cricket

Bristol. Men of.

~ bowlingatvincent ~ Leave a comment

So I yomp in there sunnily – because sun. It – Glos CC – feels familiar and kinda welcoming but mainly it feels on the sunny side of 16 degrees. (Refer to yesterday’s post). Bristol is feeling solidly and sustainably sunny. Just gone 1pm and Buttler and then Buttler and Bethell are bashing balls into the net spread perpendicular to our media centre: so I’m seeing them sideways on. Both practice hands through the ball and then either playing  ver-ry late (in Bethell’s case) or pulling hard, high to low.

Then The Lads are doing their footie thing. Head tennis. Barcelona they ain’t. But it looks like fun. Skippers being interviewed so I may have missed the toss. Or maybe not. Currently we have visiting bowlers turning their arms over to my right… and just two or three England players fielding high catches and lashing throws. So looks like both sides are fielding and it’s three v three. Should be fun. The temporary stand ( I hope somebody kindof officially names it that) is two-thirds full and the remaining stands are compellingly a-buzz. We’re set.

Cloud has rolled in. Hearing Brooky had words *Upstairs*. England won the toss and will bowl. Wood (the leftie) is in instead of Potts. Scyld Berry has either got something contagious or he wants to get himself on the tellybox. Sitting solo out on the balcony. Might *actually join him* soonish… not that there’s any chance of a conversation. Flamethrowers galore and here we go.

Wood (the leftie) will start from beneath us, so running towards Ashley Down Road. Drama first-up as he pins the batter with a fabulous yorker. Finger promptly raised but within eight mili-seconds Lewis is reviewing. So probs hit it. The fourth umpire begs to differ: it was a great ball.

The next is not. Weirdly, it’s a horrible high full-toss – no-balled. Of course, the new batter is ‘caught’. Wood boldly going for yorkers. Saw him do this a year or two ago at Final’s Day; looked a threat then. Good over. 3 for 1, WIndies. Dawson.

Mostly flat and looking very quick but Hope nails the fourth delivery. Six over mid-wicket. Strongish breeze was pretty much at Wood’s back so Dawson into that.

Wood goes again. Movement in the stand behind him. (Not Scyld). Or is it something fixed… because this is taking a few minutes to sort? Unknowable, from where I’m sitting. (We have tv monitors but no audio). Mysterious and helping no-one. None the wiser but we continue. And Wood continues to beat the bat. Not the best angle to judge pace but he looks high eighties(?) Charles can’t lay the proverbial glove. High quality, into-the-block-hole stuff. 12 for 1 off 3.

Carse we know is also sharp but Hope goes bang: four, six, four. Some riposte. More instinctive hitting than bad bowling was my sense. Ground looking almost full, now. Dawson has switched ends. Bowls a wide. Then Charles rocks back and cuts confidently through cover: four. He does it twice in the over – so better, for the visitors.

BIG APPEAL, from both bowler and keeper. Brook jogs in, notably smiling. Review… but no edge, no glove. West Indies have recovered well: 40 for 1 off 5.

Carse again from Ashley Down; with energy. But Hope gets most of it – well, about two-thirds? – and the ball is gone, over wide mid-off, for six. Then straighter and probably cleaner-hit – same result. Carse answers with a bouncer that’s called wide. Hope has bolted to 39 off 22. Bethell.

The young fella does okay, staying short and flat; just 4 from the over. Rashid at the far end. Single to long-on. Fumble from Wood out at deep cover offers a second run, next ball. 7, in bits and pieces. 66 for 1 off 8.

Bethell returns and is The Nearly Man twice. Firstly deep-mid-wicket is almost in the game, then almost caught and bowled. But nope. Runs.

Lols. Only just noticed how rammed the balconies are, in the Ashley Down flats opposite. And the sky… the sky is greyer than earlier advertised. (Don’t think there’s weather in the picture, but it IS cloudy and grey).

Rashid bowled just the one over before being followed by Dawson. Not easy to switch ends twice in this breeze, I’m thinking. Sharp hands and throw from Brook have Charles diving. Oof – successfully. Reasonably non-explosive period in the game; which suits the hosts, of course. In the balance, you would think at 82 for 1 off 10.

Moment of the Day contender as Rashid draws Hope forward and Buttler expertly commissions the stumping. Turned. Decent knock from the opener but comprehensively beaten by the leggie, there. Then we have Jacks… and then Bethell. When Rutherford marginally miscues, going downtown, and Banton takes the steepling catch at the boundary, WIndies are 98 for 3 after 12.5. 100 up the next ball, meaning the run rate is 7 plus bits. Is that enough?

Rashid again from Ashley Down. Gets absolutely battered, straight, by Charles – cleanest strike of the day. Carse is a competitor and he does race in there. Now from underneath us in the media stand. May not have been at his best today. 0 for 34, his return so far – from 3 overs. The West Indies have to go at 12 an over for the last 5 to post a legitimately threatening total.

Charles tries to invent something – and does. A cruelly comical way to get our. Steps outside off and tweaks it round the corner, into his stumps. To make things worse, was on 47. Powell and Shepherd are now both newish to the crease. 121 for 4, off 16. Dawson continues the yoyoing but is pulled square. Then impressively dismissed downtown – both by Powell. Soft hands get him a further boundary to third man. It’s brightened a little, out there. Poor short wide one offers an easy cut to the offside boundary. Biggish heap of runs from that over: essential.

Carse finally gets a little luck. Slight miscue from Powell flies out towards Wood, on the rope. The quick bowler adjusts and dive-rolls, avoiding the toblerone, to take a testing catch. Powell had made 37 in good time. Better light floods the stadium: natural light. 149 for 5 as we go into the penultimate over with Rashid.

Oof. First ball GOES OUT OF THE GROUND. Second is less obscene (but six)… as is the third. So the Jolly Lean Giant (Holder) has gone to 19 off 4 balls. His partner Shepherd then bludgeons two more, making (I think) 25 from the over. We’ve heard a lot about power hitting from the WIndies batting line-up. That. Was. It. Wood – the poor sod? – must see this out.

Buttler skilfully runs out Shepherd and Chase bangs the last ball over long-off for another six. The West Indies have gotten to 196 for 6, which must surely give them a chance. The last half hour has been Exhibit A in the case for or against T20 as wild circus. Thrilling and mad. It could be the fairly stifling room we’re in but I’m kinda drained. So will get some air.

Duckett and Smith will open for England. Hosein will bowl slow left-arm, around. He comes over to Duckett, who sweeps and times to square leg. Four. Holder.

Smith hoists… and then poops his panties as the ball drops ever closer to mid-off, retreating. Gets away with it once… but not twice. Gone. Successive miscues. Enter Buttler to a roar. 16.49 and light is still goodish but the floodlights have been fired-up. Duckett cuts hard to Powell’s left; the fielder can’t hold it. Tough, but catchable. 11 for 1 after 2, England.

Duckett hammers a ridicu-reverse through point, for four. A second tough chance goes begging, as Duckett again reverses Hosein. Flew head-high to point, who got a hand there. Buttler drives Holder beautifully high and handsome over long-on, to announce himself. Class. Then a miscued flip over the shoulder goes streakily behind. (Six, four). 33 for 1, off 4.

Shepherd looks intimidatingly strong from up here but Duckett appears unimpressed. He strokes him nonchalantly through the covers then finishes the over with a pre-meditated scoop/cuff behind for the most absurd six of the day. Joseph responds with a couple of quick, angry deliveries at Buttler, who dodges those and snatches two further boundaries. Throwing his hands through a wide one, the batter is a tad fortunate not to be caught out at deep cover.

The madness goes on, Buttler turning to shovel Motie wrong-handed over third man, for six. 68 for 1 as Shepherd changes ends, to Ashley Down. He is more than a little unlucky to be called for a wide but then his bouncer is about three storeys above Duckett – so no complaints there. The diminutive one has tried hard all day to get himself caught out: Powell does the job, athletically, in the deep.

The captain is in. He will be keenly aware there’s a game on here and that his side must sustain a high run-rate. 122 needed from 72 balls as Hosein comes in again. Another reverse from Buttler bursts through. With Joseph lashing it at him, the same batter top edges somewhat, high, high above the mid-wicket boundary. It’s windy and it’s probably swirling but the rather cruel cheers tell you that the fielder should have caught it. (Two thousand blokes in the Temporary Stand are saying “I’d a nailed that!”) Drinks at 87 for 2.

Motie from in front of us. Quietish. Followed by Shepherd with a horrible wide. And a high full-toss gets blasted behind point for six by Brook – who has been relatively restrained, thus far. Next ball flies through extra. Then a further wide, so bit ragged. Charles is getting dog’s abuse at cow corner. He misfields, to a cidery chorus. 112 for 2, off 12, England. Hosein to bowl out his spell.

Last Laugh central. Charles easily snaffles Buttler, reversing straight at him. Regulation, but it might not have felt that way to the much-abused fielder. Lots of bantz out there as the WIndies player ambles back to his post. Enter Bethell, who strikes stylishly straight to finish the over. Four.

Our first look at Chase, today, from the Ashley Down Road End. Brook welcomes him in with six over extra. But risk-reward. Brook strikes out again and again Powell takes a fine catch – again rolling and falling. Banton can go quickly – he may have to. He does: six through square leg, first-up. Then two wides: so edgy. 15 from the over. Motie.

