My thoughts on the sexism storm on LinkedIn
Barrister Charlotte Proudman has caused some uproar with her revelations about comments made on her LinkedIn account. The Daily Mail have put their oar in, unsurprisingly, and all sorts of idiots have crawled out of the woodwork as well.
Here is the comment as stated by Proudman in the i paper from Friday 11 Sep:
"Charlotte, delighted to connect, I appreciate this is probably horrendously incorrect but that is a stunning picture!!! You definitely win the prize for the best Linked in picture I have ever seen"
To summarise Proudman's response, she did not appreciate her appearance being commented on or the unwanted attention. LinkedIn is for enhancing your career prospects, it is not a dating or modelling website. So she leaked the man's name in the interests of exposing the behaviour. She hopes that men and women can work together in stamping out this kind behaviour. It was a stand against sexism in her view.
Let's examine the comment more closely. It was obviously made with a mind to not being inappropriate. The commenter tried to be respectful. However, we still have a problem - there is no prize for best LinkedIn photo. I also wonder how many LinkedIn photos he's seen. The way he's describing it as a competition, gives the sense that he has been trawling though many women's profiles, judging them on their appearance and got to "appreciating" them so much that he felt he had to tell his favourite, Charlotte, how awesome she was. In the wrong way, though. He is moving his own grubby fantasy into the real world.
This bears an uncanny resemblance to the way men behave on glamour or soft-core porn sites. In fact, the situation dictates that to be more appropriate.
I should know about this because I have considered making similar comments in past but whether it was shyness or sense that stopped me, I didn't. I'm glad too, because little good comes of it.
There seems to be an obsession everywhere that any criticism of the comments means "men can no longer pay compliments". This shows an astonishing lack of attention to detail. Although you might think the comment Proudman received is a compliment, there's more to it than that.
In my view the comment was more about the man putting a voice to his sexual desires than it was paying a compliment. LinkedIn is not a website designed for looking at women: it's not glamour or softcore porn. Neither is it a dating website.
There's a serious problem when we live in a society that likes to obligate women to accept compliments at all times from men, and also to feel obligated to reciprocate them in some way. This is in the past how men have been able to take their pick of women, do what they want with them, and creates a very unequal society. I want no part of it.
So we can trace a logical path from the commenter's unfulfilled sexual desires to his comments towards Proudman. Consider the cat-calling builder who shouts and wolf-whistles to passing women. The comment to Proudman was different only in degree and not category, if you consider both carefully. This is why I have a problem with it. We are back into the territory of unwanted attention and gender power dynamics that favour men considerably.
Some of the commentary on this issue misses the mark by the widest possible margin. We start talking about "the principle of paying a compliment" amidst very conservative views on relationships, and pretend we're being objective. The question "Is giving a compliment misogynistic" is asked seriously, as if it wasn't a crazy oversimplification of the true situation.
A hysterical Sarah Vine in the Fail writes "If that is what counts as "objectification" and "misogyny" these days, the human race is in trouble. Heaven help the poor man who tries to ask (Proudman) out on a date, let alone try to get her into his bed. He'd have better luck propositioning a porcupine"
I agree that those terms are over-used but it wasn't Proudman who used them (not in her i paper article - only to refer to the backlash). Who can account for what the extremists on both sides are going to say?
And as for the second sentence, it shows that Vine thinks it's necessarily incumbent on men to make the move in relationships. As a man, I don't appreciate that. It may be so that Proudman has worked herself into the position that she needs to be the prime mover in her own relationships, but I don't see why that's so bad. To claim that any change to a system that puts all the onus on men is bad, is ludicrous rubbish from Vine. She appears to be an ultra-Conservative cis-hetero woman with seemingly no other perspective, who also can't dream of another perspective either. No imagination.
"Tarzan strong. Tarzan must win Jane." Some of us have moved on.
But it's worse than that. Vine's comments show no regard for the meta-view, no hint of change with the circumstances. If Proudman was all dressed up for a date and waiting for her man to turn up...then a similar comment was made, I don't think we'd be hearing about this. LinkedIn is different to going on a date. Context matters, someone please tell Vine. When situational differences can't be taken into account, that's when I despair.
Elsewhere, other observers also have little of use to add. A typically clueless Brendan O'Neill in The Spectator, rambles: "To describe (the commenter's) compliment as "misogyny" confirms that the word has been utterly drained of meaning by the new tweeting-and-bleating feminist set. Misogyny is deep hatred of women, saying something nice to a woman is the opposite of that".
