Womens Ashes Test Day 3

Random thoughts on the #WomensAshes:

• Did someone tell Elyse Villani it was a T20 game? She had a let-off in the very first over as she tried to get 'em in boundaries, but she carried on and then paid the price. I guess that's just the way she plays?
• Although she went on the last Ashes tour down-under, Katie Cross didn't get a game on that trip, and was later told by England Academy that she needed to buck her ideas up if she was ever going to make it in cricket. Ideas were bucked, and less than two years later I think we can hereby consider 'it' officially made!
• That England recovered from 10/3 to set Australia a respectable target was quite an achievement, but I'd still have backed Australia, especially at 28/0 after six overs. It's England's to lose now though.
• Don't tell him I said this... we don't want it going to his head... but Charles Dagnall is becoming a World Class cricket commentator, capital letters included! It isn't just that he's done his homework on women's cricket (though he has) but that he finds those linguistic nuances in the different adjectives which really reflect the subtleties of the game. I suspect we'll soon be losing him to the big city of "proper" cricket and I for one will be sorry to see him go.

Women's Ashes Test Day 2

Random thoughts, sponsored by Nescafe:

• Katherine Brunt's dismissal for a 'second yellow card' felt desperately harsh. The rules are the rules; but they are there to prevent intimidation and KB was guilty of nothing more than trying too hard.
• Although she bowled several maidens, I thought Jenny Gunn wasn't quite 'there', especially in the first session. Her game relies on keeping things very tight to take wickets, and it wasn't until after lunch that she found her lines at all; and even then she didn't actually look especially threatening, with the Stars happy to 'milk her for dots' knowing there was plenty of time left in the match.
• With Australia 8-down after tea, I had half a thought that we'd be better-off holding back a bit so we wouldn't have to go out and bat again at the end of a long, hot day. In the light of what happened, it mightn't have been the worst idea in the world!
• Lottie Edwards has long been fighting her own private Battle of Wounded Knee, so her injury is not the world's greatest surprise, unfortunately. It could be critical for the state of the series though - England need her for her captaincy as well as her batting, and every moment without her is a moment England could do without!
• I saw a few comments on Twitter criticizing Cricket Australia's marketing efforts for the lack of local awareness in Perth, leading to empty stands at the WACA. I think this is unfair. Cricket Australia are doing a tremendous job marketing both the Southern Stars and the Women's National Cricket League, but with limited funds available you have to make some choices. Yes, we had great crowds in England last year, but it is worth bearing in mind that far more people are watching this game via the free live web feed (which is not cheap to run) than were in attendance at Wormsley or Chelmsford; and it's that kind of global awareness that women's cricket really needs.

Women’s Ashes Test Day 1

Random thoughts, brought to you in conjunction with coffee - a LOT of coffee:

• England were quite aggressive in their selection. By fielding Katie Cross - an out-and-out bowler - ahead of the all-rounder Georgia Elwiss, they stated their intent to win the game, rather than just not lose it!
• At 30-something-for-3 England might have been wondering if they had made the right decision on Cross/Elwiss; but Arran Brindle, whose classical, scholarly approach to her cricket is well-suited to the Test format, led the recovery.
• Lydia Greenway also played well, I thought - although she didn’t make big runs, she played the innings she needed to play at that stage of the match.
• I described Nat Sciver before as "a keeper" (as in, "we'll keep her"!) and her innings today totally underlined why.
• This wasn’t the BEST day… but it wasn’t a total disaster in the end either: we recovered from the mini-collapse; Anya Shrubsole got those two fantastic late wickets; and Brunt, Shrubsole and Cross is a strong attack to take to the Southern Stars tomorrow.
• The live feed on the Cricket Australia web site is great. It’s obviously done on a budget - hence no replays - but the picture quality is good, and there are enough cameras to catch most of the action - though the (apparently brilliant) catch that dismissed Brunt eluded them/us. 
• I’m not sure I can take three more days of Aussie commentators spending half the time discussing men’s cricket though! (And Isa Guha needs to remember that she is talking to the audience, not the person next to her - I know your co-commentator hasn’t head this story before, Isa, but we have… three times now!)

Live-Streaming The Women's Ashes Is Not A Favour - It's An Investment In A Professional Future For Our Game

Cricket Australia have confirmed that they will be live-streaming the Women's Ashes Test and ODIs via their web site. (The T20s are on TV anyway.)

The stream will also include synced-up radio commentary, which (I assume?) is being shared with TMS, so we'll even get to hear Daggers and co!

It's great news for fans, but further to yesterday's article it is important to understand that Cricket Australia aren't doing us a favour here - this isn't an act of charity - it's business!

