Australia

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.

Warner: a short inflammation.

~ bowlingatvincent ~ Leave a comment

He brings out the tribal in us Poms, for sure, so he ain’t gonna get a fair trial. Not here.

Don’t care. Just not having the general rehabilitation of Warner. It’s just been too obvious for too long that the fella reeks of banter gone bad, sledging gone to the dark side and celebration-entirely-as-wind-up. Nobody’s jumped so performatively high or roared so consciously provocatively. And yeh we get that this is what competitors do… but not like him: no need. He has the arrogance of the small man and the feeble-evil veil of the absolute J Arthur.

Ugly? Maybe. Judgemental? Certainly. But this is what plenty people think. In the cauldron of sport that Warner so seems to relish, he’s been bubbling under with the Bad Guys for aeons, however nice he might be to children and animals. His chopsiness and malice – faux, forced or ‘just for fun’ – have made him a leading candidate for Most Hated Man in Sport for more than a decade. Why? Mainly because of that inflammatory-distraction schtick he’s got going.

Of course, there maaay be something in the idea that sport is bendable to your will, and that therefore you can benefit from ‘getting in the heads’ of the opposition: that notion’s been nearly as central to Warner’s career as the swing of his bat. But na. We’re not aligning ourselves with the spurious pomp (with the Spirit of You-Know-What) if we shout cobblers to that. When it’s so obvious and so-o cheap, we’re entitled to bristle – and do it with an honest gale at our backs. His Panto villainry entered that joke isn’t funny anymore territory about three seconds after he first tried it… in 1872.

There are ways of being psychologically competitive without being an arse. In this case, time hasn’t much cured the universal dislike. Warner hasn’t noticeably moved towards our grudging respect, except maybe in the cricket media, some of whom will know him outside the game. (Others I think may be doing the ‘grown-up thing’ of accepting his abrasiveness and unpopularity as his way of ‘leading the fight’, or ‘taking it on the chin’. Understand that; don’t buy it).

It’s not just the Brits who’ve disliked the fekker and enjoyed his scalp more than the rest. Again, though his batting record is good, particularly at home, I don’t register this attention on the leftie’s wicket as being about Warner the Perceived Threat, entirely. Many feel he’s hard to respect.

He’s back in the news over a spat with a former comrade. To be honest I’ve barely looked at this but clearly Warner’s leading role in the whole Sandpapergate thing has been called-out. (Like we needed it), *he’s* been identified as the major protagonist. Well ya don’t say?!?

Sandpapergate was scandalous and poor and an insult to all of us. For me it figures entirely that Warner was indeed at the centre of it and likely bullied (in some way, to some extent) the junior player who allegedly carried out the damage to the ball. It stank. Some of us have both moved on *and* maintained a level of hostility to a) the idea of that significant (and significantly high-profile) cheating and b) Smith and Warner themselves. We’re somewhere between noting it still and not forgiving. We’re happy to take the accusation that we really should have forgiven this by now right there… on the chin.

Pic from Getty images.

He didn’t catch that?

~ bowlingatvincent ~ Leave a comment

‘What the? No. He didn’t. He didn’t?!? The ball was (f-word) behind him!! He didn’t (f-word) catch that. Nobody does! That’s ridicu(f-word)lous. He’s dived back to grab that. Ridiculous’.

So sayeth you, me, and Alexander the Great, if he’s watching. Because what else is there to say, what else is there to do but be gobsmacked in that timelessly, gormlessly wonderstruck kindofaway; like Bairstow; like Broad; like Wood; like most of Australia, for pity’s sakes?

Root: catching Marnus. Diving backwards to clutch a ball that’s gone so quickly past him, the bloke in row Z is putting his pint down before the incoming pill smashes his glasses. A ball that was so utterly uncatchable by mere mortals, so loaded with searing, malevolent pace that every sentient being watching live is still ducking, now, eight hours after the event. And the God of All England takes it at full stretch, behind him.

But it gets better. Like Nadia Comaneci doing high-bar stuff, on the frame of the London Eye, whilst supping a tequila sunrise, and doughnutting a Ford Capri, it gets better because Marnus is stomping away, bawling about the bad light, to the umpire, *after Root held the catch of the century!* Irony is dead; the shockwaves have gone viral and Labuschagne’s panties are down by his quivering ankles. For those who like their #bantz or their wind-ups, there is the Broad Bonus – the lanky one having switched the bails around, purely to get in Labuschagne’s head – the *ball before* the dismissal!

But the catch; the catch. It’s a moment of inviolable sporting perfection. The sheer brilliance. The profound-but-childlike joyfulness. Largely, or first, the shock. Then, The Achievement. Oh – and the beaming, beaming lols. The faces of the England players, all mad, all so cattle-prod-up-the-jacksie stunned, but all too innocently thrilled to be triumphant, and the thundercloud that is the Marnus Stomp. If yer a Pom, un-im-provable.

The fact that Bairstow (who admittedly is crocked) barely flickers whilst Roooot launches and grabs, is unimprovable. Mark Wood’s smiling fizzog, an age after the unquenchable fuss should have died down, is unimprovable.

For all the resonances, cheap or seminal and the tribal or historic matrices, this was a great, pure sporting moment. Root’s instinct, coordination and remarkable flair for that which is both simple and classic, is sensational, exquisite, wondrous. This catch is somehow calming – for its revelatory but obviously natural brilliance? – and deeply, deeply stirring. This catch is a f***ing worldie. Thank god for cricket; for Wood’s irresistible heart and for Root.

Taunton.

~ bowlingatvincent ~ Leave a comment

So we’re done then. The #WomensAshes, I mean. Hard to gather it all in to a single event, to be honest – maybe that will come later. For now, as always, I include the relatively-stream-of-consciousness response to the action, live. The feel of what happened. I make no apologies for the distracted/abstracted nature of this ‘report’: most of you will know it’s what I do. I *might* apologise for traducing the level of support, at Taunton, initially; I am aware of the tradition down at Somerset for Proper Crowds. It’s just that for the start of the game, cocooned within the Media Centre, we simply did not know that hundreds (nay thousands) of folks were delayed in queues at the gates. Ultimately this was a strongly-attended, well-contested match. Now read on…

I banned myself from writing anything. Until now. 12.32.

So no mention of the annoying arse on the train… or the muggy walk in. Or the hugely tasty (and well-received, in this quarter) Indian fodder, provided by our friends at Somerset CC. Or the genuinely *really charming* ground-staff. Because this is a new regime. Sleeker; more Proper & yaknow, Growed-Up; less of the nonsense.

Won’t last: not meeee.

Australia have just won an amiably amateurish toss and chosen to bowl. Fair enough. Great conditions, with just a gentle breeze and plenty cloud cover. Kinda medium-bright. The kids are out, waving their flags, a-rhythmically. Think this has been pitched as a ‘sell-out’ – they often are, when they aren’t. This ground is currently (12.49) about a third full; or rather the seats are. (Transpires there are still biggish queues at the gates: fear of Just Stop Oil – whom I support! – has caused some delays. As I write, seats are filling. Ultimately, it may be at capacity.)

The trumpeter is playing a rather irritating ‘Jerusalem’ as Gardner finishes her first over to Dunkley. Then our brassy friend catches the mood rather better with the jaunty Steve McQueen number.

Schutt will follow Gardner, from the Marcus Trescothick Pavilion End. Dunkley is looking to hit hard but is mistiming… but no dramas. Australia’s quick is looking strong: built a bit more like a sprinter than a year or two ago. (Gym-work? Or is this another Waltonian fallacy? Dunno). I did note to the universe of twitterdom that Schutt is wearing a heavy bandage to support the right knee, but moving ok.

A quietish first 2: England 6 for 0. But no. A straight one from Gardner draws a heavy thick edge – Dunkley doing that trademark slash across the line. It steeples and she is well-caught by Litchfield, racing back from cover. Knight marches out early: Dunkley made only 2. She is a fine, attacking player but there are risks associated with that grip and that batswing. If she has a dip in confidence (and scoring), we’ll hear more about the relative extravagance of her technique.

Schutt is in to Beaumont. She gets that early swing (but it is early). Somehow the batter is either slipping or so badly out of kilter that she cannot get anything on a ball arcing at leg-stump. She’s out, falling over, bowled. Early trouble, for England, with both openers gone for a total of 4 runs accumulated.

On the plus side, this brings together Knight and Sciver-Brunt, arguably the best batting combo on the planet. (*Fatal*?) After 6 overs the home side are 19 for 2. Enter Sutherland. The ground is now somewhere between two-thirds and three-quarters full, I would say.

Sutherland goes shortish at Sciver-B but the tall all-rounder gets above the bounce and cuts, hard. Less convincingly, S-B inside-edges to fine leg for a streaky boundary. Schutt is bowling unchanged, from underneath us. Overdoing the drift towards leg – wide given. Attempted yorker then tucks Knight up… but missing: no dramas. Tidy opening spell from Schutt – 1 for 14 off 4. 67 mph, typically.