Banton reverses him expertly then batters him into the dugouts. England require 48 from 30 balls. Good, competitive game. Joseph fires one loosely down the leg-side. Bethel collects it in breathtaking style for six: before smashing him straightish for another maximum…and (I think) losing the ball. Probably, this wins the game.

Bethell’s double would be astonishing if it didn’t keep happening. It keeps happening: he cuts for six more before departing to a simple catch, whilst dinking cross-handed. Now Holder is in and going pace-off. Weirdly, the wind appears to have done a significant u-turn. He may now be bowling into it. Lots of field-changes. The keeper is running the length of the pitch, repeatedly during the over, to have words. But England should have this, now. They require 17 off 18 balls.

Joseph slings it a mile down leg – and high. Called a no-ball. The no-ball is a wide. This delivery is spooned out behind square… to the fielder who catches and then has to plop it down to prevent himself falling out of bounds. Good work, asitappens. Jacks is caught next ball. 188 for 6 as Carse joins Banton. A good ball is squeezed out square for one.

Joseph is a genuinely quick bowler but Banton just eases him out between midwicket and long-off. Four. Kinda quietly ridiculous. 2 needed from 12 balls as Holder comes in from underneath us. Carse swipes and misses the bouncer. Then leaves the next one. Flailing at a widish one, he edges through to the unprotected boundary behind slips.

That’s an impressive win, against determined opponents hoisting a significantly challenging total. Much to admire and like and be thrilled by. But also that question WTF are bowlers supposed to do, in this Modern Era?!? Some of the shot-making was extraordinary – or would have been, if it didn’t keep happening. That may make it both tremendous and concerning(?) Enjoyable and entertaining? Yes – of course!

TAUNTON.

~ bowlingatvincent ~ Leave a comment

Entirely possible we may start on time; with England winning the toss and unsurprisingly opting to bowl.

(Finish this sentence and it starts to rain… a little. So the ground crew spread the covers back out over the square. #Funnyoldgame. Or ARE THEY?!? No. They’re folding the major cover back… but the strip remains covered). This is difficult. Off for a swift wander.

We’re going; after bobbing and weaving. Cross storming in to Grimond. Wide. Then – after a strong and confident appeal – the ump finally raises the finger. The ball left the batter off a good length – too good. 1 for 1. Cross is a fine athlete. Always enjoy watching her bowl. She’s powerful and rhythmic and can bowl proper spells. Rate her – always have.

Arlott is shaping up well, early. (I mean in her England career, but also now). She beats James then bowls her with a delicious, loopy slower ball. Quality but also an eek moment for the contest. WIndies are 2 for 2 after 2 overs. It’s fabulous bowling conditions but clearly the universe needs the visitors to resist. Joseph clips Cross away, off her hip: just the two.

Arlott again looking fit and high. A cutter. Could be striking outside – or no? Umpire Sue Redfern pulls the trigger confidently. Stafanie Taylor understandably reviews – she will know this is a Big Wicket – but she’s out, and the trauma goes on for the visitors. Three down, scarily early.

Beaumont, Bell and Smith have been rotated out, for England. Glenn, Arlott and Dean back in.

The batters may be settling. Joseph and Campbelle both get wood to ball. The latter cuts Arlott square twice to the boundary – widish balls. Slightly messy over, in truth, from the England seamer. 21 for 3 off 6, the WIndies. Lights are on, half the universe is checking various weather apps, but this is playable right now and we are glad to be playing, yes? A quiet period… which the game needs.

Arlott finds that radar. Four dot balls then a cutter from that high hand spooks Campbelle, who – fearing bounce – misreads it. She turns and allows it to hit her somewhere between the kidneys and the small of the back. To be brutal it’s not great batting, but eventually she can continue. As Cross runs in towards us, a light breeze is helping her away-swinger. *Thinks: I’d be unplayable in these conditions! (Cheesy grin emoji). Conditions are peak seam/swing/dart around the place.

Women’s cricket has been well supported down here for a decade or more. Today the crowd is smaller than it would be, were the game not likely to be rain-affected.

Filer is on and chewing the turf again. Repeatedly. Meaning it could be damp underfoot… but not necessarily. She falls over anyway. She concedes a couple of fours but almost draws an error: the pill flies tantalisingly past Dunkley.

Shortly afterwards, shower numero uno descends. It looks horrid. The West Indies are 43 for 3 off 12.3 overs at this point. I’m not looking at the weather apps. A) Don’t need to. B) I WANT THIS BAYBEE TO KEEP GOING. Mind you, given not just the complexities of the (blanket) British weather but the obvious local micro-climate scene – I’m seeing hope, I’m seeing light greyness – don’t go putting your hard-earned on anything, here. The slightly lighter-brighter skies could mean everything or nothing. Coffee.

12.27. After a smidge of encouragement, it’s a big NO from the meteorological gods – at least for now. Hard, blustery shower. Not terminal yet but unhelpful.

So let’s talk about nice things. Like Kate Cross.

The England star won’t relish being parked in the senior seamer bracket much, I suspect, but Crossy brings so much good energy, skill, pace and top, top temperament to the gig that like many ‘seasoned pro’s’ she swats age towards irrelevance. Being dignified; being committed; being fit. She’s challenging younger players to shift her.

KC is running in harder and more fluently than almost anyone – so her pace is goodish. She brings more control than most. Cross may also be one of those people who contributes real lurv-power to the England group. Meaning (however corny it sounds) that she really may be a worldie of a human; spreading heartiness and supportiveness and mate-iness and positivity around the squad. And yes for me this does matter. Or can.

12.47. Right now it feels like more cricket is likely. *Depending*. 12.54, bit more drizzle. 12.57, bit more concerning.

They feed us; one of many privileges afforded to us meedyapeeps. On the written press front – a category that very loosely I tumble into – there are about ten laptops ablaze, today. This is a couple more than usual, for a women’s international and about thirty less than for a blokes’ event. It’s been raining steadily-but-lightly for about an hour: forecasts offer some hope for later. I’m not seeing water *actually collecting* on the outfield just yet but that moment can’t be far away. It’s absolutely in the balance and on the edge and teetering on the wotsits. Cruelly. An emphatic moment of clearing cannot come soon enough…

Let’s talk about Heather Knight, who is not playing. Some in the Press Posse are speculating – more than that, they are making the case for the prosecution – around why she may not play for her country again. The argument is that given she is ‘out for the summer’ (crocked), she is late-career and has never been a great athlete, therefore her chances of getting fit enough quickly enough to be a contender for Big Matches Ahead are slimmish to nil. Therefore she may have donned the shirt for the last time. There may be something in this. We could throw in the notion that this is also a New Regime and Sciver-Brunt has usurped the captaincy role. So who needs Knight?

It may fall this way but Ar Trevor has been better than just the stereotype(d) stalwart-worldie. She remains an outstanding batter who has sexed-up her game for the era of More Boom. She has a palpably better and palpably more proven temperament than many of her contemporaries. Yes a younger alternative may be out there, the batting line-up may not need her – may actually have ‘moved on’. Or not. This stuff is unknowable except to Charlotte Edwards, who may have already made a secret call.

My view is that if there is any chance whatsoever for Heather Knight to battle her way back to fitness and contention, she will be battling. Being (I think) aware of her limitations, she’s always worked like hell. She may not have the agility or flow of Athlete A but skipper or no, this will matter… and she may still have the sheer grit to make herself undroppable.

14.19. There are good-sized puddles on the outfield now. Tad brighter; still raining.

14.33. It may have stopped raining. We can see the Quantocks. The umps are ambling out – brollied. There is no prospect of immediate play, coz of those aforementioned shallow lagoons but there are buts. The officials are talking with Groundsgeezer-in-Chief, who for all I know may be advocating an abandonment. As I discreetly slurp coffee numero deux, I’m hoping he ain’t. The super-sopper is doing its thing, suggesting this is worth fighting for. The Lads (it IS lads) are taking the pegs out of the ground: covers may soon be shifted, I imagine after the supersopper has passed over them(?)

Announcement on pitchside screen. Pitch inspection at 15.10, if no further rain. After that check, a further inspection at 15.40… when play *may be possible*, if it stays as bright as it currently is.

Dangerously optimistic update: at 15.37 it feels like we should re-start close to 4pm. (*Fatal*).

This applies if they can actually get the covers off by the appointed time. Which I doubt.

Oof. ‘5 o’clock start if there’s no further rain’. So the surface really is still wet out there. Reduced game – obvs. Maximum overs per team, 21.

Moments away from that re-start. Should happen and if we start we really might finish those 21 overs. Notes from the re-warm-ups? Mentioned this before but really like that Lottie E is out there with a mitt in hand: failing to grab the balls from Filer that are, encouragingly, flattening the flexi-stumps. Great arm on Arlott; ditto Cross. Dunkley less so but we knew that, right? Energetic turning of the arm for Filer and Glenn. (Other seamers may now be bowled-out).

Game on. Dean will open, towards us; that is, from the Lord Ian Botham Stand. She has Campbelle stumped with the first ball of the new session: the batter wandering, a little naively, perhaps? Gajnabi takes a single. Sarah Glenn from in front of us. Joseph hits her hard to deep midwicket: one bounce.

