Previous Page (Ever
Thought of carrying a Camera?)
Is it the 'World Cup' or the 'world cup' in 2017?
I feel compelled to write a note on the fixtures of the
forthcoming World Cup in England in 2017.
Has poor scheduling reduced the standing of this tournament?
I am wondering if I need to type the title of this tournament in lower case to
show what some appear to consider it's standing in the world of women's
cricket.
There will also
be 2 matches on both 8th and 9th July.
Here's how I
first saw the list. Note the 4 games per day. This I find quite
extraordinary and as short-sighted as any plan could possibly be - as one
twitter user has stated "only the most ardent fan can only see 8 of the 28
league matches".
Are there reasons why it needs to be planned this way? No
there aren't. Strangely, in attempting to recycle some paper only a day or
so ago, by using the second side, I came across the fixture list of a
previous world cup I had travelled to watch. No such poor planning is
evident in that list, so if it's been better done in the past, why not
now? It
is sad the authorities think so little of this tournament they feel people
will not want to watch as many matches as possible.
I would be most grateful to know your views - please email
me ...
donjmiles@gmail.com - I'd be happy to quote them - anonymously, of
course.
COMMENTS
from my email bag:
1. The whole thing
seems to have been organised to ensure that it's convenient for the
authorities who simply don't have the skill to plan anything more
spectator friendly - or perhaps are simply too lazy to
do so.
2. One feels that, on
the days that England are playing, the other 3 games will hardly get any
spectators. I can’t help but think it would have been better if,
when England play, they are the only match on that date.
3. It seems rather odd that the
first we hear about the fixtures is from the ICC ticketing site. There the
teams are not currently shown (12.10.16) only the venues, so am I going to
buy a ticket not knowing who I am going to watch?
4. I am sad and
angry in equal measure.
5. (From overseas) The result of
this arrangement means we can expect all the matches on TV to be England
games so I will only get one opportunity (at best) to watch South Africa.
6. In response to my Twitter
comment "It's hard to think of anything that could be so short-sighted", a
former Indian captain said simply "Yup"
7. It seems the most stupid
planning of World Cup fixtures possible.
8. "If
there are reserve days
(I'll amend this if necessary as soon as that
information comes to light) it might be a good
idea to pray for rain because it would improve your chances of seeing more
teams. If it doesn’t rain the most number of matches you can see is 8 out
of 28 (plus 2 semis and a final making 11 out of 31), which is, as you
state, pathetic."
No. 8 is an amusing comment -
can this be this be the first tournament where you might see more cricket
if it rains?
I have received no comments in favour of the
current arrangements to date.
I am anxious to give a balanced view. If you feel they are fine,
please let me know.
Can You Take Up the Challenge to plan a
Better Fixtures Schedule?
From the same correspondent as (8)
above...
I don’t know this for certain but let’s assume the
schedule has been designed in 3 days cycles of (i) match day (ii) reserve
day (iii) travel day. It certainly looks like this is the case and it
would make sense.
Let’s also assume that they wanted the semi-finals to be
on different days (and, of course, have a reserve day), which I think most
people would agree is a good idea.
Let’s also assume that they adopted the principle that
all final round matches needed to be played on the same day, thus not
giving teams the advantage of knowing what they have to do to qualify.
If we accept the date of the final must be the 23rd then
using the 3 day cycle rule:-
(a) The latest the 2nd semi final can be is the 20th
(b) Therefore the latest the 1st
semi-final can be is the 18th (to allow a reserve day before 2nd semi)
(c) Therefore the latest the last round of matches can be
is the 15th (by the 3 day principle)
This means the range of dates that the group matches must
take place in is 26th June to the 15th July. If each team has to play 7
matches and assuming the 3 day principle applies then the most condensed
sequence of matches is 26th, 29th, 2nd, 5th, 8th, 11th and 14th
demonstrating that there is only one day’s slack in the system. The ICC
have decided to use that one day slack over the weekend of 8th and 9th.
The question is whether there is a better way of using
the one day’s slack.
The most obvious use would be offset England’s matches
relative to other matches by one day (which may be considered beneficial
for increasing attendance at non-England matches). Can this be achieved ?
The answer is no. Suppose England play Australia on the 26th and the other
3 matches take place on the 27th then who plays on the 29th ? England can
because that’s a 3 day gap from the 26th but all their possible opponents
would only have a 2 day gap. If 3 matches are played in the 26th and
England play on the 27th it still eventually becomes impossible (England
eventually have to face an opponent that has only had a 2 day gap).
