India

The Learnings.

~ bowlingatvincent ~ Leave a comment

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Striking out for excellence.

~ bowlingatvincent ~ Leave a comment

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

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

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

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

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

It was Glenn who showed the way.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

India Eng: * sounds like*…

~ bowlingatvincent ~ Leave a comment

Yeh, all very well, battling ‘gainst a tasty turner (is it really that?), in the angry sun, with eighty zillion people watching, but in Pembs we’re raging against the dying of the green light – the flaming WIFI! So yeh whilst I have some sympathy for Our Lads, having to get up at 3.30 to play international sport, it’s the (never-ending, trust me) high-tech/low-tech trauma I’m principally concerned with, first thing. Sure it’s gloomy; sure the calves and the crows look bit bedraggled… but can bitta damp and bitta swirl really knock out the signal?

Of course it can. Nearly always does.

I don’t get up mad early because I can’t watch – no TNT or whatever-it-is. I don’t get up because admittedly foolishly I watched a crap film ‘til lateish. (Terminator something: what the hell was I thinking?) Plus – incredibly, I know – nobody’s paying me, and we’re one notch down, rightly or wrongly, from Ashes Cricket. But I am interested in this Test.

India are good and they will want to compete: (euphemism, for grind England into the dirt). England *really might* relish the prospect of setting out the Bazball stall even there. Plus, even though he may have a somewhat reduced role, Bumrah is damned watchable. England, very much to their credit, have been tremendously watchable, for two years solid.

Like most of you, I’m on this from breakfast-time, or more exactly faffing abart trying to find available coverage on the tellybox, then laptop, via that pitiful WIFI. Half an hour’s furo-angst later, with the i-pad shoved hard against the bookshelf between me and next door, I’m in business. That former doorway might be plastered-over with unconvincingly soundproofed board and the source, from our friends at Bee Effing Tee may be scandalously poor and subject to brain-scramblingly frequent interruptions, but it lands about three foot two from the alcove, on their side. Finally, we do seem to have fluked a decent signal. Allez-bloody-loo.

I can live with the fact that the lads decide to have tea, a few minutes after I’m set. Talksport 2. Kimber has started with a duff ‘stat’ which he admits proves nothing but then gets into his flow. Some might say it’s heavyish on the smartarsery but the bloke has good intelligence and intimidating knowledge of the game. Harmison offers a decent foil. Helpfully, the match is obviously and immediately riveting.

Test Cricket is forever contemplating its navel: or worse, being either ushered towards some inevitable grave, or potentially fore-shortened. England have cut through the white noise and the tribal-historical psychobantz and had a right go at things. They’ve been thrillingly bold and changed or even made irrelevant, the arguments. They’ve entertained us in exactly the way Stokes and McCullum promised. Almost uniquely over the span of the universe, a Management Posse have said extravagantly generous stuff and then delivered. How’s that gonna go, in Hyderabad? Six an over possible?

With 23 overs left in the day, and England a smidge short of 250 all out, it’s game on – but only one side can score at a rate that would make Geoffrey Boycott blush. It’s already apparent we may be looking at a short, eventful game. Hard to know how long the McCullum Crew will remain in it, but we know that they will resist.

Highlights? Stokes has climbed into his armour and clanged another unlikely (but likely) 70. Spinners have been ‘on top’ but rather wonderfully – in terms of the execution and the narrative – Bumrah – the other knight-god-icon – was the one to fell the England skipper. Hartley offers a nice cameo, with the bat, 23 on debut.

In the zooming and booming, it’s easy to forget that England were 50 for nought, early doors. Duckett went on to get 35 before the clusters of wickets either side of some stout resistance (wot else?) from Bairstow (who sounded in great nick) and also Root. Wood, alongside Stokes, hints briefly at another lusty contribution but then suddenly he’s bowling: struck for four, first ball. The sole quick is partnered by Hartley – another characteristically bold call from the England camp. Slow left arm, second over of the Test. He is thrashed for six twice. Wow.

Wood, of course, is putting it all in there. Bowls two short ones in his second over; both called wides for height. India have 22 for no wicket after eighteen balls. Hartley looks nervy, maybe: poor ball gifts Sharma runs to leg. Then Jaiswal slams a further boundary. Two worryingly expensive overs from the newbie. Kimber notes that Hartley may never have opened the bowling with a red ball. So Big Ask. It’s also been suggested – repeatedly, by Pietersen – that he’s not finding any meaningful turn. Ah.

‘India are flying along’ at 35 for 0. They’re doing an England.

Leach is in, to follow Wood, who just bowled those two overs, with customary intent. Subtext – in and out of the comms box – Leach rarely spins it significantly.

Stokes predictably persists with Hartley, who is ‘suffering’. Jaiswal has 40… off about three deliveries. Statements are being exchanged: Stokes offering the aerial route, India saying ‘cheers then’. 68 for 0 after ten overs. Stokes saying ‘I back yooo, mate’ to the debutant.

Wow is the word. We have more rapid-fire, high-colorific cricket in front of us: from a team that are unequivocally not led by Stokes and McCullum. In a Test Match. With a capacity crowd. This might be wonderful.

If there *are* negatives they may be around just how long this match may last… and (for England) how damaging Stokes’s faith in Hartley might be.

But then Hartley beats Rohit Sharma twice! Reviewed: not out. England go on to burn all three reviews before we get to 15 overs. The calls weren’t entirely howlers… but they may need to reflect on that.

Sharma has looked/sounded watchful as well as positive, but he skies one from Leach. Stokes races around and pouches. 80 for 1. England need a cluster: could this be the start?

No. The left-hander Jaiswal sparkles throughout, and the lushly-gifted Gill sees out the day alongside. India not just ahead, at 119 for 1, but expansively, entertainingly so. The home side have not only accepted the gauntlet that is the *England Vibe*, but have stylishly brushed it against Stokes’s jaw. Yes it’s possible that the hosts could lose a bundle of wickets. Yes the England spinners might find the necessary consistency or Wood might transform the energy of the match. But it feels, to be blunt, unlikely. India are bossing this; the crowd are loving it; the batters are probably better than our lot; the bowlers are odds-on to prove more of a threat.

