NEW ZEALAND V ENGLAND: 2nd T20 – The Death Overs Are The Killer

England recovered from the precarious position of 77 for 6 to post 149 for 7, enough to overcome New Zealand by 15 runs at Nelson.

Heather Knight posted a second consecutive half-century, and shared crucial partnerships of 45 off 30 with Charlie Dean, and 27 off 12 with Sarah Glenn. England’s most productive game-phase was the last 4 overs, by far:

Linsey Smith, selected in place of Lauren Filer, then proceeded to take a wicket with her first ball in international cricket in almost 5 years – Suzie Bates top-edging an attempted slog sweep to short fine leg – as New Zealand hared off after the target a bit more aggressively than they actually needed to, and ended up tripping over their own shoelaces.

This has been a very important start to the tour by Knight, who (including her 52 v India in December) has now hit three fifties in as many T20 innings. Believe it or not, prior to that she hadn’t hit a T20 half-century since BC (Before Covid) – February 2020 to be precise – and there were starting to be rumbles, including here at CRICKETher Towers, about whether she should actually still be part of England’s T20 team at all, let alone skippering it. Whatever happens in the next 6 months, she’s now put that question to bed, at least until after the World Cup.

It’s interesting, as well, that Knight has bowled in both these opening matches. England have used her very sparingly with the ball of late, partly due to injury – the last time she sent down overs in back-to-back T20s was actually also in February 2020 – but could it be that they see her as an extra bowling option on those spin-friendly pitches in Bangladesh later this year?

England’s innings showed the value of a long batting line-up: Dean still seems absolutely wasted at No.8, while Glenn – lest we forget – was once touted as a possible T20 opener for England. (Not that they actually need another one of those at the moment!) But England should also count themselves lucky, because a side with even slightly more batting depth than New Zealand would surely have made them pay for some sloppy decisions by the top order.

Syd’s blood pressure gradually RAMPED up (gettit?) as Maia Bouchier, Dean and finally Melie Kerr all perished to a particular shot (ahem).

Melie Kerr’s was perhaps the least forgivable of all – New Zealand needed 50 off 33 balls at the point at which she got out, which was perfectly feasible, and didn’t call for a gung-ho approach.

A continent away, Australia have recently pulled a rabbit out of a hat in their first ODI against Bangladesh – posting 213 after being 112 for 6 – proving that the best teams never say die. New Zealand, by contrast, seem quite happy to wave a white flag at the earliest opportunity. With Kerr back in the dugout, the hosts proceeded to lose a further 4 wickets for 8 runs and the game was done and dusted.

Syd’s Matterhorn tells the story – look at how New Zealand’s line dips under England’s, pretty much straightaway after Kerr’s wicket in the 15th over:

Realistically, New Zealand probably have one more crack at winning a match this series, before England’s four best players return to the XI after their WPL-enforced absence. It doesn’t feel massively likely, does it?

NEW ZEALAND v ENGLAND: 1st T20 – New Zealand Are History

Between 2010 and 2016, the average first innings score in a women’s T20 international was 119*. Had they been chasing 119, New Zealand would have won today’s game in the 19th over, rather than losing by 27 runs, after England had set them a target of 160 at the University Oval in Dunedin.

It is a new era now, and there is no better illustration of how the Women’s Premier League has changed everything than that even England’s innings felt slightly pedestrian, lacking the swagger and joie de vivre that we’ve become accustomed to watching the WPL these past few weeks. There was only one six in the entire match – struck by Heather Knight shortly before she was dismissed – and a general air of caution throughout, with just 9 wickets falling across both innings.

Tammy Beaumont opened the batting as expected, and tried to be positive, but looked a little bit like a player who hasn’t picked up a cricket bat in anger for 4 months, possibly because… she was a cricket player who hadn’t picked up a cricket bat in anger for 4 months – not counting last week’s warm-ups, her last match was at WBBL in November.

