2016 Diary

A Ramble on Women's Cricket
 - with diversions -

This diary will be updated erratically throughout the year.

Previous Page (And an Apology to Suzie Bates)

One Out of Two..

The England captain's favourite singer once sang a number - 'two out of three ain't bad'. Today's game was more like one out of two. If you turn on your TV to watch two of the top four teams in women's cricket you expect runs and you expect an exciting game. Well I guess one out of two ain't bad either, and, let's face it, it was the one that really matters. I typed only a few days ago that low scoring games can hold as much, if not more, tension and excitement than the high scoring ones, and these two teams today seemed to set out to prove my point.

They also managed to illustrate, about half way through England's innings, one of the truisms of cricket  that the game can change its entire character very swiftly. What appeared to be an England stroll to the finish line after their batting power-play performance became a fearful tussle to make it over that line. You will have read a number of match reports by now, or even watched the match for yourself so, once again, in my somewhat eccentric style, here are a few jottings from my notebook.

• Indian openers are trying to hit the ball too hard or not at all. Timing is therefore simply not there and the ball is going nowhere, although Mandhana recovers to play a superb drive...

• Danni Wyatt's dropped catch, one a commentator said he would have put his house on her taking, was looking directly into the sun. Unless you've tried to catch a white ball coming out of that big yellow ball in the sky, don't be too critical. That's not to say I wouldn't have made a similar bet, Wyatt being among the best one or two outfielders in the world.

• A commentator remarked "what's she appealing for?". We know what he meant "How does she think she's out?" They are not the same thing. It is worth pointing out something I know I have done before, and that is that the fielding side do not appeal for any particular means of dismissal. If the ball should nick the pad, the keeper appeals thinking the batsman (yes - I have to tell those commentators once again they are batsmen, not batswomen) has nicked it, the umpire is still obliged, whatever the keeper may think, to give the batsman (that word again) out lbw if he considers she is. You appeal only as if you were saying "is she out?" The method of that dismissal is a matter for the umpires alone to decide - not you who are doing the shouting. We accept it as commentator's shorthand, but it's worth bearing in mind it is actually inaccurate. I remember well a bowler from long ago who always raised a smile by appealing in the form "How was she?" Not something umpires heard very often in those days.

• The umpires failed to review something which was plainly a dismissal. Lazy and unnecessary that, as TV is to hand. Umpiring standards are again in the spotlight when it should be the players. They also missed an lbw almost as dead as that famous Rolton example in the 2005 World Cup final. Goswami was the unfortunate bowler. It's a well known mantra around the boundary that you tend to notice a keeper only when she makes a mistake.  Ideally you shouldn't notice umpires either.

• Katherine Brunt's catch to get rid of Shikha Pandey was a fine effort involving covering a lot of ground before the dive.

• Ebony Rainford-Brent made a remark that singles could be the key to this game. While definitively a truism in a low scoring game, I feel it could often be applied to games where runs flowed more freely too. Hence, I guess, this fixation on dot balls.

• As it became obvious that both teams were struggling with the slow pitch and low bounce I found myself becoming more puzzled. Firstly this is India's back yard. Surely they should be familiar with conditions like this. Do not forget either that much women's cricket in England, early in the season at any rate, also tends to be played on slow, low pitches. It can be very frustrating for batsmen but both sides really should be well versed in how to play on tracks like this.

• India's ring fielders were too deep at the beginning of England's innings. This did improve as the prospects of victory suddenly loomed part way through.

• I appreciated Alan Wilkins notes on commentary about the players. While known to me, and I suspect to anyone reading this, the wider TV audience have no such history or current knowledge to fall back on.

• It was very sporting of Kaur not to run Sarah Taylor out while backing up. That is not to say I approve of her actions, of either player in fact. When you bat you calculate the risk of every ball you hit and the same should apply to backing up. If you want to leave your crease early you take a calculated risk about the timing and whether the bowler will notice. The bowler should have no more qualms about dismissing you by this method than taking out your middle stump. Would you suggest that if your middle stump goes flying you should be allowed to re-instate it and have another go? Women's cricket at this level is said to be professional. If that's true (and it's an arguable statement) then behave like a pro and respect the Laws of the game and don't complain if you're dismissed this way. You took the chance and it didn't come off. A recent article on this mode of dismissal.