Sutherland runs in with purpose but Sciver-B biffs her straight for four. Good racket from the crowd, who are already into this. Suspect a good percentage of the noise is alcohol-free, too – schoolkids here in some numbers. Seats still filling, too…

Did I mention that both teams have stayed pretty close to their recent ‘first teams?’ Alana King and Charlie Dean both play, but I do wonder if the coaches might have rotated things a little more, given the last game/dead rubber scenario. Succession Planning; Experience; all that? A firework-deficient spell: Knight almost breaks out with a nutty, well-timed guide through point but just for 1. 47 for 2, after 11, as the aforementioned King joins us from the Trescothick End. It’s brightened.

Starts with an ambitiously full, floaty one: driven for a single. The bowler is looking for turn and getting a little. Beats Knight. But then Sciver-B can ease into a half-volley and drills elegantly for 4, taking her to 21. Knight is on 19 as Gardner returns, from the river.

Next over. Knight is advancing at King. Lofts with conviction for 4. Then there’s a stumping shout against her… but the foot had slid back promptly enough. The batters know they are at bare minimum, run-rate wise and are looking to raise it. Good contest(s) developing. King is clubbed over mid-wicket twice – the second crunching into the ‘rope’ – so 6. Ground full now and yeh, we’re all enjoying.

McGrath for the first time, from the River End. Run-rate has picked up – now level 5s. I need my shades, to look out from the Meedya Centre. Lovely. 84 for 2, after 17, as we have drinks. Feels like England’s Finest might be moving into Dynamic Phase: both batters beginning to strike with power and purpose…

Wareham. Sciver-B misses out on a drag-down. Knight doesn’t. Mixed over, from the bowler. Length offered and a little width, too. McGrath will look to haul this back in. Does okay.

Wareham’s right-arm leg-spin is back on track: that might have been a maiden(?)

Knight on-drives McGrath past the diving mid-wicket – just the 1. The bowler is mixing this, with back-of-the-hand following an injection or change of pace. Good work from Australia as the threat of momentum is stalled. Wareham now teasing Sciver-B, who is using her feet but unable to get the drives away. 100 up, in the 23rd for England but Aus have won this last five over mini-game on those proverbial points.

Now Wareham bowls a loose one – a big full toss – and gifts Sciver-B another (chanceless) 50. My god she’s good: tall; athletic; hard-hitting. She blasts one straight at me for another 6 in the Vee. Look out – now she’s flipping McGrath over her left shoulder. And Knight is following her to 50. Run-a-ball stuff, now, as the batters execute the Go Hard strategy.

Ooof. From nowhere, McGrath is putting down a relatively straightforward return catch. Juggled then dropped. Sutherland has changed ends. She’s got that fluent run-in going, to challenge Sciver-B. 68mph: beats the batter. A brilliant stop out at deep square: repeat – good contest.

More changes, because Australia need the partnership broken (even though it’s not currently taking the game away from them). Gardner from the River End, turning that key, slapping it flattish. 130 for 2, England, off 27. Just under fives.

Sutherland’s natural length may be a tad short for Taunton: Sciver-B is pulling her away for 4, to deep square. Free hit: the bowler responds with a slo-mo wide of off but Sciver-B can only thick-edge it tamely to backward point. (No damage, of course).

If Knight and her partner can stay a while then what’s thinkable, score-wise? Towards 300, if they can launch? Capsey, Jones and Wyatt to come – all dynamic players. 270 achievable but there are caveats around Jones (always) and the relative lack of boom as we descend the order. In short, Knight and Sciver are The Finest We Have and have the skills and temperament to go deep and BIG. They are Option One: here’s hoping.

Sciver-Brunt sweeps beautifully, and hard: 4 more. Schutt replaces Gardner, as Healy again shuffles. Then we have King, and again Sciver-B lofts her precisely and safely over mid-wicket. Just the 1.

The change finally pays. Knight has been untroubled but for that nagging feeling that she/England have to raise this a little. She charges but loses her shape – her head – trying to cart through leg. Bowled, by a straight one. Good innings from the skipper, who made 67. Strangely, the loss of the wicket may offer an uptick in expansiveness, because now we have the precocious Capsey.

Schutt is in to Sciver-B but is short. Clumped to cow for 4. Schutt goes much fuller. 168 for 3 after 33. Level fives. I need some fresh air…

Our first sight of Jonassen – I suspect because they fancy her against Capsey. BIG MOMENTS, because both sides will know that Capsey can score quickly but there may not be *that much* beyond the next batter, Wyatt. So this could be 280, or 220 all out. Asitappens, Capsey is out; for a handful. Australia back in the box seat at 180-odd for 4, with 37 overs done.

Wyatt tries a ridicu-flip against King. Gets away with it, but it will hardly boost her confidence. Sciver-Brunt is into her 90s. And now 99. And now, off the hip, to 100. She really is quality. Fluent; ‘natural’; strong; ‘cute’. *And* she keeps doing it against Australia.

Our Nat aside, Wyatt is the best athlete in the England side: great fielder, has skilled hands with the bat, can really leg it. She gets a 2 that nobody else would chance, to bring up the 200. Still feels like 280 will be necessary to compete, against this lot… but 300 remains possible. Beautiful, deft late cut from Wyatt slides away quickly to third man; might be shot of the day. Then slaps McGrath hard through square leg for a second 4 in the over. 210 for 4, off 41. Wareham.

Wyatt is flying. In to out, as always, with lots of fade into (and generally over) extra cover. 24 off 15. All working, currently. Gardner returneth – she gets The Treatment. Wyatt goes smoothly but with consummate timing over and into the margins. Six! Now Sciver could just sit back and let her partner get on with it: Wyatt goes 6,4, off King. It’s absolutely thrilling stuff. 300 *should be* nailed-on…

Inevitably, Sciver-Brunt joins in. Another fabulous sweep, square. Australia have no answer, just now. Until Gardner bowls Wyatt.

I think it may be a fluke. Not convinced the bowler means to york her. It’s a floaty, looping one that Wyatt may just get an under-edge to. Whatever; she’s been tremendous. 43, in a flash. 250 up, in the 45th. Amy Jones has joined Sciver-Brunt. Jonassen returns from the Trescothick Pavilion.

Jones is lucky, hoisting rather lazily to deep square. Falls a few yards short of the fielder. Decent over for Australia.

Gardner is one the world’s great all-rounders. She will bowl the 47th. King is stooping to stop a reverse. The ball breaks through her hands and strikes her in the face. We break, whilst she retreats for treatment.

Ah. Jones is run out, by a mile, following a brilliant throw from the replacement fielder, Darcy Brown. It’s a pearler of a throw but quite why Jones dug it out thataway, (from her heels, when she might have clipped it away square) may be open to question. However a) brilliant fielding, with the option for b) malicious grumbling, coz King would never have done that! Ecclestone.

Sciver-Brunt, to a rapturous reception, is leaving us. Caught expertly in the classic Aussie style, above her head, fingers up, at the boundary. But *yet another* fine, fine innings. Against the Best in the World. She made 129.

You’ve got to love Eccles. She heaves one unceremoniously (but convincingly, too) for 6. Dean is in there with her, now. Late flourish and England will be close to that 300 mark.

There’s a review: first thought, live – down leg. No bat. Might be contentious, looking at the flight of the ball, but Dean is LBW, bowled Gardner, for 2. Enter Cross. The ball beats everything – four precious byes. England are 280 for 8 with one over remaining. Should mean we have a game. Jonassen, as so often, will bowl out. Clump to deep mid-wicket brings 1.

Ecclestone is not, for me, a batter *but hits nearly everything*. Cross, for me, could be a batter but she’s the one that misses: Jonassen hits. Innings closed at 285 for 9. This is poised, as they say.

You’d think I’d learn. Peaked tooo early again, on the energy front. So less constant warbling, from now on.

Great energy from Cross, as always: fine sight. But Healy nails a marginally full one – driven smartly through the covers. I need food, or drink, or something. The crowd nicely behind England: that could count.

Bell follows and has Litchfield caught behind; Ecclestone taking the catch rather awkwardly, at ground-level, at first slip. (Is she really a slip fielder?) Perry joins Healy. Briefly.

Cross has found a beauty to bowl the Aussie skipper – the ball nipped back sharply. Great start, for England: Australia 15 for 2, in the 3rd over. Delighted for Cross, a personal favourite for her big-hearted flow.