Another way is to look at each team having five 3 day
gaps and one 4 day gap. Can this be done ? The answer is yes and the
solution increases the number of discrete playing days from the 8 in the
proposed schedule to 10 and still use both days of the weekend of the
8th/9th. Here is an example (obviously teams are interchangeable (eg swap
England and Australia over in every case) but using real teams (even if
these are not the 8 that qualify) is better than letters):-
|
Mon |
26/06/2016 |
Eng v Aus |
Ind v NZ |
Pak v SA |
SL v WI |
|
Thu |
29/06/2016 |
Eng v Ind |
Aus v NZ |
Pak v SL |
SA v WI |
|
Sun |
02/07/2016 |
Eng v NZ |
Ind v Aus |
Pak v WI |
SL v SA |
|
Wed |
05/07/2016 |
|
Ind v WI |
Aus v SA |
SL v NZ |
|
Thu |
06/07/2016 |
Eng v Pak |
|
|
|
|
Sat |
08/07/2016 |
|
|
Aus v SL |
NZ v WI |
|
Sun |
09/07/2016 |
Eng v SA |
Ind v Pak |
|
|
|
Tue |
11/07/2016 |
|
|
|
Aus v WI |
|
Wed |
12/07/2016 |
Eng v SL |
NZ v Pak |
Ind v SA |
|
|
Sat |
15/07/2016 |
Eng v WI |
Aus v Pak |
Ind v SL |
NZ v SA |
|
|
Aus |
Eng |
Ind |
NZ |
Pak |
SA |
SL |
WI |
|
Aus |
|
26/06/2016 |
02/07/2016 |
29/06/2016 |
15/07/2016 |
05/07/2016 |
08/07/2016 |
11/07/2016 |
|
Eng |
|
|
29/06/2016 |
02/07/2016 |
06/07/2016 |
09/07/2016 |
12/07/2016 |
15/07/2016 |
|
Ind |
|
|
|
26/06/2016 |
09/07/2016 |
12/07/2016 |
15/07/2016 |
05/07/2016 |
|
NZ |
|
|
|
|
12/07/2016 |
15/07/2016 |
05/07/2016 |
08/07/2016 |
|
Pak |
|
|
|
|
|
26/06/2016 |
29/06/2016 |
02/07/2016 |
|
SA |
|
|
|
|
|
|
02/07/2016 |
29/06/2016 |
|
SL |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
26/06/2016 |
|
WI |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The sequence of gaps is 3,3,4,3,3,3 for England and
Pakistan, 3,3,3,3,3,4 for Australia and West Indies, 3,3,3,4,3,3 for India
and South Africa and 3,3,3,3,4,3 for New Zealand and Sri Lanka.
And the Challenge is -
Perhaps someone else can improve on the 10 discrete days
whilst still adhering to the assumed principles.
If only someone
at the ECB had the same skills as my correspondent... have you?
![[line]](images/line.png)
10 Match world cup - Further thoughts
from the same correspondent
My
correspondent who showed that, carefully planned, it would have been
possible to watch at least a couple more games, has taken his argument one
stage further, planning his perfect scenario...
I idled a few minutes away deciding which isomorphism (same
rules, yet teams swapped around) of the schedule would I most like to see
and decided upon:-
...
with the red matches being the ones I’d watch, thus ensuring I saw every
team at least once. My viewing distribution would be:
Aus 3
Eng 4
Ind 3
NZ 3
Pak 1
SA 3
SL 1
WI 2
I quite like this schedule:-
(a) The NZ v Aus and Eng v Ind are worthy matches to be sole matches on
that day
(b) I get to see Pak v SL rather than either team getting blasted away by
one of the top teams
(c) The final round of matches looks like it pitches the top 6 against
each other
Of
course, these may not be the 8 teams that take part.
And to Top off the Thoughts Here is my Corrrespondent's
Dream Fixtures
...bearing in mind the constraints
stated above...
The next challenge, having decided my preferred sequence
of matches is to determine who plays where. There are 4 venues and the
ideal pattern is one where every team plays at each venue the same numbers
of times ….. of course this is not possible because 7 matches (per team)
don’t get divided by 4 (venues) very well.
It would be great if all teams could follow an identical
distribution such as all playing 4 matches at one venue and one match at
each of the other venues or perhaps 3 at one venue, 2 at another venue and
one at each of the other two venues. Sadly I don’t think this is possible
(given the assumptions) but perhaps a reader can prove it is possible.