Maia Bouchier and Sophia Dunkley, both under a certain amount of selection pressure with Danni Wyatt and Alice Capsey returning from WPL for the final two games of this series, gave the impression that their main priority was not getting out cheaply. In that, both succeeded, and hopefully it will give them confidence to open up and express themselves a bit more in the next couple of matches.

(Note to Maia and Dunks: that doesn’t mean you need to go “Full Metal Capsey” and try to ramp your first ball for six – there’s a balance!)

Even Heather Knight, the backbone of England’s performance with the bat today, took her time to get going, struggling to generate power early in her innings, and needing 11 balls to find the boundary for the first time. Having done so though, she picked up the pace nicely and continued to run hard between the wickets to give her strike rate that extra bump which England rightly believe might be the difference in those big matches to come.

Having seen England make 160, New Zealand needed to go fairly hard, and initially they achieved that, bettering England’s total of 41-1 from the powerplay to reach 44-1 after 6 overs and give themselves a glimpse of hope.

But the detail reveals a more complicated picture than the headline suggests. Georgia Plimmer was 16 off 14 balls at the end of the powerplay, but she had hit just one boundary for that 16, relying instead on getting through the ring and running. As soon as the field went out her options closed down, and the next 10 deliveries she faced produced just 5 runs, with Sarah Glenn producing a masterclass in control to lock her out of the scorebook and eventually claim her wicket.

Glenn’s destiny is probably to spend her entire career fighting for her place in the side with Charlie Dean, given that Sophie Ecclestone is the best in the world, and England are mostly unlikely to play three spinners. But a World Cup in Bangladesh might be the one time they do take that option, which is going to make things easier for the selectors, given how brilliantly both Dean and Glenn bowled today.

Glenn and Dean’s case to both play as part of a Spin Trident was helped by the fact that the second seamer options looked particularly unappetising today. Dani Gibson opened the bowling ahead of Lauren Filer, despite Filer basically being picked on pace alone, which you’d have thought warranted giving her the new ball. Gibson was… fine; but she’s a long way from the definite article as a bowler at this stage of her career.

And then when Filer did get the ball, she demonstrated exactly why Heather Knight didn’t have the confidence in her up-top, as Suzie Bates casually introduced her to the boundary rope 3 times. Filer ended up conceding 22 from 2 overs, and wasn’t called on again.

Meanwhile Lauren Bell denied anyone the excuse that “it wasn’t a quick’s wicket” by having – and I appreciate that I’m sticking my neck out a bit here – perhaps the best game of her England career. That might sound somewhat strange, given that we saw no fireworks and she failed to find the swing that Jess Kerr had earlier in the day; but what we did see was a player who looked completely comfortable and in control of her own game – there were plans, and she executed them.

As for New Zealand, maybe it is unfair to judge them, without their two best players, Amelia Kerr and Sophie Devine? But they just look like a team stuck in a bygone era, when getting 133 would win you the game. The fact that Hollie Armitage, who has never been capped by England and who didn’t get a game today despite the absence of Wyatt, Capsey and Sciver, tore up the Super Smash, perhaps says something rather uncomfortable about where the domestic game is at in New Zealand? It just isn’t preparing the younger players for the way that cricket is played now. I love history. I majored in history. But I wouldn’t want to go there.

—————

* Based on 143 matches between what are now the ICC Championship teams in the cricsheet.org catalog.

WPL: Bowling Rankings

Bowling Rankings Wickets Dot % Boundary % Wide % Economy
1. M Kapp 11 49 17 2 6.50
2. S Ecclestone 11 46 15 2 6.57
3. JL Jonassen 11 40 14 7 7.22
4. RP Yadav 10 39 15 1 7.04
5. TP Kanwar 10 41 17 1 7.14
6. DB Sharma 10 31 14 0 7.23
7. S Ismail 8 58 12 4 5.96
8. S Asha 9 42 20 2 7.52
9. A Reddy 8 35 14 7 7.65
10. S Pandey 8 39 18 3 7.77
11. S Molineux 8 39 18 2 8.07
12. S Ishaque 7 36 15 2 7.36
13. NR Sciver-Brunt 8 42 18 9 8.57
14. EA Perry 6 52 18 2 6.60
15. A Gardner 7 39 18 1 7.75
16. AC Kerr 7 35 25 2 9.09
17. SFM Devine 6 48 20 7 7.80
18. SR Patil 7 35 24 2 9.21
19. G Wareham 6 32 17 5 8.46
20. RS Gayakwad 6 31 20 0 8.78
Ranking = Wickets / Economy ©CRICKETher/cricsheet.org