Best part of the day: brilliant light, with some breeze, crowd engaged, game on. It’s McGrath who’s joined Perry. Bell is getting this white ball to swing significantly and getting some bounce. (She’s ver-ry tall). Perry is fortunate not to inside-edge on. Sure she went for 26(?) in the last over of the last game but I like how Bell’s growing into the Strike Bowler role. I hope she’s demanding that ball first and *really believing* she’s the one. (Having said that, I think Wong may be)…

Not sure if it’s a plan for Cross to hang a few out wide, to McGrath, but she’s been crunched to the point fence twice now, so maybe change? Aus are 40 for 2, after 7. Ah. Bell did that hang-it-out-thing to McGrath. 4 more.

First change is Nat Sciver-Brunt from the River End. Perry is watchful. Ecclestone will come in from t’other end. She’s on it: powerplay done at 53 for 2. Australia up with the rate. Interestingly – or not – the breeze may have stiffened. Flags and trees to my right looking livelier. It may be troubling Sciver-Brunt, who has bowled a couple of wind-assisted legside wides. Maybe that fuelled the sharp bouncer at the end of the over? Jones did extremely well to grab that – high, to her left.

McGrath advances ambitiously to Ecclestone. Wrong! She is stumped, stranded and painfully stretched: Mooney replaces. 68 for 3, off 13.3. 1 for 3 off 3, for Ecclestone, at this juncture. Knight opts for Dean at the River End.

Greyer, out there. The heavenly arc in front of me is 82.4% cloud-cover. Should be of no relevance but Australia 30 runs behind the Duckworth-Lewis score, at this moment. But the atmosphere, meteorologically, is different. (I just went to look). Floodlights.

Capsey will have a wee bowl. Rain. Off they go. 97 for 3, off 19.2.

So a moment for a few #WomensAshes ‘conclusions’. Firstly, if I’m in the Oz coaching group, I’m not that happy with how they’ve gone. Absolutely not dominant: sometimes – in the wind, in Bristol – closer to messy, with the ball. Some of this is to England’s credit, of course: but not sure Australia have played to their maximum, on this tour.

(I interrupt this speculative opiningment to report that the whole set of covers is now being dragged on. And the shower appears to be passing… or not).

England, meanwhile will be clear and hopeful that they have indeed closed The Gap, on the juggernaut-tastic visitors. This series has been close. However, just me, or is it mainly the old(er) guard who have again been largely responsible for the local’s gain? Sciver, Eccles, Wyatt, Knight. Goodish contributions from elsewhere but the Dunkleys/Capseys/Bells, whilst contributing, have not psurged to another level.

But that may be a) inevitable, or b) unnecessarily negative. We’re closer, man! Bell is growing; Capsey is at the right level. Dunkley may need a performance to underline last year’s emergence but she is under no immediate threat. For me, ways forward include dropping Amy Jones, giving Wong more opportunities and persisting. Resources of all kinds are in reasonable order. Continue the hard work to improve fielding and the up-skilling of ‘non-batters’. Do that thing where you both reinforce confidence and make clear that there are good players knocking at the door. This is international sport and the non-negotiables increase and expand month by month.

18.21. We still have a little light drizzle. I’m checking train timetables. You?

As I write that it’s re-brightened. The Lads are removing the cover pegs, meaning they expect to haul them off imminently. A nod towards the scoreboard confirms Australia are 20 runs behind, on DLS, as the covers do indeed disappear. (With that, stadium announcingment: 44 over game, re-starting at 18.50pm. I take a quick wander; still raining but maybe improving from behind the Abbey, which is where the weather’s been coming from).

Update: Aus will need 269 from the reduced game. (Pleasingly, somebody ballsed up the maths, first time around. #humantouch).

100 up, for the visitors (also pleasingly) smack on the 20 overs. Dean.

Foolishly the off-spinner concedes firstly a no-ball and then a 6, to Perry, who goes beyond 50, again, again. This batting pair of Perry and Mooney may be Australia’s Knight and Sciver-B. Worryingly. Cross is in from the Trescothick Pavilion End – meaning she has changed ends.

Unknowable if conditions are tougher, post the rain – nobody’s wiping the ball. Perry may argue that case; she is caught off a leading edge, by Capsey, at point. Cross the successful bowler. Gardner joins us: the Gardner/Mooney partnership could be Australia’s Knight/Sciver-B combo. (Lols).

Dean is getting some turn, to Gardner. Australia are 120 for 4, off 23.

Cross strikes again! Full, at Mooney, who can only drive to Ecclestone, at regulation mid-off. Comfortable catch, big wicket. 120 for 5 and advantage England.
Two new batters, with Sutherland joining Gardner. Impressive, classical straight drive for 4, from the former, to get off the mark. Still a touch of away-swing, for Cross. Against the wind. Knight doubles-up on pace: Bell. It may be irrelevant but Australia are almost 40 runs behind the DLS target.

Good energy from the kids in the ‘schools only’ stand. Every half-decent bit of fielding gets a generous roar. Stadium announcer confidently booms out the 38th contradictory runs total needed. *Imagines both dressing-rooms going WTF, loudly*…

Gardner may be rising. Strikes Bell majestically downtown. 6. Then cracks her square to the same conclusion. Then 4 more – last two were short and too close to the hip. 155 for 5 after 27. Some signs of nerves? Cross has just bowled a dreadful bouncer – wide! – and followed it up with something eminently cartable. (4). The bowler tries a slower one; it’s boomed past her left hand. Gardner is rising. But not.

Criminally (arguably), the Aussie star is run out, despite diving about forty feet: Wyatt typically bright in the field. Wareham joins Sutherland, who has 8. Gardner made a characteristically dynamic 41. Sciver-Brunt replaces Bell at the River End, then Ecclestone is in front of your Honourable Scribe. England going for the jugular?

30 overs. England significantly ahead, surely – because of those wickets? Australia 6-down, needing either 93 or 103, from 14, depending on the next announcement. But Sutherland and Wareham can play.

Review for a stumping. Sweeeet work, from Jones, as Wareham misses a wide one. Sciver-Brunt delighted and the crowd all over it. (They’re loving Wyatt’s work in the field, by the way; she is, after all, the World’s Best). Jonassen will come in, with work to do. Interesting change: Charlie Dean.

It works. A voluptuously loopy one castles Sutherland. Game over – with apologies to Alana King and Megan Schutt.

Be nice if Lauren Bell can grab a couple of late wickets. Wild swish from King offers some hope. Steepler… but where’s it going? Straight, straight up… and into the watchful Jones’s gloves. Nine down, 194 on the board. Start the car: Jonassen is tidy enough but this can’t last, can it?

No. Dean has been spinning it. She finds the outside edge and Jonassen is caught with ease, by Sciver-Brunt, at point. A deserved win for England, who get a lovely reception as they march off. Australia have retained the Ashes but *this has been a competitive series*.

The winning margin here in Taunton was 69 runs (DLS). Compelling rather than inviolably brilliant? Maybe. But it’s important that Australia, unchallenged for so long, feel the squeeze from some direction: the world game needs that.

India, are you now ready to step up?

Could be my End of Season. Thanks for supporting; until we meet again. 🙏🏼 🏏 💖

Wild is the Wind.

~ bowlingatvincent ~ Leave a comment

So. Kate Cross. Who knew? Some of us. She can bat. Sometimes looks like she *just can’t*… but that’s a blip in confidence – something she often talks about, openly – and she generally gets past it. Kate can bat. And she can bowl. She’s one of the finest sights in cricket, running in powerfully and fluently; when that flow is really pumping.

Crossy got England home – or rather Knighty the Indomitable and Crossy got England home. In an epic of sorts; a tense, somehow mis-shapen kindofa game. Lowish or mixed quality, often. Australia subdued and/or just poor, by their richly-developed standards. England’s catching poor – where have we heard that before? – and then stumbling over that metaphorical line. A daft classic, probably heavily affected by a strong breeze across the ground, Ashes Pressure and a pitch that may have been a little two-paced. But a match that brings the series alive, watched by a generous crowd.

Here’s how it felt live:

Arrive elevenish. Covers being removed and the super-sopper slurping hard, removing whole lotta recent rainfall: weirdly, dumping some of it rather carelessly inside the boundary-rope. (Can only presume the grounds-guys know it’s going to drain efficiently enough, out there). By 11.30 it’s visibly brightening and the forecast of no interruptions to play looks viable. On a practical note, for the players, this has all meant there is less time than is customary for their extended warm-ups but I reckon this is maybe no bad thing. Days are too long, for me, generally – too many hours of draining concentration, not all of it necessary. Nets are being erected and coupla players out there wielding bats, come 11.40.

Am set up, as close as possible to my fave behind-the-bowler’s-arm berth. Beaumont is out there with a coach; she’s playing top-hand-only drives, into a net. Sudden, heavy squall and everybody scrambles. Unfortunate. Might slightly delay my wander around the boundary. Covers being hauled back out there.

