England Women v India 2nd ODI

Analysis of England's victory at Scarborough:

* Some centuries are sculpted from marble; others are chiseled out of granite. Charlotte Edwards' record-breaking knock was definitely the latter. A drive through the off side early on set the tone - it reached the boundary and was widely applauded in the stands, but it hadn't quite come off the middle of the bat. But still... a hundred is a hundred - it doesn't matter how you get 'em; and without Edwards, England would have had quite literally nothing to defend.

* Batting Tammy Beaumont so low down the order is completely pointless - she might as well not be there! Wyatt would score more runs and save more in the outfield too. I think TB probably should be playing on merit though - just coming in at 3!

* When England suggested, prior to the Test, that Heather Knight offered a fill-in spin bowling option, even those of us who had seen her take a five-for for Berkshire a couple of weeks before were raising our eyebrows. But she seems to have the 'taking wickets' thing down to a tee which is great as that was really what was needed today - they were keeping up with the run rate, so we had to bowl them out, and Knight's two wickets were crucial.

* Along with Edwards, Jenny Gunn was the real difference between the teams though - 4 wickets and a brilliant, vital catch right on the boundary to dismiss the dangerous Kaur, who I assume will actually loose her match fee this time, after another clear-cut act of dissent, following on from her reprimand in the Test.

England Women v India 1st ODI

With 3 wickets and an assured half-century for England's vice-captain, it was starry, starry Knight as England beat India at Scarborough.

The weather played a big part in this game - not just the multiple interruptions (and eventual abandonment) for freezing rain, but the otherwise near-constant drizzle combined with a biting wind, made life difficult for everyone; but especially those more accustomed to sunnier climes - i.e. one team in particular! (I wonder if the ECB cheekily had this in mind when they scheduled the match all the way up here?)

England bowled first, and I didn't think they bowled particularly well actually. Jenny Gunn was businesslike, as we've come to expect; but Danni Hazell wasn't great, sending down a lot of loose full tosses. Hazell was outstanding last summer because she kept things so tight - she didn't look the same bowler at all today.

Heather Knight was somewhat fortunate to come away with the wickets she did, as she benefited from batsmen trying to attack her.

Neither Brunt not Shrubsole finished their overs, which suggests what it suggests - they weren't great; though Brunt looked quicker and more threatening in her foreshortened second spell - definitely hurrying and harrying the batsmen - so perhaps she was being eased back into things after so long out injured?

You can't really fault England's batting at all though. Edwards and Knight were fantastic - playing more shots in the first 20 overs than England managed in the entire Test at Wormsley! 

Taylor rode her luck a bit, but that's how she plays; and between them they put England so far ahead of the game that Messrs Duckworth and Lewis were hardly worth consulting when the final deluge brought about the abandonment of festivities. While it lasted though, it was a joy to watch - I almost (almost!) forgot the cold as I remembered that this is why we love this game!

Thoughts On Women's Cricket Blog's Clare Connor Interview

Martin Davies over at WCB has a fantastic in-depth interview with "The Boss", Clare Connor. Martin is a lawyer by profession, so you'd expect him to ask a lot of good questions; and to be fair The Boss gives some pretty straight answers.

Here are my 'key takes':

On Contracts

Connor basically admits that the "18 Full Time Professionals" thing is a bit of a fiction. The Tier 3 contracts are not a living wage (they "nearly" are) and the Tier 2 contracts aren't worth much more. This fits in with what I'd heard about the T2s - to quote, "I'd earn more working in MacDonnalds"!

I should add at this juncture, that I don't actually have any massive issues with where we are - the fact that there are contracts at all is a huge step up from where we were even a year ago. But I do just wish the ECB would be a bit more honest and not try to spin things to the point where people think that Lottie and Co. are partying in First Class with Broady and Cooky, which (a) could not be further from the truth; and (b) is already coming back to bite them.

On WICL

Having slammed the door on WICL earlier in the summer, Connor seems to back-track a little, admitting that things might change in 12 or 24 months. If I were to really read between the lines here, I'd say she's hinting that if WICL comes back as a genuine "partnership" with Cricket Australia (i.e. not an independent entity, but falling under the auspices of CA), it could still be a goer as far as the ECB is concerned.