On day one, having won what was widely regarded as a crucial toss, England started well, faded and recovered, with the bat. On a challenging surface (though not an unfair or inconsistent one), the 246 all out was no capitulation, but offered little slack: the bowlers had to respond with discipline as well as ambition. They didn’t – not really. Stokes naturally held out with boldish or theoretically wicket-taking fields but only Leach found line and length. Hartley was targeted and though he bowled one or two jaffers, he was mediocre; short or wide *just enough* to offer fine players gifts. Ahmed was similarly unconvincing: Wood was rather mysteriously absent.

We should finish on a positive, eh? Jaiswal was pretty close to sensational.

pic from Guardian Sport

Binaries.

~ bowlingatvincent ~ Leave a comment

Let’s face it, friends, neither cricket nor the administration thereof strikes us (historically) as any kind of springboard for revolution. Not typically. (@StoneDunk may have a view on this; no doubt I’ll be hearing from him, shortly). But as I sit and write – 7th March 2023 – it’s difficult to escape the sense that everything’s gone next-level radical and colorific. As though high-octane reds and yellows are being catapulted over the barricades and all of us have fallen into a single, vituperative mode of exchange. Some folks find the fact that we’ve been #hashtagged sexy and invigorating: others park their banners only momentarily in delirious confusion, before hoisting their Shield of Incontrovertible Truth. Either way it’s unhelpful: The Horn versus yaknow, The Sacred.

To zone into my own, immediate experience, picture an I-pad, a fresh, understated but also zesty West-Walian café, a Sky feed from India and the best women players in the world – Lanning/Shafali Verma/Kapp, etc, etc – flashing their blades in the cause of… erm… Delhi Capitals. Meaning, amongst other things, cricket of a very high order and at an intensity unthinkable last Wednesday week.

The dawn (and endless re-dawn?) of ‘short-format/franchise/white-ball/baseball/circus’ cricket is swarming all over us, whether we choose to wallow in its stirring brew or fight it off like some pesky wasp. I get that it’s precisely this that challenges and indeed troubles many on the side of Counties and tradition. Is the world not dumber and less patient, more fraught and more bought – and less (not more) wonder-full – with the advent of the Age of Boom? Is that not our suspicion? I get that. We love cricket and that love is deep and complex and loaded. But how do we appreciate all things and avoid naff oppositionism? More difficult still: how do we do that when our crown-jewel-equivalents, our non-negotiables are apparently unseen, by them on t’other side?

I’ve seen the word ‘symphonic’ to describe whackin’ a cricket ball abart. I’ve heard the word ‘soul’, repeatedly, movingly linked to this leather on willow thing. I was there when Jimmy-Jimmy and Monty kept out the 400-year assault from our Antipodean brethren, at Cardiff. I saw Bob Croft clamber up the stairs at Glam for that final time. Part of my sexual-political-philosophical education shunted forward, in a good way, when I watched Anya Shrubsole bowl in an Ashes double-header at the same venue.

The essence of this cricket stuff is rich and nourishing and gloriously multi-dimensional, so god knows, we are entitled and even likely to be ‘precious’ about it. The hinterland of feelings and patience and faith-through-the-downpours is not reducible.

Having worked in Cricket Development for many years, I have some knowledge of the machinations of Corporate Cricket and a bundle of enthusiasms and opinions for and upon the game. Only some of these can I share, prompted by cricket on the tellybox – well, i-pad – right now this minute. What I’d like to do briefly is note to the universe some urgent thoughts, in the hope that this can in some way contribute to intelligent discussion: this may throttle back some of my own partisanship and even rage. What it probably won’t do is reinforce the allegedly binary nature of things.

(A pre-emptive strike: the next wee chunk, despite appearances, is *still about cricket*).

Many of us are neither conservatives nor free-market ideologues. We may both accept some things had to change and resent the direction, process, content, language and apparently narrow destination towards which we were suddenly being corralled. Despite being ‘all about growth’, this bright new colourful future might have felt weirdly fascistic and force-fed. As per the august world of politics, much has depended on whether us heaving masses were in a position to believe the guys (mainly) at the top.  (Just me, by the way, or do we sense some movement, on this? A more conciliatory approach? Or more respectful?  It’s a welcome development: the entrenchment into ‘betrayers’ and ‘visionaries’ was never a good look).

With that polarisation in mind, here’s a starter for ten, in the University of the Open View. With no conferring, how does the following land with you? (Because I was conflicted but this next sentence is, or feels true): today I saw quite possibly the finest gathering of female players ever – or certainly the most dynamic – going head-to-head, as the pundits probably said… in the WPL.

Okay. On a scale of one to furious, where are you?

(Note from the author: I mean the stuff about finest players; it may seem inflammatory but the athleticism, power and sometimes outrageous skill of the main protagonists was extraordinary. I had not set out to watch this fixture – for the record I virtually never watch the IPL – but from the first over it was tremendously watchable).

We can surely see (and surely say?) that this is good? Good that the cricket was about as thrilling as it can be – Ismail v Lanning; Ecclestone v Kapp – and that this monumental lurch, forward and up (in terms of cash and exposure, in the Women’s Premier League) may be triggering greater sport.

However… because this is something of a symbol, yes?

We all know that qualifications may be in order. The almighty powerhouse that is the WPL may or may not either be in itself sustainable, or support the women’s game more widely. Indeed – obviously – it may (may) patently undermine it, at both the international and domestic levels. Where there is unrivalled clout, there lurketh often the ‘brutal realities’ of capitalism. Good can be bad; answers can foist cruel questions upon us. Like this one.

