Short and straight.

~ bowlingatvincent ~ Leave a comment

A brutal truth. It’s likely that many of us who jumped the Rorytrain last night aren’t Proper Golfers – and most won’t be Golf Experts. But the magic and the drama of the event and the tremendous watchability and charisma of the chief protagonists – some of them, in the case of the actual venue, almost surreally preened – made us cling to it. It was ‘and then some’. It was ‘oh my goodness’. It took even us frauds into palpable wonder and trauma, beyond any planned investment in time or support. We were, I suppose, captured.

I’d prefer to give McIlroy himself (himself) credit for this. As opposed to the oodles of baggage, or the scissored and colorific perfection that is Augusta. Yes even us part-timers had a strong sense of the storyline underpinning: the Heartbreaks and the Breakdowns and the cruel romance. But it was mainly the sport that made this Masters – the golf shots. The ridicu-wedge blasted high before finding the seventh: lols, even the perpetrator, SuperMac, was visibly gobsmacked! The screeching curler around the trees, on the 15th. The magnificent, nerveless iron to the 17th. The quietly accumulating brilliance of Rose.

Throw in the tortured but also fading wildness of DeChambeau and we may already have all we need for epic sport. But we also had Aberg again being coolly thrilling tee-to-green. We had other Significant Locals weirdly marginalised. Overpoweringly though, we had that stirring, even gut-churning absence of certainty around the fella ‘destined to be central’.

I’d been coaching cricket for eight hours – 12 til 8pm – before rapidly piling the kit into the boot and flicking on Five Live. Practically the first words I heard were describing, in rather shocked tones, how the ‘lead had changed hands’. EH?!? McIlroy had gone from being two ahead to one down, in the first two holes! There were swear-words. I wasn’t sure whether to drive more quickly or pull up in a lay-by and sob.

By the time I’d cranked up the Sky Sports live feed, Rory was not only back in front, but stretching his lead. The Madness had started early. Faldo was bleating about DeChambeau’s daft bullishness – ‘you can’t hit irons like that, it doesn’t work’, or similar – and McIlroy looked spookily at ease. (I’ve just read a loada stuff about a) his sports psychologist and b) his American opponent noting that the Northern Irishman said nothing to him, all round… which may be interesting, or not). Then that shot on the 7th happened. It ticked all the daft bullishness boxes, being preposterous and risky and irre-bloody-sponsible, but Rory made the fekker. Superhuman ain’t in it – or rather it is, because it was utterly beyond the realm of the human. Brutally smashed. Ridiculously finessed. A bloody outrage.

That kind of statement should be the end of something… but not here. Not with this bloke. There were impossibly jarring errors – notably that flunk into the beck at 13, planting a 7 (seven) on his scorecard – and the pressure-slippage between 11 and 14 which engineered a very temporary three-way tie on the leaderboard. (Macker/Rose/Aberg). Godlike ripostes on 15 and 17 ripped a hole in any Here We Go Again theories before the universe crumpled back into them on the 18th green, as the Chosen (or Persecuted, or Unfortunate) One missed a shortish putt. Rose’s 10 (ten!) birdies on the day had won him a shot at glory. Fair enough. I nearly went to bed.

The crowds: where do we start, as a soft-leftie Brit, with the crowds at Augusta National?

We know who most of them vote for. We know 12% of the blokes will shout ‘get in the ho-o-ole!’ when the ball is tracking a mile westward. We suspect for a number this event may be a lifestyle choice more than a communion with a cherished ball-game. In short I confess they may not be my natural territory. But hey, mostly they were wonderful. Huge and engaged and powerfully supportive. Mostly in lurv with Rory, of course – possibly even when there were Americans in contention.

Somebody’s probably writing a thesis on why the roaring was so lung-bursting and so heartfelt, for the foreigner.* It can only be a combination of The Personality, The Story, and The Actual Golf. Whatever; let’s toast that crowd and that noise and zone back in to the mesmerising quality of some of the play. Rory McIlroy played a few dodgy shots in that final round. Of course he did. But his response and renewal, under the crushing weight of failure and disappointment and expectation, was incredible and heroic. Non-golf people will have been electrified and touched by his genius and his guts.

We somehow got to where we somehow knew we’d be. A play-off. Mercifully we had just the one hole to complete. Both players played it pret-ty immaculately, with solid drives and beautiful irons. McIlroy won it because his putt was short and straight and his opponents was longer. That, as Faldo might have said, is how golf works.

