PREVIEW: South Africa v England T20 World Cup Semi-Final – Calm Reigns In The England Camp

There have been a lot of words expended about what Jon Lewis has brought to the England camp which is different to his predecessors, but one word stood out to me from Danni Wyatt’s eve of semi-final press conference – “calmness”.

“We’re feeling really confident, and more importantly really chilled. We’re all ready for tomorrow,” she said. “Lewy [Jon Lewis] has brought this really calm aura into the team – everyone knows their plan.”

For me, it’s that word which has epitomised England’s approach this World Cup. It meant that they didn’t panic when they found themselves 29 for 3 against India. It meant that they were able to pick themselves up in the midst of a frenetic WPL auction on the day of their game against Ireland. And whenever Nat Sciver-Brunt gets to the crease, a zen-like focus seems to take over.

“She’s as cool as a cucumber, our Nat. Nothing fazes her,” Wyatt said of her teammate, who currently tops the run-scoring charts in this World Cup. “She’s very chilled, and everyone looks at that and it feeds around the team.”

Wyatt herself, fresh from making a half-century against Pakistan, seemed supremely relaxed, joking in the press conference about the team’s experience of getting stuck coming down Table Mountain thanks to load-shedding (periodic power-cuts that are an everyday fact of life in South Africa at the moment) – “I don’t think I’ll be going up that mountain again soon, unless I walk up! I’m not going up that cable-car ever again!” It’s rare to see someone so breezy and composed ahead of a knock-out game.

By contrast, South Africa have had a mad run-up to this semi-final – losing their first game against Sri Lanka after completely losing their heads in what should have been an easy run-chase; before finally inching their way to a nervy win against Bangladesh on Tuesday.

I’m no body language expert, but Sune Luus seemed the opposite of relaxed in her own pre-match press conference. To use a cricketing metaphor, she spent the entire 15 minutes playing defensive shots.

T20 cricket can be a crazy game. But maybe calmness is the way to win a World Cup?

T20 WORLD CUP – England v Pakistan: Table Mountain

The sheer cliffs of Cape Town’s Table Mountain make Newlands one of the most stunning grounds in world cricket, as they loom majestically over the city.

In front of a crowd starting to build ahead of the “main event” later, when South Africa take on Bangladesh with a semi-final place at stake for the hosts, England too loomed majestically over Pakistan, monstering the challengers to win their group in emphatic style.

You have to feel for Pakistan – they’ve palpably come on from the side that came over to England in 2016 for Heather Knight’s first series as captain; but England (and, to be fair, Australia and India) have made their own strides in that time, and the gap now looks wider than ever.

We arrived at the ground before the toss, to see Freya Davies warming up with the bowling coaches – a sure sign that she was going to play – but assumed (incorrectly) that she’d be coming in for Katherine Sciver-Brunt, after the latter’s much criticised performance in the last game. However, it was Lauren Bell who missed out, with KSB retaining her spot to have the opportunity to redeem herself and secure her place in the XI for the semi-final and (if they get that far) the final.

It was a one-off opportunity to impress for Freya Davies, but those “opportunities” are so often a poisoned chalice and so it proved, with Davies taking 0-28 while KSB walked away with 2-14, despite a string of deliveries which Meg Lanning or Beth Mooney would have deposited into the stands, if not the brewery which neighbours the ground. (A braver man than me might point out the incongruity that KSB’s 0-39 v India is “just one of those things” while Davies’s 0-28 will almost certainly means she is dropped… but I am not that man.)

Of course it was all irrelevant anyway – Pakistan didn’t have a hope in Hell’s chance of getting anywhere near England’s 213 – their second highest ever total in T20 internationals.

Despite not making runs today, it is Alice Capsey that is the key to England’s approach with the bat, which has been building towards one of these monster scores all tournament. The new normal is that you go hard from the very first ball… and if you get out, so be it – the next batter goes just as hard… and the next too. It is the approach that Capsey pioneered in the first season of The Hundred, and it will be her legacy as she develops into a great player set to change the way women play the game.

It wasn’t Capsey’s day today though – England lost wickets in the powerplay, including hers, but the point is that they didn’t let it derail them, striking at 10-an-over in the early middle phase. Again, in the late middle phase, they lost two wickets, but Amy Jones came in and smashed 47 off 31 balls, denying Nat Sciver-Brunt what looked like a nailed-on maiden T20 century with one of the most impressive innings of her career, including her signature stroke – that effortless lifted pull over midwicket into the crowd, which we’ve seen so often from her in regional cricket, but which she has struggled to replicate for England.

