news

Let’s party.

~ bowlingatvincent ~ Leave a comment

Remarkable in terms of the record and remarkable because of how it felt. Wiegman and England.

The manager (or is it coach?) *really must* have something extraordinary going on. We can only guess that it oozes out from that intellectual calm. And maybe that her huddles are truly and genuinely inspirational.

This is not to say that the woman from The Hague can’t plan, or juggle, or read the game. Surely only Emma Hayes is at Wiegman level in terms of strategy and tactical awarenesses? But where Hayes has a physical presence, Ar Sarina has that quaker-like calm.

She’s needed it. Because (here’s where it gets weird) not only is there an argument that her team repeatedly scraped through this thing but also that very few of them played anywhere near their capacity. Might sound ungenerous or even churlish but that rarest of things the Dispassionate View might see things thataway. Look; if it could be remotely possible to judge (and by this I mean set aside the excitement and the drama and *really judge*) then who gets an 8/10, say, over the tournament?

Before you people freak out at the essential negativity here let me offer a friendly biff around the bonce. I get this… and I get that – duh – if Ingerland really underperformed, then clearly they can get to a frightening level. One where we really might dispassionately talk of dynasties. They won here – wow! Let’s party! – without generating phases of play; without relentlessly closing down; without being all that good. It was a remarkable case (to use a Proper English phrase) of muddling through.

Hampton. Hampton was consistently good. The farces around penalties foisted her into another space, where palpitations and ardent, myopic tribalism inevitably cast her as hero and legend. She made some goodish penalty saves… but most of us would have saved them. No matter: for her general, allround goalkeeping play, she gets an 8. Excellent temperament. Strikes the ball well and often beautifully. HH – who let’s remember turned the issue of the Earps-void or Earps-omission into a non-issue – is now unarguably in the top two or three keepers on the planet. She played to her level consistently. I’m not sure anyone else did.

Walsh is often quiet – it’s just the way she plays – but she was relatively uninfluential. Stanway was mixed. Williamson has sublime composure and head-up passing quality but apart from an accomplished display in the final, the captain was decent rather than exceptional. Toone was in and out, bits and pieces, as she has been for eighteen months. Mead likewise. Hemp had a strongish final but was disappointing through the tournament. Carter looked what she is: honest, strong but limited. Greenwood played below her best – her best being ver-ry good, both in defence and going forward. Less arrowed passes, less brilliant dead balls.

James and Bronze have both been crocked. Bronze still managed to be a key figure, despite being vulnerable last night. Her courage may hoist her rating above 7; I’ll leave that to you. James, apart from that thrilling early goal, was nowhere near her beguiling best – but crocked.

I’m a huge fan of Russo, who (as previously noted) may have the best engine in world football. Outside the box she’s fabulous. Can hold and turn and run like hell. Her energy and sheer willingness are sensational. She got a good solid header in to equalise Spain’s lovely (but poorly-defended) opener but *did miss* opportunities in the earlier rounds and is not, in my view a great finisher generally. Wiegman may, however, put Russo’s name down on the team-mate before anybody else’s and I would have no argument. She has class… and she has that engine.

I too must dash. Let the other scribes do the ‘definitive’ stories and the marks out of ten. I’ve a mum with dementia in front of me and no time to unscramble the scramble.

England won two on the bounce – incredible. Penalties again, entirely credibly but also veering towards another mess. But no. Charles and somebody else and then Kelly stood up. The latter loves the theatre of this and embodies it. A mischievous prance at the ball and this time a fluent, fabulous connection. Job done and let’s party.

Go on, skip.

~ bowlingatvincent ~ Leave a comment

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

*I jest! I JEST!!

What the hell?

~ bowlingatvincent ~ Leave a comment

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Positives.

~ bowlingatvincent ~ Leave a comment

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Pic from CRICinfo.

The Learnings.

~ bowlingatvincent ~ Leave a comment

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Striking out for excellence.

~ bowlingatvincent ~ Leave a comment

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

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

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

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

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

It was Glenn who showed the way.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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