*Given where the U.S. is, maybe there’s a little hope in there somewhere?

Image from Belfast Live.

Tuchel and Ingerland.

~ bowlingatvincent ~ Leave a comment

It was an eyebrow-lifter, was it not? The moment when That Mad Bloke got England? That German Bloke, even. A genuinely, interestingly, eyebrow-raisingly spiky decision, from the traditional bland kings of slumbering risk-aversion. Tuchel; as gaffer. I liked it. It was fraught. It was perverse, almost. The fella’s just as likely to break out a samurai sword on the touchline as win you the World Cup.

And yet I also liked it because I’m the bloke who wrote blogs saying that even when City and Liverpool were magbloodynificent, coupla years back, briefly, Tuchel’s Chelsea were better. For a period of six or eight weeks. They were the best club side in the world. So yeh. There is both his incendiary mania-thing going on… and some brilliance.

Two games in and of course we’re still wondering. Two games won against ver-ry ordinary sides. (And no I’m not buying that ‘there are no easy games’ bollocks: Lewis-Skelly doesn’t get to march into centre-left midfield and put his headphones back on, if there are no easy games). Whoever-it-was and then Latvia are going to work, sure, and be disciplined in the modern way – have shape, have intensity – but provided you stay honest and pick your final passes you’re going to beat them. Which brings us directly to Rashford.

A confession: I do want Tuchel to bring his flamethrower to this group, which may be kinda institutionally complacent. But I also want him to cuddle and cajole. Rashford, having played the overwhelming bulk of the available minutes, despite having created almost nothing, is the most obvious recipient of Tuchel-faith – Tuchel-lurv, even. The gaffer is giving him every chance… and then some.

This conflicts your honourable scribe. A) I’m generally soft-leftie and have spent much of my life encouraging kids. B) Gramps played for MU. C) Ar Marcus *is conscious* and was plainly one the most thrilling forwards in Europe, about three years ago. His manager was obviously watching. (Klang! The thought strikes that like countryman Klopp, he may even be soft-leftie: but I doubt it and let’s move on).

Rashford nosedived and embarrassed himself at Old Trafford, over recent times. His ‘resurrection’ at Villa has been heavily overplayed. Tuchel, however, is not to be distracted from his generosity (or Rashness – geddit?) around this. I’m fine with that for now – coaching is, after all, the art of Reading the Human – so we must hope that the manager’s belief is founded on something. It may be: I hope it works out.

The player should be at his peak. I’m thinking he gets either one more go at producing before either the relationship turns towards a one-way bawl-fest, or he is quietly dropped. Rashford has had lots of possession against ordinary defenders but repeatedly beaten himself, found the opposition or fluffed his final pass.

Last night, on the other flank, Bowen had about ten percent of the opportunities Rashford had. He was effectively excluded from the game by that cruel tactical discipline around keeping shape and offering width. I felt a little sorry for him but the anarchist in me thinks maybe show a bitta spirit, son. Release the shackles; ignore that baying from behind the laptops. Race in, towards the ball. Get in the fakkin’ gaaame, san. Nick it off Rice’s toes and storm off darn the pitch. ‘Create sammink’. More fun and probably more fruitful than all that passive feet on the touchline stuff. Do that three or four times in the ninety minutes. Change the vibe and maybe the game. The alternative is you getting hoiked on the hour for ‘not being involved’.

The new England manager will have learned from games one and two. He will want his team to look less like the Old Regime – and certainly these performances felt Southgateian in terms of all that ‘patient possession’ and relatively little threat or urgency. So dull, largely. He will no doubt be clearer that Palmer and Saka will be a meaningful upgrade on Bowen and Rashford and that Rogers is a contender, despite fluffing some of his better moments against Latvia.

That retro-feel back three/five blend, with Burns as Jack Charlton and Lewis-Skelly as Kenny Sansome may work, and may even offer significant threat at t’other end of the park. Their partners seem much-of-a-muchness, their reasonable comfort on the ball and goodish pace and awareness feeling pretty interchangeable. All of Konsa, Guehi and Lewis-Skelly do that thing where they use their bodies to draw fouls as a first resort. (Don’t like it but this is where we are). Rice must play – obvs – and Bellingham, though the latter’s role may need to be considered against a fit Palmer’s strengths.