Then a beauty – full and floaty, possible wrong ‘un – does for Gajnabi. Searching delivery but the batter went all around it. 46 for 5 now, WIndies; seven overs remain of the 21 allotted. Glasgow joins Joseph. Filer is in and starts with a poorish full toss that Joseph can only clout high over Cross’s shoulder at mid-on. Awkward, yes but she should catch it: doesn’t. No matter. After thrashing England’s quickest through the covers, Glasgow can only scuff to ADR, at mid-off. Reaches well so gone… and 58 for 6. England can realistically hope to bowl the visitors out, at this rate. Five overs.

Cute. Glenn has changed ends but is bowling a wide. Then beating the batter. Rather wonderfully, a good number of people have come back in to the ground. Glenn applies a further squeeze to Alleyne – quiet over. Dean is underneath us and being clattered square, without much in the way of elegance, by Joseph. The bowler can really mix this up – and does. Not much sign of the ball being damp: Glenn is doing nothing to suggest an issue. Despite the chronic urgency runs are not coming. 75 for 6 with two overs remaining.

Filer. Another full-toss. Not middled but goes through to the mid-wicket boundary nevertheless. Then Capsey fluffs a stop at the boundary before Alleyne gets a third boundary and a fourth, in succession. One dabbed over slip, the other battered downtown. Poor over for England which makes 100 for the visitors possible.

Glenn will finish: Joseph booms her straight to Dunkley at deep midwicket: the fielder takes the catch nervelessly. Claxton takes a four then clears the boundary in front of square – the ball may even have struck the WIndies dugout! Alleyne skies the last ball of the innings to Dunkley, now in the circle. England must chase 106. Ten minute turnaround.

Sciver-Brunt and Dunkley will open for England. James will bowl. Nice controlled four, through extra. It makes the bowler go shorter… but she fluffs it and it’s wide. Dunkley misses out on an awful drag-down before NSB drives back to the bowler. Eight from the over.

Glasgow starts with a full-toss which Dunkley flat-bats straight for four. Later the bowler beats that same batter with a quickish one which leaves her off the deck. Seven from the over.

James goes widish to Dunkley who cuts. Aerial but safe – four. The bowler going into the pitch (to be ‘safe’) but gifts another wide. 23 for 0 after 3.

Almost-drama as NSB slaps Glasgow towards the midwicket. Just falls short. Next up the England skipper corrects herself and clatters convincingly to the same boundary. Claxton will follow. Good length then wide of off, beating Dunkley. But a big legside wide and a poor full-toss, which is despatched. A-and an offside wide. Times two. So somewhere between mixed and bloody awful. Low risk stuff from England and they’re still going at 8s. We could be done in 12 overs.

Dunkley is reviewing Ramharack’s first delivery. Given lb by Sue Redfern. Correctly, as it turns out. 40 for 1, England. Enter Capsey. Good running, particularly from her captain gets her a three, to fine leg. The breeze may have picked up a tad and it’s across the pitch but these remain bowler-friendly conditions. Perhaps this is why England don’t appear to be hurrying. Brilliant stop and throw on the point boundary, by Grimond. The bowling remains mixed, however. 56 for 1 off 7, England.

Poor delivery from Ramharack gets disdainfully Ramharacked through extra by Capsey. The batters appear to be simply picking the opposition off, rather than going for an early thrashing. Fair enough. Capsey in particular could probably do with time at the crease. Another gift (from the newcomer Munisar) sees Capsey sweep behind square once more. 13 come from the over, bringing England into the stroll home zone.

Make that canter. There is a gear-change, as the home team get close. Sciver-Brunt is hitting hard, with evil purpose.

More boundaries: Capsey is sweeping with confidence. 94 for 1 off 10. What was my prediction, again?

Munisar receives more merciless but controlled violence. 100 up in the 11th. Immediately, the skipper gets to 50 and beyond… and then the game is done, for the loss of just the one wicket, as NSB carts to midwicket. It is, after all another thrashing. But I’ve enjoyed – enjoyed the #getthegameon-ness we’ve witnessed and the solid performance of the England group. They are patently significantly better than the current opposition but that’s ok. There are always things to build for, things to learn. Now I race to the train!

Derby.

~ bowlingatvincent ~ Leave a comment

Arrived early, as per. Muggy with plenty cloud – but warmish out of that breeze. Wander onto pitch edge and get medium-officiously asked to leave, for not having pitch access. (Not done with much grace, to be honest, but hey-ho). Get back back up into the media centre and crack on.

Interested to see Charlotte Edwards *very hands-on*, in the bowling warm-ups. Has mitt; will have words. Like it. She had ADR and captain NSB coming in over her left shoulder, with – thank christ! An actual name! – Sarah Glenn bowling towards her. Other coaches have often left it to ‘specialist coaches’ to deal with the whole pre-match cowabunga. Can work, can be fine: but I prefer coach to be in there reading those humans, sharing those wee words of encouragement.

Almost some rain. And the breeze is funneling through certain slots in between stands. But you’d still take this* for Derby… (*Gratuitous insult? Possibly. Apologies where due).

As I say this they wheel out or guide out the hover-cover… and it does rain… and they cover the strip. Unfortunate. A brief shower, by the looks. Time? 12.30. When does that hover-cover come off? 12.34. And a different day dawns. Have missed the various announcingments but England must be bowling: Sciver-Brunt taking some high catches beneath us.

12.41 and the lights are on. But it’s brightened. (It brightened too, in the ether, coz “Best Of My Love” came blasting out). Muffled mix, from within the media snug, so can’t be entirely sure that it was The Emotions’ version. On the assumption that it was, my heart, for one, has lifted. Did I mention that England won the toss and will bat? (So my earlier assumption entirely wrong). Quite bold, arguably. Wouldn’t surprise me if Edwards actively wants to put our lot in pressure situations. Again, no issues’: coz of those historical hysterics.

We will start on time, at 1pm. By the looks! Teams – robbed from BBC website – are as follows:

England XI: Beaumont, Jones (wk), Lamb, Sciver-Brunt (capt), Dunkley, Capsey, Arlott, Dean, Cross, Smith, Bell

West Indies XI: Matthews, Joseph, James, Campbelle, Gajnabi, Mangru (wk), Alleyne, Claxton, Fraser, Fletcher, Ramharack

No Knight, due to that injury, debuts for Smith and Arlott, and Amy Jones will open the batting – again another sign of challenges being made and coaching hunches being played-out. I have been critical of Jones’s (batting) mentality for years. Good to see her tested. Lamb and Cross are specialists of a sort – willingly or otherwise – so no surprises to see them in there. James will open for WIndies. (Slow, left-arm).

No Wyatt-Hodge moment: she bowls wide. Beaumont gets a tickle but it’s safe. Low-key first over: one on the board.

There is away-swing but Beaumont can crunch a poor full-toss from Fraser through extra. Easy four. Next ball marginally down leg. Then about six yards down leg. So mixed. There’s a little breeze about but this is not what her skipper wants. Conditions are good for seam.

James drops short, allowing Jones to go hard through mid-on. Easy four. There is swing and some movement off the pitch. Bowlers should ask questions, here. Jones crashes James beautifully through cover for four: previously she’d been finding the circle. Not then. Superb. Both bowlers guilty of indiscipline. Some genuinely good stuff but too many are loose. Eng are 22 for no loss, after 6.

35 for nought, after 8. So not swift progress, for England, but the ball *is* doing a bit. It also appears to be something of a lottery as to where it might land. This doesn’t always make batting easier, right? Jones goes downtown with commitment, against James. Good strike. Matthews must make a change soon, you would think. Or two. Shocking legside wide from Fraser. I’d hoik them both off.

45 for 0 at the 10 over mark. Bit concerning for the visitors. They need Alleyne (or somebody) to deliver. The day is brighter again.

There’s no polite way of putting the fact(?) (for me) that one of the W est Indies players is nowhere near the condition that should be non-negotiable at this level, now. She kinda watches as Beaumont slaps Alleyne through extra. The bowler is unimpressed. A second change – rightly, surely? – and Claxton is in from beneath us.

This is concerning for Matthews and co, now. Jones sumptuously dismisses Claxton through the covers. Fine shot. Possibly *statement shot*. 57 for 0 after 12.

Finally, Jones is beaten by Alleyne… but no edge. Decent pace on that, by the looks. But Claxton is bowling a big away-swinger that is almost staggeringly wide of the leg-stump, then going too short, then beating Beaumont, then stretching the pitchmark cluster. somewhere else. It’s mostly bloody awful, given the encouragement seam bowlers might be extracting. 73 for 0, with 15 gone. Time for Matthews.

I’m off for a walk…

and I return, fortified, with England on 131 for no loss. Run-rate at an acceptable 5. Jones on mid-seventies, Beaumont some 25 runs behind that. (As I type this, she goes to 50, off Fletcher). The only positive I’m seeing from the visitors is that run-rate is not crushingly higher. At *this moment*, challenging Jones appears a real master-stroke from Edwards. Chapeau.

Beaumont firmly block-drives  – 83 plays the returning Alleyne ver-ry straight. It’s quality. Then she pulls for four, to bring up the 150 partnership. Ah. Then six, boomed behind square with style and power. Ominous.