How then do we stitch together the various needs, in the face of rapacious, diametrically-opposing competition… and in the Age of the Televised Auction? Are we, as some have speculated, watching separate games drift apart? If Those Who Govern are simply overwhelmed by Those Who Franchise does this leave the historic game fatally exposed? Might the fate of Kent really be contingent upon the good will of tycoons in Kolkata?

My ‘answers’ – responses might be a better word – are on the existential side: vague, perhaps. They come back to intelligent, generous, joined-up action: and I am realistic about this.

To bundle us forwards, let me throw you a curve-ball, or variation, because that word generous feels apposite and so do bigger abstractions. (In fact, re-reading, I am struck that live action on the screen stirred a minor revelation, which though it unsettles arguments for allegiance towards any particular format, needed to be in here. So sorry… and not sorry. Again we are going to be floundering around in territory that may stir the tribal within us. Look out).

It’s likely that the majority of you, my sagacious readers are drawn to Test Cricket – or should that be Test cricket? – and in particular to following England (and Wales). Me too. Whilst being massively conflicted about everything else, from choice of coffee to choice of barnet, I am refreshingly, reassuringly, spookily clear that there is somehow nothing quite like top-level five-day cricket. Even though I appear to be one of the dwindling number(?) of folks who also really love One Day Internationals… Tests are it.

This of course means that following your own tribe takes a kind of precedence – though fascinatingly, we may not be clear that what we might call the National Machismo is the sole driver, or even the main driver, for this. There are delicious complexities and possibilities in play, many of which contradict the notion at the heart of the following, bold statement: that there is nothing wrong with patriotically bawling your support for your own country. (Further note: qualifications are assumed). But…

Let’s get back to Sophie Ecclestone, and her side, UP Warriorz – yep, I know – versus Delhi Capitals. In a genuinely fabulous Capitals innings, one of the most striking things for me was the utter dissolution of national rivalries. The truly brilliant English left-arm-spinner could not have looked happier or have gotten heart-warmingly cuddlier than when her Aussie or Indian team-mates had their moment. Truth is, they (UPW) were getting battered around by Lanning in particular, but wickets were celebrated with notable, secular joy. This, surely, is good?

A world-wide audience – admittedly one paying for the privilege – was witnessing apex-predator-level sport shot through with colour-blind, one-world generosity. With full-on sisterhood. In an environment characterised and generated more by filthy lucre than political or cultural enlightenment.

Sport, we know, can do this. But challenging as it may be to our sense of pride and self-determination, we cannot – I cannot – escape my responsibility to etch into the cosmic tablet that the richness of this extravagant, heritage-deficient gathering may even have been exacerbated (not undermined) by the mix of nationalities on each side. Circus or no circus. The ‘Enemy’ or antithesis of (say) County Cricket can therefore deliver something profound (too).

Do I need to add that this is not an argument against either international cricket or our own, much-loved County format? Of course I don’t. Because you get that things, in their wonder and their many colours, are complex.

Rising?

~ bowlingatvincent ~ Leave a comment

Facts are rare, in sport, but I’m happy enough to gamble on the following: that Australia are the best side in the world, by a distance. Still: after an age – the Age of Perry and Manning. But the lurch towards Big Animal status occurring right now in India and the sometimes convincing but mostly game chase from Ingerland offers hope of a meaningful tournament (as opposed to another procession) in South Africa. India are finally rising – or the profile, the lakh, the strengthening of commitments is – and England are arguably close-ish to Aussie strength in individual terms. What Australia appear to have is an implacable will, depth and a culture of winning that may again be at a higher level than either of the two leading contenders.

I fully expect Australia to win this competition, but it’s not only tribal allegiances that raise the notion that some other name on the trophy might be a good thing for the wider game. Today we had the opportunity – as did Australia – of sizing-up the only real threats to Southern Stars dominance, as England and India met, at St George’s Oval.

Here’s how it felt: I note that my sense of this win – a ‘five out of ten performance’ – is significantly less appreciative than a) Heather Knight’s and b) some other pundits. I stand by what I said live. This game was a little dispiriting, in the sense that it depressed aspirations for a change of personnel at the prize-giving.

India will surely brew a clutch of world-level players, within the next couple of years. They have to – not just to justify *that monster investment* but to claw their way past England and up to Australia’s higher stratum. In Thakur they may have the finest and most skilfull quick on the planet, but Sharma/Vastrakar/Pandey too frequently present as passable international bowlers rather than worldies. And batting-wise, if Mandhana and Verma don’t fire, up top, there is too often that sense of drift or diminishing dynamism through the order. The WPL – & the belated support and acknowledgement of the women’s game, from India/Indian corporations/Indian blokes at large – has changed things. Values. There should now be a full-on production-line of well-trained professional athletes, equipped to thrive in the New Era of heightened expectation and exposure. Aus, look out!


Wyatt dabs and fails. The excellent Thukar, a rising star of the world game – rising, that is, with India, who are surely finally gearing up to *actually challenge* Aus and England? – slaps one in on a decent length and the England opener, in trying to open the blade and ease to third (man?), misjudges. Barely gets a tickle and the keeper can dive to her right to pouch. 1 for 1 and the slow walk back.

The fabulous Capsey follows shortly, beaten rather too easily by another goodish ball from the same bowler. ‘Playing across’ as the Old Guys might say. Sciver-Brunt is in, at bugger all for 2. A fine start for Thakur and her team, undermined a tad by a shocking review for a ball missing leg stump by nine inches-plus. Whatever; India are over the parrot, at 14 for 2 after 3 overs. The ball is both swinging and seaming, too.

Vastrakar bowls the fourth. Good athlete. Dunkley slashes at an outswinger with some width and is maybe a little fortunate to hoist safely to third. Nat Sciver-Brunt treats the bowler with some contempt, gliding her over the leg slip area, middling her scoop.