Foden is a fabulous player in search of a consistent England slot: he deserves it but may not get it. Pickford had his dead-cert-one-in-a-game moment when he took out Guehi and offered the centre-forward an open net, but the chance was woefully passed over. The keeper now has 70-plus caps, which can only point to a relative dearth of truly brilliant and consistent performers between the sticks. (In case you’re wondering, I do get the argument that Pickford is certainly a top, top performer, just not a great goalie). Walker feels like a man from another era: but still may do a job until someone who can still fizz comes in. James has always been a fine player. His superb free-kick surprised none of us. If he can get or stay really fit, for me he plays.

Let’s finish with that terrible Anglo-centric confliction: that Ingerland won but underwhelmed us all over again. Because they were mixed when we hoped they might be brilliant. Because *all that possession* but little purpose, with urgency no longer being a thing – or being a subordinate thing to the demonstration of tactical wizardry. Because of too many conceits and too few freedoms or instincts. Because of a kind of generational arrogance and ultimately an inability to execute to high standards. Oh – and because our expectations aren’t realistic, because we’re English.

 Over to you, T.T.

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?

Development – good and bad.

~ bowlingatvincent ~ Leave a comment

Let’s have a ramble; a rummage; a wormlike wiggle through the kaleidoscope. A zooming out and in, through the back doors and maybe the bog windows; like we’re *being philosophical* but also scrambling in to see the band without (yaknow) paying. That way we can be irresponsible and disproportionate and blather like the drunken fans we are.

Cricket. England blokes. Pakistan.

That first Test was ludicrous and wonderful and bloody entertaining in a way that re-wrote the laws of art and science all over again, again. England making 6 and 7 an over look routine in the format that still echoes to the voice of Old White Coaches demanding ‘high elbows’. Root being simultaneously relentlessly humble and yet godlike. Brook being ridicu-audacious. Duckett making a nonsense of Commandment Numero Uno – that you just don’t play at anything, early-doors, that isn’t threatening the sticks. Truly special.

We can and should qualify where and when the boldness dips into brain-death but let’s start with The Incontrovertibly Goodly. McCullum and Stokes have built something magbloodynificent. It’s a fabulous, generous contribution; big enough to change coaching and completely re-calibrate expectations around what’s possible, in a game that’s largely stood stubbornly still.

This is some achievement. England do have a good group of players… but how many are nailed-on world-beaters? Or maybe more exactly, (and/or, o-kaaaay, possibly more cheaply, more of the times), how many would be in a World XI? You could make a strong case for Root and Brook and Stokes, perhaps more now for his leadership than his contributions with bat and ball. Interestingly, even if we rolled back the clock a year or two (so as to include Jimmy and Broad), it’s not clear that any or many English (or Welsh) bowlers would make a Best Out There eleven.

What I’m getting at is that the real brilliance of this obviously occasionally flawed England is cultural; is to do with mindsets.

We can all too easily fall into meaningless verbiage when unpicking the ‘process’, here.

Rather wonderfully, in my view, some of it remains mysterious, probably because it’s predicated on the intuition as well as the positive inclination of coach and captain. This takes it beyond analysis.

The thrilling edginess of the Duckett-Crawley axis has grown into a fixture because of the zillion quantifiable advantages of the left-hand/right-hand, big driving bloke/tiddly cutting and sweeping bloke things *but also because of* lashings of belief. Coach and captain believed and encouraged. Crawley boomed on, even when the universe carped. Duckett stayed true to his wild-but-focused striking of every fecking ball that came his way. Inside the England bubble the gambles were absolutely felt and understood as gambols towards a Better Way. The very idea of pressure has become an irrelevance because a) there really are bigger things in life b) there IS an imperative to entertain and c) if we allow ourselves to really embrace opportunities, chances are it will be fun and effective.

So this England (because of complex, intelligent, supportive, ambitious coaching *made simple*) have offered us better entertainment via a revelatory and liberating approach. Fascinatingly, nobody else has gone there, not in Test cricket; not in remotely the same way. We can be certain that other coaches, other nations aspire towards Bazball; they will be using its terminology, its ethics, its drive towards freedoms. Eight billion sports coaches are currently spilling those mantras about ‘expressing ourselves’ – whether to eight-year-old girls or the club First XI. The difference is that words are cheap. The culture has to be authentic. It really has to feel like you.

England Women.

One of the sadder sights of the past month in sport came at the end of England’s World Cup. Sophie Ecclestone, the best female bowler in the universe, in tears, having bowled two full-tosses to concede the runs that put England out.