Seven bowlers used by WIndies. (Ramharack, the offie, the one not mentioned so far). Beaumont is into this now, and catching up on Jones somewhat. 71 and 92 on the bragging rights front, as we conclude the 31st over. Claxton has just put down a very sharp return catch, Jones driving hard. Ramharack does the same, in the very next over: again Jones has clattered it. This time the bowler needs treatment.

Comedy moment as Claxton’s bouncer finds Beaumont leaping to hoist her bat *somewhere near*. She gets a good chunk of it. Quite rightly, the level of dynamism from both batters has gone up. The partnership is now 200. Seventeen overs remain, so 320-plus is not unthinkable. Beaumont gets to 100 before Jones. Both milestones have seemed inevitable for some time.

Then something happens. Beaumont is charging a little and maybe swishing a little. Bowled by Fraser for 107.

Just had a really interesting and generous conversation with an England selector. About Amy Jones. But private so not divulging any more. (Apols for the tease. Was interesting). Lamb is in and then out. She’ll be gutted to miss out and may (or may not) view a pre-meditated reverse as an over-ambitious option, a handful of balls in to her knock. 229 for 2 after 37. Sciver-Brunt.

May have to stop taking comfort breaks and just sit there and wee myself. Jones is out caught, off Matthews. You fill in the gaps. So two new bats. Nat Sciver-Brunt and Sophia Dunkley. Both in form, you would say. Light rain – drizzle – is falling. England are 258 for 3 and 41 have been bowled.

Sciver-Brunt is wristy and strong. Dunkley is kinda awkward but hits. So despite wickets falling, the visitors may not be in a better place. These two are odds-on to go hard. The skies have cleared; it’s lovely but still breezy. It’s great playing conditions.

Ach. Poor shot selection from Dunkley. Pre-meditated tickle round the corner but the ball drifts wide of off, and the batter can only squiff it onto her stumps. Enter Capsey, who needs to show her worth. 274 for 4, England. Encouraged by some poor bowling from Fletcher, she starts well.

NSB’s drive through extra-cover is quietly spectacular. Just class. James may be the West Indies best bowler – no matter. Rifled. 300 is up on 46 overs.

Sciver-Brunt smacks James High and handsome over long-off, for six, and follows up with a clean hit through the covers. She is un-bowlable-to, now. She goes to 50 off 35 balls, reversing, before being given lb to another reverse. She reviews. I  might argue she is unlucky – did ball not hit pad outside the line? – but she is gone. Brilliant but gone. Arlott joins Capsey, who has gone well and is on 24 not out as we go into the last over.

Alleyne, who has not impressed, will bowl the last over. She starts with a wide. Capsey lifts to off but Hayley Matthews is tall to reach it. Shame. The England player would’ve enjoyed a 30-something not out. Dean comes in and – cool as you like – strikes what may be shot of the day through the covers, for four. The bowler responds with another wide.

England finish on 345 for 6, after Fraser – who has also not had a good day – fails to hold onto to a catch in the deep. It goes for four. West Indies have been ordinary. In phase two, their only hope appears to be the captain. If Matthews can’t go big and long, the visitors may not get half the runs they need. (That may be dismissively cruel: but it feels like where we’re at). Anyway. A break. Computer off, to cool down.

THE REPLY.

Hayley Matthews will lead, fair play. She will not only open but face, knowing that her team’s chances *really may* rest pretty much entirely on her shoulders. Bell then Cross will go at her (and partner Joseph), in the hope of breakthrough(s) that may make the ubiquitous use of the descriptor ‘crucial’ a little less painful. WIndies make it through 3 overs unscathed.

The leftie Joseph bangs Cross over mid-wicket but is then beaten by one that nibbles. No edge. 19 for 0 off 4. Bell, running away from us, is getting some swing again. I note that she is angling-in her run-up, a little. (No issue for me. As a bowler I’ve never felt able to run pin-straight. Get that rotation may come into play, here, but the seamer needs to have flow and feel comfortable). Cross beats Matthews with a beauty: left her late. 

Bell also beats the visiting skipper with an absolute peach: leg cutter. Again draws no edge. The bowletr is barely straying but three fours come from the over. England will need to hang tough. 40 for 0 off 7 represents a goodish start from the West Indies.

Joseph, predictably, is looking the more vulnerable. One or two miscues, one of which steeples but lands safe short of the inrushing boundary-rider. Tad fortunate: but runs are coming. So time for a change. Meaning Arlott.

She offers Matthews too much width, first up. Cut for four. There have been one or two early fielding errors, including by the England captain, who fails to stop a regulation off-drive. Not great. Application and focus must not drift.

Joseph miscues again… and again it eludes the fielder – Arlott, tracking back. Then Bell dives over one, on the boundary, clicking us over into THIS IS NOT GOOD ENOUGH territory. Irritating for coach Edwards. 67 for 0, the visitors, after the powerplay.

For me, Joseph is obviously not a top-class player. Arlott’s bowling at her has not been top-class, either, a tad surprisingly. She’s bowled two overs for 19. Dean will come in for Cross. 82 for 0 from 12 overs. My dangerous prediction looking dangerously dumb: insulting, even, to the visitors. *Things could change* but England’s bowling and fielding has been below par… and the visiting openers have cashed-in.

On the plus side, it’s now a rather beautiful afternoon/evening. The light is medium-fabulous. NSB is at slip, now, for Joseph, with Dean coming around. Decent over is spoilt by a really poor delivery, wide of leg-stump. Four. 

THEN IT HAPPENS. Arlott’s been garbage… but who cares? She has MATTHEWS caught behind. Wideish, with a smidge of pace off. Big nick. HUGE, in the game. Now England need to press – to execute. To do all that stuff Edwards will have been talking about. Bring it.

There’s a loong drinksy break-thing before another leftie – James – has to face the second ball of the 15th over. NSB goes back to slip and the bowler beats the batter in classic style. Dunkley drops a gettable catch at backward point, off the next ball. (Rough fielding rating would be about 6 out of 10). Joseph continues to look a walking wicket against both spin and seam. But she persists. And somehow the run-rate has remained at 6. So competitive. This is all about the wickets that we expect to fall. Dean is bowling ok. She beats Joseph and England review – for possible catch and/or stumping. They get neither. 98 for 1 off 18. Capsey will turn her arm over.

Joseph gets to 50. It’s felt streaky and even agricultural, at times. She won’t care. England should care (and will) that they’ve failed to remove her from proceedings. Lovely-looking evening. 

James is lucky to survive another real miscue, after Dean’s been all over her. A weird return catch – leading edge? -drops cheekily short. Smith – perhaps not before time?-  is in, replacing Capsey. This change works. James is palpably lbw and looks to walk before the finger is raised. 124 for 2, now, off 22.5. Campbelle is in for the WIndies.

Smith has made a difference. 2 overs, 1 for 8. And a change in the vibe. West Indies now need 8.6 per over, for the second half of the game. (Can’t see it). Wickets feel more likely… but I under-estimated them before so should probs hush my mouth.

Capsey has changed ends, to return. Campbelle monsters it to the bowler’s left but this is one ain’t catchable – despite getting the left hand to it. In the same over Joseph is again swinging that loopy swing… only to be bowled. Lots of credit: 62 precious runs. But sorry; she’s no kind of international player, for me. 139 for 3, then, as Smith comes in to Campbelle: whom she bowls. (These, friends, are the wickets we were expecting).

I think I have to leave this ground about 19.15 hours. (Travel then more travel). I expected to miss some of the event, but have things settled before departure. This looks to be playing out. The England spinners have hurried the game along, quite deliberately, and, given the run-rate is now 10, secured the win. So yaknow, I’m allowed to go.

It’s possible there might be further reflections appearing some time after 10pm… but I’d be unwise to promise this. You know – you have seen – what’s happened, here. England have been underwhelming with the ball and in the field, but still had enough. West Indies *could not* truly compete without another marathon shift from their authentically world-level captain.

Smith bowls Mangru. So 147 for 5. Soon Cross is in. As I leave England look likely to prosper but it’s not entirely felt like a satisfyingly ‘winning performance’. It may even be closer to a mildish disappointment.

Thankyou for reading – apols for any typos.

 

Catching up, having done *some travelling*. WIndies got about 50 runs more than I thought they would. Good luck to them. Smith was as influential as I thought she might be, with the ball. There would be what coaches nowadays are calling ‘learnings’ – as there should be. England are better and can play better. So expect more pain for the visitors as this series goes on.

Go on, skip.

~ bowlingatvincent ~ Leave a comment

Time flies… and goes bit wild. Nat Sciver first played for Ingerland twelve years ago; alongside Charlotte Edwards. Slam-dunk (or reverse-sweep?) into the near-wild present and she’s Nat Sciver-Brunt, the new national captain, coached by her former-but-senior colleague. And that same Edwards has been boss and mentor for the last three mini-seasons… in India… in the New Fangled Women’s Premier League. Or something.

If that sounds in any way disrespectful then apologies. But it’s been a ride, all of it, from the new eras in cricket and sexual politics to the need for care in what’s being said. We’ve both crawled and hurtled into what the people who write mission statements call a ‘new space’. Much of it, improved. Overdue support and investment for the women’s game has materialised – although of course not entirely equitably – and, surprise surprise, levels of play and entertainment have and are ramping-up. With that, though, comes a change in levels of scrutiny and expectation.