Ten minute burst, then notable improvement. Off for a wander: may try to get something signed, as a memento/prize for a player in our pathway game on the weekend. (U10s v U11 girls). Dunkley out, swinging a bat. Dean having a kickabout. Will still be damp underfoot. Minor winge: apparently the doors to the Meedya Centre have to stay shut, meaning we can’t wander out onto the balcony. Real shame, as one of the pleasures and privileges of attending these games is that bit where you get to take in the atmosphere from outside, above some of the crowd. (I know; #firstworldproblems! A-and they were opened later).

Am always interested in the various drills and preparations. Gardner currently striking full-tosses, straight – cack-handed coach throwing medium-hard from twenty yards. Fifty yards away, Beaumont and Wyatt(?) are drilling half-volleys, either side of a similar net. Most of the England Posse out there, now. 12.05. Significantly brighter, now; looks fairly set.

12.33. The Toss. Aus win it and choose to bat. Conditions good, now – by which I mean bright with some cloud. Stiffish, variable breeze, ground drying quickly. They announce the wrong England team, in the stadium, to some consternation (and hilarity) in the Press Box. Looks like Wong and Filer not involved; they’re walking round the boundary and/or talking to Aussie mates. As is Dean. Knight, Sciver and Glenn are bowling in turn on one of the practice strips. The goddess that is Perry is having a committed throwdowns session immediately below us. Exaggerated, straight bat-swings. That breeze billowing her (short) shirtsleeves.

The kids have lined-up. It’s a little cloudier, as we approach the magic hour…

Healy and Litchfield will open for Australia. Kate Cross will bowl at them from the Ashley Down Road End. First ball is over-full and a little wide. Eased out to the extra boundary, by Healy. Then a real gift, as Cross offers a full-toss wide of leg-stump. Poor start but we have a review: yorker-length, straightish.

Funny old game: Cross off-kilter then nails the Aus skipper. 8 for 1 and enter Perry. She clips one away for a two. Last ball is a genuine away-swinger but is simply too wide. Mixed start, then, for Cross, but BIG WICKET. Bell will follow.

The tall right-hander will be shaping away from the left-handed Litchfield. Then *lots of stuff happens* – including a dropped chance behind – but the ****ing wifi has dropped-out, in sympathy. Not infuriating at all…

#carryonregardless…

Bell goes across Perry. Too much. Wide. The wind is ‘helping’ Bell’s inswinger, blowing left to right as I look at the bowler. Tough for Bell to get any joy with her slower-ball/leg-cutter variation and may just be that the inswing is happening frustratingly early-doors, helping the batter, because of that breeze. 23 for 1, Australia, after 4.

Cross is running in hard and with that pleasing, trademark flow but goes over-full again. Litchfield on-drives nicely. Bell continues to battle against the elements – another leg-side wide.

Two slips in for Litchfield, for Bell, because of that swing/breeze combo. Meaning 6-3 field. Changes to 5-4 (with second slip removed) for Perry. Sciver-Brunt in for Cross; ninth over. That slightly forced arm-pumping. Vertical hands. Perry pulls her around to about forty-five, *interesting* Beaumont. But it’s four – not without some risk. 46 for 1 after 9.

Bell will bowl a fifth: clocks 72 mph. Highish. Good crowd in.

Exquisite cover drive, from the left-hander. Real quality. Brings up the 50. She repeats… but the connection is nowhere near as clean. No matter: Ecclestone has rather feebly dived over it. To make matters worse, Bell goes too wide outside off then too comfortably at the pads: both balls carted to the rope. Bad wee spell, for England. 62 for 1, with Litchfield racing to 32 and Perry on 18. Sciver will come round.

Coo. Perry bunts straightish but within teasing distance of the diving fielder. Fingertips job. Then Litchfield drives Sciver-B at mid-off. Ecclestone is The Most Surprised Person in the Ground to see the ball pouched – ’twas above her head, arm fully extended. (A-and… we all love her… but she’s not a great athlete). Bargain. Except that brings Mooney to the crease… and she is arguably the world’s best. After Ecclestone has bowled the 14th, from the beneath the media centre, in bright sunshine, Australia sit at 74 for 2. Honours even; five an over?

Am interested in how wide (in the crease) lots of seamers are bowling, at left-handers. Sciver-B doing it now, to Mooney. Broad using that angle a lot, against Warner: wondering how stat-based that approach might be? Obviously it’s ‘match-up’ based – everything seems to be these days – but should it be the de rigeur method or a method of variation, I wonder? We have a break: 79 for 2 after 15. More of the playing-area in shade… and then not. Clouds hauling past in that breeze.

Testing delivery, speared in by Ecclestone is met with an exemplary straight drive. Four; Perry; in much the same way that she was practising, earlier. Gonna be a long day. And driving home straight after. Off out for some air and a wee break.

I’m *out there*, on the balcony, as Glenn drops Perry. It’s a poor error – from both, in fact. But that very same Glenn claims the Aussie icon, shortly afterwards. Perry has clubbed a few, highish on the bat and finally pays the price, caught Sciver-B, at mid-on. She’ll be furious; was cruising (largely), on 41.

England’s fielding has been ver-ry mixed. Several straightforward drops. (Like the blokes, as one of my twitterbuddies chirped). But it’s been notably, importantly below standard. Like the blokes.

McGrath has joined Mooney. Aus are 125 for 3 after 24. Glenn is in from Ashley Down. She also bowls from relatively wide, to the left-handed Mooney. Some would argue that the ball has to do more, from there.

Capsey, from the pavilion. Draws a leading edge from McGrath. She’s not going to spin it much, but has Mooney missing; stifled appeal.

Glenn as the skies brighten again, but paradoxically with the outfield darkened by cloud. Then immediately flooded with light. Is that making the catching difficult? Is the wind making everything difficult? It’s a factor.

Mooney takes Capsey up and over cover – steered, with care – for two. Both batters into the twenties in good time. Signs of intent from Mooney as she comes at Glenn twice in succession, but can’t connect materially. 141 for 3 on 29 overs; level fives – ish. This is probably okaay, for England; it’s certainly not intimidating or explosive – not yet.

*Moment*. McGrath plays inside a straight one, from Capsey. Bowled, for 24. Gardner – a worldie – joins Mooney. Glenn can’t keep the pressure on: drags down to Mooney and is dispatched to the legside rope. Capsey, meanwhile, is drawing errors. Gardner edges, but no dramas. Ecclestone will replace Glenn at Ashley Down. Mooney goes at her and lofts comfortably over extra for four. Not much in this, you sense, but the errors and catches dropped feel important.

Gardner is a player; she booms Capsey stylishly over mid-on but it plugs, rather, and the fielder can gather. Was just going to write that this has been a good spell, from the young offie but then she bowls a legside wide. (Has been encouraging, mind).

Australia need to get into Expansive Mode but tough to do that against Ecclestone. Gardner goes and profits. Key part of the match upcoming. Run-rate must be raised; wickets bring tension and ratchet down any momentum. Capsey persists. 6 overs, 1 for 22 is a creditable effort. Bell follows.

She goes outside leg stump but Mooney can only take the single, bringing her within touching distance of another 50. But drama interveneth. Bell is heaved up, from high on the bat, by a slightly cramped Gardner. Sciver-Brunt turns and races back. England’s best fielder – o-kaay, aside from Wyatt – takes a difficult catch, with arms outstretched. When Sutherland is comprehensively bowled for no score, England are (as the Aussies rather irritatingly say ‘up and about’. Fabulous moment for Bell, who does appear to be maturing nicely, now. She’s clearly being preferred to Wong… and this Main Strike Bowler role does bring some pressure. Not long ago she could kinda hide a little, behind Brunt K and Shrubsole.

Mooney gets through to her 50 off Capsey but Australia are 188 for 6. Heather Knight would take this.

Two lefties in, with Jonassen joining Mooney. Both hugely experienced. But the visitors are still marginally below that 5 an over thing as we enter the last 10. Poised, as they say. Bell slaps in the first sharpish bouncer: Mooney copes and the 200 is up.

That same batter strikes Capsey hard and clean, over mid-on – perhaps the first time anybody’s really got hold of the young bowler. Four.

Sciver-Brunt returns and we have an *almost*. Bell is well in the game as the shot comes at her. It drops awkwardly in front – close. A brilliant fielder might have taken it but the ball rattles between chest and ground; not out. Ecclestone will bowl the 44th from the Pavilion End. 214 for 6. Australia will want (or have wanted) nearer 270/80 than 250.

Knight has a challenge to squeeze this as hard as possible. Cross has been expensive: who’s gonna bowl ’em, other than Bell and Eccles? Sciver-Brunt is in. Those three will be the protagonists, no doubt.

Ecclestone to Jonassen; dot ball. Then single to long-off. Knight fizzes in a throw which hurts the bowler’s fingers, but makes a statement. Relatively quiet over. Bell, from Ashley Down. Brilliant running from the batters grabs an ambitious two.