NSB’s form continues to be spectacular, and surely one day she will get the hundred that she might in other circumstances have made today. It says so much about her though that she was prepared to share the strike with Jones in the death phase. Some players thrive on selfishness, and that’s ok too; but NSB is the ultimate “team player” who doesn’t seem remotely bothered by personal milestones, even as she passes so many. Player of the Tournament is surely hers now, whether or not England go on to win the thing.

And that’s the question: can they go on to win it? Normally, I’d be the first to say that we shouldn’t read too much into a performance against Pakistan, who slightly went to pieces in the field, and batted like a team that knew they were on death row. But the batting performance today was so impressive, that you have to believe they can. If they can get past South Africa, their likely semi-final opponents, doubtless abetted by a roaring, partisan crowd, on Friday.

T20 WORLD CUP – England v India: Spinners Are Winners

The South African city of Gqeberha has been crying out for rain in the midst of a severe drought, so yesterday’s downpours were good news for everyone except cricket fans, who woke up to further persistent drizzle this morning, with two crucial matches being played at St. George’s Park – the oldest Test ground in South Africa.

England overcame India in the first of those matches, with the key difference being their spinners, who maintained their control where India’s had lost theirs, despite having to contend with a damp ball as the skies let loose once again part-way through India’s innings.

Having put England in, India had the better of the powerplay, almost entirely thanks to the brilliant Renuka, who took a wicket in each of her first 3 overs, finishing the powerplay with figures of 3 overs, 3-12; while the 3 bowlers used at the other end recorded 3 overs, 0-25. It was reminiscent of the way she had Australia on the ropes in the opening match of the Commonwealth Games; and how India must wish that bowlers could be permitted more than just the 4 overs in T20 cricket! From England’s perspective, Sophia Dunkley could perhaps have played a more appropriate shot, but there wasn’t a lot Danni Wyatt or Alice Capsey could have done differently – it was just good bowling.

To their credit, Heather Knight and Nat Sciver-Brunt didn’t flinch from playing positively, despite that less-than-ideal start, and England had their best phase of the match in the early middle overs, taking advantage of some wayward bowling from India’s spinners, which let England right back into it.

The fall of Knight led to another lull, but India again let England off the hook as Amy Jones took Pooja Vastrakar for 14 from the 15th over, setting England up for a decent finish – they’d definitely have taken 151 having been 29-3 early-doors. Things have been up and down of late for Amy Jones with the bat, but this was definitely a very good day to have an “up”, making 40 off 27 balls.

England decided to open with Katherine Sciver-Brunt today, rather than Lauren Bell – possibly to save Bell from having to bowl at the left-handed Smriti first-up – and her opening over went for just 4; but her second was a disaster. Having conceded consecutive 4s off not-terrible deliveries on the opening two balls, she predictably went short and equally predictably got hammered to the boundary twice more in the over. It should have been the end of her day, but it wasn’t… as we shall see!

Post-powerplay, Sophie Ecclestone, Sarah Glenn and Charlie Dean were into the action, and they locked India down tight, with the Strike Rate slipping back towards 75 in the early middle phases. In essence, this was where England won the match, given that India only fell 11 short in the end. Both Jemimah and Harmanpreet gave their wickets away trying to break out of the gaol England’s slower bowlers had them in, and although Smriti always remains a danger, she was forced to play within herself and try to anchor the innings, denying her the chance to accelerate her strike rate very much.

India did start to get the motor turning in the late-middle phase, thanks to Richa Ghosh, on her way to an eventual 47 off 34. (Somewhat counter-intuitively, Richa has looked a much better player in the senior World Cup than she did in the preceding U19 one, which might be a lesson for selectors for future U19 events if nothing else.)

Nonetheless, India looked dead and buried as the asking rate began to spiral in the death overs; until Knight made the inexplicable decision to bring back Katherine Sciver-Brunt for the final over, with India needing 31 and Charlie Dean still having an over in the locker. In some ways it was a risk free decision – statistically speaking no one ever makes even 10 off the final over in women’s T20s, let alone 31 – and India did not make 31; but they did make 19, as Sciver-Brunt was taken to the cleaners by Richa.

Sciver-Brunt has been a hero for England for more years than most of us can remember; but no one deserves a place on sentiment alone, and if she plays the next match, that will be the only reason. If that had been Bell, it would have been the end of her tournament, and probably fairly so. The last match of the group is one England (at time of writing) still have to win to be 100% sure of qualification – if Pakistan thrash West Indies and go on to win big in that last game against England, they could mathematically overhaul them on Net Run Rate. Freya Davies should be in the XI for that game.