Nat Sciver-Brunt returned from the 2025 WPL with her justifiably high reputation yet again reinforced. She nabbed, boomed, swept or pulled more than 500 runs – a record – taking her WPL total past 1,000, making her the sole bearer of that all-new, most-current playing honour. She is at no. 3 in the ICC world batting averages for ODIs and will skipper the England side across all three formats – a significantly big ask. NSB (we do or can call her that, yes?)  averages 46.47 in Tests, 45.91 in ODIs and 28.45 in IT20s, whilst also having 181 international wickets to her name, according to the ECB website. But so much for the factoids.

There are fascinations in play. A recent Ashes mauling, in which NSB contributed but could not resist the gathering dread. An alleged failure, unusually called-out, in a previous stand-in ‘opportunity’. And that whole thing about fresh brooms and Good New Feelings, with Edwards being by a million miles the outstanding candidate for the perch as Head Coach. (Oh – and a woman!)

The Ashes of course (and unfortunately but quite rightly) led to the demise of the previous coach (Lewis) and captain (Knight). Both of those protagonists were manifestly let down by the players but only Knight had any right to consider staying on, largely because few doubt that she was a good captain, strategically. ‘Trevor’ was immensely focused, smart and resilient. She *did actually lead* but was apparently neither inspirational nor frightening enough to the group to carry them through periods of pressure or drive standards of execution – particularly in the field. Ditto Lewis in his own, inevitably more distanced role.

But is it just me that has almost forgotten that Sciver-Brunt has been vice-captain under Knight for three years? That relative disappearance may say something positive about Knight’s leadership (and must surely be a benefit in terms of experience for NSB) but does it also suggest something around either unclear or unconfident relationships that Nat, despite being a genuine worldie astride the game, was not a nailed-on successor, *somehow?*

The fact that this feels at all vague condemns pretty decisively the regime(s) that allowed drift around succession planning. Both in respect of Nat Sciver-Brunt and the almost complete lack of other viable candidates. It’s a joke that at contemporary levels of resource, England did not appear to have anyone other than NSB remotely capable or experienced enough to step into the captaincy. People may have been thinking, but they weren’t doing.

I suppose we have to accept that there is stuff that we can’t know. It’s possible that relationships have been complex since the year dot. Or certainly since Sciver-Brunt was notably and unusually called-out for alleged inadequacies during the Commonwealth Games, in Birmingham, when Knight was absent.

At the time England should have beaten an Indian side with the proverbial ‘something to spare’. They didn’t and NSB’s captaincy and/or lack of leadership was criticised in such a way as to make some of us suspect that she was either disliked(?!?) or being punished for either arrogance or feebleness. It was an odd moment: the kind that makes you speculate – possibly wildly.

Anyway, she’s here now! In what could be a good moment. Outstanding new coach – the obvious candidate. Outstanding player at the helm on the park: the obvious candidate. Between them it feels entirely possible that they can and will help to drive against the key issues, now widely acknowledged to have been holding England back. Namely lack of athleticism and frailties around that fabulous, fraught, dangerous and difficult universe we lump in under ‘mentality’. Too many players have been unable to really sprint/dive/move in the way that is now non-negotiably essential, because they are international athletes. Too many players have failed to execute – have actually seemed weak, if we are to risk sounding cruel – when the Crunch Moments come around.

These things happened over years, not months; perhaps particularly the events or errors relating more to the ‘top three inches’ than physical prowess. The women’s game (is that an acceptable phrase? Seriously?) is improving all the time because of professional strength and conditioning. But the Ashes did unfortunately expose some clear deficiencies in the England camp. This is the price of fame – of ‘being seen’. Inevitably these areas will be addressed as a matter of urgency, but because there is a difference between fitness and top-end fine motor skills this may be a richly interesting challenge for the incoming coach. She must develop better athletes for the longer term but can Edwards rub the players’ backs so supportively that things improve immediately?

Some of The Issues are around selection; the coach reading these contending humans and finding the ones who will repeatedly perform. Some of this is about available talent – having a pool of fine athletes from which you can pick and blend. I am reasonably confident that Charlotte Edwards is going to be good at covering all of this rich and demanding territory; from the technical to the unavoidably psychological. She is authoritative and massively experienced. She knows the game and she seems to know people. Importantly, she has delivered (and therefore?) players seem to respond to her – to have faith. Rather wonderfully, faith is important in sport.

I am less sure that Nat Sciver-Brunt, as Edwards’ captain, is as well-equipped for her own role. But this is a) complex b) guesswork because of her lack of opportunity and c) a reflection on the vacuum of knowledge resulting from my remarkable but ongoing absence from the coaching team.*

Let me firstly describe one possible scenario. It is an absurd likelihood that because of her utter and innate brilliance, NSB has been finding a lot of her cricket too easy. Even if she doesn’t register it in that way. (I’m talking largely about batting, here). Even internationals: even Moments of Import. Often she has simply been able to see ball, hit ball like some carefree seven-year-old. Often she hits where that seven-year-old would, too – clattered through the leg-side. Of course I understand that she practices this endlessly, this ‘scoring in her areas’; this ‘playing without fear’. So she mitigates against risk through practice. Of course. But there are risks, here. NSB simply succeeds so easily and so often because she is good. Because she is too good, for the opposition. Meaning that she is relatively un-tested… or, less absurdly, has more to give.

Now. I am wondering and even hoping that because the captaincy has settled upon her – incidentally, have we considered whether she wanted or not? I’m not at all sure she did – Sciver-Brunt may use it to power up her game. She may pour in all the juice that previously she didn’t need.

Could be another mad argument. But the new energy, the new responsibility, the New Regime may possibly fire her up. Particularly under this new gaffer, whom she knows and may kinda love. She may go Full Nat.

The mutual NSB/Edwards WPL experience could be pivotal, here. Three campaigns; high-intensity and high-profile action. Togetherness. Understanding. Respect. Let’s hope.

The 32-year-old Natalie Sciver-Brunt may possibly be skipper-by-accident more than by design or inclination. (Who knows what might have happened if CE hadn’t walked through the door?) But wow. Look at her cricket. And there must have been learning, for Sciver-Brunt, under Knight and Edwards, in those difference places; through those different voices. Might we now see the full expression of her faith, capacity and confidence? Go on, skip.

*I jest! I JEST!!

What the hell?

~ bowlingatvincent ~ Leave a comment

Things are never simple and it doesn’t help to get mad, But we get mad. We care. We maybe know a bit about the game. We get mad.

England’s chronic and prolonged capitulation was tough to watch. However mighty and magnificent this Australia side might be. We got angry at the scale of the defeat; how it kept on coming like some plague of horrors. Our language came over all disproportionate. Our body language fell back into a cruel, familiar, performative cringe. In private moments we may have burst out into the unsayable.

Best start by re-iterating some contraflows to that spirited, justified fan-burst. Either Goodly Things or Things We Really Should Remember.

This group – have no doubt – have been trying like hell. Both to compete and then to get better.

They will have been working physically hard and racking their brains, individually and collectively, to try to get to grips with errors, failures, opportunities missed.

The captain and the coach are people of integrity who care very much about the success and direction of their team.

The players on this tour are (actually) the best available for selection: right now there is probably nobody missing.

So how come we all recognise this (as the players will, privately) as a kind of sporting catastrophe? Just how come this utter mis-match? What the hell went on, with England?

There will be cultural and structural stuff, if we zoom right out. The pool of hardened, top-level players is smallish – smaller than the Aussies’. This is for many reasons, some of which are contentious. Australia does have a fabulous climate conducive to outdoor-living and bringing activity right into the centre of family life. This is a cultural advantage. It does not, however, explain away what’s happening at an elite level, where players have been a high performance environment for years. (It’s possible that it feeds into the debate about why our squad has come under heavy scrutiny – quite rightly – for its mediocre levels of athleticism, but we’ll get into that soonish).

Some argue that the structure of women’s cricket and the overwhelming concentration of activity within the shorter formats contributes to a lack of everything from stickability to durable batting. But plainly Aus have a near-identical framework. Others (mainly in my experience males) posture that girl’s pathways have denied young women the traditional ‘toughening-up experience’ of competing with and against young blokes. These ideas may be worthy of consideration but they do not feel immediately responsible for the failings -and I’m afraid we can call them that – of the senior England Women squad *on this tour*.

I’ve argued for years, possibly at some minor cost, that because the non-negotiables have stiffened – for example over conditioning/dynamism/fielding work – players simply have to execute to increasingly higher levels. That’s not been personal or vindictive or (god forbid) misogynist, it’s just come with the improving professional territory. Standards are waay higher: I’ve watched them from close quarters and that is wonderful. But clearly it means a) responsibilities and b) a profoundly competitive environment.

Competitive environments can and should be both thrilling and inspiring. They can and should be challenging but also powerfully and deeply supportive – how else can players risk reaching for glory and improvement? It’s the job of the coach to build such an environment. It’s a tough, complicated, wonderful job. You have to be a diplomat and a psychologist as well an expert on cricketing skills and tactics.

One of the most essential abilities for any coach at any level is to be able to recognise and blend personalities as well as cricketing skills, in order to find a team that works. This may not be your best eleven players but it’s a mix that functions and flourishes in a way that may not be measurable or predictable other than by your instinct and intuition as coach. Great coaches deal with people brilliantly. They know how to say stuff and when to say it, to whom. They mould and inspire or drive – sometimes with jokes, sometimes with the proverbial hair-dryer.