Of course ‘Eccles’ wasn’t personally responsible for the defeat – the game had gone, by this stage – but she will have hurt big, having bowled two sloppy deliveries, both comfortably dispatched. The tall slow left-armer knew that the exit marked another significant under-achievement, and a huge missed opportunity, as the mighty Australians had also shockingly fallen.

England were poor on the day. Heather Knight had to retire hurt whilst batting but this should not have derailed the effort so wretchedly. (Brutal Truth: the West Indies are consistently mediocre, with just two or three players that might reasonably be considered a threat at this elevated level). Setting a score that was manifestly 20-30 under (their) par should not have been decisive… not given history/resources/the players on the park.

Exceptionally, the England gaffer inserted himself into proceedings at a drinks break. Jon Lewis marched on to have words, when he could see things falling apart. Also exceptionally, he called-out the stand-in skipper Nat Sciver-Brunt, effectively saying that she couldn’t manage or rally the troops in the way Heather Knight might have done. He was obviously angry and disappointed. He probably had every right to be but this is not to say that he had the right to expose Sciver-Brunt in the way he did. It felt classless and makes you wonder at their relationship: do they/have they disliked each other for a period of time? (That happens).

I accept that it’s a fair criticism that this England squad (or individuals within it) has/have been serially susceptible to pressure. To put it dangerously bluntly, they’ve needed to ‘toughen up’ for some years. Lewis could have offered a bollocking (or a whole lot of work) around the lack of resilience on many occasions during his relatively short tenure but it’s been his job to select and coach with exactly these kinds of issues in mind.

To zoom out, he’s responsible for environment and blend of players and personalities. Levels of professionalism and expectation have changed. Expect more; demand more – I have no problem with that – but build the belief; develop the players; support them. It’s your job to turn the fickle into the fierce: and/or discard or deselect those who can’t achieve the evolved non-negotiables for the new era. Not at all convinced Lewis has succeeded at this.

England lost because one or two players on the other side had a good day. This can obviously happen, indeed is likely to happen in this shortened format. (Another reason why players need to be agile, empowered individuals). You mitigate against that as a team by being focused, determined and professional. It didn’t happen. Fielding errors should never be ‘contagious’ but they often are. There were multiple howlers from England. As a fan, I felt embarrassed and a bit angry. This is a particularly well-resourced outfit, compared to all but Australia and India. We get that one of the joys of sport is its unpredictability but this was a patent under-achievement from the Lewis/Knight/Brunt posse.

Finally, that leadership thing. Has Ar Nat always been reluctant to captain? Maybe. If so, again, it falls to the coach to fix that – either by bringing in another potential skipper, or developing the player. Either way he shouldn’t (as well as shouldn’t need to) call out her alleged deficiencies publicly, in or after a World Cup semi-final. Lewis shouldn’t have needed to walk onto that outfield. The work should have done before: selection and development.

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.

What goes on tour…

~ bowlingatvincent ~ 2 Comments

Been a while – longer than I realised. And not sure if I’m back or if the mistiness of the grey matter will render this do-able, or not.

Haven’t written about cricket for faaar tooo long. But guess what? Been on a cricket coaching and playing rampage for months. (Maybe I should write about that?) Millfield/Aberystwyth/Shrewsbury/Cathedral School/Gowerton/Llandeilo/Tockington Manor/Llangennech/Crickhowell/Blaina and the rest. Buckinghamshire/Little Stoke (was that Staffordshire?)/Somerset/Gloucester, to play for Wales Old Fellas.

Missed out (and missed) most of the Pembs Seniors action, coz of all the coaching work; the usual madness, just more of it. Heatwaves, some proper exhaustion and crocked calves. Comradeship and disappointment. With the kids, yaknow… development.

How to go there without intruding, though? This may be more personal, more of the person than people imagine. Maybe just stay general. Talk about principles or things learnt rather than What Jonny Did. Maybe I can do that?

Been coaching U10s and U11s. ‘Regional kids’, on a pathway for which their families do have to pay. Have concerns about that and the concentration of activity around certain kinds of venues: the time may come when I am vociferous in this regard but that time is not now.

Now I can celebrate and absolutely unreservedly say that our various crews – been coaching four teams, with my outstanding partner-in-crime – have enjoyed massively, and developed massively. (If that’s a boast, don’t care). And though I do feel a bit head’s-gone and maybe post-energy-slump-tastic just now, my own level of enjoyment has been absurdly fabulous. (Again. Can hardly believe it). Outstanding kids and wonderfully supportive families: almost everybody buying in and letting us coaches do our thing. The Lads rowing that boat and being great company. On and off the pitch. Doing that thing where they try like hell then let go immediately of a battering – too much fun to be had.