T20 WORLD CUP – England v Ireland: From Bazball To Baseball

They say that the USA and UK are two countries divided by a common language; and much the same could be said about cricket and baseball. They may share some basic characteristics, and even some terminology; but they are very different games, not least in their typical scorelines: while cricket measures its scores in hundreds, a baseball game will rarely end with more than a handful of runs being scored.

So to say that the last few overs of England’s match today against Ireland in Paarl felt a little like watching baseball is not exactly a compliment – especially after the exhibition of Bazball (or should that be… Jonball?) to which we had been treated earlier by Alice Capsey, hitting the joint-fastest ever T20 World Cup half century.

Having opted to bat first, Ireland got off to a pretty reasonable start, losing just one wicket towards the end of the powerplay, as Amy Hunter and Gaby Lewis played positively to take them to 42-1 at the 6-over mark.

Indeed the Irish kept chugging along at around-about a run-a-ball right up until the 13th over, when England brought back Sophie Ecclestone with Ireland well-placed at 80-2. Ecclestone’s impact was immediate – a double-wicket maiden, including the key scalp of Lewis, which turned the course of the game. From 80-2 Ireland went downhill on skis, before finally ending up face-down in a hedge in the 19th over at 105, having lost 8 wickets for 23 runs.

Although England’s 3 spinners shared the wickets around – Ecclestone and Sarah Glenn taking 3 apiece, and Dean 2 – Ecclestone’s importance as England’s “trump card” had already been underlined when she was brought into the attack in just the 3rd over, after the openers had gone for 18 in the first two overs. Ecclestone delivered then too, conceding just 3 – every time England need “something” it is her they turn to.

England’s reply saw Capsey into the action in the first over, after Dunkley holed-out; and she took little time to reassert her claim to be the most exciting young player in the world right now, hitting her 2nd and 3rd balls for consecutive boundaries. The punishment was just beginning for the Irish bowlers. Eimear Richardson went for 3 consecutive 4s in the 4th over, and probably shouldn’t have been given another at that stage, but she was, and she psychologically imploded – delivering 3 balls to Capsey which would have been wides with 9 sets of stumps, and having to watch as Capsey brutally slapped them for 3 more consecutive boundaries – the last a maximum to bring up her half century.

With England 69-1 at the end of the powerplay, it was on-course to be done inside 8 overs; but the dismissal of Capsey somehow spooked England – they started to lose more wickets and forgot how to score runs – losing 3 wickets in the 5-over “early middle” phase and making just 20 runs at a strike rate of under 75 – practically baseball territory, at least by the standards England have set themselves recently.

With plenty of time on their side, England were in a position to inch towards the Irish total, and inch they did, with Heather Knight requiring 23 balls to make her 14 runs; and then suffering a bit of a comedy-dismissal to put the cherry on the cake, as the ball wobbled like Mr Blobby on his way home from a long night out, onto the stumps after a mis-hit sweep.

At the end of the day, all that really matters is that England got the points and a healthy boost to their Net Run Rate, should they need it. But the last few overs did serve to remind us that whilst Capsey and Ecclestone are the kind of players who can make stuff happen, England don’t have the depth of Australia; and that whilst Australia can play badly and still make 170-odd, England aren’t quite at that level yet.

T20 WORLD CUP – England v West Indies: Paarl-ez Vous Bazball

With temperatures in the middle at Boland Park in Paarl pushing 40 degrees, the heat hardly needed to be turned up any more; but England did it anyway – winning the opening game of their T20 World Cup campaign with 5 overs to spare, thanks to a brutal batting display which will inevitably be compared to Bazball.

England have been acclimatising in South Africa for a couple of weeks now, but Paarl is always hotter than England’s base at Stellenbosch, closer to the coast near Cape Town; and locals here in Paarl say this is one of the hottest Februarys they can remember. The last place you want to be at the height of the afternoon is out in the field, but that’s exactly where England found themselves, having lost the toss with Hayley Matthews choosing to bat.

Matthews herself got off to a decent start, making 37off 23 balls in the powerplay. Unfortunately, as if to emphasise the Windies’ current dependence on Matthews, this was 90% of their runs off the bat during the powerplay, with Stafanie Taylor at the other end looking desperately out of touch. Matthews had admitted in the pre-match press conference that it was touch and go for Taylor coming back from injury, and she was eventually put out of her misery two balls after the end of the powerplay for just 3 off 15 balls.

England won’t be completely satisfied with the start they allowed the West Indies to make. Lauren Bell couldn’t get her lines right as she struggled to control her swing, and though she got away with it in her first over, conceding just 3, two of which were wides – one down leg and one down off – she wasn’t so fortunate in her second, as Matthews took her for 12, including 3 more wides. Brunt and Ecclestone also took some dents in their metalwork from Matthews.