WPL: Batting Rankings

Batting Rankings Runs Dot % Single % Boundary % Strike Rate
1. Shafali Verma 265 40 31 25 156
2. DB Sharma 295 31 45 20 137
3. BL Mooney 285 32 40 21 141
4. MM Lanning 308 40 33 20 125
5. S Mandhana 259 44 25 25 146
6. JI Rodrigues 235 27 44 23 156
7. H Kaur 235 30 43 21 148
8. RM Ghosh 226 36 32 25 153
9. EA Perry 246 37 39 19 130
10. A Capsey 230 42 38 20 128
11. GM Harris 188 42 35 22 137
12. AC Kerr 188 27 48 17 133
13. YH Bhatia 185 49 23 24 132
14. L Wolvaardt 167 45 26 23 129
15. AJ Healy 175 51 26 21 118
16. S Meghana 168 40 40 15 113
17. HK Matthews 165 57 19 21 114
18. NR Sciver-Brunt 149 42 35 18 117
19. KP Navgire 110 43 25 24 147
20. G Wareham 93 21 48 23 166
Ranking = Runs * Strike Rate ©CRICKETher/cricsheet.org

OPINION: The ECB’s Overhaul of Women’s Domestic Cricket – Sorting The Contenders From The Pretenders

By Mary Neale-Smith

The next stage in the evolution of women’s cricket in England and Wales has been outlined in an invitation to tender titled ‘Evolving Together’ shared with 18 first-class counties (FCC) and the Marylebone Cricket Club (MCC) earlier this month. The England and Wales Cricket Board (ECB) has announced plans for a three-tiered domestic structure and a transformation in the ownership model that underscores the women’s game as the counties will bid to become one of the eight new ‘Tier 1’ clubs. 

This planned overhaul of the women’s game follows the long-awaited report published by the Independent Commission for Equity in Cricket (ICEC) last June. The 317-page report, titled ‘Holding Up A Mirror To Cricket’, showed that systematic discrimination on the grounds of race, class and gender has plagued the game.

The commission, established in March 2021 in response to the murder of George Floyd in police custody in the USA and the Black Lives Matter movement which sparked numerous claims of institutional racism within English cricket, described how the women’s game remains ‘the poor relation of its male counterpart in English and Welsh cricket.’ 

The ICEC recommended achieving equal pay and prize money for women’s domestic players by 2029 and called for equality in working conditions and representation in governance to ensure fair decision-making. Additionally, the commission advocated for increased investment in women’s cricket infrastructure.

In the foreword of the invitation to tender which seeks to address the ICEC recommendations, Beth Barrett-Wild, Director of Women’s Professional Game at the ECB, made an interesting observation about how ‘transform’ has become a buzzword in women’s cricket. Barrett-Wild further elaborates that the phrase is ‘not without substance,’ highlighting the evident pace and nature of change witnessed over the last five years. Yet, it does make you wonder about the effectiveness of past transformations if another overhaul is deemed necessary this year.

The proposed restructure aims to be effective through changing the ownership model and governance of the women’s game, to drive accountability and elevate the status of women’s cricket in England and Wales.

The 18 first class counties and MCC will have to bid to become a Tier 1 club. Following the application process for Tier 1, it’s expected that the counties which were unsuccessful, or perhaps did not submit a bid, will be invited to determine the structure of Tier 2 and Tier 3 teams as a part of the expanded three-tier women’s pyramid.