Thakur – an obvious threat, here – will bowl her third consecutive over. She castles Dunkley. Again the ball does a bit but the batter looked even more unwieldy than usual, through the shot. (Weird, given she ultimately looked to play straight: she was reaching and feet were blocked). Real trouble as Knight joins, on 29 for 3. Thakur nearly does her, first-up, with a cute slower ball.

Deepti Sharma will bring her finger-spin… and her deliberately irritating habit of abandoning deliveries. But she has Knight concerned about a review, for a sweep which ultimately was judged to have flicked glove: minimally, it has to be said. N S-B has gone to 16 off 11 balls, as her partner grabs a boundary. The sense that this is the game may be premature but plainly these two batters really are worldies who may represent England’s best chance of building a genuinely competitive total.

Gayakwad brings some slow left arm. Knight crunches her for four, with a crisp reverse-sweep. There is help here for the bowlers but both batters are looking good. The skipper doubles up on the boundaries, clattering a poorish, shortish ball to leg. England are recovering – impressively so. 61 for 3 after 9.

More changes; Verma, drifting one wide outside off but N S-B, already committed to a heave to leg, does just that. Even easier pickings soon come: a full-bunger dispatched. 11 from the over. Pandey will hope to do better. As they reach the 50 partnership (and I am again about to put on the record that Heather Knight and Nat Sciver-Brunt are both bloody brilliant) Knight errs. Kinda from nowhere: caught and gone, mistiming to mid-off, the bowler almost embarrassed. Could be huge.

I may written more contentiously (and maybe just more words?) about Amy Jones than any other cricketer on the planet. She is potentially dynamic and fluent… but faaaaar toooo often she bombs out – and *the feeling i*s this happens most frequently when the pressure is on. She looks watchful (to say the least): can’t get Pandey away. England are 86 for 4 after 13.

India again fail the Realistic Review test, checking on a stumping that, yaknow, just wasn’t. (Seriously, they will need to work on this: have no doubt they will, or are). Games may depend upon it, and currently their enquiries are consistently wild.

100 up, with N S-B on 47 from 35 and Jones 10 off 12. Vastrakar bounces the latter. Jones responds by belting her a million miles for a shockingly emphatic six. (She can do this; always been a ver-ry pure hitter. More please, Amy).

The run rate is a touch below 7. These two will naturally look to take fifty-odd off the last five overs: if they do, the total will be towards 160. That would be a strongish return from where England were… and in an environment where the bowlers should go well, it should be competitive.

Deepti Sharma is bowling wide to off, in the 17th over. N S-B takes her half-century, before painfully offering catching practice to short third. (It was a slow-motion reverse, marginally miscued, that dollied to the fielder). Real shame – and potentially important, should Ecclestone fail to fire and the run rate drop away.

Jones, to her credit, has risen to the challenge. She is 29 off 20. Sharma gets clattered for two further sixes. Thakur – the best bowler we’ve seen, by a distance – will bowl out, with England approaching 150. Jones tries to invent something but can only dink tamely to the keeper.

K Sciver-Brunt is in with two balls remaining. She clumps straight to long on, giving Thakur her 5-fer. 147 for 7 as Glenn marches out to face. The final ball beats everyone for pace… but runs away for four byes. 151 the total: ‘something’, for sure, but less than England would have hoped for – the curse of wickets falling. Could be fabulous and fascinating, mind, with both Brunts and England’s strong spin attack likely to tease the Indian batting line-up.

The truly magnificent K B-S bangs ‘e m in hard, in the first over. 70 mph. Smriti Mandhana and Verma come through; four from it. Bell will bowl the second. Marginal, swinging wide – to leg. (She does have a ravishing inswinger). Nasser on comms is right, however, to note her relative inconsistency. The bowler, fearing further wides(?) stays too far out there and Verma can glide her away with some comfort – the first boundary. Neither bowler has quite found it: India are 11 for 0 after 2.

Brunt – not known for her quiet magnanimity – is bawling to the gods. She’s been biffed to the boundary four times, on her second visit. As always, Hussein calls it out: poor bowling strategy, never mind poor bowling. England have been short and often wide, on a day when the ball is working for them through the air and off the pitch. Rubbish thinking and/or execution. Bell returns, with reputation(s) to restore.

Tough chance, perhaps, but a beauty of a slower delivery from Bell is flying to Dean’s left. She dives but fails to claim. Late in the over, Verma offers again. This time K S-B can’t help but hold on. England barely deserve the breakthrough. Can it be the start of something? Dean will bowl the fifth.

Mandhana greets her with a straight on-drive; ambitious and aerial but safe. Four. Rodrigues has joined her skipper. Awful wide, from Dean. I reckon that’s five straight, mixed overs, from England. 36 for 1, India. Bell starts with another wide – to off. (Coach and bowling coach have just left the country).

Ecclestone. On the button and getting turn. (Alleyloo). Just the 3 from the over. Then Glenn. Dunkley fluffs a chance, mid-over, then Dean slaps it back from the boundary – the Ugly and the Good. Mandhana is 30, Rodrigues ambling on 7; India 50 for 1 after 8. However, almost imperceptibly, the run rate is drifting towards England. 95 needed off 66 balls. And you feel there will be wickets. (*Fatal).

Glenn will bowl the 10th. She gets a strangely ‘regulation’ wicket, as Rodrigues – experienced international and something of a short-format specialist – bunts straight to Kath S-B at long on. Momentum-shift? Maybe not, when we consider that the incoming bat is Harmanpreet Kaur. This is the Knight/N S-B partnership-equivalent: two goddesses. 62 for 2 at the halfway point.

MOMENT. Kaur slashes rather lazily at Ecclestone, given the spin available and evident, and lifts it exactly where Capsey is loitering – in the off-side ring. The England starlet almost does the horlicks horror-thing… but no. Gone. Presenting us with a likelihood, now, that England, who have almost been rubbish, may win this. Enter Natalie Sciver-Brunt.

