2014 Diary

A Ramble on Women's Cricket
 - with diversions -

This diary will be updated erratically throughout the year.

Previous Page

Where's Wyatt?

Looking at the scorecard of the first of the EWA matches against South Africa makes me raise that question. Now I am well aware we won the two ODIs against India at Scarborough  - I was there - but in one of those matches much relied upon the England captain who scored more than half the side's runs.  In the other she had support from Knight but only minor contributions were forthcoming, or on occasion required perhaps, from the others.

Danni Wyatt © Don Miles!

I have always felt, however, that winning is OK but why not put out your best side? This might not have mattered in the normal way but, in the bigger picture, these are not 'normal' matches, counting, as they do, towards qualification for the next World Cup. Even before these matches were underway, England were already at a disadvantage by comparison with arch-rivals Australia. Australia now lead the table for this qualification. There are two principle reasons for this situation.  They are...

1.  Australia were wise enough to arrange reserve days to play the series against Pakistan enabling three results - no matches washed-out. England did not have that safety net and hence lost a point at Lord's.

2.  Australia undoubtedly picked their best side to ensure the highest possible run- rate as we have the dreaded Net Run Rate to consider in this tournament with only four teams automatically qualifying. Pakistan put up a fine resistance to the Aussies but the points table at this time shows not only Australia ahead on points (6 against 5) but also on NRR (+1.357 against +0.686). You could argue India provide more worthy opponents and therefore you would expect Australia's NRR to be ahead of England's but playing your best side could have reduced the margin. The results also show, incidentally, this would have been to underestimate Pakistan's contribution to that series.

I have to hope England do not regret both these choices in a year or two's time.

How wrong can you be?

I have today (1st September 2014) come across this article online...

Well the title's uncontroversial enough, and it's true T20 cricket gives the minnows (sorry South Africa) the best chance of beating the big guys, so I have no problem with it on that count. However the author suggests, as many have done before him, that T20 is the 'future' of women's cricket. If I've laboured this before then my apologies, but that makes no sense except in one specific respect.

Women hit few if any 6s and bowl at speeds in the 70s not 90s, and those are the things crowds currently want to see. Will women get stronger in the short term? I doubt it and all the 'strength and conditioning' going on at the moment appears to have resulted in more injuries and a higher proportion of the top players simply not playing.

Ask any county player and you'll probably find they consider T20s a lot of fun, but they want to play 50-over cricket. Ask the top players around the world and they want to play Test cricket. True they want T20s as well. In longer forms of the game, women can compete more evenly with men. Scores for a completed innings are more often closer and the real skills necessary to play 50-over and longer are on show.

So what's the one respect in which T20 is the future? Well, it's TV of course and that decision has been taken in the Sky Sports boardroom (or wherever they make decisions like this), and not on the cricket field or among the players. We had plenty of 50-over matches on TV until T20 came along and now we have less cricket. It could be argued that T20 has, in fact, reduced the exposure of the women's game to a larger public and indeed 'showcased' the form that suits them least.  Unless Sky relent then I suspect we are stuck at the level of both coverage and public awareness of the sport we have now - not a level to be sneezed at it's true - but with little or no prospect of growing it.

It's yet another situation I have dared to comment upon in this 'ramble' where I fervently hope I'm wrong.

[And a footnote: All three matches ARE to be televised, not just the last ahead of the men's game!]

Candid on Commentary?

Although I was at the England v South Africa game at Chelmsford (thanks to Martin Davies who gave me a lift at a time when driving has been difficult for me) I always record any women's game that Sky transmits. Not only do you get a very different view sometimes but modern TV's ability to scroll forward and back and freeze when you chose is a feature I find useful for cricket, even if for little else. You also get the comments of those well familiar with the women's game (Clare Connor, Isa Guha and Nick Knight) and other ex-England men cricketers who are learning the game and its differences.

During the course of the after-match chat I was intrigued by the conversation between Ian Ward, Clare Connor and Nasser Hussein. One comment of Clare's might have made someone unfamiliar with the goings-on in the game sit up rather abruptly. She said (paraphrased slightly) "we haven't got a first class county game". I wonder how many watchers wondered "why not?"! The county game is the basis for the selection in the men's game - why not in the women's? Nasser also said that international sides need a "succession plan". While tournaments like S3s, S4s etc. serve in a way as England trials, the players in those sides are drawn, ultimately, from the counties.

However, all is not quite as it seems for a consultation is underway shortly on the format of county cricket and it would seem a number of changes lie ahead in addition to the introduction of white ball and coloured clothing to the top two divisions (of which more anon). One has to hope - and assume - the aim is to ensure we do obtain a "first class county game" for it is upon the counties the England team is ultimately based. No "first class" county cricket would eventually - and not that far into the future either - result in a non "first class" England team.

In recent times large sums have been invested, and quite rightly, in the England set-up.  Hopefully the time is fast approaching when county cricket will obtain the investment it deserves.

Oh, God, Not a Woman!

Something of a social media 'storm' has hit Australia apparently when the news broke that Meg Lanning was to join the Channel Nine commentary team. What was my (and some of my male friends') first reaction to the news of her appointment? "It seems like the Aussies are joining the 21st century". Well no, not exactly, but to say there had been even a scintilla of a surprise would have been to lie.

On hearing the news there has been a media storm. Well here the reaction was just a shrug and a version of "well, it is Australia" sort of remark. It seems no one I've yet to discuss the matter with is in the least surprised about either event, Lanning starting to commentate on cricket, or the 'macho', if completely nonsensical, response from some Australians.