Not sure if the fact that there have been a number of mishits – particularly those up towards the splice – is suggesting the pitch is a tad two-paced(?) Ecclestone won’t care: she’s just bowled Jonassen with one that turned significantly from out wide. Solid effort from the Aussie; she made 30. 240 for 7. Wareham is then rather fortunate to edge her first ball through the (absent) slips: four.

Mooney can only slug Bell for a single, first-up. And Wareham mis-times her pull. The trees towards Sefton Park are suggesting the wind may be increasing, if anything. 257 for 7 as we welcome Nat Sciver-Brunt back for the denouement. The light is as good as any time in the day. Maybe that helps Wyatt take Wareham’s clump out to the deep. But Wyatt takes most of them. 260 for 8 as Schutt faces another extravagant back-of-the-hand delivery from Sciver-B. Then another.

Innings closed on 263 for 8. Doesn’t feel over par, or un-gettable. But the dropped catches? Hmmm…

Brown will open to Beaumont. Off the hip for a single. And a no-ball. Dunkley profits from the free hit – four over cover. Then a wide, wide. Nine from the over; not great from Brown.

Perry will try to do better, from Ashley Down. She gets some swing, but it’s wide. Dunkley clatters it and mid-off misfields – four more. Again, it’s mixed and again we wonder what influence the wind is having. Two wides and a no-ball, from Perry. England are 20 for nought after 2 without hardly playing a shot!

Brown is bowling 74 mph but then bouncing too high. Wide. But Dunkley can’t connect at all with the stuff wide of off. She can, however just get something on a leg glance: four more.

Perry is slinging it almost everywhere but she has enough to trouble Dunkley. She bowls her, for 8. Capsey is in next; defends competently. It’s felt for some time that Perry has dropped down the pecking order both in terms of her bowling and her allegedly non-dynamic batting. She’s staying boldly full, here, as Cross did, on the edge of glory and the batter’s driving arc. Capsey gets one away, straight.

Beaumont seems strangely late on stuff. Almost castled. Then, slightly exasperated(?) she slashes and middles past extra. Hard. The next two balls are representative of what we’re seeing: first is edged past the keeper, the second is yet another wide. There have been 18 extras in the first 7 overs. It’s wildish – wildish in the wind – but England are notably up on the asking-rate. 69 for 1 off 8. Expecting a double-change from Australia. Here comes Schutt; the wind assisting that deadly inswinger.

Sutherland the next change. From Ashley Down. Capsey charges and gets two… and a free hit for the no-ball… from which she can’t profit. Then Beaumont absolutely thrashes a short, wide one through the covers. Australia in some bother, here. England are 84 for 1 after 10. The bowlers really can’t string more than two decent balls together. I might go outside and enjoy it for a bit… (cheesy grin emoji).

Three or four overs out there in the sun. Liking the crowd and Beaumont’s sudden explosion. But then she gets herself out to the worst ball in history (well, o-kaaaaay) and Aus may be back in it. But with England still above 8 an over… they shouldn’t be.

Capsey has bludgeoned a tremendous and tremendously bold six, off Schutt. Had to clear long-on; did. Now the skipper is in alongside her, with Sciver-Brunt to come, the home side are strong favourites. An England win here sends the proverbial message too: the message being ‘LOOK OUT!’ (Selfish though breaks through: might it be asking too much for Our Lot to brutally squish any resistance, storm to victory and thereby allow a certain medium-tired scribe to boot home at a reasonable hour?)

With that Capsey holes out.

That feels a little indulgent, in a sense but if Sciver-B goes on to dominate from here-on in in the way she can, then no issues. This is set up for Knight to bat through watchfully whilst S-B flashes *mindfully enough* to all parts. Sensible, Run-a-Ball Cricket would do it, from here. (But there are buts, right?) Howler, in the field gifts Sciver-Brunt a boundary. Thinks: what the hell are them Aussies doing, today?!?

Gardner may bring some Aussie-level quality. She has a BIG SHOUT, against Knight: the batter hit it. England are 128 for 3, after 18. So the run-rate has been throttled-back, somewhat.

S-B misses out on another poor, short delivery, from Wareham. It’s a quiet over – just the way Healy will want it. The slower bowling has definitely stilled the momentum. A reverse from Knight raises the crowd. Four.

Whisper it, maybe, but Sciver-Brunt has had a quiet series. Ditto Knight. They are both powerfully steadfast – can build. Is today the day?

S-B batters Jonassen to the square-leg fence. Her first shot of real violence. But utterly controlled. Like that, as did the crowd. 152 for 2 after 23. Still ahead.

Gardner draws a minor error from Knight – inside edge. But okay. And Jonassen gets some spin – almost unheard of. So these two batters must stay honest: for one thing there is the possible concern that beyond Wyatt, there is little to come. (Jones I habitually exclude, despite her ability. She is, in my view, concerningly prone to a pressure-induced scramble. Ecclestone is gutsy but clumsy, Glenn mixed but fairly untried, Cross can hold a bat but may not persist, and Bell is a bowler).

As Sciver-B has expired, reversing, we may get to see these various prejudices under Ashes conditions. Could be tense. Wyatt enters with England 163 for 4, and Knight on 16. Sciver-Brunt made 31. This is a ver-ry even contest, now. It may not, on reflection, be high on quality: could the drama yet compensate for that?

As we have further drinks, so the abacus is out. It’s only four and a bit per over that England need. So do the obvious. Play smart, careful cricket. Nothing needs to go above ground. Singles do it. Doubt it will be *that simple*. Schutt, from Ashley Down. Review, for a run-out. Now this would be craaaazy…

Not out.

Wyatt has certainly turned down the boom factor. Good. Wareham is on again from beneath us: think she’s bowled a lot of ordinary deliveries. The batters play tap-and-run – well. When the bowler over-pitches, Wyatt instinctively goes over extra, but with control; again taking the one. Sadly (for England) she can’t keep that discipline going.

Schutt is bowling very straight. Wyatt opens her body up to play inside-out and towards extra. Doesn’t get enough of it and it flies tamely to point. Unforced error. Brings Australia back into it. Jones must find something now.

Disproportionate roar as Knight finds the boundary, off Wareham. Then again as the 200-mark is breached. 64 needed, 90-odd balls to get them. Partnership imperative.

Knight (*fatal*) does seem to be seeing the ball better, now. More confident striking. Self-evidently, if both batters play within themselves, England should canter home. But there buts. Choice of bowlers and bowling changes critical, for Australia. Knight gets Schutt away to backward square: four.

Jones gifts her wicket. A-GAIN. (Those familiar with my views on this will… yaknow. Edited lowlights; I think she should have been dropped about three years ago). I am deeply unsurprised then, that Jones has biffed/miscued back to the bowler. Pressure back in the game. England are 203 for 6. 37 overs bowled. Knight has 43. Ecclestone.

McGrath rejoins us from Ashley Down. Knight takes the single – as does Ecclestone. Calmly. Twice.

*Absolute howler* in the field gifts Knight a boundary to midwicket. (Think it was Mooney again). Less than fifty needed. The England skipper gets to 50; HUGE in the context of this wildness and sloppiness. A further roar when Knight reverses Gardner for four more. Top player, top temperament.

Ecclestone is being commendably watchful. Gardner is testing her but the England spinner comes through. Now it will be Jonassen from in front of us. Single taken. Ecclestone goes hard across the line but connects well enough. Then the skip eases another nonchalant single.

Near-drama (is that a thing?) as Ecclestone slaps straight at mid-wicket, who threatens to make the grab at the second time of asking. But not quite. 227 for 6. 37 needed. More from Gardner. Wide ball!

Ecclestone is no batter. Otherwise I might be really angry that she JUST HOLED OUT ON THE BOUNDARY! Madness – but madness borne of pressure and lack of specific ability. She is no batter but IS the best bowler in the world. So forgiven. Meanwhile, the Ashes.

Sarah Glenn is pitched in there. She looks watchful against Gardner. 33 needed off 8 overs. So just over 4s.

Jonassen, from the pavilion. Good over. Healy has words for Gardner. Knight is facing. Ball is down leg, Knight reverses, clumsily. It’s safe. Unfortunately, Glenn can’t match that. Over-balancing a little, she drills at extra-cover. Caught. England are 235 for 8. They need 29, as Cross walks out there. A mis-field offers the one, but this will keep the incomer on strike. More Aussie conflabs, understandably.

Jonassen to Cross. The bowler cracks. Two poor balls, both short. Cross pulls one for four. Then when the ball is over-full, it’s dispatched genuinely splendidly straight for a crucial four. 20 needed. Gardner. Knight takes one. Cross does the same. The bowler changes the angle; comes around. KNIGHT HOISTS HER FOR SIX!! Bloo-deee Nor-ra!! 12 needed. Four overs remain. Proper tense, now.