As Tom Lehrer wrote of The Old Dope Peddler:

"He gives the kids free samples, because he knows full well; 
That today's young innocent faces will be tomorrow's clientele!" 

And that's exactly what is going on here - Cricket Australia are giving us a 'free sample' in the hope that more of us will get addicted and later pay for it!

It's what all businesses do - it's called investing - spending money now to build up the fan-base that they hope will one day pay them back!

And yes, one day I'll have to get my credit card out and fork-out for a live stream. But that will be a good day, because the money I hand over will be creating a sustainable, professional future for our game.

Women's Cricket Needs To Beak Its Cycle Of Poverty

Isabelle Duncan has written a lengthy piece for All Out Cricket chronicling the barely-professional state of the women's game.

Responding to the retirement of Holly Colvin, Duncan writes:

I implore the powers that be to balance the scales [vis-a-vis the men's game] and give these talented women a decent wage with security and peace of mind for the future.

Although I think Duncan's heart is in the right place, I think this is somewhat missing the point - we shouldn't be imploring the ECB for charitable handouts; we should be looking for ways to build a sport that is actually self-sustaining from a commercial perspective.

This is where I think the ECB are getting things spectacularly wrong with their focus on participation.

Participation is a laudable goal, for sure, and is important to the long-term success of the England team; but unless we marry this with a business strategy, we are never going to move on and break our current cycle of poverty. Because, in short, participation doesn't pay the bills!

There are at least two far more business-like approaches currently being attempted.

In South Africa the women's national game has gone 'all in' with a big sponsor - Momentum - who are working hand-in-hand with them over the long-term to build a commercially successful sport.

Meanwhile in Australia they've made a fantastic effort to commercialize and market not just the "Commonwealth Bank Southern Stars" but the domestic WNCL competitions too, with sponsors being brought on board on a team-by-team basis, paying not only player's expenses, but a small match fee on top; plus cool 'white ball' uniforms which fans will want to buy and wear.

This is how you build a game which can give the top players the rewards we all want them to have; not by begging for charity from the men's game, while we don't even have a sponsor for our county championship.

Women's Ashes Selection (Updated!)

We shouldn't read too much into England's teamsheet for the Shooting Stars game, especially as they seem to be doing a pick'n'mix, with one XI batting and another bowling.

In the 'Nothing to see here!' column, the selection of Amy Jones to keep wicket (one would assume) suggests that they are worried about Sarah Taylor's back... but they are always worried about Sarah Taylor's back, so there is nothing new there - she will keep in the Test!

Similarly, the omission of Anya Shrubsole hints at injury concerns there too, but I will be amazed if she doesn't play. (EDIT: Anya has said on Twitter that she will bowl on Day 2 anyway!)

The absence of Danni Wyatt and the inclusion of Georgia Elwiss, however, would seem to be significant. I had backed Wyatt to play on the basis of an ECB article; but a couple of people commented that I was reading too much into it, and there was no way England would play two spinners in Perth. It looks like they were right, and Elwis will play ahead of Wyatt.

(I think playing Elwiss makes sense too, and not just because of the spin/seam thing - Wyatt's skill-set is more suited to the limited overs game, especially her 'bish, bosh, bash' batting.)

My updated guess at the team for the Test would therefore be:

1. Edwards
2. Knight
3. Taylor
4. Greenway
5. Brindle
6. Sciver
7. Wyat Elwiss
8. Gunn
9. Hazel
10. Brunt
11. Shrubsole

Women's Ashes Selection - 3 Gaps To Fill

With the Shooting Stars warm-up game just around the corner, it's time to talk teams!

At either end of England's order, we have 3 nailed-on selections and one highly likely:

1. Edwards
2. Knight
3. Taylor
4. Greenway
5.  
6.  
7.  
8. Gunn
9. Hazel
10. Brunt
11. Shrubsole

This leaves 3 gaps to fill in the middle of the order, from amongst Brindle, Sciver, Winfield, Wyatt and Elwiss. (Neither Jones nor Cross are likely to play unless there are injuries to Taylor or Brunt / Shrubsole.)

An article on the ECB's web site strongly hints that Danni Wyatt has found her bowling boots once again and will fill one of these spots as the second spinner - her selection assisted by the fact that she can bat handily down the order.

The Number 5 batsman comes down to a choice between Brindle and Winfield - a race which I suspect Brindle will win on experience.

This leaves Elwiss and Sciver fighting it out for the final place on the team-sheet. With Elwiss having not played international cricket for the best part of a year, Nat Sciver is (in rugby parlance) the 'man in possession' so my guess is that her's will be that final name.

Likely team:

1. Edwards
2. Knight
3. Taylor
4. Greenway
5. Brindle
6. Sciver
7. Wyat
8. Gunn
9. Hazel
10. Brunt
11. Shrubsole