Yesterday Syd suggested that, should England win the toss, they should elect to bowl first in the Test. I think he’s wrong.

First things first: by all accounts, Canterbury is likely to be a good batting wicket. The last 4-day game played there (admittedly back in June) was the tour game between Kent and the Australian men’s team, and it was a run-fest: the Aussies made 507-8 dec. in the first day and a half.

Secondly, while it’s true that England’s bowling is a lot stronger than their batting, it’s also true that the Test format will suit England’s batsmen – who aren’t generally the most aggressive in their approach – much more than the ODI or the T20 format. (This is perhaps best exemplified by Laura “The Wall” Marsh’s 55 off 304 balls in the 2013 Wormsley Test.) If the pitch does look a good ‘un, you’ve surely got to show some faith in England’s batsmen to make runs.

Thirdly, and perhaps most importantly, one thing England’s batsmen don’t seem to be naturals at right now is responding to scoreboard pressure. Charlotte Edwards elected to field first at both Bristol and Worcester; both times her side were left chasing pretty mammoth totals and both times they collapsed without even getting close.

England’s bowling attack might be good, but can we really see them knocking over Meg Lanning and Ellyse Perry and Alex “seeing it like a watermelon” Blackwell cheaply on day 1 at Canterbury?

If not, then putting Australia in to bat is almost guaranteed to produce the kind of scoreboard pressure on the second day of the Test which England’s batsmen just don’t seem capable of handling right now.

If we turn to recent history for a minute: Australia won the toss at Wormsley in 2013, chose to bat, and ended Day 1 243-3. It didn’t look great for England; fortunately Heather Knight stepped up to the plate and played the innings of her career to save the match for England. Honestly, based on form in the ODIs, can we really guarantee that anyone would do the same at Canterbury?

England don’t want to be playing catch-up this time around.

Syd thinks that if England bowl, the worst that could happen is that Australia end Day 1 250-0. Yep. But that would be just as much of a disaster as Australia bowling England out on Day 1 and finishing 50-0…because if Australia end Day 1 on 250-0, it’s quite likely akin to England having lost the Ashes.

So there you go Charlotte Edwards…now we’ve really confused you!

But what do you think?

Cricket folklore says that if you win the toss, nine times out of ten you should bat. (And the other time? You should think about it… then bat!)

But when it comes to the Women’s Ashes Test at Canterbury, cricket folklore might just be wrong in England’s case.

Here are 3 reasons why Charlotte Edwards should put Australia in if she has the opportunity:

1. When you’re the underdog (as England surely are) you have to play your best suit first; and England’s bowling is undoubtedly a lot stronger than their batting.
2. The weather on Tuesday looks like being warm and cloudy – swing-friendly conditions which Anya Shrubsole in particular should relish.
3. The wicket at Canterbury probably won’t deteriorate much over the 4 days, and England haven’t got the attacking spinners to take advantage of it in on the final day even if it did, so batting 4th should hold no particular fears.

Oh… and in the immortal words of Lt. Colombo: One more thing!

Say England bowl, what’s the worst that could happen? Australia finish Day 1 on 250/0?

On the other hand if England bat, there is every chance that Australia could finish Day 1 on 50/0… having already bowled England out – and that really would be a disaster!

But what do you think?

(Plus, look out tomorrow for Raf’s Rebuttal™!)

The phrase With every respect… is one of those that often crops up in those social media lists of What English people say; and what they really mean! As in: With no respect whatsoever…

But it really is with every respect that we have to disagree with Charles Dagnall here:

As Martin Woodward quickly pointed out in reply, a draw would leave England needing to win the T20 series 2-1 – something which they only just managed against New Zealand last winter; and which seems a very tall order against the World Champion Australians.

The truth is that the Test is Do Or Die for England – if they win it they will have the momentum, and the prospect of nicking a result in one of the three T20s to retain The Ashes becomes realistic. And let’s be in no doubt, it would be “nicking”: T20 is the Australians strongest format, thanks mostly to the power of their batting, and a 3-0 victory for the Southern Stars is more-than plausible.

So winning the Test has to be England’s aim and (last years crumbling defeat to India notwithstanding) they have some reasons to be hopeful. Winning a Test isn’t about crashing your way to 250 at a Strike Rate of 100 – it’s about taking 20 wickets, and it is England that have the sturdier bowling attack.

Not only are they stronger, England’s bowlers have more red-ball experience than the Australians. All domestic cricket in England was red-ball until this season (Australia’s top-tier domestic competitions have long been all-white-ball) and England have the only bowler in either side who has played a significant amount of competitive red-ball cricket this season – Kate Cross, who has been playing men’s league cricket with some success.

But there is also one key thing standing in England’s way: the pitch! There have been 3 (men’s) county champs games played at the Spitfire Ground this season, two of which were high-scoring draws; plus a tour match where Australia Men made over 500 in their first innings. It goes without saying that if England are going to get a result, they need a bowler-friendly “result” pitch! (So please… someone forward this article to the groundsman at Canterbury!)

—————–

* Of course if England lose the Test, they could technically still retain The Ball** by winning all three T20s; but honestly… see above – Charlotte Edwards is more likely to walk on the moon!

** As everyone on this site knows, the Women’s Ashes trophy is not an Urn!

ECB-ology, like its etymological forefather Kremlinology, is an inexact science. Nevertheless, it seems clear from reading between the lines of today’s Academy squad announcements for next week’s games against Australia, that England have all-but pencilled-in a team for the Women’s Ashes Test, which begins on Tuesday-week.