It's no surprise that I'm massively in favour of WICL; and if it is a secret that many of the players are too, it's not a very well kept one; so I think re-opening that door, even if just a chink, is A Good Thing™ and I'm glad Connor has hinted at doing so.

On The County Championship

Two key rumours have been doing the rounds for several months now - that 2015 will see (a) coloured clothing, and (b) home-and-away rounds. Sources close to the ECB had already told me that the former was much more likely than the latter, and Connor basically confirms that here.

I think coloured clothing is great news, and I'm going to post on it separately, but just while we are on the subject: Clare, if you are reading this, please, please, please can we have names on shirts too?

One other interesting point - actually, I think the most interesting - is the admission that the top flight needs to be "more top-flight". We have to concentrate all the England players in Division 1 - it is ridiculous that none of the England batsmen playing in the County Championship this year faced either of our two fastest bowlers (Cross & Shrubsole) because they were both playing in Division 2! (And we wonder why they crumbled when faced with Goswami and Niranjana?)

On Test Cricket

Connor essentially admits that Test cricket isn't commercially viable by itself. Back-of-an-envelope calculations I made last year, with the help of someone who has good day-to-day knowledge of how much events like this cost to run, suggested that Wormsley probably made a loss - and if last year probably did, this year certainly did, with (I reckon) less than half the number of paying spectators!

The key question then is, is it worth carrying on with a format that we are going to see at most once or twice a year going forwards? Connor seems to suggest not, saying that it is "really hard to justify". That must have been tough to admit; but maybe it is the reality that we all (administrators, players and fans) have to face?

Professionals Beaten By Amateurs Line Unfair

Amusing as it is to see the ECB hoist by their own petard, after pushing the "we're all pros now" line so vigorously over the past few months, the angle taken by most of the press this morning on India's win is unfair on the players - this was not a case of 'Pros Beaten By Ams' but more like 'Semi-Pros Beaten by Semi-Ams'.

Most of the England players are not 'full time professionals' in the sense we would generally understand it.

For starters, one of them (Sonia Odedra) is not a pro at all - she is not centrally contracted, and has a proper job.

The rest are centrally contracted, but many of them continue to work two days a week for Chance To Shine. This means that either they haven't had a weekend off for the past 4 months, or they are not training professionally 'full time' - which by any normal definition means '5 days a week'.

Overall, my understanding is that of the players who took the field on Saturday, just two are genuinely 'full time professionals' - able to fully and independently support themselves over the medium-to-long-term playing cricket; and not dependent upon shared housing, secondary sources of income or 'The Bank of Mum and Dad'. (Though to be fair, a couple of others are quite close and will be genuine full-time pros this time next year most likely.)

But what about India? Are they really 'amateurs'? Well, they are certainly not 'full time professionals' but most of them aren't quite amateurs either. For example, those who work for Indian Railways are employed partly as cricketers, not the "full-time ticket collectors" depicted by the press. In reality, Indian Railways is effectively acting as a sponsor of women's cricket, in the same way Chance To Shine did in England up until four months ago. It isn't an ideal situation, and many think the BCCI (which isn't exactly short of a few bob) should be doing this job; but genuine 'full time amateurs' the players are not.

So it isn't like England were beaten by a team of girls who hadn't picked up a ball for six months, because they'd been picking up tickets instead! They were beaten by a team of players who train several times a week, in decent facilities, with proper (albeit not 'full time') coaching/ medical support and so on - basically, the same situation that England were in not too long ago.

I guess none of this really matters - the press need An Angle and they found one. (As someone once said, the press always seen to write with accuracy and authority... except when they write about something I know about!) And one little post on one little blog probably isn't going to set the record straight, especially as it slightly contradicts the 'party line' from the ECB. But I do feel sorry for the players on this one - it is almost like the press are saying that they were expected to win this Test just because they are 'full time pros' and India are 'amateurs' - which would be unfair, even if they actually all were.

England Women v India Day 4

So... that's that as far as Test cricket goes for another year. India looked delighted with their win, and certainly they deserved it. The calm assurance of Mithali and Pandy at the crease this morning could not have contrasted more sharply with the gulp-inducing nervousness of Tammy Beaumont and Loz Winfield on Day 1; and although Charlotte Edwards said afterwards that the pitch had flattened-out I can't help wondering if the difference was as much mental as environmental.