The nearest I could find is:-
| |
|
Venue A |
Venue B |
Venue C |
Venue D |
|
Mon |
26/06/2016 |
Eng v SL |
Pak v WI |
NZ v Ind |
Aus v SA |
|
Thu |
29/06/2016 |
NZ v Pak |
Aus v SL |
Eng v SA |
Ind v WI |
|
Sun |
02/07/2016 |
Eng v Aus |
NZ v WI |
SL v SA |
Pak v Ind |
|
Wed |
05/07/2016 |
SL v WI |
Ind v SA |
|
Eng v Pak |
|
Thu |
06/07/2016 |
|
|
NZ v Aus |
|
|
Sat |
08/07/2016 |
Ind v SL |
Eng v WI |
|
|
|
Sun |
09/07/2016 |
|
|
Pak v Aus |
NZ v SA |
|
Tue |
11/07/2016 |
|
|
|
Eng v Ind |
|
Wed |
12/07/2016 |
Pak v SA |
NZ v SL |
WI v Aus |
|
|
Sat |
15/07/2016 |
Ind v Aus |
Eng v NZ |
WI v SA |
Pak v SL |
(Corrected editorial error - 23.10.16 - apologies - editor)
One neat feature is that England are the only team that doesn’t play a
distribution of 3 at one venue, 2 at another venue and one at each of the
other two venues, rather they play twice at 3 of the venues and once at
the other – as fair a distribution of England matches as is possible.
Each team has to make 5 journeys between venue, except England who
make 6 and one other team that only makes 4.
Every team plays at every venue at least once.
Remember, teams are interchangeable (except England) so all
occurrences of, say, Australia could be switched with all occurrences of
New Zealand. Also, as stated before, these may not be the 8 teams that
qualify but I think we know 6 of them.
When England headed out to the Caribbean it was natural
perhaps for many to say "I wonder how this new look side will do against
more serious opposition?". It's perhaps a little sad the question needed to
be asked. Now I don't mean that in the sense you may immediately be thinking
- that I assumed everything would carry on exactly as the games against
Pakistan had done. No, I was rather sad that Pakistan did not acquit
themselves with the same gusto they had on previous visits, and so the West
Indies were always going to be trickier.
And then England found themselves for the first two games at least on the low and
slow wickets with which, having played quite a lot of cricket in early
summer in the UK, they should have been reasonably familiar with. Yes, I
know it's not exactly the same but every player in the side should be used
to their ankles being in more danger than their ears. There was another
surprise too in the West Indies (at least I assume it was them) choosing the
final three matches of the five to be the ones included in the ICC
Championship. Surely you pounce before the opposition are used to the heat
and humidity and chose the first three. I think most (all?) sides have done
that so far - it's such an obvious move. However England failed to take full
advantage of the chance offered them.
One of the regrettable things about this tour has been the wickets or
more accurately the fields on which the matches have been played, one
commentator describing them as "a cabbage patch". If you tiptoed though my
writings here before you'll know that I'm not in favour of artificially
short boundaries, and indeed the boundary sizes as described were perfectly
reasonable for women's ODIs, or at least they would have been had the out
field been in even reasonable condition. It seems inexplicable to me that a
men's Test ground should be in such a state. Black mark to the West Indies
here and something of a change from England's last visit to that part of the
world when Barbados and Trinidad provided perfectly satisfactory conditions.
It doesn't take me to tell you who has been the star of the show from the
WIndies viewpoint.
![[Stafanie Taylor © Don Miles]](images16/160812_365-Stafanie%20Taylor-Stm.jpg "[Stafanie Taylor © Don Miles]") ![[Stafanie Taylor © Don Miles]](images16/160812_082-Stafanie%20Taylor-Stm.jpg "[Stafanie Taylor © Don Miles]")
Stafanie Taylor in the 2016 Kia Super League
You only had to watch Stafanie in the KSL this year to know here was a real
talent as far as attacking cricket was concerned. Her innings at Bristol was
one I'll never forget and while, at one time, everyone's pulse rate
increased as we realised Deandra Dottin was approaching the wicket, bat in
hand, now we will surely feel that same anticipation whenever Taylor walks
out to bat. I had known what a big hitter she was after seeing what for me
still ties as the biggest 6 I have seen a woman hit during the match against
England at Drummoyne in the World Cup of 2009. Who does she tie with -
I'll leave that hanging in the air - except to say she has never worn an
England or West Indies shirt.
During this series we had the chance to watch some streamed video. The
quality was highly variable, broke down quite frequently and even managed a
few time skips which, while intriguing, hardly helped following the match,
just gave you a weird sense of déjà vu. However, I guess we must be glad of
the opportunity to see anything at all. [I suspect also that my Virgin fibre
optic speed of around 72Mbps is really not adequate for the task]. Thanks
therefore to the West Indies Cricket Board for that opportunity! The
commentary was also somewhat idiosyncratic. Players like Katey Brunt and
Laura Gunn appeared and, had you taken them seriously you could have
imagined there were 15 or 16 players out there. And Stafanie was, not
unnaturally, Stephanie fairly frequently. It seems it's not only a certain
Sky commentator who doesn't do his research or watch his notes carefully.