In (possible!) batting order:

1. Knight
2. Winfield
3. Taylor
4. Edwards
5. Greenway
6. Sciver
7. Brunt
8. Shrubsole
9. Gunn
10. Cross
11. Grundy

Edwards, Knight, Taylor, Sciver and Shrubsole will all be picked unless they are clinically dead… and even then the selectors would probably have a long, hard think! Brunt is also a certainty as long as they think she’ll make it through without injury, and she is looking pretty fit right now, so she is nailed-on too.

Greenway isn’t quite on that list any more, but she had a 50 and a 40 in the ODIs, so she will play as well.

That leaves just 4 question-marks – Winfield, Cross, Gunn and Grundy.

Neither Winfield nor Grundy are in the Academy squads, so unless one of them has “looked funny” at Paul Shaw, they are both “in”, or they would have been given the opportunity to prove themselves against the Southern Stars in those games next week.

Cross was “dropped” for the 3rd ODI, but England were pretty clear that this was more of a positive swap than a negative one, and she is seen as a bit of a red-ball specialist. Indeed she is the only England bowler to have played a significant amount of red-ball cricket this season, having been playing The Other Game in the Lancashire League; so I’m pretty sure she will play.

Finally… Jenny Gunn? The Gunnster is obviously entering the twilight of her career; but she did a job with the ball when she came back into the ODI team that only Jenny Gunn can do; and I just can’t see Charlotte Edwards wanting to go into the Test without her longest-serving and most trusted lieutenant – someone who can bowl a lot of overs with good economy, and was England’s highest run-scorer in last summer’s Test against India.

So there it is! Am I right? We’ll find out next week apparently, but in the meantime have your say below!

* Wickets Matter In 50-Over Cricket

As in the previous two games, England’s key bowlers – Brunt and Shrubsole – received plaudits aplenty for keeping things tight. Shrubsole in particular was lauded for costing just 25 runs from her 10 overs.

But the problem is that neither of them took any wickets.

In the 1st ODI (which England won) early wickets put that little bit of pressure on Australia’s middle-order and kept the total slightly under-par. This time, Australia got off to a much smoother start, sailed through the middle overs, and were able to throw the bat at it at the end, delivering a total which was perhaps as much as 30 runs over par; and which England were simply unable to live with.

* Australia’s Coaches Deliver

Several people on Twitter commented that England were hitting the ball directly to fielders – they weren’t! The fields were simply so expertly placed (and clinically adjusted for each batsman) that it just looked like they were. Basically, the Australian coaching and captaincy team delivered a tactical master-class out there today.

Similarly the decision to move Healy up the order was perfect – bringing on the big-hitter just when the innings needed some impetus. In fact… I did wonder at the time if it might have been to England’s advantage if Sciver had “accidentally” dropped Bolton!

(And yes… although England later pulled a similar trick by moving Brunt up the order, at the point they did it, it was already far too late.)

* England Can Bowl… But Australia Can Bat

I still think England’s bowling attack is slightly stronger than Australia’s; but the problem is that Australia’s batting is orders of magnitude stronger than England’s. With England, once you get Charlotte Edwards out, you know you are already half way there. Whereas with Australia, once you get rid of Villani you get Lanning… then Perry… then (today) Healy… then Blackwell – only then do you get down to someone (today, Jonassen) who wouldn’t immediately walk into any other team in the world, England included.

* Australia Are Now Odds-On… But England Can Hope

Though Tuesday’s performance offered a glimpse of what we all know England can do, in our hearts it has always been clear that these Ashes were going to be an uphill struggle against the undisputed World Champions. Today just confirmed that. Nevertheless, there is still hope for England – if they can win the Test, they then need to win just one of the 3 T20s to retain the 14-billion-year-old* trophy. And that sounds doable… right…???

——————

* Well… if our friends at Cricket Australia can claim the trophy is 300 years old on the grounds that it was made from a 300 year old tree, I figure we might as well take this to its logical conclusion, based upon the age of the atoms which comprised the tree!

In the wake of something like Australia’s clinically emphatic victory at Bristol last Thursday, the temptation is always to reach for the shotgun; and indeed many of our readers indicated that they would: 85% of you voted for England to ring the changes in our (not very scientific!) poll, with a majority favouring bringing in Lauren Winfield at the expense of Amy Jones.

But I think it is their mindset England need to change, not their team.

Dropping Jones (or Elwiss) after one duff knock isn’t the answer – the batting failures on Thursday were collective. Heather Knight alone fell to a moment of brilliance – Lanning’s direct hit from midwicket. Otherwise as Megan Schutt admitted afterwards, on a pitch with no daemons in it Australia found that all they needed to do was bowl it full and straight and wait for England to fail to defend their stumps, as all 9 wickets to fall in England’s post-drinks collapse went either bowled or LBW.

So England need to get back to basics with the bat – defending the stumps might sound like a glib piece of advice to offer to a professional cricketer; but if you don’t do it, you’ll find yourself back in the pavilion, and it can be difficult to score runs from there!

England’s bowlers also need to learn some lessons. All those short-pitched bouncers might scare the bejeezus out of the batsmen you find at club or county level, but at the pinnacle of the game (at the pace the women bowl) it doesn’t work, and the Australians were happy to either ignore it or give it the treatment it deserved.

Indeed the Aussies themselves had found this out on Tuesday – the short stuff was ineffective; the coaches had clearly identified this; and by Thursday it was history.

If England can do what Australia did – listen to the coaches and get the basics right – they can stay in this series. If they can’t, it’s going to be a short game on Sunday… and an even shorter Test in two weeks time.