||
| Capsey | 20 | t20 | All ex Aus | 34 | 10 | 17 | 0 | 108 | 5 | 21.60 | 6.4 | 20 | |||
| vs Aus | 4 | 2 | 5 | 0 | 39 | 1 | 39.00 | 181% | 7.8 | 123% | 30 | 147% | |||
| ODI | All ex Aus | 17 | 6 | 25 | 2 | 119 | 4 | 29.75 | 4.8 | 38 | |||||
| vs Aus | 6 | 5 | 22 | 2 | 96 | 4 | 24.00 | 81% | 4.4 | 92% | 33 | 88% | |||
| Kemp | 19 | t20 | All ex Aus | 22 | 18 | 46 | 0 | 362 | 18 | 20.11 | 7.9 | 15 | |||
| vs Aus | 3 | 3 | 8 | 0 | 65 | 3 | 21.66 | 108% | 8.1 | 103% | 16 | 104% |
Jon Lewis is copping a lot of flak for the team’s performance – although his hands are constrained, firstly, because he’s obliged to pick any team primarily from the centrally-contracted squad (otherwise why have they got contracts?) and, secondly, there aren’t many oven-ready replacements available.
We need to be honest. This cohort has repeatedly demonstrated the zenith of its capabilities i.e. it can beat most opposition (but, to honest, so could the top 3 regional/Tier 1 teams), but against Australia and in T20 and ODI World Cups (and the Commonwealth Games) they have repeatedly fallen short.
No one calling for Lewis to lose his job has explained how anyone else could extract better performances in these circumstances.
At some point soon, therefore, we need to move on from many of the current squad. But timing will always be an issue. Should it be now after the WAshes – with the (potentially-increased) risk of an early exit from this October’s World Cup? Or before the 2026 T20 World Cup (being held here in England). Because we haven’t prepared adequately for the next generation, what should have been a phased transition might need to be a cull.
So, what’s the answer? For that, I’ll turn to the next two lines of the referenced Eurovision song: “Remedy? Why don’t we rub it out and start it again?”
In the business world when answers and solutions are hard to identify, a proven technique is to define the desired end state and then work backwards to the status quo. Applying this methodology…
1. The ECB announce the goal is to win the 2026 T20 World Cup in England. (Or Olympic Gold in 2028?)
Fans will accept hiccups along the way if they know what the goal is and understand why changes are being made.
2. The ECB should confirm its confidence in Jon Lewis as coach. Much fun has been made of one poorly-phrased comment, but he’s a great coach, inspires loyalty and, frankly, has done well with the situation he inherited.
3. Identify the players to deliver this goal – and back them.
Not picking centrally-contracted players would obviously attract criticism, and the ECB should learn from this and reduce the number of central contracts awarded for the next few years. It would be better to award a small number of central contracts to a core of players with proven credentials, plus development contracts to a larger group.
We simply won’t win a World Cup until our fielding improves, and consequently (unless an individual is truly world class in one other discipline) they shouldn’t be picked unless their fielding meets international standards. (In domestic cricket, Katie George and Alice Monaghan routinely demonstrate what’s possible.)
Here’s my T20 team:
Yes, I know I’ve omitted S Ecclestone. Firstly, I refer you back to her stats. In addition, her batting simply hasn’t developed and her fielding is poor (although she openly remonstrates with fielders who drop catches off her bowling). In the long term, there are other options who would have a more positive impact on team morale.
(I’ll propose my ODI team in my next article. But as a taster, it will feature several different personnel and a split captaincy.)
4. An A squad comprising these players needs to be established within the next few weeks, thereby these players know they are potentially seen as part of England’s future plans.
5. Until we play slow/spin better we will never win consistently. This A squad therefore needs to go on a long tour to the Indian subcontinent / Sri Lanka this Spring (and next spring), and play tens of games against (men’s) teams. I know not everyone likes this idea, but realistically it is the only way to ensure high quality opposition. (You don’t improve by playing weaker teams.)
6. The A team should also play several games against visiting international opponents (also giving visitors the opportunity to test their fringe players).
7. AND finally, there needs to be a series of England vs England A games in the early season allowing the challengers to demonstrate why they should be picked for England and the incumbents to prove they deserve their places.