Does the men's game have these kind of problems? It's no good asking me. In
the winter I might see a few games on the TV but in the summer I am far too
busy... well, you know where. I was rather pleased to suggest to Cricket
South Africa they spell the name of one of their players correctly on the
electronic scoreboard earlier this year. To their credit it was swiftly put
right, but you are always left wondering if AB de Villiers ever has this
problem. (Is it one 'l' or two? - it's two!)
But, as so often, I digress.
If Taylor was the star for the West Indies, it's not hard to look at where
England won 3-2, that is by a very short head. There is no smaller margin of
victory, but nevertheless they won, overseas, on wickets with which they
should have some (but only some) familiarity, and against a foe that had so
recently distinguished themselves in world cricket, admittedly in a
different format. I feel England should have boarded the plane in Kingston
not as some have suggested with a feeling of jubilation but certainly with a
quiet satisfaction that when tested they pulled through. There's no doubt
that West Indies have two super stars in Taylor and Dottin although one
performed rather better in this series overall, rest assured the other will
be back. Their bowling
strength might have suited the wickets on which these games were played but
no commentator can imagine that in the longer form of the game, their
bowling attack can match that of Australia. All I am saying is that if West
Indies were a bigger challenge than Pakistan, bigger challenges still lie
ahead.
A special mention should be made of Grenada born Afy Fletcher. Allegedly an
off-break bowler she seemed to be to bowl all-sorts at the England batsmen,
although the quality of the live stream on my monitor could have misled me
here. Anyway she prospered finishing with 9 wickets to Dottin's 10, the
leaders for the West Indies.
If there were to be a batting award for England after these five games then
Natalie Sciver or Lauren Winfield would have taken the honours, as I suspect
they will in future England series. It's not that other England top order
batsmen haven't made their contributions - simply that they've been the most
consistent and held on when it really mattered. Sciver made it count at
difficult moments. It takes character to do that.
Natalie Sciver
Slightly Ahead of Sciver in run aggregate but slightly lower in the average
Lauren Winfield also made a major contribution.
It's informative looking at the
batting stats for the series. Stafanie Taylor leads by a respectable
margin, but the next West Indies player, Shaquana Quintyne is sixth. The
intervening places are filled with solid performances from the England top
order. Dottin follows in seventh.
But England's heroine in this series has undoubtedly been with ball. The
stats show a clear lead to Alex Hartley. This is most gratifying to a
number of the small group of 'bloggers' who have been saying for a while
that she deserved a run at England level to see how she coped. Well, now we
have our answer, at least on West Indies wickets.
Alex seen here representing the Surrey Stars in KSL16 (or KSL1)
Thanks to a cricket follower on Twitter, since I was not aware of it, her 13
wickets in this series beats a 12 year old record held previously by Rosalie
Fairbairn (née Birch) against South Africa. It's pleasing to see a
newcomer at this level prosper, as indeed has Sophie Ecclestone when given
the opportunity. A spinner who can turn the ball away from a right-hander is
always a useful asset as Holly Colvin proved for many years with England.
Katherine Brunt and Deandra Dottin share second place in the wickets column.
Hartley's average is, not surprisingly, top of the table and her economy
rate what one would hope. One series is early days but England must feel
here is one to persevere with.
We were also treated during this match to an extensive interview with
England Coach Mark Robinson on the BBC's Test Match Special coverage. This
is available for another 26 days (from 23.10.16) on the
BBC web site. An MP3 download is available. I have listed a few of his
quotes relating to England domestic cricket below.
All round it's been an interesting series. Sadly, the next encounter of England's
isn't likely to prove much. Scandals and other problems have beset Sri
Lankan cricket for a year or two now and lack of a decent home domestic
structure simply doesn't give their players a fair chance. And it is not as
if they don't have players with talent. I well remember that remarkable win
against England not too long ago, which showed they don't give up easily.
They have been badly let down by the Sri Lankan Board although there seem to
be moves afoot to repair things. Women's cricket desperately needs some of
the 'minnows' to start challenging the top four or five teams (when wasn't I
typing that!), something that has become more difficult for them with the
introduction of full-time cricketers in the top few nations. The ladder Sri
Lanka and other qualifiers for the 2017 world cup have to climb is simply
more difficult without the right structure, which includes more cash, back at
home, which these smaller Board's will struggle to provide, even if the will
is there.
Perhaps it's not surprising that only three matches have been arranged for
this series, but Sri Lanka desperately need more encounters if they are to
improve. If they do, the sport could be the richer for it.
Quotes from an
interview with Mark Robinson (England Coach) on Test Match Special ...
podcast
available for 26 days (from 23.10.16)
-
We have to encourage Club
cricket...
-
... protect County cricket...
-
County Cricket I've seen - it's
been really, really good - but played on poor wickets
Next Page : Participation Matters |