But England’s spinners began to wrestle back control in the post-powerplay overs; with the West Indies Strike Rate dropping close to 75 in the early middle phase, mostly as a result of Matthews falling back as she failed to find a single boundary to add to the 8 4s she had struck during the powerplay before she was dismissed in the 11th over.

Nonetheless, the West Indies had enough wickets intact to be able to throw the bat a bit at the end, taking themselves from 106-3 to 135-7 in the death phase to give England something to chase.

As they’d promised to do, England came out of the traps at full pelt, with Danni Wyatt and Sophia Dunkley hitting and running fearlessly. It is high-risk cricket – neither lasted the powerplay, and both could have been out even sooner than they were, but it gave England the kind of confident start that takes the pressure off everyone else, and later enabled Nat Sciver-Brunt and Heather Knight to play a slightly less risky (though ultimately no less productive) game through the middle overs to carry England to the win with 5 overs to spare.

The real positive from this is that it definitely feels like England had a lot more in the tank if they needed it. Nat Sciver-Brunt and Knight actually weren’t playing Bazball by the end, but they were still going at strike rates of 133 and 145 respectively.

At the end of the day, for all Heather Knight’s talk in the press conference of taking it one game at a time, she knows that this tournament isn’t about beating the West Indies in the opener – it is about beating Australia in the final, and England won’t do that unless they take a few risks. They haven’t suddenly become favourites for the tournament; but they’ve made a very positive start, and right now, that’s all we can ask.

OPINION: WPL Predictions – Expect A Lot Of Surprises!

By Andy Frombolton

When the men’s IPL launched, it was bringing a new product (T20) to a large existing (fanatical) market, whereas the WIPL is the complete opposite i.e. it’s bringing a recognised product to a small established fanbase (with the expectation that interest and demand can be grown). 

So, whilst launching the IPL wasn’t without risks (only KKR made money in the first few years), the IPL investors could look to other countries (the English and Australian T20 competitions) for reassurance that existing fans could be won over to the new format. As to finances, franchise owners were guaranteed their share of the central revenue (broadcast and tournament sponsorship) which could be supplemented by prize money and local revenue (share of ticket sales, merchandise and team sponsorship). Hence, there was a shared common objective to ensure the tournament’s success (thereby growing the shared revenue pool), and a franchise-level objective to assemble a successful team to both maximise your chances of securing prize money and also engender supporter loyalty for the new teams.

The WPL therefore faces slightly different challenges with its far-lower starting point in terms of fanbase, and considerably more uncertainty regarding the size of the future market. Data from the US, the UK and Europe shows steadily-building viewing figures as more women’s sport is broadcast, but extrapolating recent growth to make forecasts about future audiences is perilous. Will consumers of women’s sport be as dedicated / obsessive as many followers of men’s sport are? Will male viewers prove as willing to watch women’s sport as women are men’s (particularly if there’s an alternative men’s game to watch)? And most important of all, will the Asian market behave in the same way? 

In the UK, some reporting has adopted an almost romanticised view of the franchise owners’ motives – as though they’re driven by a deep love of women’s cricket. The reality, of course, is that they are business people, not philanthropists, who seek to monetise an under-exploited market. (If they thought they could make more money developing women’s football then that’s where they’d be investing all their money.)

So whilst it’s fun for we writers in the UK to draw up fantasy team lists comprising our favourite players and blithely assume that the same names will be on each owner’s ‘wish list’, their decisions won’t be driven by reputation or affection but solely by facts, data and risk/return analysis. 

We also need to recognise how unimportant we (English fans) are to the project’s success. Looking at viewing figures for the 2020 IPL, the domestic Indian TV audience for the opening game was 200 million, whilst the UK audience averaged 168,000 and peaked at 234,000. At approximately 1% of viewing figures, UK interest in the IPL is both a statistical and financial irrelevance (with Australian, South African and New Zealand viewing figures even less so), and there’s no rationale to believe that the WIPL will be any different. The only market which really matters is the Indian market. And next will be target markets which are perceived to offer far greater growth potential such as Bangladesh and Thailand, and beyond them South America, USA and eventually China.

Consequently, for these 2 reasons, we may be over-estimating how many international players are going to be involved. 

There are only 3 reasons to have overseas players in your domestic team: 

  1. Performance. An overseas player is considerably better than any domestic equivalent. These are your premium players. 

    However, having internationals plugging the gaps simply perpetuates current weaknesses and the BCCI will be keen that the WIPL develops talent for the national team. Any recruitment will come with an expectation that teams rapidly develop domestic replacements for future seasons.
  2. Star quality / totemic. A player whose star appeal / marketing impact goes beyond the objective value of their on-field performances.