For me Jon Lewis has been unable to do this. The continuing failures to execute a variety of skills *under pressure* falls at his door, despite (obvs) being the immediate responsibility of his players. Shocking fielding is a failure of group mentality as well as individual skills. It’s tough on all parties but the coach – okaay, coaches – should be building confidence and competence and/or weeding-out those who don’t meet the required standards. All of that comes under coaching responsibilities in a competitive environment. There’s no place for Lewis or anyone else to hide from that.

It’s true that because England appear to have a relatively limited pool of genuinely international players so being ruthless around selection becomes difficult or impossible. But the aspiration still has to be there, towards brilliance: it has to be insisted upon. If there’s nobody better available INSIST that your players become excellent and confident, through repetition and skills work.

All of which brings us to the athleticism thing. Alex Hartley – whom I have been around, and like and respect – was fully entitled to call out or call for better athleticism and fitness. (Think she used the latter word, initially and do wonder if she was using it a little euphemistically, so as to avoid being personal around weight?) Wyatt-Hodge is an obviously outstanding fielder who coordinates and moves like an athlete. Who else? Ecclestone, Dunkley, arguably Sciver-Brunt, Capsey, Bell, Knight, Glenn, Bouchier, Filer. Do any of them move and flow and reach and throw like top athletes? How many of them can actually sprint?

We’re into dangerous territory but in this modern, fully-professional era your effective Best Eleven should overwhelmingly look like international athletes. Plainly, particularly in the field, England have a) been nowhere near and b) looked in striking contrast to their opposition, who yes, make errors too, but look at a different level of sharpness and flow. Lewis may not have time to address this entirely: he may not have had the option to bring in better athletes. But he had to drive, encourage or bundle towards manifest improvement.

Inseparable from England’s failures to execute skills in the field has been the issue around mentality. (I’ve been bangin onnabout this, too, for years. Apols to regulars). Lack of confidence is not the only aspect in play here. Lack of focus or concentration and sheer inability to ‘tough out’ moments of pressure or challenge have felt central to the WAshes whitewash but also to an extended period of what we might call willowy adventures. It’s felt *characteristic* of England Women… and this is not good.

Failures to execute skills can of course fall under multiple banners, from deficiencies in technique to the infamous ‘brain farts’ or fear-of-the-moment. Top players grasp the moment, pushing through, concentrating through high angst or pressure to get the thing done. England as a mob were shockingly weak – pejorative word, know that – at this, on this tour. Aus crushed them because they are obviously better – and better athletes.

The brutal truth is I can only think of one player who might reasonably feel she had a goodish tour. Lauren Bell. She too made errors in the field but her prime role of leading the bowling attack gets a significant tick. She executed with skill and consistency. Not true of Filer; not true of Kemp, who could not do that job when called-upon. Ecclestone inevitably bowled well and I again note her fabulous contribution as a team-mate but her fielding was bloody awful. Bouchier had an awful tour, too.

So to the future. Lewis was badly let-down by his players but he has to go. The drift backwards into fearful error and bewilderment has simply been too obvious for him to continue. Knight is almost certainly still our best skipper and one of few redoubtable souls but let the new coach decide if she stays in post or in the side. Many of us would be fine with the idea of a buncha kids coming in, if they had the vim and the focus but I doubt this will happen. Charlotte Edwards, being a) broadly excellent and b) a proud Inglishwoman may declare herself available to lead. I suspect she won’t make wholesale changes but she may have the clout and the quality to make the essential one: to restore some real and robust competitive energy.

Angry fans.

~ bowlingatvincent ~ Leave a comment

There may be newbies encroaching so p’raps I’ll say a few words about where I’m coming from. I’m coming from England, out of Wales. I’m an England & Wales fan and I have no issue with sounding that way. So you may see me foaming or bawling on the Twitters or elsewhere, in a fashion most unbecoming of a serious writer. (Actually I think I am a serious writer but not a journalist, and not here). I have had accreditation with the ECB, as a freelance bloggist, for several years. I go to watch and support England Women when I can – more than I do the blokes.

So England Aus then. After four defeats it feels erm, significantly deflating. It’s made me angry as well as disappointed. It’s hard not to make it personal – to have outrageous pops at individuals – when you know full well these are people trying their hearts out. But we are I think entitled to be critical when performances are poor, or even unprofessional, or when the case that we have gotten closer to the level of the mighty Australians is proved more palpably to be cobblers than we hoped or imagined. We remain waaay behind.

In today’s game, yup, the fourth defeat of four, with England knowing they really had to turn up, we got more of the same. A kind of contagion of error or failure to execute. No issue with Kemp playing or opening the bowling. But her first ball is a foot down leg. No issue with Bell – who has been probably the closest to a success on this mission – coming in from t’other end. She bowls coupla beauties but two wides again. Then reverts to her Somehow Unconvincing Athlete-type, to crucify a relatively straightforward chance, at fine leg: the ball spirals a bit but hey that’s cricket.

(Rate Bell – ditto Kemp – but these fluffs speak to and weirdly encourage the wider malaise. I repeat: Bell has bowled well and maturely for the most part, on the tour. But there are still too many wides and maybe critically that sense of potential for drift, in terms of control or otherwise, for a top level bowler, wafts in a little too often. And this from our no 1 bowler. Filer of course has almost played her way out the side with her wildness).

I’ve tried (honest) to avoid soundbites on socials but we may need to fall back on the words mentality and execution again here. Aus typically have it and do it – do their jobs; are good athletes and mentally strong – whereas England repeatedly fall short. In a way it’s maybe that simple. The visitors have had competitive bursts then undermined by slackness, error or calamity. One of many frustrations is that this seems fixable, given a squad of good players and yet…

Zoom out and you have to have a strong, deep pyramid, to go hard at selection and change. Zoom back in and it’s up to the coach do identify where players’ heads are and thereby identify players. Whilst developing them.

Where are the players’ heads? There have been, it seems to me, a whole lot of WTF moments over the past month. Hence the building vitriol and disappointment. Even Knight has made questionable decisions (plural) which have cost England their most redoubtable wicket. Reverse sweeping King first ball after drinks in this first it20 may have been an unwise choice. To the counter-argument that we should go fearlessly for our shots I say ‘hang on, now’. You choose your moment and choose the ball and then go for your shot, wholeheartedly. Do most of your pre-meditated shot-making from a position of strength – i.e get to that position first. Being ‘clear’ is important but so is adaptability. Only if you are desperately running out of balls to hit do you need to bite on major risk. Or, if like Dunkley you are absolutely feeling the flow – irresistibly.

England needed to be brilliant earlier and they were closer to lousy, from the start. Deeply mediocre bowling discipline, or players diving over or past or through or under the ball in the outfield. Poor, unconvincing hands. Angry fans (like me, like you) would call it garbage. Some of it was.

Why were England so poor? They probably picked their best team. They knew the import. Almost nobody delivered, with the ball or in the field. Then Bouchier had another *incredible moment* with the bat to laser-in on the fielder in the deep, second ball. Wyatt-Hodge was rooted and prodded. Sciver-Brunt stayed with that thing of swishing hard across: but to Garth, with bugger all on the board and two-down? In your first couple of deliveries? With the ball (you know) arcing away from you? Where are the players’ heads? And what are they hearing? ‘Clear plans’ no doubt.

Nerves were obviously a protagonist yet again. That we can understand but it doesn’t mean we can tolerate it. Over time it’s the job of the coach to fix such a fabulous and welcoming and supportive environment around the group that confidence bubbles up all over. And equally (but at the polar opposite of a vast, multi-faceted job) that same coach probably has to weed out those who lack the required mentality. And I do mean required. This cricket thing is both a wonderful, instinctive business based around flow and a brutal, gladiatorial arena where folks get culled. You want comfort of a sort but also the edge that drives elite performance.

Dunkley is a dynamic outlier in all this. For today at least. (To be honest, remain unconvinced about her as a consistently high-level performer but hope she goes on to prove me wrong).

Her innings today was authentically thrilling and spirited. The cack-handed slammer was one of possibly three England players who may claim to have been undone by balls scooting low. Her approach – full-on blistering intent – both worked and even threatened to turn a non-event into an event. It also raised the rather fascinating psycho-existential question as to whether T20 itself is wonderful or fraudulent sport. England being so bad and so ‘undeserving’ almost found themselves in the contest. Should that even be possible, given their risible effort? Or is that – Dunkley; the possibility for individual, counter-attacking glory – the essence of most of our wonderful-daft games?

England have great resources but maybe not quite the playing resources or depth that they want. Tough. They’re in financial dreamland compared to most. So coaching has to be effective and has to maximise. All coaches have to maximise – that is, improve their players. Look hard and see who has patently improved under Lewis.

The coach will almost certainly go, after this series. He can have no complaints. Heather Knight must also be in the cross-hairs but she is still England’s best captain and remains one of their few genuinely world-level players – just. To find a fresher, zingier, more deeply confident groove England may need to switch both coach and skipper. The next coach – Charlotte Edwards? – must sort out the heads of the players.

pic from The Cricket Paper.

Positives.