Jonassen. Cross is making all the right moves. Fabulous in defence, pulling the marginally short one. Knight misses out, arguably, on a full-toss. But well bowled, Jonassen; just the two from the over. Ten required: HUGE CALL as Healy goes to Schutt – meaning more pace on the ball. Lights on and the ground in shade.

A single, ‘exposing’ Cross. She flips one over her left shoulder for four. Madness. Five needed. Schutt errs – too full. Cross classically booms her to the extra-cover boundary. One required. Extraordinarily, Cross follows a textbook forward defensive with a wildish swish, that almost offers a caught-and-bowled. Over to you, Knighty.

The captain slaps a full-toss out through the covers. Four. Job done.

Wow. A dramatic end… but what have we just seen? HUGE WIN, certainly, for England, re-balancing the Ashes series. Plus the moment Crossy crossed over into Free Beers for Life. Wonderfully, there are *warm hugs* between both sets of players and staff as they troop through the formalities. Great stuff, without the cricket being great stuff? Yeh. I’d go with that.

And talking of going. Longish journey and early start tomorrow.

Thankyou, as always, for your company.

Weaknesses.

~ bowlingatvincent ~ Leave a comment

Belief is HUGE, of course, but this isn’t just about belief.

‘Expressing yourself’, of course, is the aspiration but c’mon: saying that with little or no explanation or context is feeble, to the point of being meaningless.

The urge to entertain, is of course worthy, maybe particularly if you *really do believe* (as McCullum and Stokes just might), that it’s more important than winning.

Attacking or ‘being attacking’ is great. We all want to thrill people.

But there are buts. And those buts aren’t necessarily contingent upon the context and tradition of Test cricket, though of course this format *does have* particular, distinctive, possibly even special parameters. There is time; there is that different level of strategy, because of time/weather/the imperative towards resilience (over time) and the testing under pressure with tiredness and exposure. Mentality. Guts. Heart. Etc. Test cricket is kindof awesome…

But a note: few of us who would call out that England first innings as a kind of classic of Bazballtastic feebleness are doing so because of doe-eyed or rose-tinted nostalgia for Things Lost. We’re not delusionally adrift in our own memories. We are doing it because that baseball from Brooks, those errors from Root, Pope (and even Duckett and Stokes?) spoke to live, current falsehoods and weaknesses, not absence of ‘tradition’. We wonder who is taking responsibility?

Brooks got fifty but it at no stage did his approach look like it was working. At. No. Stage. He was exiting stage left in order to club tennis or baseball shots vaguely down the ground. Fine, if that works. It didn’t. He looked ungainly and frustrated as much as he looked ‘carefree’. (Carefree is closer to indulgence at this level, than is healthy. He didn’t look ‘liberated’; he looked like a bloke out of his depth – like a walking wicket). Given that Brooks is a prodigious talent, this felt wild and wasteful: and it plainly encouraged the opposition, particularly their quicks. It was also the opposite of entertaining, for England fans.

Not blaming Brooks. We can only conclude that he was given license, with that specific plan to step away and then clout, thereby disrupting the Aussies and scoring quickly. For most of us, the period had a high cringe factor and it didn’t work – obviously. (It was streaky and demoralising, surely?) The extended plan, to clatter short balls, was exposed to the point of embarrassment – that word again – as English batters went ludicrously and loosely aerial, rushing towards that inevitably dispiriting end-point. Brooks’s own mode of dismissal was every bit as shambolic (and irresponsible, and unwise?) as expected. Caught, slapping woefully.

McCullum and Stokes are better than my anger suggests to me. They are deeply and profoundly Macho Men but they do engage brains, too. I am confident they talk with both strategic brilliance and philosophical heft, to each other and to their players. And they are almost certainly rather wonderfully generous. Love that.

However, in private you do have to wonder if they do crank out the cliches about ‘playing without fear’ glibly and without qualification. How else are these tactical clangers persisting? Can it really be stubborn-ness? Or some sort of perverse siege-mentality? We’ve seen that often, in sporting environments.

Bazball needs qualification. This morning, England were neither ‘entertaining’ nor bright, nor even committed. In the particular, inescapable terms of Test cricket they were WEAK. Weak strategy, weak execution, weak in relation to smarts and resilience and intelligence. This capitulation was not worthier or more entertaining than a slow death.


Pic from The Guardian.

India calling. Loudly.

~ bowlingatvincent ~ Leave a comment

So cricket then. And women. Women finally getting Kraazy Kapitalism’s blessing, in the form of lorryloads of lakh. The blessing and the obscenity that is an explosion of crore… and all the game-changing and life-changing stuff around that.

India – all-powerful in those fuggy committee rooms – has pressed ‘detonate’. The neon, the napalm, the jazzed-up slave-market bidding-war boogaboog is ON. The Frenzy has leaked across to the Women’s Game. Shafali Verma can buy Guadeloupe. Nat Sciver can buy Andorra. Ebs is out of retirement. March.

Of course much of this is wonderful. Elite cricket for women has been surging for years, ahead of  the typically tepid investment, (but) most obviously/and/or pretty much exclusively in Australia and England. Even India, until very recently, has felt adrift, as though unable to cut through the raw sexism and superannuated conservatism of The Authorities. Outside of those Big Three, the environment, resources and playing standards may have been building, in some cases nobly or thrillingly, but flickering; developments of every sort were stymied by a lack of support.

Often this felt willful; that is, a ‘natural extension’ of #everydaysexism. Despite it being common knowledge in Cricket Development (and beyond!) that the female universe was ABSOLUTELY THE PLACE for growth and investment, *somehow* this rarely translated into anything approaching equity, in terms of opportunity, pathway progression or a viable career. (Plainly this is still the case, in many ‘cricket-playing countries’).

It’s got better. Australia have led the way, ‘morally’, strategically and in respect of playing standards. England have followed. Now the TV-sales-rights-thing for the Women’s Premier League – in India, yes? – plus the cost of the *actual teams* means there is a previously unthinkably Giant Wedge allocated towards the game.

Interestingly, I note that Arjun Sengupta in the Indian Express is reporting that because the WPL salary cap is relatively low – at Rs 12 crore – the players, despite obviously getting waaaay more than they are used to, will get a smallish percentage of the revenue accrued. This is not necessarily a male/female issue: the IPL players – that is, the blokes, salary cap 95 crores – are believed to receive about 22% of the overall revenue. For comparison, NBL stars get 50%, NFL players 48% and god knows what Premier League footballers get, because there is no wage cap in the Beautiful Game.

In short, cricket, quite possibly because there are effectively no unions – or no effective unions? – underpays generally, compared to other leading sports. I wonder how long this will continue?

 *Puts call in, to Mick Lynch*.

But back to the clear positives. This is a massive incentive for women’s cricket. It’s historic. It’s a statement from which huge philosophical and political developments might spring. The value of things has shifted. Possibilities have opened up, in and beyond what happens on the pitch.

I imagine the likes of Heather Knight (hopefully) and Danni Wyatt and Issy Wong (certainly), will be tingling at the financial implications, feeling somewhat suddenly blessed *and yet* bearing some awareness of the responsibilities ahead. They may well still be trailblazers, of a sort – women exposed to a higher peak, a lusher, wider, more colorific screen. Let’s hope they enjoy it in every sense.

                                                                           *

That whole concept of ‘deserving’ is a conflicted, spurious beast, eh? But Knight has been a genuinely brilliant (England) captain and player for a decade or more. Wyatt similar. These women have been driving and ‘starring’ for their regional or international teams without, frankly, much reward or much of an audience as their cricket transitioned painfully slowly towards Real Professionalism. That may be changing – has changed – but of course it’s the New Generation – the Capseys, the Wongs, the Bells, the Charlie Deans – who will be alighting into this transformed landscape.

(If selected), I’m pretty sure they will be thinking of Brunt, Shrubsole, Sarah Taylor and the like, as they run out into the roar, at Bengaluru. For them – and for the wider women’s game – there will surely be a palpable sense of arrival?

                                                                                *

But where does this leave a) red-ball cricket… and b) the international game?

We can’t pretend there will be no implications.

In truth, we don’t know yet, whether the lurch towards Big Money Tournaments and their expansion around the globe will shred traditional formats. Plenty fear that.

Plenty of players talk a good game about recognizing Test Cricket as ‘the pinnacle’ but it’s not just an increasingly rammed schedule that seems likely to complicate matters here. Money chunters loudly, and whether we choose to couch that as players ‘seeking security’ or players being greedy or disloyal matters little to the net effect. Player A – who can get a gig in two or three out of the IPL/Big Bash/Hundred/the new South African Wotsit – may not need to even contemplate either any longer format cricket or the international game. At all. You might need a County or Regional Side of some sort to kick-start your career but… after that? P’raps not.

The raw truth of it is that as of NOW, professional cricket players (at the elite level) can choose to make a good living by hot-footing around the New Events. Most will know they can make a whole lot more moolah as a ‘hired gun’ than as ‘an honest County pro’ at Leicester or Glammy.

