A Footnote (and Random) Thoughts on the WT20
Since I've been back in the UK I have been pondering my (almost)
3 weeks in the West Indies, St. Lucia and Antigua following the WT20
and having a great holiday in the process.
So, on the field (the cricket one that is) what sticks in my
mind after my return?
-
There was the rather strange occurrence of umpires
warning players for running on the pitch. Can you remember the
last time you saw this happen in your domestic cricket wherever
you may be on this globe? No I thought it unlikely. If you can,
what about the time before that? Now I suspect you really are
stuck! I have commented on this before (blog)
and I can't say my views have changed; indeed they have hardened in
view of the late information (shown in pale brown). I have
watched the ODI series between Sri Lankan men and New Zealand and,
in spite of one warning to a batsman simply awaiting the bowler
too far down the wicket for the umpire's liking, the Law was once
again observed in the breach with at least two instances in one
match where I was aware of a player running the full length of the
wicket in a perfect line from middle stump to middle stump. There
were a number (dozens) of instances of what would have been
considered infractions in the West Indies, but apparently aren't
in New Zealand. All that said the umpires were in every other
regard perhaps the best 'team' I have seen doing that role for
quite some time. perhaps the message hasn't yet travelled all the
way down south.
-
The turn-out at matches was way above that I was
expecting. Yes, of course, if the West Indies were playing you'd
expect a decent crowd. I'm not sure, nonetheless, that I thought
the stadium in St. Lucia would be as full as it was. If the TV
coverage was representative, it seemed the crowd in Guyana was
considerably less. What was perhaps more surprising was the size
of the crowd when overseas teams were what was on view on a
particular day. I am not sure how much difference it made but the
organisers declared a 'party' to follow the second match of the
day and when we had packed up our cameras, computers and other
accoutrements there were still plenty there. This was a blessing
to us as what might have been a chaotic situation as we tried to
drive away was simply a normal traffic jam.
-
I was especially pleased to watch some teams I
haven't seen before (e.g. Bangladesh) but disappointed that the
England/Sri Lanka match was rained off. Sri Lanka is a team I have
seen only rarely and I was looking forward to a chance to
photograph them again. The cancellation and the look at the
forecast for the next 7 days or so caused one journalist to
suggest this group should be moved elsewhere. This was NEVER going
to be a serious question in spite of the fact the ICC thought to
'consider' it and then decide it wasn't practical. I am not sure
they ever took the idea seriously as it was as plain as the nose
on your face it was simply impossible, and just a journalist's
stunt to raise a profile.
Boundaries in the Women's Game
International Cricket Council rules state a women's T20 boundary
"shall be longer than 59.43m
(65 yds), and no shorter than 50.29m (55 yds),
from the centre of the pitch".
The men's boundaries "shall be longer than
82.29m (90 yds), and
no shorter than 59.43m (65 yds)
from the centre of the pitch".
Conversions to Imperial measure by me! I was amused in converting
these very 'odd' numbers i.e. ones with 2 decimal places to discover
they are exact integers in yards. Now it made sense. They mean yards
really but thought they'd best not say so... very droll.
Anyway I was intrigued by this info, which I assume applies to ICC
tournaments and would not, therefore, apply to the bi-lateral series
that England will be playing this summer. Boundaries as large
as those have not always applied in internationals here in the last
few years. I wonder if the ODI boundaries are specified
somewhere, but will I have the patience to go search - maybe - maybe
not.
The numbers above state the case really. I can remember as a 15 year
old schoolboy (well, younger than that actually as I played U-15 for
the school in my 2nd year at grammar school where I would have been
13) and we had boundaries closer to the men's than the women's. I
would suggest that the strength of a twenty+ year old woman training
full time in an international team would be much greater than me or
any member of
the team I was lucky enough to play in, but we didn't lack 6s in our
game (not that I hit many!) and, perish the thought in modern day
cricket, we also ran 3s (and that I seemed to do all too often). Or
perhaps I should have second thoughts - maybe we were fitter and
stronger as the sizes of boundaries today often tend to imply that
women's teams simply aren't that fit.
Having, during the last 12 months watched Devine clear the stand a
couple of times at Taunton (a lower stand it's true but still a long
hit), and seen the seats rattled by several players in the West
Indies during the ICC's World T20, it's indicated these restrictions
are quite unnecessary. I have never felt that a mishit should be
rewarded with a 6 or even a 4 but modern boundaries make that not
just possible but even likely on a number of occasions in every match.
Sophie Devine earns her 6 as she clears a stand at Taunton
during the tri-series with South Africa and England
I argued in this blog a while back that it's a batsman's game and
these boundaries are one of the principle reasons why. I know in T20
the basic premise is that the bowler is simply there as canon fodder
but we have to hope that some of the nuance and subtlety of the
cricket of a few decades ago can be retained or we may as well all
pack up now and take up baseball where at least there is no pretence
it's other than a 'see it, slog' it game. In our endeavour to make
the game have a wider appeal, and behind that is the thought of MORE
CASH, can we please not lose what makes cricket, cricket?
You've heard the expression 'going the extra mile'. I'd be happy
with an extra 5 yards!
|