~ bowlingatvincent ~ Leave a comment

Well there are certainly reasons to be cheerful. Bell. MacDonald-Gay. Filer. Fine batting, at times, from Bouchier and Sciver-Brunt. The skipper doing that holding-role-*plus* job that she so often does, in the second dig, falling a cruel few short of her Test ton; one she must have *really wanted*, given the general lack of opportunities. But let’s start with that gert big daft (for which read wunnerful, generous, lovable) lass they call Eccles.

This is the best spin bowler in the world. The deadliest; the most consistent; the most skilled. But she’s also offering out more love, more laffs and more genuine, heart-warming hugs than anybody else – also possibly in the world. Ecclestone is fabulous in every respect. Not the greatest athlete, so (you can see) she has worked hellish hard on her catching/movement/ground-fielding. Not the greatest bat, but strongish and aware that developing into or towards a ‘belligerent’ (hah! Not her!) ball-striking lower-order batter is probably what’s gonna maximise her contribution. Working hard. Ecclestone is that very rare thing, a truly sensational player – a world-level player – and an open, seemingly ego-less, committed, often hilarious team-mate. Thank god we’ve got her.

I’m not going to go back on Eccles’ figures. Though superb, they may not do justice to the sustained level of bowling she produced again, here. Too good for everybody – even too good for Kapp, it seemed, during one brief contest. This afternoon, after the quicks tore apart the South Africans, we can argue that the job was easy – or easier. She could pile in the close catchers. She could toss and loop the ball outrageously, by her standards. There was freedom. But the excellence still was just obvious: an almost endless succession of deliveries that the batters ‘just had to keep out’.

I was delighted to see Bell not only bowl well but get wickets with great balls, particularly in that second innings shut-out. None of us wants to see a massacre – well maybe sometimes – but it’s right that strong teams express their superiority. The coaches will have been demanding that. Filer and Bell haven’t always looked like they are or will be consistent enough to do it: or not produce compellingly enough to satisfy us *really interested observers*. Yes we have to couch our praise alongside qualifications (on account of the opposition, obvs) but there were times today where these two young bowlers, ‘first off the rank’, looked impressive – looked better.

Filer hit and hurt the mighty Kapp because she was simply too quick. Bell bowled more dream deliveries, arguably, and hit stumps or pads with plenty of them. Her traditional killer inswinger morphed just a little towards a ball that nipped-back more than swung, for impact. Plainly she has also worked hard to improve and hone her skills – quite right too. But the speed of change and development is encouraging and deserving of credit (to bowler and coaches). Bell is now absolutely ‘challenging both edges’. She has deliveries which swing away and/or leave the right-hander off the pitch. She has delicious, almost wildly slower balls which may cut off the deck, too. And she has always had a classic, often extravagant inswinger. What’s been missing – or needed work – is consistency. There is still work to do there but Bell looked a fine and even mature bowler much of today.

Filer is different. Idiosyncratic doesn’t cover it but that’s fine… as long as there is progress towards genuine, elite-level consistency. This is the England spearhead we’re talking about. That moment where Filer struck Kapp was notable. Sure there may have been some uneven bounce in there, but that extreme pace can be a real weapon: if Kapp can’t cope with it, neither can half of Australia’s finest. But groove it; steer it; control it.

There was something refreshing about MacDonald-Gay’s bowling. On debut. Bolting in there, fabulously stump-to-stump. It looked pure and repeatable, simple and kinda myopic in a really good way. Keeping the stumps in play – so often said, so rarely done. The youngster produced at least one laser-focused worldie to shift a leading bat and plenty of others to deny space and scoring opportunities. She maintained her accuracy admirably but not faultlessly: enough though, to make her a live contributor and contender.

Batting-wise, England’s second knock was something of a disappointment. A little complacency, perhaps? There was some good bowling, not just from Mlaba, but wickets also fell that were towards the Xmas gift category.

We know now that it’s reactionary to talk about playing across the line, because shorter formats and plans towards ‘scoring areas’ have taken the game beyond traditional or conservative thinking of that sort. On the one hand I accept this. On the other, players should surely be as streetwise as they are ‘positive?’ Meaning you don’t need to make a statement of intent every ball. Meaning offering a straight bat – which of course doesn’t always mean a defensive shot – can be a good option. And yes, maybe *particularly* if the game is drifting against you.

Choosing the moment to counter-attack may mean defending a good delivery. Fine. Several England players were as undone by their bat-swing as they were by the ball. We understand that Sciver-Brunt, say, can hit nearly everything that moves through mid-wicket. Even deliveries a foot outside off-stick. Brilliant. No issues. She owes us nothing and she’s also a world-level player. But to her and to the universe, just the polite suggestion that more of those balls could go through mid-off.

But let’s get back to the positives. England Women won a Test Match. By a mile. Away from home. It was entertaining and we saw batting of quality and endurance (it was bloody hot!) from Bouchier, Sciver-Brunt and Knight, alongside other contributions. With the ball, and in the heat, Bell and Filer stepped closer towards the top of the game – where England need them to be. MacDonald-Gay acquitted herself well. Ecclestone was tremendous and selfless and great company, as always. I hope she leads the celebrations.

Pic from CRICinfo.

The Learnings.

~ bowlingatvincent ~ Leave a comment

It’s not only Heather Knight who would say ‘we’ve taken the learnings’, after the crushing defeat of South Africa gave England a series whitewash… but it’s a very Trevor-y thing to say. The England skip is still a top, top player but she’s also a hysterical, that is to say incredibly dull interview. She’s got more Trad England Captain in her bloodstream than Bobby Moore. She’s fabulous, don’t get me wrong, and absolutely not arch-conservative in the way she plays – not anymore – but Knighty dredges up every possible platitude from the Book of Sporting Blandoblurb, when someone sticks a microphone in front of her. It makes me laugh: I expect some of it she does for laughs.

Knight had every reason to be pleased… and expressed that pleasure in exactly the terms you would expect. This does not mean her assessment was either without value or off the mark. She was right to touch base with the ideas of ‘freedom’ and expansiveness, after an utterly dominant performance and a nine wicket win. And it was no surprise to hear the ell-word: learnings are all over the pathways.

England won the toss, chose to bowl and arguably for the second time on the bounce had won the game within about five minutes. South Africa, given that the series had already gone, had lost or rested Wolvaardt and Brits. Have no issue with this; this is how you (as a coach) extract value, by ‘changing things up’ and challenging players: offering them (again to use cricketing/coach-speak) ‘opportunities’. The Proteas camp knew they’d been outgunned, and probably would be again, but viewed that as a developmental opportunity. Fair enough.

What I might query was the insertion of Tunnicliffe as an opener, purely because she looked so completely out of her depth in the last game. *However*; player and coach(es) will have talked that through. She may have volunteered or entirely understood that opening might be a Big Ask… but also a means towards a kind of growth. It didn’t work out. Both she and Bosch were gone cheaply and the South Africans were pretty much dead from there. Shangase offered some resistance in a score of 124 all out but even this was scrappy, shapeless-looking stuff.

Lewis, the England gaffer must have talked about ‘executing well’ and ‘searching for a complete performance’, before this third game – must have. England had won two whilst being notably flawed, in the view of many outsiders. (Certainly in my view). Filer and Bell must have known that most of the home players simply couldn’t live with their pace and quality and therefore the aspiration for them and England was all about the pursuit of excellence. (See previous blog).

The win was always going to take care of itself. This is a weak or weakened South Africa. Therefore seek the highest levels of consistency and execution – let that be your ambition. State it. I bet Lewis did.

Filer’s opening spell – her bowling, in fact – was again mixed. It had just a little of the devastating-by-accident about it. Thrilling pace and bounce which the batters predictably barely knew what to do with. An early wicket but line too wayward. We know she’s bowling high-tarrif deliveries – quick; loopy slower-ones; bouncers and leg-cutters – but Filer, *to spearhead the England attack*, has to be near-as-dammit smack-on, ball after ball. She is not that, yet. There’s time… but will the scatter-gun re-focus?

I’m slightly fascinated to know if Bell had conversations with the coach(es) in which she or they said “ok. No inswingers. The purpose of this game today is to see if I can deliver, without going back to my killer-ball”. It really may have happened – again, I have no problem with that. Clearly Bell has been working hard on an away swinger and/or balls which nip away off the deck. Brilliant and quite right to expand her vocabulary like that. (Could be wobble balls and/or deliveries which are all about seam position being towards the slips. Even if there are no slips).

In game 3, the Shard produced more than a few genuine pearlers (possibly with pace both on and off) which left the right-handed batters – beat them. They would have beaten most. This is good. Under some pressure, she bowled new deliveries with a high degree of success: box ticked.

What Bell also needs to do is eliminate, as far as possible, the loose ones. High tarrif or no, she cannot bowl brilliantly-loopy slower balls down leg, or offer too much width outside off, when the inswinger doesn’t work. As a tandem, Filer and Bell are a work in progress. They were too good for this South African line-up but (with all due respect) bigger challenges lie ahead. *And in any case* this match – this event – was about process more than result(s).

So England went into bat knowing the game was won. Nice. But there was still meaningful work to be done, particularly, of course, for Bouchier and Dunkley. I might have looked them both in the eye and said “ok. We know you gals are working towards nailing down a place. Good. This is a competitive environment. Tonight, Kemp goes in ahead of you”. I really might. Because a) Kemp has something and b) neither Dunkley nor Bouchier has stamped their authority on a particular birth. Unlike Wyatt-Hodge, Sciver-Brunt and Knight, they haven’t been convincing or compelling or consistent enough. They know that; we know that. Sure as hell the coach(es) feel that.