Culture and tradition can either be vital, or completely bypassed. There are New Choices. Doesn’t matter if I (for example) *kinda rate* the IPL but never watch it – and don’t, for tribal reasons, give a toss for Rajasthan Whatevers – because (for example) my son’s all over it. It’s MASSIVE. So the Very Best Short Format Players can feast on it, without me, or you, or what we might call the traditional audience. Their choice – and no problem.

It barely matters that the various other monster gigs are currently lower-profile than the IPL/WPL. They’re still big enough. They compensate well. The number of options (for explosive/dynamic types) is increasing. So this moment of incredi-boom is become, also, a moment of existential crises: what is right? What is sustainable? Are there not – yaknow – too many? How the hell do we manage this?

                                                                               *

Test Cricket takes time. It takes a particular kind of preparation. It implies a particular kind of understanding and investment (not necessarily financial, but that, too) from supporter… and governing body… and player. Can Test Cricket be, or where can it be, amidst the New Schedule? And who gets to design that schedule? What freedoms or responsibilities or contracts will players typically have? Utterly individual, to accommodate everything? And what about four day cricket? Will the Hundred kill off County Cricket – was it covertly designed to? If you’re not a Hundred venue, how do you recruit players/stay afloat, when the circus calls ever more loudly and more often?

Ultimately, how many players will want to be County Cricketers, or even England cricketers, if Route A to security/fame/glory/razzamatazz is making that inessential… or possibly irrelevant? How many are better-suited, in every way, to gallivanting and booming?

I love that Sophie Ecclestone is going to be rich. She’s a fabulous, hard-working cricketer. It’s wonderful, but not straightforward, that the universe may be offering playing opportunities denied to Ebony R-B, Isa Guha or even Katherine Brunt. Whilst it feels overwhelming likely that Ecclestone (and her rough-equivalent megastar, Buttler) wants to and will continue to play for England, extravagant new choices are emerging. And where you have choices… and Big Decisions… you have consequences.

sportslaureate.co.uk 2022 Review.

~ bowlingatvincent ~ Leave a comment

Wow. Best part of 30 posts, on the site and all but four on cricket. I suppose that’s the legacy of a worldview targeting my former Cricket Man audience. (For newbies, I was @cricketmanwales and cricketmanwales.com for some years, before I decided to freshen this baybee up and use the sportslaureate appendage. I am still proud to work on the Cricket Wales Pathway, as a coach, but may be preparing the ground – honestly dunno – for a combination-thing with bowlingatvincent.com sometime in the future). Anyways. Twenty posts on women’s cricket: perversely proud of that.

Let’s blaze through the oddities. Two posts on important, interesting and influential cricket books – ‘Hitting Against the Spin’ and ‘Different Class’. (Buy and read: simple). The annual (blokes’) Finals Day pilgrimage. An appreciation of Phil Bennett. And four posts on England in Qatar and one on Lionesses v Sweden.

The year started, perhaps appropriately, with something on Bairstow:

Is there also a sense that, being drawn to drama, Bairstow’s juices simply don’t always flow? That he responds to situations which demand heroics? Despite being plainly a mentally and physically tough guy, his contributions seem fickle – less reliable than his personality and grit and gifts would suggest.

If we squint at the notion of the Year As A Whole, somehow Jonny B has retreated into the steamy-glorious wake of Stokes and McCullum.. but this absolute Yorkie, this ‘broad, bellowing, beautiful battler‘ owned, or should own a powerful chunk of our sporting memories.

Because of my traditional support of women’s international cricket, the Hand Grenade of Lurv that Stokes and McCullum have rolled under Test Cricket is woefully under-represented. In Worthy Winners, (December), I do finally capture something of the generosity and yes, wonder implicit in England’s lurch towards fearlessness and out-living.

I may need a month away somewhere exotic, or a pint of poteen, or a long, deep sleep. To find the words, the New Superlatives. But there’s that over-riding urge, is there not, to record it now – the thrill, the love, the stand-up-and-raise-the-rafters-ness? Stokes. Anderson. Robinson. Bazza. And a Great Moment in Sport.

This was Rawalpindi but it could have been every time England stepped on the park. It was a travesty of some magnitude that Stokes didn’t gather-in the BBC’s Sports Personality of the Year Award: he certainly gets mine.

My broad choice to deliberately shun men’s cricket in favour of Knight, Sciver and co weakened at two further points. I was there, in Bristol, when things got ‘obscene’ to the tune of 234 in twenty overs and wrote on arguably the sporting performance of the year, when Buttler and Hales carted India into history, in that World Cup semi.

At Gloucester County Cricket Club – or whatever we’re supposed to call it – I went live, as per, as England went ballistic. (Brizzle again. With the blokes – July). But looking back I find I still found the moment to *comment more widely*…

To my right, the recently-retired-into-a-job-on-telly Eoin Morgan, in a very Eoin Morgan jumper – beige/faun, v-neck, politely inoffensive – is with the A-listers Butcher and Ward. Doing his Mr Clean-but-bright thing. No sound on our monitor so can only imagine the chat is high level; usually is with those gents. Life been busy so banging in the coffees. 18.18.

I was working when Buttler and Hales did their utterly remarkable job on India, but scuttled back to – theoretically at least – offer reasoned and informed views. (Can’t wait. November).

About noon. Seen six minutes of highlights so this qualifies me. I can blast away, like Hales and Buttler, confident in the knowledge that my opining is shining and query-proof. Especially as you lot can’t be arsed (allegedly) to think beyond counter-bawls, which don’t count, or only count on the Twitters.

Glad I subconsciously cross-referenced (that’s a thing, right?) the Hales-Morgan divide, during these streams of erm, reportage.

But The Women.

Have moaned a little, over the years, about the lack of support and appreciation for women’s sport generally, and particularly within the field I choose to follow. The BIGGEST, MOST WUNNERFUL THING, in 2022, is/was, of course, the now undeniable surge in quality/exposure and therefore support for female sport. Think England Lionesses – but also the stunning improvements in the WSL – and think cricket.

Australia are streets ahead, still, but England are and have been for some time the #bestteamintheworldthatisntAustralia. For me the Hundred has been only a bit-player in this – but I’m not going to get drawn into that, for now. The ginormous and healthy and fabulously watchable upswing in women’s elite and international cricket has been building relatively unseen, for years but finally, despite continuing, glaring omissions, is (relatively), crucially visible. Folks can see that Wong is a thriller and that Ecclestone a genuine worldie.

The noble (and prickly, and fire-breathing) work of Brunt has earned this. (Not just her, plainly, but Brunty is my Goddess of Wall-dismantleage). Skills and agility and power and pace and inge-bloody-nuity have boomed. Despite poorish crowds and poorish money. Heather Knight has grown from Arch-typically Doughty England Skipper into a great, consistent, sometimes expansive bat. It’s worth paying the entry money to see Villiers throw.

I went to the single Test, in Taunton. (Eng SA, July). It was rain-affected but it mattered. For one thing this is a matter of respect (yes?) For another, as England enter the post Brunt & Shrubsole era, the universe is calling for bonafide, legitimate, ‘saleable’ stars.

Wong is bowling 70-plus. Legitimate bouncer. Then oooff. She bowls Wolvaardt – arguably South Africa’s key bat. Full and straight, didn’t appear do do a huge amount but clattered into the off-stump. Big Moment for Wong and for the game – she looks suitably pumped.

Issy Wong is ready – and more. She can carry the exposure, the hope, the drama. Wong is raw and waggish (in the good way): she’s a talent and a laff and she can hoop the ball around thrillingly. If the world needs fast bowlers (and my god it does!) and ‘characters’ (and my god it does!) Ms I.E.C.M. Wong is the dude. Or duchess. Or star we all need. Seriously; the emergence of Wong/Bell/Capsey to bolster the boostage is important, gratifying, necessary, good. It’s one of many reasons to get into women’s cricket right now.

(Decider: Eng v India, July).

Wong will want a share of this. She looks determined to the point of mild anger. She bowls 69mph, then slaps in a bouncer which Rana can only smile thinly at.

(Spoiler alert: Eng smash the mighty continent, to confirm their clear second place, behind Mighty Oz).

Big Picture. I’ve been saying for years that India are under-achieving, largely because they have remained significantly behind their hosts, tonight. Given the resources theoretically available to the mighty continent, they have been persistently less professional, less convincing and less dynamic than Liccle Ingerland.

There are lots of words about Eng women. Only about half a dozen of us have consistently followed and reported their action. Go read. Then watch them on’t tellybox and go watch them live. It’s lovely.

In November I got into the football, thrashing wildly at the Meaning of Qatar, in Swallow.