• I wondered about my "champagne moment" in this match. My first thoughts were for Katherine Brunt's fine catch and later for Verma's dismissing the England captain which was noteworthy for the quick realisation of an awkward situation, having to avoid the batsman and take a flying leap down the wicket. I think maybe Verma has the edge.

• And for Player of the Match? There's no doubt Heather knight was the pick of the England players on the day, but Ekta Bisht's 4-15 and a superb run-out of Danni Wyatt would have earned the accolade from me. There is a tendency to always (or nearly always) present this trophy to someone on the winning side. I have yet to meet anyone who can give me a reasonable explanation of why this is so in a match where a player in a losing cause has out-performed any in the winning group. You can argue fairly about who should receive it, but seems to me to have no logic whatever that the default position is that it has to go to the winning team...

• Danni Hazell is having to return home. Losing one of the top slow bowlers in the world is not good news for England but it could also have presented an opportunity. The time must surely be approaching when new faces have to be introduced to this squad and, while I won't name her, there is a newcomer who I feel would have been worth a try.

• Which reminds me - I have to ask the question "where's Amy Jones and Georgia Elwiss?". Neither have performed badly in recent times and indeed Elwiss provided one of the best innings in England's recent tour to South Africa. Hopefully they will get a game before this round-robin series is out.

Match Report from the BBC

Voices on Twitter are saying that exciting games do not make up for 'dud' pitches. I would agree but only up to a point. I have seen some very unexciting games on fine pitches and think I would choose today's game in preference. I do agree, however it would be better to see an exciting game on a good pitch which gave better balance between bat and ball, but, as I've hinted above, the excitement is surely a major part of what we all watch sport for. There's nothing more boring than watching one team annihilate another.

They Came to Compete

Half way through the match Sri Lanka must have felt today that they had a chance. It wasn't to be as the Australian top order finally found some form. That's not to say that the SL side should be unhappy with half the match at any rate. As one of the commentators put it "they didn't come to play, they came to compete!" That, I felt, summed it up rather well.

So here's the content's of my notebook.

• To win the toss and bat against the world's number one side showed Sri Lanka's intent even before they stepped on the pitch.

• SL seem to have grasped the mantra my school coach used to ram into me (or at least one of the several) and that is "always look for 4 or 1". The trick that many sides forget are not the boundaries but the 1s. Here SL batted particularly well and generally didn't miss out on either the mis-fields or the over-throws.

• Australia indeed seemed to almost panic in their fielding from time to time. After a mistake or two, instead of pulling it together, seemed to get more and more tense.

• It might have been Alyssa Healy's 26th birthday but I hope the team have a decent present for her this evening, as the way some of the throws came in, it certainly wasn't on the pitch. She seemed up to the challenge however.

• I did notice one instance of the bowler crossing in front of the backing up batsman when there was really no justification for moving in that direction - not something I like to see.

• SL's 2nd wicket partnership of 75 from 61 balls is the highest for that team in IT20s for any wicket. Well done to Atapattu and Manodara not to be overawed by the opposition.

• Sharp stumping by Healy to get rid of Sanjeewani.

• I have written "is it the aggressive nature of SL's batting that have forced the fumbles and poor throwing to the keeper?"

• One commentator made a remark about a 'send-off' following a run-out which hardly seemed within the spirit of cricket. There was no indication on screen of what kind of send off the batsman had had, but the tone of the remark suggested approval.

• I am not sure there's a team in this tournament that couldn't learn from the way SL have run between the wickets. If you check the scorecard there was only one run out which wasn't in the last fast-and-furious period.

• SL must try and keep as cool fielding as they were batting. Fumbles may have been brought on by the situation. I do hope so and that's not SL's usual standard. I see them so rarely I simply wouldn't know, but I doubt it.

• The difference in Australia v Sri Lanka's batting standard became rather obvious later, which is in no way to criticise Sri Lanka's innings.

• At one point someone in the commentary box remarked, as Meg Lanning's under-edge went off to the 3rd man boundary, "she'll be happy with that". Well I hope not. A middle of the bat shot anywhere around the ground fine, but an under edge is a warning something has gone wrong and I suspect Lanning was well aware of that in spite of the grin. That said rather more like "I've got away with one".

• Villani the aggressor, Lanning the artist - perfect combination.