    Although there are many players who current fans might deem ‘greats of the game’, they are largely unknown to the new target audience. However, starting from a low recognition point also brings benefits, as teams can shape who gets to become a new hero. Consequently, relatable players (“I want to be her” (cricket skills) or “I want to be like her” (image, life style)) might find themselves selected above players with better stats, simply because of their potential marketing appeal to the domestic (Indian) market.
  3. Strategic signings. Would the level of interest in any country increase in proportion to the number of players selected? On the one hand, it’s unlikely that UK interest would increase dramatically if there were e.g. 10 English players involved instead of 5, yet having e.g. 2 Thai players involved could mean the difference between ‘no interest’ and ‘significant interest’ in that market. Canny teams with an eye on the future may therefore pick more than one associate player.

Quite simply, the WIPL launch doesn’t need overseas players in the same way that the IPL did. Most of the new target audience doesn’t know much about women’s cricket and even less about most of the individual players. Also, the tournament is short and hence teams don’t need much contingency for injury or rotation.

Therefore, just because each franchise is allowed a maximum of 6 overseas players from the ‘established’ nations, my prediction is that the sensible ones won’t recruit that many. Why pay for 6 when you could instead pay a premium to guarantee getting your 4 priority international players, whilst also paying your domestic and associate players more (thereby engendering their loyalty)? Assuming they remain fit, these 4 will play every game – so why pay 2 internationals to carry drinks? And if a team really felt that it needed another international player they could still stick to this basic strategy and recruit a ‘cheap’ proven player (such as a Tess Flintoff or Tara Norris), who could ‘do a job’ if required but would recognise the career benefits of simply being ‘in and around’ the tournament. Moreover, having now seen the reserve prices for the shortlisted players, it’s reasonable to predict that many have simply priced themselves out of contention – especially if there’s a bidding war for some of the top players which leaves a smaller-than-planned budget to complete the squad.

Also, making money on the WIPL requires teams to build brand loyalty which is greatly facilitated by having the same international players return each year. Unfortunately, this might work against older players (however talented). 

So, what types of players are best placed to win contracts?

To win games, you need to put big scores on the board, but only 10 batters strike consistently at >120 at international level, of whom only 2 are Indian (Smriti Mandhana and Shafali Verma). There are then 11 batters who strike at 110-120, of whom only 1 (Jemimah Rodrigues) is Indian. So, any team would want 2 of the top 8 non-Indian strikers and might consider a third player from the second group if they also bring something with the ball, keep wicket or are a dynamic fielder.

Similarly, teams need bowlers with the proven capability to remove the best batters, since if you take out a team’s top 3-4 batters it becomes almost irrelevant who the next batters are (since none of them score at much more than SR100). 

In women’s cricket, slow bowlers are generally more economical than faster ones, but with respect to strike bowlers no single ‘type’ of bowling dominates – it’s all about the individual. And a quick deep dive quickly differentiates which bowlers routinely take out the best batters and whose figures are flattered by ‘cheap’ lower-order wickets. 

My ‘Top 20’ internationals (who gets picked after this depends which teams secure the services of these players): 

Premium Prestige

(I’m assuming Harmanpreet Kaur, Mandhana and Deepti Sharma will captain 3 of the franchises)

  • E. Perry (captain)
  • S. Devine (captain)

Batters

  • B. Mooney (wk)
  • A. Healy (wk)
  • D. Wyatt
  • G. Harris
  • A. Jones (wk)
  • S. Dunkley
  • A. Capsey

Bowlers

  • G. Wareham
  • M. Schutt
  • S. Ecclestone
  • S. Glenn
  • D. Brown

All-rounders

  • D. Dottin
  • A. Kerr
  • T. McGrath
  • A. Gardner
  • C. Tryon
  • H. Matthews

And if I was selecting a team …?

  • Wyatt (SR 125, no weakness against any type of bowling, great outfielder)
  • Mooney (SR 125, superb fielder but should keep wicket)
  • Dottin (batting SR 123, also ‘top 10’ strike bowler)
  • Ecclestone (superb bowling SR, equally effective at any stage of an innings, massively-undervalued batter)
  • (Associate) Chantham (Thailand) 

Auction day is going to be a fascinating day!

The CRICKETher Weekly – Episode 150

This week:

  • You Ask Us: Pitches in the U19 World Cup & Optics in The Hundred
  • Were CSA right to drop Dane van Niekerk, and how high a bar is 2km in 9:30?
  • What counts as personal data in cricket?
  • How much does “experience” matter in umpiring?