Lewis and co stuck to the less radical plan and Bouchier opened with Wyatt-Hodge, before Dunkley followed. There was some vindication for all because the game was won at a stroll, with Wyatt-Hodge thrashing 50-plus not out and Bouchier striking the ball cleanly, largely, on the way to 35. (She fell to a literally stunning catch from Shangase, reaching hopefully high, at mid-off. The fielders fell about, telling us something about typical levels of expectation. Wyatt-Hodge was dropped on a handful of occasions: one error from Hlubi was alarmingly poor). Because, ultimately she was out, caught, off ordinary bowling, we can offer Bouchier no more than about a 7 out of 10 for her knock, but she did strike the ball well, generally.

Dunkley’ like Bell, like all of them no doubt, has been working hard. She appears to have gone past the seven-year-old clouter-to-leg thing that was her M.O. (I didn’t like it, neither to watch or in terms of results expected over time at the highest levels, but I absolutely accept that if she could have really made that early grip work, consistently, then we as coaches butt out). She didn’t – or not enough. Hence the learning, hence the development.

Dunkley, in her 24 not out, struck two deliveries straightish downtown that she could not have engineered previously. Not with her hands so far apart, in that swishing, bottom-hand style. She creamed these, showing the maker’s name proudly to all and sundry, following through straight. The fact that this feels like Proper Cricket isn’t the thing, here. It’s the fact that it feels like proper cricket * and Dunkley is in a better place to play* because of it. She can *almost certainly* drive more consistently and defend better because of that change in grip and presentation of the bat. It’s HUGE to make this change; I hope Dunkley’s called for it, rather than the coach. I hope it works for her.

Striking out for excellence.

~ bowlingatvincent ~ Leave a comment

‘England win by thurty sux runs’. And so they did.

In fact that maybe flattered a very mediocre South Africa – although let’s offer some credit to those batters who took both Ecclestone and Sciver-Brunt for runs, late-on.

The home side had not a cat in hell’s chance of making the required 205 for victory; certainly not without Wolvaardt and Brits going MASSIVE, which they failed to do. The England total – big but not record-breaking – was yet again built around killer contributions from Wyatt-Hodge (78) and Sciver-Brunt (67 not out), with good work from the captain and a cute wee cameo from Jones, at the death.

None of the seven Proteas bowlers could keep their economy below nine runs an over. Before the turn-around, it felt like the series was gone. After about four overs of the South African reply, it was.

Sciver-Brunt bowled two fine overs, removing Brits for nought. (Felt a bit like the game was done, right there). Tunnicliffe came in at 3 and endured the most tortuous inning you’re ever likely to see. How Filer failed to bowl her will remain a world-level mystery: unfortunately for England she produced a ‘mixed spell’ yet again. There was Proper Pace – wonderful to see – but nearly everything was either a foot wide of leg-stick (by the time it got to the wickets), or just outside eighth stump. So not good enough for any of us – let alone the coach – to think ‘yup; she’s The One alright’.

It was Glenn who showed the way.

Sarah G bowls more deliveries pitching on middle and hitting middle than almost anyone else in world cricket. (Meaning a) she hardly spins it but b) she will bowl people swinging across the line). The middle overs leggie was excellent: she finished with four-fer-not-many. Ecclestone and Sciver-B, strangely, took something of a hammering as the game petered out, with a few genuine, nutty blows striking at least a minor psychological wotsit for South Africa as they flew into the smallish crowd. There was, however, no disguising the unbridgeable gap between the two sides.

If Kapp plays it might be different. If Khaka plays she makes a contribution. But they ain’t here… so this *really was* almost an unseemly massacre.

Concerns or questions? We have a few. Firstly that general one about the distance between these two sides. Nat Sciver admittedly can make everyone else look ordinary but her two consecutive 50s-plus, and the untroubled ease with which they were acquired, are heavily, almost brazenly *of note*. Wyatt-Hodge has looked similarly different-level against a weakish (let’s be blunt) South African attack.

Marx went wicketless tonight but was decent at East London: she offers something. De Klerk has looked reasonably consistent. Hlubi took two wickets this evening (much to everybody’s relief, after her multiple traumas) but she is miles away from the required level at the moment, largely because of that alarming void where her confidence needs to be. (Coach; get to work.)

I personally don’t rate Mlaba all that highly but I’m typically out of sync with the Universe of Punditry on that so we’ll move swiftly on. After a look at the scoreboard confirms she went 0 for 44, here. To recycle the obvious, a score of 204 was only remotely get-nearable if Brits and Wolvaardt went BIG… and they didn’t. The former got zilch, the latter her fascinatingly customary 20-something, against England. Again she fell rather tamely.

For the visitors it was a good night – no argument. But the irritants for us fans and watchers continue to irritate. Bouchier and Dunkley both failed again, with the bat, at a time when they will know that they need to show us something. Something consistent. Something compelling. Dunkley then dropped a dolly in the field and Bouchier might have done better with a ball clonked close to her at the boundary. (If I’m Sciver-Brunt, I’m a bit pissed-off).

How to resolve this? Well, maybe give them time. The left-field option of dropping them both – I could certainly ditch Dunkley, her movement and fielding ain’t great – and then elevating either one or both of Knight or Kemp to open or stand at 3, is a live one, for me.

Maybe that’s too wild, too soon, too whatever. But this England still needs a bump or a lift or a kick up the ‘arris to get it to where it needs to be: at a consistent level of yaknow, everything.

This is plainly The Thing and this uneven series does, perhaps a little perversely, offer the opportunity to strike out for that kind of excellence. Knight and co – the usual suspects – went some way towards that tonight: leaving Mr Lewis (the coach) both pleased and frustrated, I’m guessing?

Ireland – England: the Dee-word. ‘Weigh things up’.

~ bowlingatvincent ~ Leave a comment

So it becomes about development, and maybe that’s okaay?

Ireland got marmalised in the cool wind at Stormont – possibly not the first time this has happened? England, especially the leftie Kemp and the wee dutt Beaumont, battered them, before Cross and Filer cruelly underlined the distance needed to travel. Bat-in-hand, the locals were completely shredded by the pace and guile of the visiting attack.

The whole game was dominated by pace and power – maybe it’s always been that way? Kemp’s dreamy-but-thunderous hitting was visibly different-level. Filer’s raw (but in this instance, kinda wily) rockets similarly marked out this season’s soundbite for us pundits – the ‘point of difference’. Ireland couldn’t cope with the latter and had nothing – have nothing – to approach the former’s languid intensity. Kemp stood and struck – and I do mean struck – a typically entertaining 60-odd. It’s ‘her way’ to look like this is easy… but it was easy, for her.

Interestingly, Beaumont had been scuffling around, compiling what looked to be the worst or least satisfying major knock of her career. When Kemp took charge, it loosened (or freed?) her senior partner up to chip away, reach that milestone and then explode into cartoon character-dom. The opener finished on 150 not out. Kemp had already won the match, dismissing the Irish bowling pretty much at will. Those two were simply better than the women in green.

None of us have any real issue, I suspect, with the fact of Ireland being out-gunned. They look to have only one bowler who is manifestly in the genuinely elite international bowling category – Orla Prendergast. (Or ‘apprenticast/all apprentice/prenographs/oil Apprentice’ as the auto-subtitles thingamejigg fabulously called her, on the otherwise excellent live feed. See my twitter @sportslaureate.co.uk).

Batting-wise, it’s her and maaaybee captain Gaby Lewis and keeper Amy Hunter. Whatever; the detail and/or ‘the record’ could stoke a decent pub chat. There is, however, little or no doubt that we’re talking different strata, here. Beaumont struggled, relatively, then had the class and composure to regather, before assaulting the bowling in the later stages, getting England well beyond 300. The Irish can not get beyond 300: not currently. Not in an international game. *(O-kaaay. Not in an international game against strong opposition).* Which brings us to development.

Rather than bleat about it, let’s look to manage this towards a better day. We all know that England’s vastly superior resources (in terms of dinaros and players) make this a challenge. But it’s also how Ireland, or any other advancing/maturing/progressive or progressing nation gets to stand toe-to-toe. Meaningful games; games against better players; exposure to the scary-but-brilliant.

In practical terms this really might mean England withdrawing batters or bowlers from the contest – either before or during the remaining events. Yes Cross is almost my favourite cricketer but no maybe she doesn’t need to bowl; or play? Beaumont plays to ‘offer much-needed experience’ but is that need greater than that of young player X, who needs to bat? Or more than Ireland need to be able to compete? These ‘risks’ are only risky if your developing players ‘fail’. So coach them and support them… and then let’s see.

‘Course I know some of this is simplistic. There are points at stake and reputations at stake: league tables and salaries and growed-up stuff like that. Weigh things up.

Some of the above is mischief but not this idea that from now on, in this tour, a kind of generosity and understanding needs to be front and centre. What’s the maximum benefit we can all get, here? This is a competitive situation *in brackets*, not a(n entirely) competitive situation. Let’s get real about that but use the remaining edge intelligently to build experience/sharpness/comfort/discomfort/learning in our players. Let’s manage situations so as to maximise development.