In view of the fact that if England lose to Pakistan NRR would probably let England through to the semis, it's worth considering where games are played. If some in this competition are played on 'easier' pitches for the batsmen while others are played on tracks where your ankles would be in some danger if the ball didn't come off quite so slowly, how does that affect the relative NRRs of different teams condemned to play at different venues from each other? I am no mathematician but this surely should be yet another nail in the coffin of one of the crazier ideas in cricket.

England v West Indies

With only radio commentary to guide me, and unable to clap my own eyeball on the play, it is perhaps wrong of me to draw too many conclusions, but I did note the references once again to poor umpiring. For such an important tournament in the calendar, I find this completely inexplicable. It has taken much of the gloss of a game decided on the very last ball. If you have the top players it is surely only right that you have the top umpires too.

 England appeared to do their best to lose their 100% record so far and one is always left wondering how different the game might have been - an easy win or a devastating loss - if people of the standard of Taufel were standing. It not a thought that should be passing through my mind.

Is this for Real?

I heard the other day of a lass during practice who played forward to every delivery, full or short. When asked by the coach taking that session why, she replied her regular coach had told her that she should play forward to everything, the implication being you can't score going back. Obviously his knowledge (I am assuming it was a 'he') doesn't extend to cricket, whatever other sports he's played. I do hope this lass finds someone who knows the game to look after her, or she's going to find it very hard work and will likely depart the sport in frustration. What on earth is this individual doing coaching? He (or she) should be banned for life!

You Have to Admire...

in this case, Ireland. I attempted on Twitter today (26.03.16) to discover how many clubs in Ireland have sections for women and girls. I failed. I guess it can't be that many. Based on that it could be argued that Ireland have punched above their weight in this tournament when you bear in mind the enormous base of players that is available in Australia or England. They did succeed in one respect in their last match in this tournament - this one against Australia - and I wondered if it had even entered their minds.

Contrary to some of the tweets today from those whose arithmetic is below the standard their maths teachers might have liked, Australia could only guarantee themselves a place in the semi-finals if they defeated Ireland in very quick time. This the Irish, inadvertently(?), prevented them from doing just that.

Did this part of the equation ever enter the minds of the Irish management or players? I doubt it - the win is what they would, quite rightly, have been aiming at. But this is one of the ironies of this NRR (net run rate). Ireland could have set themselves the secondary target of "if we don't win, let's prevent them from progressing any further than we have to". All this is pretty fanciful you will be thinking - and so it is. But consider the game that I used to play in my youth, declaration cricket. In that form draws are a possible result unlike T20 which didn't exist in the days when I picked up a bat. And a draw gave you at least one point in the league table.

Is there a comparison? Possibly I think. The day will undoubtedly come, indeed it may have done already, where that consideration may affect the losing side. Ensuring the opposition doesn't acquire the run rate rate that they require, even if you are about to lose, may ensure the losers progress and the winners don't.

I'd have to advise all sides to study NRR very carefully. Your knowledge of this cricketing nonsense may one day affect how you play a match. Indeed in a previous 50-over world cup one of my correspondents found several teams were not as wide awake as they might have been and indeed one of  the finalists might not even have made the second stage of the tournament if their opponents had studied NRR.  As stupid as NRR is, study it closely. It's your duty to take advantage of the laws, the regulations and tournament rules to progress as far as you can. It's sad that  cricket, just cricket, isn't the deciding factor - but it isn't necessarily - so play the game - that on the pitch and that in the paperwork too.

All of which reminds me. We have another player not knowing the full story about running out the batsman when the bails are already off the wickets. It didn't matter as a wicket had already fallen, but it is necessary to clamp the ball to the stump and then remove it. Removing the stump and then touching it with the ball is not sufficient, even if that time difference is a fraction of a second. While a normal standing umpire probably couldn't have seen the error, the 3rd umpire will!

Simply the Best...

... for Sussex as England all-rounder Danni Wyatt has decided to join the county for the coming season. Danni will provide not only a top class spinning option but is, around the international scene, one of the most exciting batsmen. Also one of the world's leading fielders she possesses a strong and accurate arm. Her inclusion this season will enable Sussex to prepare a more balanced side in the hunt for the Royal London One-Day Cup and the County T20 Competition, and she will provide an ideal model for more junior team members to follow. She joins fellow internationals Georgia Elwiss and Sarah Taylor in the squad.

A player who is always immersed in the game, Danni plays her cricket with a smile on her face and Sussex have been very fortunate indeed to obtain the services of such a talented player!!

Next Page (as England exit the WT20)