That sense is both reinforced and contradicted, when two fielding errors – the latter a howler by Capsey – offer runs. 75 for 3, after 12. Reminder; target 152.

Smriti M creams one from Dean through mid-off. Four. Then goes over the same area. Good over for India. Glenn returns and starts again with a beaut, to pin Richa back in her crease. Three great balls in succession; something of a rarity in the innings. Then Brunt senior – if I may call her that? -pulls off an outstanding diving stop at the rope. Better competitive energy from all parties.

Ecclestone. Ragging it, by her standards. Draws an error but the ball lands safe. But rain. More miscues… but again Mandhana clears the circle. 15 done and India are 93 for 3. Need to go big quickly.

Conditions may be a factor, now. Dean may have misjudged the flight of a half-chance but hard to tell. No arguments with the blow that takes Mandhana to a fine fifty, though. Middles and nearly claims the six. But next ball, she’s gone. Glenn the bowler, N S-B the fielder catching in front of her chest. HUGE. 105 FOR 4. Two a ball needed, with Deepti joining.

Nat Sciver-Brunt beats her all ends up, twice, before she finally manages to cuff away to third. Good, skilfull over from the bowler. Can Bell follow and reciprocate?

She bowls an extravagant (but solid) back-of-the-hand delivery which Deepti clumps to off, for two. Then another peach which draws an airshot. Richa *really collects* one over long-on: it’s a decent ball which goes for six. Shit happens. Good over, from Bell. 118 for 4, meaning 32 need from 12. Ecclestone.

Deepti is LBW, but not. Clearly struck glove/bat. Ecclestone knew and the umpire has to accept her error. India have to scramble and they are. Racing in vain for two, Deepti Sharma is well short. Notably smart work in the field, from N S-B. She is amongst the best at everything she does. It’s maybe only now that England look organised and proficient. Ecclestone was miserly and threatening. Bell did well, at the death. Now India need 31 from the last over, which will be bowled by K S-B.

She starts with an awful, wide full-toss. Then one which is worse… and a no-ball, for height. Extraordinary. Richa Gosh has 38 and has the ‘all donations kindly received’ sign out. But she can only club the next for one. So 20 off 3 needed. Then, incredibly, 14 from 2, as K S-B plops one right in the slot and is punished for six runs. The bowler is angry and somewhat humiliated but moments later England are home, winning by 11 runs.

An oddity. They’ve been somewhere between lousy and mixed: Australia might even be giggling. Only Natalie Sciver-Brunt and Amy Jones spring to mind as folks who can be satisfied with their contributions. (O-kaaay, and Ecclestone). Yup, conditions were helpful to the bowling attacks, but Wyatt, Dunkley and Capsey were faaar too easily undone. And too much of the bowling was slack or ill-thought-out. A five out of ten performance, from England. Fielding was ordinary. Batting only convincing when Knight and Nat S-B found a rhythm and began to dictate. And yet the league table says…

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.

No bullets.

~ bowlingatvincent ~ Leave a comment

Some factoids and feelings about Deangate/Deeptigate/Sharmagate – whatever.

Firstly, I’m bored by it and bored by the *suggestions* and *implications* of this and that… and the bellowing in and out of pomp and prejudice and smart-arsery. Going to deliberately fail to name as many external protagonists as possible so as to try to steer a course towards level-headedness; coz that finger-pointing – nah. Those ‘personality tweets’ – nah.

In no particular order, then. Would bullet-point for brevity (and to suggest my increasing irritation at the whole circus) if I could see how the **** to do that on this wordpress editor thingy. Imagine bullet-points between these chunks of opinion and grief.

Heather Knight and Deepti Sharma were magnificent, together, when Western Storm won the KSL in a brilliant finale some years ago. They nicked it, together. I was there. It was great.

Almost painfully long twitter thread seems to be pret-ty conclusive about Charlie Dean repeatedly leaving her crease early.

Law junkies, though? That whole anorak thing. Discuss?

Deepti’s Sharma’s predilection for fake bowling – i.e. sauntering up but then abandoning, as though there was some issue with her run-up – is irrelevant to the actual run out in question, but is plainly about getting in the heads of the batters. In short, she winds the oppo’s up, a good deal, deliberately. This may be relevant in terms of relationships, not rules (or laws), but historical shithousery, however it may offend opponents and onlookers, plays no part in the adjudication of this single incident. Ideally.

As an old-school sports-bloke I’m here to tell you both that the nature of the universe is changed, such that the Spirit of Cricket is transparently problematic to the point of being obsolete and that sport does and should have what we might call a moral dimension. (Eeeek!) There is sporting behaviour; it can make things better; it just doesn’t need to be inextricably associated with daft blazers and ‘good families’.

We can’t go on calling what Sharma did ‘against the S of C’, not because it doesn’t possibly transgress something, but because we have to find a better, less loaded phrase. *That one*, unfortunately, smacks of weird, longtime English Exceptionalism: the kind of hand-me-down ‘humility’ that has largely (and let’s be honest, deliberately) kept people of colour and low income out of the game, or out of its spheres of influence.

Zoom on and in: Mankads are perfectly legit under the laws – laws which were recently tweaked (and improved, in fact), to try to demilitarise and indeed demystify some of the harrumphing and counter-blasting around those Moral Issues. No warnings are required. Batters know when they have to stay until. Bowlers know when they are entitled to strike back at the stumps.

On this occasion, Deepti’s (likely) intention to never let go of that ball (and therefore to run out the batter) is a complexity for some – I get that. Argue about the ‘fakeness’ of this moment but be clear that Mankads are legit, generally, if the batter has departed before the proscribed instant.

And yet I sympathise with the idea that it’s somehow a shame that Mankads exist. Ideally and in the abstract, I’m thinking can’t we just warn people and then those batters stop? The umpire ‘have a word?’ Then if the batter goes early she/he/they are fair game. If they transgress that notice, then bye, no issues. But money and telly and life being more complicated make this more complicated. Shame.