Does this man have an IQ of 80? He doesn't, but sometimes you wouldn't know it. He can't write sentences with any complexity at all. The first one is almost a truism, granted. But again, extremists. And it does play into a culture which denigrates women, so there is a link, albeit indirect.
The second sentence shows a staggering lack of appreciation for what is really going on. Although "You win the pwize for the pwettiest woman on LinkedIn" might appear to be "nice", it also reveals more about the sense of privilege and sexual repression that the commenter has than it does about anything else. To me this is just another example of people reacting to their own internal desires because they haven't got what they need. Then instead of getting what they need, they are more interested in insisting on their right to act on their own repressions, regardless of consequences.
Whilst Proudman could simply have replied with a sarcastic "Gee thanks" to the commenter and left it at that, I think she probably did the right thing. This should be a learning experience for quite a few people, but somehow I doubt it.
Sunday 13 September 2015
Friday 4 September 2015
Women's Ashes: A story of 3 iT20s: Boom, Bust and Boost
Boom, Bust and Boost : England Vs. Australia - A story of 3 women's iT20s
Match 1 Chelmsford 26 Aug - the BOOM
http://www.espncricinfo.com/womens-ashes-2015/engine/match/798377.html
http://www.alloutcricket.com/cricket/blogs/chelmsford-win-keeps-england-alive
http://crickether.com/2015/08/27/random-thoughts-womens-ashes-1st-t20/
Match 2 Hove 28 Aug - the BUST
http://www.espncricinfo.com/womens-ashes-2015/engine/match/798379.html
http://crickether.com/2015/08/29/random-thoughts-womens-ashes-2nd-t20/
All out cricket Raf Nicholson article - A sad collapse
Martin Davies - England "expire"
Match 3 Cardiff 31 Aug - the BOOST (credit to CricketHer!)
http://www.espncricinfo.com/womens-ashes-2015/engine/match/798381.html
http://www.espncricinfo.com/womens-ashes-2015/content/story/916005.html
http://crickether.com/2015/08/31/random-thoughts-womens-ashes-3rd-t20/
Here is a link to my photo blog of the Cardiff game!!
England took the sting out the bushwhack delivered by the Australians this summer, with a win by five wickets in the last of the 3 iT20s at Cardiff. It gave England what would have seemed to be an unlikely 2-1 series win coming out of the desolation of the Test loss. It is something positive to take away from a summer so devoid of positive notes, I find myself clamouring to grab hold of anything I can.
It was hard to have predicted this series result. I got it wrong, having predicted Australia would win. But then I hadn't betted on England taking the first game, nor Australia's batters not really turning up at all in any of the 3 games. Giving the scores we were chasing (123, 108, and 112) England actually should have won all 3 games. As it turned out, we failed the easiest chase of the three. I was anticipating chasing scores of more like 130-140 which would probably have been too many even on paper.
I was wracking my brain to try and figure out which was worse, losing the Test match (final innings challenge: survive 85 overs) or losing the second T20 (challenge: get 107 in 20 overs)? England failed in both. My initial thoughts went with the Test loss being the greater sin, but Raf Nicholson makes a good case for the T20 reverse. Overall, I'm not sure which was worse, but they were both defining moments of England's abject failure with the bat this summer.
Make no mistake though. This 2-1 iT20 series win was scant consolation for the drubbing that England, and primarily its batters, received throughout the summer. The Test loss is now made all the more painful by the thought that, if we could have just held out for a couple more hours or so, we would have got a draw in that game and the 2-1 iT20 win would have been enough to draw the series and retain the trophy. Or, if England could have made the scant total of 107 required to win the second iT20 on Friday at Hove, the same result would have been achieved.
England have had their chances this summer, but unfortunately the batters could not take them. The Ashes were ours for the retaining, as it were, but Australia's bowling and England's mental frailties with the bat were just too much. We needed to play at least quite well in every game, and we didn't.
Here is Raf Nicholson's very good review of the series as a whole
Amy Lofthouse: Another well-written article
On a lighter note you also get lovely, vibrant pieces like this
...and this!
Absolutely wonderful.
Overall multi-format stats
Here are my combined multi-format averages for the summer for England. Results are based on the 3 ODIs, the Test and the 3 T20s, not academy games etc. These are not official and were calculated on my own spreadsheet, so if they are wrong, please point it out to me and I will be happy to correct!