Perhaps the toss was the key - had England won it and bowled themselves, it would have been India under that pressure on the first morning, and things might have been very different.

Clare Connor said afterwards that it had been a great Test match. I have to say I can't honestly agree... and I've a funny feeling in her heart-of-hearts she wouldn't really agree either. Unlike last summer's Ashes Test, there were no battling big innings or thrilling bowling spells - Jenny Gunn's Man of the Match performance was workmanlike but little more. (Sorry Raf!) Overall, the run rates limped along (well under 2/over in the 4th innings) and there were few "shots" played. Even the wickets were dull LBWs rather than the splattered stumps or daring diving catches of which cricketing memories are made.

And so to Scarborough and Lords for the ODIs. You'd have to say England remain favourites; but with India's victory here will come a renewed confidence, so it is going to be a close series, especially with the added impetus of International Women's Championship points at stake. Let's hope the weather is kind and gives us a series to remember; because I'm afraid this Test kind-of wasn't.

England Women v India Day 3

Brief random thoughts from Wormsley:

* Although Jenny Gunn's battling 50 made a game of it, this has been India's day, with their bowlers doing a job to finish England off before they got out of sight; and their batsmen looking VERY comfortable - more so, in fact, than the 2/over run rate would suggest.

* The Indian's approach has been pretty low risk - hence the anaemic run rate - but I guess if it wins them the game tomorrow, then all's fair in cricket, as in love and war. But... it hasn't been the most pulsating day in living memory.

* Although Heather Knight (eventually) got a wicket, her early introduction smacked of desperation at a point where England didn't (yet) need to be desperate. Also... is it a tacit admission that they should have played Hazell?

* Can England still win this Test? If they can get Mithali out early, yes - but the way she is playing, you'd have to say India have the edge. It could still be close though - bring on the final day!

England CAN Bat, So Why Have't They? Some Thoughts...

England's batting has been pretty woeful at Wormsley; but why?

Players? Are these the right 6 batsmen to be facing the Indians in this Test? You'd have to largely say yes! You can argue the merits of picking Danni Wyatt for the T20s... and indeed I have! And there is perhaps a case for finding a place for Amy Jones, maybe batting at 6 if you shuffled Edwards back to the top of the order? But overall, these players are the best we have; and they perform week in week out in the county championship, so what else is different?

Pace? There isn't a speed gun at Wormsley; and there certainly aren't any in the county championship; but even to the naked eye it is clear that Goswami and Niranjana are a couple of degrees faster than anyone playing in Division 1 of the County Championship*. So I wonder if England are getting out to shots that would have worked fine for them in domestic cricket? After all, the ball only has to come on a fraction of an inch faster to turn a leg glance into a leg-before.

Pitch? It is possible the pitch may also be contributing here - the Women's County Championship is mostly played on club grounds, with part-time ground staff, who with the best will in the world aren't going to produce the kind of track that the Getty billions buy you at Wormsley. Combined with the fact that the curators were explicitly asked by the ECB to manufacture a pitch with more in it for the bowlers than last year's bore-draw Ashes road, and this is perhaps the result? (Again, the ball only has to come on that little bit quicker to make a big difference!)

Pressure? As we all know, women's Tests don't come along very often - the next one is basically a year away! That creates the kind of mental stress which can fold even the coolest bastman - "It's my one chance: don't blow it; don't blow it!" (Doubtless the players will tell you they weren't thinking that, but...) Having a big crowd willing you on can also add to the sense of responsibility I'm sure, and while some feed on it, maybe in other cases the only thing it feeds is their anxiety?

Umpires? Are these top-flight umpires more likely to confidently call marginal LBW decisions than those in the county championship? I've really no evidence for this whatsoever; but there have been a lot of LBs, and I wonder if the benefit of the doubt just swings a different way with the amateur / semi-professional umpires we get in domestic cricket?

At the end of the day, if England make even another 30 today - putting the pressure on India this time, with Cross and Shrubsole steaming in to win the match for the home side - all this will be forgotten. So... here's hoping it will be!

-------------
* England's fastest bowlers - Cross and Shrubsole both play in Division 2.