The eight successful women’s Tier 1 clubs will receive a minimum investment of £1.3m annually from the ECB. To secure one of the eight places, the county’s submission will be evaluated by a panel judging the bids against a set of eleven evaluation criteria. These criteria are aligned with the objectives of the overhaul. However, while further details on the evaluation criteria and their weightings have been shared with the counties, for reasons unknown, the ECB has not made them public.

In addition, the counties will be required to showcase their overarching vision for the women’s game as the panel will evaluate the depth of feeling and ambition of the applicants to become a Tier 1 club. The ECB will also be looking to understand the projected levels of investment that the counties are looking to make if successful and applicants will be asked to outline their budget plans.

The new structure will look to support the development and retention of more talented female players through more layers of competition, greater access to training and playing opportunities, as well as widening the geographical spread of the women’s teams. In addition, Tier 1, 2 and 3 teams will be designated a catchment area and will collaborate to coordinate and deliver a talent pathway comprising an academy, an emerging player program and a county age group (CAG) program.

In terms of the impact on England’s aspiration for international competitiveness in the women’s game, the evolution of the playing depth of the women’s domestic game is a step in the right direction. A year-round high-performance environment and structure for players, coaches, and support staff should raise the standard of domestic cricket, channelling more quality and higher numbers of players into the national teams.

But where does The Hundred fit into this picture? The invitation to tender only briefly acknowledges the competition, hailed by Richard Gould, Chief Executive, for generating unparalleled visibility. For county teams hosting a Hundred team, what extra advantages come with Tier 1 club status? Conversely, for counties less tied to The Hundred, being part of the top level of domestic cricket could be much more advantageous.

Whilst promising that the ECB is willing to invest significantly into the women’s game and promoting ownership and accountability (and share of revenue) is more likely to drive growth and professionalism, first-class counties are ultimately businesses and many have struggled financially. The ECB believes they are offering the chance for counties ‘to access rights and own an asset in the fastest growing market and audience growth space for cricket: the women’s game’, but counties must weigh this against their financial constraints before making a decision to apply.

Whether the ‘Evolving Together’ initiative is the final transformation we will see in women’s cricket is undecided. Only time will tell if these changes in the ownership, governance, and investment in the women’s game will truly reshape the landscape of women’s cricket.

OPINION: Promotion and Relegation in English Domestic Cricket – A Deeply Flawed Concept

By Andy Frombolton

The ECB has recently sent an Invitation To Tender (ITT) to all 18 men’s First Class Counties (FCC) plus MCC seeking expressions of interest in becoming one of 8 proposed Tier 1 (premier) women’s cricket counties.

In several places, the ITT refers to the idea of there being relegation and promotion after the initial 4-year period.

This article explains how it would be almost unworkable in practice and disastrous in reality; requiring teams to prioritise survival over talent development, pushing talent towards the teams deemed safest from relegation, and potentially deterring FCCs from bidding for Tier 1 status.

Starting with the basics, what would be the methodology for determining the Tier 1 team to be relegated? Very easy if the same team came bottom of both competitions, but what if the same team won the T20 competition and came last in the 50-over competition? What if a team’s results had been significantly impacted by injuries to key players or England call-ups or even by weather? (Remembering the 2021 Men’s T20 Blast where Sussex had 5 games rained off whereas no northern team lost more than 1 game to weather.) Relegation wouldn’t be like going from Division 1 to Division 2 in the Men’s County Championship, it would be brutal and binary (going from professional to amateur).

Obviously, the same question applies in respect of the team to be promoted. With 10 (or possibly 11) FCCs playing in Tier 2 it’s even less likely that the same team would win most competitions.