Some folks think that regret’s feeble and folksy in itself. That the batter has obviously been cheating so wtf?!? Why burden the Innocent Bowler Playing Within the Rules/Laws with all our post-imperialist angst? (If that’s what it is?) They have a point. It really may be the batter that’s cheating. It may be simple. It’s why the rules were sharpened.

A classic Twitter Rage has stirred. We the Digital Ones are prone to misinterpretation and even bile. FWIW I’m anti-imperialist twitter fiend feeling bit down about all this. My own brand of hurt isn’t about tradition, or one so patently heaving with assumptions. I hope for people to respect the sport as well as the rules: but hey, half of you think that reeks of another age. I would have publicly warned Dean, if I was Sharma – drawn the umpire’s attention to it and maybe the camera’s. Then if she shifts early again, I run her out. We’ll never know but I think the England player would’ve stayed put.

Final thought is about those relationships. I do regret (at 17.23, GMT, on Sep 26th) that wider foulness might erupt – by that I mean beyond the playing camps – as it seems that Knight and Sharma/Kaur move towards accusations of outright untruths. That level of bitterness ain’t good. Deep breath. Let’s consider. And move on.

Really looking.

~ bowlingatvincent ~ Leave a comment

Rather wonderfully, sport has that capacity to turn against expectation. Yesterday was a case in point. England surely stronger than their opponents; the day surely a batting day? Not so. Perhaps absences (Knight, Sciver) were always going to be ‘big in the game?’ Perhaps the potential for a leadership vacuum, in the England camp, was more of a threat than we thought? Or maybe the pitch simply played disproportionately extravagant tricks with the heads of the home batters? In any event, India cruised home surprisingly easily.

Here’s how it felt live:

Hove, in the sunshine. About 18 degrees, I reckon. India are warming up in front, the nearest of them – Verma, Kaur – no more than about ten yards away. It’s 10.22: it’s fielding.

I have baggage to declare, having ‘called out’ their work in the field more than once.

I really like watching players get ready. Despite being a laughably low-level coach, I am watchful around this stuff – never know what you might learn about a) drills and b) personalities/relationships. What is striking me now (and it’s not major, but I am aware of it) is that this feels a little undercooked. A notch down from the high intensity that (one might argue) this side, in this moment, might need or deserve.

India have been poor, too often, at catching, gathering and moving urgently around the gaff. They are notably behind England, obviously behind England, in the field. More importantly, arguably, they have opened themselves up to the accusation that they look unprofessional in this department. So I am really looking. India have won the toss and chosen to bowl first.

Tannoy/screen announce the sides. England’s feels full of batting. Beaumont and Lamb, Dunkley, Capsey, Wyatt, Jones, Davidson-Richards, Ecclestone, Dean, Cross, Wong. The strip is unknowable (to me) but the day looks ripe for stroke-play. The Indian side may be stronger in this format than the IT20s: is it madness that I think their best batters bat better longer – Mandhana and Kaur the chief candidates?

Blimey it’s early to be into *fatal* hunches. Would love to see Capsey get a lorryload and Wyatt find that dashing groove for an hour or two, not four overs.

Dean is giving Lamb a nice wee neck massage. And now Beaumont.10.53. Out they come. Another ‘ceremony’ and another minute’s silence. Immaculate.

The extraordinary Goswami will open the bowling. In that birdlike slow-mo she goes in and beats Lamb. Despite ver-ry limited oomph in the run-up, the bowler is finding 67mph. Quickish arm and lots of snap. Beaumont plays and misses, too. Just the one from the over.

Meghna I know little about but she’s in, next. Has a genuine away-swinger and gets bounce. Bowls two attempted yorkers at Lamb, the second of which gets bunted through midwicket for the game’s first boundary. But she’s getting some movement through the air, maybe more than we might have expected, given the bright sunshine flashing around the ground. Beaumont mistimes against her but Lamb puts away a legside gift. We move on to 14 for 0 after 4.

There have, in truth, been a couple of minor handling errors in the circle. Conditions are perfect and the ball surely perfectly dry.

Goswami is producing a disciplined spell without looking immediately threatening. High hand, good off-stump line. Might she produce as the sense of mild squeeze tightens? The work in the circle may need to improve. 16 for 0 after 6 – so quiet. Beaumont asks Umpire Redfern to remove Meghna’s watch, which is plainly reflecting and distracting. Straight in the pocket, no messing or protest from the bowler.

A rare, legside wide from Goswami but this remains cat-and-mousey, with Beaumont and Lamb looking patient.

The breakthrough comes. Lamb looks surprised by a shorter, quicker one from Meghna. She swishes instinctively, as though dismissing a particularly irritating fly. Gets a thin edge behind; gone for 12. Dunkley joins us. Will be really interesting to see how, if at all, she adapts her typically relentless aggression. England are 21 for 1 as we reach 8 overs completed. The visitors ahead, then.

It gets better for India. Goswami pins Beaumont on her crease. Ball may have been missing but the opener has to walk, after one of her more forgettable contributions. 21 for 2 as the in-form Capsey strides out. More cloud-cover.

Two brand-new batters in: big period in the game upcoming. Bowlers will need to be rotated out very soon. The first committed ripple of applause for some time, from the locals, as Dunkley cuts Meghna behind point: four.

Rajeshwari Gayakwad will bowl some left arm slow. Flighty, coming round. She’s bowling about 46mph but (lols?) she gets called for a front-foot no-ball. Dunkley can’t biff the free-hit past the fielder. Whoa: #lifesrichwotnots. Appeal and review for lbw the very next ball. Takes a lo-ong time but the original decision – not out – ultimately upheld. *Tiny* touch of bat; otherwise plum. Now Vastrakar.