England’s batting misfired again as they were bowled out for 170 in the Women’s Ashes Test at the MCG. In reply, Australia reached 56-1 at the close, having seen-off the night-terrors of the pink ball under lights.
England (170) v Australia (56-1) #Ashes 🏏
If Alyssa Healy’s plan upon winning the toss and inserting England was to force them to face a swinging pink ball in the final session, it didn’t quite work out as she’d have imagined. England were sufficiently abject as to be bowled out with more than 20 overs remaining in the day’s play; but the visitors could only take the one wicket before the close, as Georgia Voll edged a drive off Lauren Bell straight in the direction of Sophie Ecclestone at 1st slip.
There then followed a round of the classic “Fortunately/ Unfortunately” game for the Aussie debutante. Fortunately for Voll, Ecclestone is a terrible slip fielder so she seemed odds-on to survive; but unfortunately for Voll, Amy Jones stepped across to take the catch before it got to Ecclestone, and she had to depart with a slightly disappointing 12 to her name; though that 12 did include 2 boundaries – more than Tammy Beaumont, Maia Bouchier and Amy Jones put together.
Voll was replaced in the middle by Annabel Sutherland, who looked by far the most comfortable of the 14 batters who took to the crease at The ‘G today, striking four 4s in her 24 not out – the same number as Nat Sciver-Brunt had managed scoring her 51 for England. The pink ball has a reputation for being something between unpredictable and unplayable in men’s Tests under lights in Australia; but this obviously isn’t exactly the same ball, and it certainly wasn’t singing Land of Hope and Glory out there towards the close.
Having already decided to bring in Sophia Dunkley as an extra batter for this Test, England were left with one call to make in terms of selection: the off-spin of Charlie Dean or the seam of Ryana MacDonald-Gay? At about the same time as England were finalising that decision, the MCG’s curator (or ‘groundskeeper’ if you are English) was speaking at a dinner organised by the Melbourne Cricket Club to celebrate the first women’s Test here since 1949. He spilled a couple of interesting titbits: that they had left an extra 2mm of grass on the pitch, to help “protect” the pink ball; and that they had prepared a wicket which they hoped would offer something “interesting” for the spinners as the game progressed. So obviously England picked the seamer and left the spinner on the bench.
Then to prove the point, Alana King ploughed-up England’s middle order, taking the wickets of Nat Sciver-Brunt, Sophia Dunkley, Danni Wyatt-Hodge and Sophie Ecclestone. The narrative demanded that King take the final wicket she’d need to make it onto the honours board in the members stand here; but the narrative can’t always get what it wants, and despite King having opportunities when bowling at England’s tail, she was almost too good for them, as the ball spun past edges until a run out finally closed the innings.
None of England’s batters had looked especially comfortable out there. Heather Knight and Sophia Dunkley both showed glimpses of quality, but rather more glimpses of vulnerability, and both were dismissed in the 20s; as was Danni Wyatt-Hodge, who fell to a brilliant catch by Phoebe Litchfield at silly (or not so silly, it turned out) point. (Throughout, Australia set aggressive fields and fielded aggressively – part of the reason England found it so difficult to score boundaries.)
Nat Sciver-Brunt ground out her half-century, and was wheeled-out by England for the press, but seemed totally deflated. England haven’t lost this Test match yet – as West Indies men just showed against Pakistan, there’s almost always a way back, however improbable it seems. But England’s body-language says they don’t believe they can turn this around, so they probably can’t.
And this despite playing arguably against 10 women after Australia’s management succumbed to a very un-Australian degree of sentimentality and selected a clearly not 100% Alyssa Healy in their XI. Healy fielded almost the entire innings at 1st slip, presumably so she wouldn’t need to do any running, and she’ll bat hidden somewhere down the order. England could even find themselves literally playing against 10, if Ellyse Perry is unable to take to the park tomorrow, having injured her hip in the field – though the word is she’s likely to be ok.
But it really feels right now as if England would lose to Alana King if she just played them on her own. She’ll have another opportunity to get her name on that honours board this weekend, almost certainly the last chance of her career, and every Australian… and at least one Englishman… will be rooting for her to do it.