We had Russia and now we have Qatar. Both monsters…

I was particularly offended by the fans buyout – i.e. the bribing of the England Band and a clutch of Wales fans, by the Qatari regime. It was like a profoundly appropriate symbol for Trump/Putin/Johnson era shithousery. Magnificently, shamelessly appalling in the manner of the political/philosophical moment: diabolically ‘2022’.

The England Band buy-out is almost funny. Except that I think we should find them, slam them in stocks at St George’s Park and lustily launch any available rotting fruit (and maybe orange paint). Fellas, you might think you are being cute, merely extending the repertoire of your slightly middle-class playfulness, but no. You are t**ts of a very high order. Shameless, brainless, conscienceless t**ts. Same for you taffs.

I also *had words* about Southgate, particularly contrasting his honourable conservatism with the liberating, intuitive McCullum/Stokes axis. This felt a BIG DIFFERENCE.

Bazball is predicated on a hearty kind of fearlessness – but one which *dares* and attacks. Southgate, in my view, is incapable of that – and yes, that does diminish him. I repeat my admiration for the England football gaffer as a man of integrity and political/cultural significance. I also note that my/our criticism of him is absolutely not borne of English exceptionalist entitlement (and therefore delusion). Southgate is a man of caution. He’s not a great coach.

Southgate couldn’t pick Rashford, to race and dazzle, against France. Because despite the United man being plainly on fire, his edgy lack of proportion and reliability – his immediate force, in other words – didn’t fit with Southgate’s measured way. This, for me, was obviously erroneous and yet classic Sir Gareth.

But we can’t finish on either this marginal narrowness, or with the wider, surreal nihilism or negativity of the political milieu, 2022-style. Not when most of The Writing here is essentially an act of protest. In a few words, 2022 was brilliant when we think of…

Women’s sport finally coming into focus – and our livingrooms. Levels of quality soaring.

Stokes, McCullum.

Wong/Bell/Cross – particularly Cross, who is a favourite (and I can’t explain that) – running in, carrying our hopes.

Friends, I have no idea if I can sustain my travelling and ridicu-‘reporting’, into 2023. But I may. Thankyou for your support: please do read/follow/re-tweet – all that bollocks is helpful. Remember my political wing is over on bowlingatvincent.com

Happy New Year to all.

Rick.

Can’t wait.

~ bowlingatvincent ~ Leave a comment

About noon. Seen six minutes of highlights so this qualifies me. I can blast away, like Hales and Buttler, confident in the knowledge that my opining is shining and query-proof. Especially as you lot can’t be arsed (allegedly) to think beyond counter-bawls, which don’t count, or only count on the Twitters.

England smash – I said SMASH – India, in a remarkably one-sided semi that took expectation round the back there and gave it a damn good hiding.

After the bowlers had contained a medium-tepid Indian effort, the dreamy England skipper and his extravagantly-levered and levering compadre, Mr Hales, dismissed the much-vaunted Shami, Singh and co with a measure of contempt. Hales was again so shockingly brilliant that it is believed that Eoin Morgan has, in tribute, withdrawn his own membership of the Mild-Mannered Jacket-Wearing Crypto-Fascist War-on-Drugs Party and headed to the nearest tattoo parlour. Halesy is whatsapping over the wording any mo but it’s reported to be ‘recreational is cool, bro’, across the wingspan of a circling hawk.

Before I raced off to work – grimace emoji – I had heard England had chosen to field. I pushed it a little, then, to actually watch the first two overs, before booting off to enchant Year Six (x 2, local state school) with ‘balance and control challenges’ and the River Crossing game from #realPE. (Went great, thanks for asking. But, as per, I *really was* twitching the coaching antennae towards the activity in front: meaning I didn’t think about The Cricket ’til about 10.55… when an 11 am finish was confirmed as entirely viable. At which point I broke the land speed record – just joshing, occifer – between Neyland and Nolton Haven).

I HEARD, on the radio. Talksport. The news primer, at a handful of minutes after 11, was ‘that it’s all over, in Australia’. But did that mean good or bad news, for us Poms?

My first thought was ‘ah. Bugger’. Surely they would break this with a ‘fabulous England go through’ vibe, if they’d won? And bugger – “all over?” I’d imagined getting home for the last handful of overs. More headlines and more ads later they lead again with a rather understated “the World Cup Final will be Pakistan versus England”… and I throttle back, from the 78, to take that in. They’ve only gone and done it!

This is the harbinger of gleefully raised eyebrows but also existential crises about whether to divert, in my ecstasy-but-raging-hunger and gather-in a lamb and mint pasty and a hot chocolate – in short GO REALLY MAD – or drive on, towards yaknow – coverage. Mid-quandary, more info comes in: a TEN WICKET WIN. Hales and Buttler both 80-odd! Forgive me but there was now gleeful swearing in a “fuck-me-sideways” kindofaway, before I drove on.

Now I’m reflecting, whilst cruising through the Pembrokeshire lanes. Ten wickets. So Singh, Shami, Ashwin’ Kumar never got a sniff! Bloo-dee No-ra! Bet Hales was hauling them all over. OOOh, and whattabout a the final? Pakistan? Why is it I’m thinking most of England and Wales wants or wanted Pakistan to win it – or maybe the Kiwis? – if England (& Wales) don’t? Wossalldatabart? But who cares? Model final. Onwards: mind that bloody puddle, it’s about two feet deep.

I get back and check out brief, i-player highlights, after seeing the Sky Sports prog is back on at 3pm. And now I look at the scorecard.

I see Virat went well but that India trundled too long – nearer 6 an over than the 8-plus they surely needed – for extended periods. However well England bowled or however challenging the conditions might have been, that mindset felt too conservative. Batting first, against this England? Not enough; not enough intent, or gambling, or fearlessness. Some of that stuff… but not enough. Because you know even an England that’s not really convinced in the tournament will really go. They’ve brought in Salt, for Malan, which if anything is gonna raise the levels of violence. In this moment, this England is going to attack hard and sustain that onslaught. You – India – are going to have to think ten and over for lots of overs.

Just seen some comments from Moeen, on Rashid. Hope it’s true that he was brilliant again. Rate the thinking around having three very different spin options, in the England side. A rare, joyous luxury that two of them are potentially sensational, spirit-hiking, match-winning bats. (And Rashid has his moments of defiant excellence, too).

Have expressed some doubts, historically about Woakes and Jordan. Am genuinely an enormous fan of both, for their multifarious, legitimate skills but had/have a slight fear they may be relatively hittable, at the very highest levels of this format. Long may they prove me wrong. I repeat that I love Woakes’ all-round contribution and Jordan’s very real pace and unsurpassable fielding: just have a hunch that somebody may be able to really get hold of them, at a crucial time, when they have ball in hand.

‘Getting ahead’, this performance will and should make England favourites, if not bookies’ favourites, for the final. The universal presentiment will be that Buttler’s got his fellas peaking with spectacular timing. The balance and richness of the England side is beginning to look ‘destined’.

Without Topley and Wood, they are still bloody tasty, as the annihilation of India proves. We’ve long-known that Buttler himself is touched by something special. Many of us think his partner Hales may previously have been excluded for too long and out of some slightly weird, possibly cliquey conservatism as much as for ‘disciplinary reasons’. Now he’s here, doing what he’s done for aeons – smashing the best bowlers on the planet around, like they’re Under 13s.

Was going to rumble on about Curran and the benefits of having seven bowlers and eleven blokes who can all strike a ball, in the team. But superfluous. You will already be aware that my post-match analysis is as all-consumingly magnificent as England are, in flow.

Can’t wait to see the game.

Pic from Sky Sports.

Ok. Now watched extended highlights. Maybe I under-appreciated Kohli & Pandya’s aggression? But stand by that general accusation that India were too pedestrian (relatively, obvs) for too long. Were they over-confident or just a tad culturally cautious? Or nervous?!! Nasser, on comms, has just noted the disparity in their scoring rate for the first 12-15 overs and the last, exhilarating knockings.

The England reply started with 3 boundaries in the first over: Buttler making that mark. Onwards, then, to 33 for 0 after 3 and 63 without loss after 6 – at a time when Pandya and Kohli were extravagantly cajoling the crowd into distracting or intimidating the batters… because England were cruising.

Hales gets to his fifty off 28 balls. Buttler is similarly keen – it’s relentless, ten an over stuff. At times it feels like a piss-take: dancing and scooping or standing and clouting to short or long boundary. Harsha Bogle is in mild shock. One straight drive, hoisted off Shami by Buttler, registered heavily it seemed with the commentary team, the crowd, and the TV-watching zillions, like some notably awesome statement of superiority. And of course Buttler goes and finishes it with another rapturously sweet swing: six, over long on.

Done in 16 overs. 168 chased. Ten wicket win. India were 113 for 3 at the equivalent stage. Massacre, in terms of this format. Interesting to hear Buttler speak so articulately about the freedom that England’s endless batting line-up offers himself and Hales. They can go hard: they did.