England Women in New Zealand February 2015 Tour Dates

In the next round of the Women's International Championship, England head to New Zealand for 3 WIC matches, two additional ODIs and 3 T20s.

Feb 11	ODI*	Bay Oval, Mount Maunganui
Feb 13	ODI*	Bay Oval, Mount Maunganui
Feb 15	ODI*	Bay Oval, Mount Maunganui
Feb 19	T20	Cobham Oval, Whangarei
Feb 20	T20	Cobham Oval, Whangarei
Feb 24	T20	Bert Sutcliffe Oval, Lincoln
Feb 26	ODI	Bert Sutcliffe Oval, Lincoln
Feb 28	ODI	Bert Sutcliffe Oval, Lincoln

* = WIC Match

England already have 5 WIC points on the board after their series with India. Meanwhile, New Zealand travel to the West Indies for their first-round of WIC matches this September.

Preview: England Women v South Africa T20s

In their final engagement of the summer, England face South Africa's Women Proteas in 3 T20s, at Chelmsford, Northampton and Edgbaston, Birmingham.

Much of England's team sheet writes itself, but there are still a couple of areas for debate.

I'd like to see Edwards and Knight open the batting, looking to reprise the show they put on in the 1st ODI at Scarborough, where they got England off to a flyer, playing quality cricket shots which delighted the crowd and the scoreboard!

Then I'd call for Wyatt to bat at 3 - she might make runs or she might not, but she has been in fantastic form this year, and as an added bonus you know the one thing she won't do is hang around. (But in reality I suspect Taylor will pull-rank and bat at 3, regardless of anything else!)

Assuming the selectors invoke the 'class is permanent' clause in the case of Lydia Greenway (who has not had a great season) the only other question is Winfield or Beaumont? I think TB scores too slowly to ever be an international T20 player, so "Moose" (Loz Winfield) it is then!

Bowlingwise, England will want to play Brunt and Shrubsole if they can, though if both play all 3 games it will be something of a miracle! The real dilemma is whether to play spinner Danni Hazell, who hasn't been showing the same form she did when she starred in last summer's Women's Ashes, or slow-medium left-armer Natasha Farrant, who could do a very similar job of drying-up the runs. My pick would be Farrant, and I think the selectors will agree with me, partly because England clearly see Farrant as "The Future" and will want to give her some cricket this summer, having sat her out of the Test and ODI squads.

So, here's my 11:

1. Edwards
2. Knight
3. Wyatt
4. Taylor
5. Greenway
6. Winfield
7. Gunn
8. Sciver
9. Brunt
10. Shrubsole
11. Farrant

And... if you haven't already done so... please visit Martin Davies' Women's Cricket Blog for an alternative take: Can South Africa upset England in T20s?

England Women v India - The Gunn Show

The England-India series ended today with a wash-out at Lords. I feel especially disappointed for the younger Indian players, who must have been so looking forward to what may be their one chance to play at the Home of Cricket. (Their next opportunity will, one assumes, be the 2017 World Cup Final - and although 3 years is a lifetime in cricket, you'd have to say they are long shots to get there!)

Getty Images for the ECB

At the end-of-series ceremony, Charlotte Edwards was presented with a giant pelican (above) and a Blankety-Blank Cheque Book & Pen* for Player of the Series.

England were (as so often) very reliant on Edwards in this series - she scored a massive 30% of their runs, way ahead of Taylor (18%) and Jenny Gunn (12%).

At the other end of the scorecard, England's leading wicket-takers were (in reverse order) Heather Knight (21%), Kate Cross (24%) and... leading the way... (that name again) Jenny Gunn with 34%!

In other words, England's bowling was even more dependent upon Gunn (34%) than their batting was on Edwards (30%).

So I just wonder if perhaps (maybe?) the Player of the Series judges got the wrong woman? With 34% of their wickets and 12% of their runs, not to mention crucial catches and run-outs in the ODIs, I'll be remembering this series as The Gunn Show.

------------
* Disclaimer - Lottie (probably) did not actually win a Blankety-Blank Cheque Book & Pen... but I'm sure whatever she did win was just as cool!

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.