Meg Lanning in Action against England

In this country (UK) we have a number of fine female commentators including Alison Mitchell, Isa Guha (who can I believe do so in at least three languages - not something I suggest many men can manage), and Ebony Rainford-Brent to name but three. Clare Connor joins Sky TV from time to time and adds a wealth of knowledge precisely from the fact that she did for many years for England the job Meg Lanning is now doing for Australia. All of them are quite capable of commentating and adding to the quality of the experience to the listener on both the men's and the women's game.

I have never spoken to Meg Lanning and don't have the slightest idea of how good a commentator she will make. I do know she is one of the world's top batsmen! As Australian captain, I hope those in authority who placed her in that spot recognised she had a good 'cricket brain'. There is obviously no reason therefore why she shouldn't be more than capable of doing the job. My instinct is to say she'll do the job well, but the very least she deserves is for everyone to reserve judgment, not just until she has started the job, but until she has settled in to what will be a new environment. Only someone who does not understand cricket could carp when one of the world's top three batsmen offers an opinion.  Unlike all who are complaining, she will have played at the highest level, and been the best.

Can she translate her on-field experiences to the microphone? Will she have the same talent for a new field of endeavour? We should wait and see. And when she starts to express her own opinions then disagree with her by all means, but remember her playing background. Her views deserve respect.

You may well have seen some ideas on revamping the County Championship on Martin Davies' blog. Here's some other ideas from Chris Langman.

Some Thoughts on the Counties from cjl

Division 1 is 9 teams. It take 9 weekends to complete the fixtures. If Div 1 was 10 teams it would still take 9 weekends to complete the fixtures.

Promote Somerset to Div 1.

Promote Holland to Div 2 to replace Somerset.

In fact the regional split of Div 4 into North/East and South/West is a bit knackered anyway given that Suffolk are replacing Gloucestershire which means splitting the 10 teams into a N/E group and a S/W doesn’t really work. I’d go for 3 regional divisions as the 3rd tier, each of 6 teams, each playing home and away. Bit tough on Suffolk (who won the 4th division play off against Cornwall so gained 3rd division status by right) but they are the only losers.

Yes there remains the question of how 3 Div 3 winners replace both teams in Div 2 but then I’d make it that the bottom 3 teams in Div 2 are replaced by the winners of the 3 Div 3 leagues. As usual with regional leagues, teams may have to be moved laterally between Div 3 leagues to maintain geographical common sense. If having 3 automatic relegation slots on Div 2 is too savage then simply have one automatic relegation slot with the best of the 3 winners of the Div 3 leagues replacing them and then 2 playoff matches between the 3rd bottom team and the 3rd ranked Div 3 leagues winner and the 2nd bottom team and the 2nd ranked Div 3 leagues winner. Ranking based on league points or percentage.

So we would have:-

Division 1
Berkshire
Kent
Lancashire
Middlesex
Nottinghamshire
Somerset
Surrey
Sussex
Warwickshire
Yorkshire

Division 2
Cricket Wales
Devon
Durham
Essex
Ireland
Netherlands
Scotland
Staffordshire
Worcestershire

Division 3 North
Cheshire (relegated from 2nd)
Cumbria (were Div 4 N&E)
Derbyshire (were Div 3)
Leicestershire & Rutland (were Div 3)
Northumberland (were Div 4 N&E)
Shropshire (were Div 4 S&W)

Division 3 Central
Buckinghamshire (were Div 4 S&W)
Cambridgeshire (were Div 4 N&E)
Hertfordshire (were Div 3)
Norfolk (were Div 4 N&E)
Northamptonshire (were Div 3)
Suffolk (were Div 4 N&E but got promoted to Div 3)

Division 3 South
Cornwall (were Div 4 S&W)
Dorset (were Div 4 S&W)
Gloucestershire (were relegated from Div 3)
Hampshire (were Div 3)
Oxfordshire (were Div 3)
Wiltshire (were Div 4 S&W)

The alternative is to have 2x9-team regionally based 3rd divisions (not playing home and away) :-

Division 3 North
Cambridgeshire (were Div 4 N&E)
Cheshire (relegated from 2nd)
Cumbria (were Div 4 N&E)
Derbyshire (were Div 3)
Leicestershire & Rutland (were Div 3)
Norfolk (were Div 4 N&E)
Northamptonshire (were Div 3)
Northumberland (were Div 4 N&E)
Shropshire (were Div 4 S&W)

Division 3 South
Buckinghamshire (were Div 4 S&W)
Cornwall (were Div 4 S&W)
Dorset (were Div 4 S&W)
Gloucestershire (were relegated from Div 3)
Hampshire (were Div 3)
Hertfordshire (were Div 3)
Oxfordshire (were Div 3)
Suffolk (were Div 4 N&E but got promoted to Div 3)
Wiltshire (were Div 4 S&W)

... and the bottom two in Div 2 are replaced by the winners of the two Div 3 leagues. This means we have a 10 team 1st division and 9 teams in Div 2, Div 3N and Div 3S. Whether the current Div 4 teams (that only play 4 matches a season) would fancy or could afford playing double that is, of course, a good question.

Or...

There is a 3rd alternative - simply promote Somerset and Holland and have a 10 team Div1, 9 team Div2 and 8 team Div3. One less match for div3 but that reduces cost (probably quite important in Div3) and one less weekend.

Next Page