Nat Sciver-Brunt

Go on, skip.

~ bowlingatvincent ~ Leave a comment

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

*I jest! I JEST!!

Striking out for excellence.

~ bowlingatvincent ~ Leave a comment

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

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

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

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

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

It was Glenn who showed the way.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Development – good and bad.

~ bowlingatvincent ~ Leave a comment

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

Cricket. England blokes. Pakistan.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

England Women.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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…