Capsey smooooothes her beautifully through extra, for four stylish and much-needed runs. These two will know they need to rebuild and they have the talent to do it. A second boundary comes, a smidge straighter, more upright: ten from the over and the sense that England will counter, now. Dunkley reinforces that view by charging, ambitiously at Gayakwad and hoisting her straight. Doesn’t get everything but gets enough; four; safe. 43 for 2 after 13. Drinks.

Sneh Rana is in, and Dunkley flips her over her shoulder, then repeats to bring up the England 50. Words may have been said, during the break, about the run-rate, which remains below 4. Meaning the spinners may be tested, here. Rana concedes 8 but Gayakwad only 3. 54 for 2 after 15.

Decent crowd in – good to see. Hove is more of a dish than a bowl, making light feel somehow more available. It’s practically a seaside venue – so flat – with lots of white surfaces, lots of glass. But let’s talk fielding.

Capsey booms Rana out over extra and the fielder inexplicably makes no meaningful attempt to dive, at the boundary edge. Next ball the same batter clips wristily towards midwicket, where Kaur launches, stretches and clutches, one-handed. Just a wee bit loose, from Capsey: some level of trouble, for England, at 64 for 3. Wyatt.

Sharma is in her second over, finding some turn. Wyatt looks brisk and determined; she plinks an early four. Having started this piece noting England’s batting depth, the current underachievement need not be terminal but somebody needs to get a move on, now, for the home side. Dunkley has a relatively ordinary 24 from 39 as we get through 20 overs: 72 for 3 on the board. Conditions imply a par nearer 300 than 200.

‘Let off’ for Dunkley. Weirdly, she takes a longish time to review an l.b. decision. Gayakwad’s delivery is probably hitting – hence Redfern’s raised finger – but the ball struck glove on the way through. Not out. This does nothing to disrupt the relative ascendancy of the visitors, mind. With Deol now mixing up leggies and offies, and the run rate remaining below 4, Keightley and co will be ‘Concerned of Hove’, I imagine.

Goswami has changed ends. The sun has re-booted. India are going well. Deol is loopy (as it were) and then full and wide. Dunkley plays straight… to the fielder in the ring. Disappointing. At the halfway point (if that’s a thing?) England are wilting, under some pressure, at 91 for 4. Run rate is 3.64 per over.

Let’s talk about Amy Jones. (Been at this before – to the extent that I fear it may sound personal. It’s not personal).

Jones is a fine keeper and a very watchable ball-striker, when she gets going. I remember clearly noting her fluency and dynamism, with the bat, when she first came into the England side. She hits beautifully, or can. Today we see the other side. The side that is disappointing. The side we see too often when there’s pressure in the game. Jones seems to feature in most of England’s lows or collapses. When the side need someone to stand up, she tends to fail.

She may be a tad unlucky, today, getting a ball that’s so slow it dies in the pitch and limps at her leg stump. But Jones is in a mess, jumping somewhere, as though startled by a firecracker. This was no firecracker: instead it was a tame, loose delivery which finds lower pad and stumps. Bowled Gayakwad. For me, Amy Jones has been playing her way out of this side for maybe eighteen months. Seems barely credible that (apparently) no real contenders to replace her (as keeper-batter) are waiting in the wings.

Wyatt, at least, has looked relatively fluent. Unable to dominate, but able to ‘go on’ to a meaningful score. She is out just shy of fifty, looking to sweep Sharma – a ball that went straight on.

In the circumstances (her side under the pump) we might question the shot selection: a straight bat removes any risk and may offer an easy run or two down the ground. However, Wyatt, being the chief contributor to the innings, is relatively in the clear ‘guilt’-wise, on this occasion.

Davidson-Richardson and Wyatt had rebuilt reasonably well together but after 36 overs, with Ecclestone having joined, England are in manifest strife at 141 for 6. Big Picture is India have been goodish rather than exceptional. The pitch is offering a little to the bowlers but is by no means unplayable. Five or six runs an over feels par for the conditions – no matter what happens when England have a bowl.

Ecclestone is no classicist with the wood but she has grit and power. As does her characteristically beaming partner. They raise it. 50 come from 57 balls and finally – finally – they get beyond 4 an over. But another one dies a little in the strip… and strikes Ecclestone in front: Sharma the bowler. Gone, for a creditable 31.

Dean is in and Davidson-Richards, now on 29, faces a review for a run-out. No dramas – she made her ground. 179 for 7, with 43 gone. Now the set batter must calculate or let it flow.

The fella Flynn, on commentary, makes another interesting point, referring to Goswami’s relatively early completion of her ten overs. The Indian Icon will not be bowling at the death. England, meanwhile, surely need boundaries?

D-R can really hit but Dean is glancing Gayakwad skilfully to third man. Four. Could be that Davidson-Richards has been instructed to see this out – her continuing relative restraint might support that theory. (She has 38, now, from 51). Sharma will bowl the 47th. The 200 is up: I did not foresee a low-scoring affair at 10.30 am this morning but now have to accept the possibility that batting has been and will continue to be trickier than the environment suggested.

Goswami lacks the agility to get to a chance, as Dean paddles around behind. (Profoundly catchable). Davidson-Richards finally breaks out, to smash Sharma at cow corner. The ball lands inches short of the first 6 of the innings. The following delivery skittles narrowly past everything, again dying en route. D-R’s 50 comes up in the last over but then she faces a review for a stumping, off Meghna. Not out.

We close on 227 for 7, with Dean undefeated on 24 and her partner on 50. Mixed feelings: India must be satisfied, England will fancy themselves to ‘knock a few over’ on a used pitch. I’m torn between the notion that England are better and the likelihood that their score will prove to be an underachievement.

The reply.

Wong. Does feel like somebody who can make things happen. She runs in about 15 mph quicker than Goswami did but generates about the same pace; touch more, perhaps. Expectation but no drama.

We don’t have to wait long. Further evidence for the Tricky Pitch Theory as the aesthetically pleasing blur that is Kate Cross races in… and Verma miscues. It’s more a timing issue – meaning the ball stuck? – than an edge but Dean doesn’t care, pocketing a dolly at short midwicket. Unsettling, for the Indian bench.