Took an U11 side to Shrewsbury School, for an epic five days/four nights of cricket and an U10s side – two, in fact, but was personally responsible for one – to Aberystwyth, for three days/two nights. All this bigger than cricket. All this both a privilege and a pretty profound responsibility. Young lads, some of whom were tearful, come 10pm, at the prospect of mum and dad not being immediately at hand. Opposition that was often much stronger. But still masses of that precious, immediate, innocent commitment – the stuff that builds the team and that feeling that this is good, irrespective of scores, achievements or results.

Sure our team won an incredible, topsy-turvy T20 at Aber, and they were thrilled, meaning *they obviously cared*, but the several defeats either side flew from the collective consciousness a whole lot quicker than the steam train that chugged past. (Young kids can do that, yes? Wipe the slate and get on?) And this is wonderful; to be so undamaged. To go have a laugh, to grab the nearest ball and chuck or kick it, ‘anyway?’ Time enough to get real or rational. We can and did ‘review’ but it doesn’t have to be in the moment of deflation or disappointment. Let’s go jump in the ocean: (we did).

In my experience there are no rules, but ten and eleven year-olds are likely to be able to scoot past ‘failure’ in a way that us Fully-growed-up Humans might do well to recall. Yes they maybe should revisit in order to learn – to develop – but no there’s nothing wrong or inadequate or concerning about the switch back into play or banter. As coaches, we are maybe a bit stuck with the idea that we have to host an instant post-game review (or maybe be seen to host one) but as always this will depend on how present individuals are in that moment. What gives the most value? Have words later, if you intuit that gazes are a bit blank, or players need food or family or freedom. It’s a blessing that the result or the performance isn’t everything, aged ten: let that sense abide, for now.

We Westies often go into fixtures or festivals expecting to be out-gunned by regions who have more and more highly-developed players. Some of this is geography and some of it is privilege and opportunity. Neither of these factors are likely to change(!) so we are left with two broad options: fight like hell or capitulate.

I like to think that we engage option one, but do it with what we might (in foolishly retro language) call a generous or comradely spirit rather than coming over all chopsy and adversarial.

Ah. There may be those at the back of the class here fearing that my insistence on ‘being great company’ as well as bringing top competitive energy necessarily nudges us towards capitulation but no, not for me. I get that this is by nature an adversarial situation and that it may entirely healthily challenge folks’ toughness and resilience – accepted, no issues. But I’m holding out on a kind of faith in sport. Cornier still, I’m gonna say that because I believe the essence of sport is romance (not conflict), there should be a way to compete wholly and powerfully, whilst being a good opponent. Someone who’s good company, even in the heat of all that stuff. It’s possible and I aspire to that – I urge my teams in that direction.

Some may of course think this is naive madness; outdated, outmoded madness. I don’t. I’m a competitive guy but this, for me, is how sport should be understood. Yup – at all levels. Play fair; play to win.

Aberystwyth is a triumph – a word I rarely use, or take care with – every year. A 10s festival, about a hundred young lads (in our case, the girls followed) playing six games of cricket. But also starting their #bantz journey, and their being independent journey, and their eating in a big communal space adventure. Battling (a little, or maaybee a lot) against fear of the ball/fear of the bed/fear of strangeness. Needing and then finding a mate or twelve. Like magic.

But who knew that coaching was so much about getting people comfortable; being nice; being friendly?

Amazing, year after year, to find reinforced that (aged ten/eleven) what’s needed is to be seen; to be encouraged; to be given a chance. Yes we are conscious that *our job* is to develop cricket skills but that bigger picture seems ever clearer. Because these guys are young, because things really do need to be appropriate, we’re confidence-building; we’re in the wider, looser, lovelier business of experience and enjoyment. First imperative? We want these lads/lasses/however they may identify to fall in love with this sport, and (zoom out again, bro’) be ready and inclined towards a life built around activity.

So me and my mad partner-in-crime almost always bowl ten bowlers; almost always rotate the batting order; always know when Jonny or Dafydd ‘needs a bat or a bowl’, or when somebody’s homesick. We’re there, we listen.

Soon as, we muck in and we have a laugh – has to be done. Sometimes, on those ‘residentials’ it’s us that leads the mischief, into the sea, into the arcades. We’re invested in that smiley, woolly stuff as much as the technical gubbins, because this IS bigger than the cricket. The players need, in their individual ways, to feel settled. They need a giggle.