But let’s imagine that a methodology was developed to determine the teams to be relegated and promoted …

At the macro level, the geographic spread of Tier 1 teams (which the ITT stresses will be an overarching goal in the initial selection of successful bidders) could swiftly be distorted or rapidly dismantled. To illustrate the point, imagine the first team to be relegated was the North East / ‘Yorkshire’ team and the promoted county was located in the South East. The following year, the North West / ‘Lancashire’ team is relegated and, again, the promoted team is from the South East. Suddenly, there’s no Tier 1 cricket north of the Midlands, and a huge concentration of Tier 1 counties in the South East.

The situation is even messier at the micro level …

The relegated team would need to release all its contracted players (paying compensation to those in the middle of multi-year contracts) as well as associated coaching and support staff. Players with local commitments, mortgages, etc. might not be able to move and could swiftly run into financial difficulties. The relegated club may also have developed resources or facilities for the women’s team which they can no longer afford or which are now surplus to requirements. To mitigate this financial risk, counties would be forced to only offer 1 year rolling contracts to their players and staff – which is hardly conducive to persuading women that good careers exist in cricket and certainly not allowing them to plan their futures with any confidence.

And, if the audience and demand for the women’s game has grown as hoped, the relegated team will have played its part in this success (both in terms of providing an entertaining product and investing their own money in the team). Their reward? Expulsion at the very time when the game should be moving to a sustainable footing and some of their sunk costs might be recovered?

For the promoted team, the reward for most, and possibly all, of the amateur players who were responsible for securing the promotion would be to lose their county places, since the newly-promoted team will need to rapidly migrate to a fully-professional squad ready to compete the following season. A few of the victors might pick up professional contracts on the back of their performances, but the rest would need to move to another Tier 2 county (or perhaps might just choose to leave the game). (This is a serious issue – the ITT would create a situation where the most talented amateur players in 10 counties would be denied the chance to play for their county.)

The promoted club would then have the off-season to negotiate a funding agreement (assuming acceptable terms can be agreed) and sign a venue agreement with the ECB, wherafter it would need to recruit a full squad and support staff from scratch. A wholesale novation of staff from the relegated club isn’t realistic – the promoted team might not want (or might not be able to afford) certain players or support staff, and conversely the impacted players and staff might not want (or be able) to move to a new location. The only other source of players would be the county’s existing amateurs (who may not aspire to be professional cricketers) and out-of-contract or released players; collectively this might allow you to assemble a team, but not necessarily one with a good chance of not being relegated at the end of the following season.

These issues might easily be enough to deter possible bidders, but if they didn’t, they would certainly promote short-termism in player recruitment and a disincentive to invest in developing young talent. If the primary motivation becomes survival, a team’s outlook becomes myopic.

Within the chosen Tier 1 counties, it is almost certain that there will be significant differences in their respective spending power. Many of the best players would gravitate towards the richer counties, which could offer them more in the way of support and facilities (and perhaps better out-of-season overseas opportunities if their coaches are well connected). So, although money isn’t a guarantee of on-field success, it makes it more likely that the battle to avoid relegation wouldn’t be an 8-way battle but one fought out between the 3-4 smaller clubs.

For all these reasons, the idea of promotion and relegation needs to be abandoned. 

Players could then commit to teams with confidence and counties could afford to take a longer-term view towards the time when the women’s game achieves a self-sufficient and sustainable basis. 

The ECB could still reserve the right to terminate a county’s Tier 1 status if it failed to meet specified metrics in terms of player support, delivery of pathway programmes or required support to adjacent counties; much like a school being put in special measures, either installing their own management and staff, or (where this was viable) finding an adjacent FCC willing to take on the role.

And, Tier 2 teams which consistently produce a disproportionate number of players who go on to secure Tier 1 contracts could be rewarded with a bigger share of the funds provided to this level, thereby allowing them to invest in their local pathway and be well placed to make a bid for Tier 1 status if the number of clubs was ever increased.

The CRICKETher Weekly – Episode 205

This week we’re previewing WPL 2024:

  • Can Mumbai Indians retain their title?
  • Will Alice Capsey get on the field for Delhi Capitals?
  • Are Gujarat Giants destined to be the perennial losers?
  • What does success look like for the competition in Year Two?