Wong is laughing – no, really – because the ball, despite being slapped in there hard, is keeping scarily low. Yastika, surely horrified, unzipped but making no contact. Mandhana may be either ‘playing her natural game’ or thinking a charge might be better than a grind. She hits consecutive boundaries. Yastika is facing Wong and swishing at a leg-side bouncer. It’s not a gimme but Jones, belatedly diving to her right, should take it. 29 for 1 after 5, India.

Jones comes up, now, to Cross. Half-appeal. Missing. It’s still a beautiful day, out there. Ecclestone – vice-captain – is having a long word with Wong, at her mark. Frustratingly, the young strike bowler bowls two wides in the over. Yastika picks up a shorter one with some conviction: four. 41 for 1 after 7.

Jones reviews as Cross pins Yastika but was always pitching outside leg. Poor call, perhaps a sign that England are forcing – they’re certainly behind in the game. Both batters are striking with some confidence; as Mandhana pulls Davidson-Richards square, they’re both into their twenties. 50 up, for India, in the 9th, with ten boundaries already.

Another change as Dean looks to drag this back towards England. She’s unlucky to draw an inside edge that can only wriggle away to fine leg. Further slippage as Wong misjudges on the rope (six) then Yastika tickles fine again – a ball from D-R that invited that option. Dangerous times for the home side. Yastika powers Dean through extra cover for yet another boundary and India are threatening to romp away with this. 75 for 1 after 12.

Oof. Wong is attacking a skier, off a leading edge. She can’t get there. Again the pitch may have played a part; again India proceed. Drinks. Stiff ones, for England?

We finally see Ecclestone in the 17th over. Arguably several overs too late, given the perceptible lack of threat. 50 up, for Yastika but from nowhere, Dean gets through her. Bowled. 99 for 2. The start of something?

The light is brilliant, the crowd may have stirred. Ecclestone has a slip in there. It’s for Kaur, who has joined Mandhana. Daggers on comms understandably noting that Ecclestone will likely bowl ten miles an hour faster than the opposition spinners. May mean nothing: may be important.

A fine 50, for Mandhana, skipping down to Dean. Hoisted with no little exuberance, over mid-off. Emma Lamb will have a bowl. Tidy enough, but Kaur in particular has the luxury of playing her way in here: India don’t need to keep pressing. Lamb may benefit from that in the short term… but yaknow, look out.

More cloud, at half past four. Not a threat but looks cooler; air feels different. Ecclestone continues.

25 overs done. India have two worldies at the crease and 128 on the board; just the two wickets down. Little sign that England are able to disrupt the visitor’s progress, worryingly, for everyone in their camp. The Indians in the crowd are enjoying. When Wong (who in some senses is a fabulous athlete but who may not be a great ground-fielder) fails to gather at the rope, the enjoyment is both palpable and a little cruel.

Talk in the Media Centre that Amy Jones (third choice and possibly reluctant captain) maybe lacks the personality and instinct to break this thing up. Can’t speak to her nature, to be honest, but this has drifted. In other news, Katie George – doing stints on comms – has just legged it out of the ground and down the road to get a round of Proper Coffees in. What a star!

Cross is really racing in and slamming it, but the ball is still middled, in front of square. Like the bowler, Beaumont’s body language is smack on; gathers smartly and lashes it in. Unfortunately, that standard isn’t matched by a subsequent, poor delivery and by Capsey’s mix-up in the deep. Cross drifted to leg and the fielder made a hash of the dive/gather. At drinks on 33 overs, India are absolutely cruising at 175 for 2.

Wong is back from in front of us – at the Sea End. For such a force of nature, she has been as influential – i.e. ‘absent’ as the rest. Mandhana smites her for six, magnificently, for the Shot of the Day. Kaur follows suit, opening her shoulders in style to drill Dean for four more. Suddenly, the visitors need just 33 from 84 balls. (Extrapolate that out and a fifty over total for the pitch of about 270 presents itself: seems about right).

Cross does brilliantly to grab a high bouncer – called wide – then that allegedly Tricky Pitch turns protagonist again: possibly. Smriti Mandhana is playing across and mistiming. (Did Cross take pace off, a touch?) The leading edge loops highish over the bowler’s end and is easily taken by Davidson-Richards. Deol comes in and promptly nearly engineers a Keystones Kops run-out – but no. Palpitations but all good.

Dean has bowled pretty well. In her final over Deol sweeps her straight towards Wong but the fielder lacks the sharpness required: it’s a chance. That feels symptomatic of England’s performance – in short, not good enough. Six out of ten. India have been eight.

Ecclestone is still battling; challenging. Has an appeal; applies some pressure; creates a spike, at least, in drama and possibility. Harmanpreet Kaur sees it out and gets to 50. Cross finds 72 mph, to Deol. It’s still a lovely afternoon.

As we roll towards inevitable victory for Kaur’s side, questions. Why the lack of dynamism and general lack of purpose, from England? Why no Ecclestone until this was almost over? Why didn’t Capsey bowl… and everything get really mixed-up, during the Indian procession with the willow? The answer, my friends, is probably due to changes. Captains and coaches and line-ups. Plus the pitch (a bit) and the fielding (a bit). This England side never looked like their First XI. No wonder we saw a lump of stuff closer to the Mildly Unsatisfactory category than the Unmitigated Success Zone.

But this is ungenerous to India, who have cruised it. They were goodish and consistent with the ball and their fielding was an improvement on recent (and indeed long-term) form. Then captain Kaur followed the national icon that is Smriti Mandhana in looking frankly untroubled, as she picked off the bowling in her own time.

The last blow is a refreshingly emphatic one, as Kaur heaves Davidson-Richards beyond Beaumont and beyond the rope, to finish this. A 7 wicket win – 233 for 3, India. England were ordinary; directionless.