Batting - qualification: more than a few runs - note Lauren Winfield did not qualify for this despite batting five times!
Bowling - qualification: took at least one wicket
Now follows a brief performance summary and the possible future chances for each player.
Ratings Explained: 1-3 very poor, 4 poor, 5 average, 6 OK, 7 good, 8 very good, 9 excellent, 10 unbelievable
Edwards: 6. A mixed summer for the captain. She played well in the second ODI at Bristol, the first innings of the Test and the 1st iT20. Seems to be getting out to wide or short deliveries more often, either nicking behind or playing on to her stumps too often for comfort. I wonder if we'll see the heights of 2014 again. Her captaincy was too conservative, and devoid of inspiration at times, and she was shown up badly by the much less experienced Lanning on several key occasions. Her very average performance was, unfortunately, matched by a few other England players in the series, which is chiefly why we lost the Ashes.
Taylor: 6. Consistently superb with the gloves, Taylor continues to excel as wicketkeeper. However her batting has been a mixed bag to say the least. It started OK, with 2 decent knocks, but then fell away with a run of 3 very poor innings, and only picked up with one fine 50 at Chelmsford before another final dip. The very disappointing failures at Worcester, in the Test, and at Hove keep her score down to moderate levels I'm afraid. She has not been consistent enough this series. Either terrific or terrifically frustrating, Taylor can be the most aesthetically pleasing player in the side on her day, which usually comes along regularly. It didn't as much this summer though. At her worst, you wonder if she's played in the last month. She looks a bit out of form at the moment, unfortunately.
Knight: 5. A distinctly moderate and unimpressive summer from Heather I'm afraid. She did not produce any innings of real quality, failed regularly with an average under 20, and was only average with the ball as well, taking 5 wickets but only at 43 runs apiece. On current form she is struggling to justify her place in the side, despite being vice-captain. After a good winter down under, this summer was especially disappointing for her as good things were expected (from me at least!). She has looked badly short of form.
Sciver: 8. Natalie did very well overall. You now get the feeling that Sciver is really starting to realise some of that early promise. She won 2 games for us in this series: the first ODI at Taunton with the bat and the final T20 at Cardiff, the latter both with bat and ball. At her best, she's a fine bowler with good variations who is difficult to get away, and and even better batter; with time, poise and class who hits the ball hard and can find the boundary with ease. The good news is that she appears to be both a match-winner and a player who feeds off her own performances with bat, ball and her exemplary work in the field. Edwards under-uses her as a bowler, presumably in part at least due to the excellence of Brunt and Shrubsole. Any search for more consistency should not come at the expense of match-wining potential. Talented, tall and athletic, Sciver has it all, and a long bright future ahead of her.
Greenway: 8. Lydia topped the batting stats for England. An excellent performance, especially considering the lack of support she often received. She was solid and dependable, if not exciting or match-winning aside from the knock in the first ODI. She stuck at her batting despite wickets tumbling around her, and despite signs that showed she was not at her most fluent. This was a lesson that should have been followed by some of the other batters. Fielding was as impressive as ever. Probably one of two of England's only experienced players (along with Brunt) who actually performed somewhere near her potential. Well done Lydia.
Winfield: 3. Very poor from Lauren I'm afraid. Failed repeatedly with the bat. Looks mentally shot, despite having good technique, and we know she can hit the ball well. Hardly managed to register a score in 5 attempts. I'm not sure what will happen re. her contract but questions must be asked if England may not get more out of someone else. It's unfortunate she was unable to perform, as she can be a good player to watch.
Elwiss: 6. Did not play much in the latter stages of the series. Two very good batting displays from Georgia and a couple of poor ones. A new player (to me anyway), and during the second innings of the Test, she made Greenway and the rest of the team look average. It's no mean feat. Seemingly underused by the management and selectors, and mysteriously left out of the first 2 T20s when it was pretty clear she'd do better than Winfield or Knight on their current form. Still, there is plenty of promise there, and if England can manage her correctly, she could fulfil a similar role to Sciver. May do well abroad on flat slow pitches. Needs to play more consistently and bat higher up to improve. Also appears to be a capable bowler, and next fastest after Brunt and Shrubsole in this series. A very useful player, we should not ignore.
Marsh: 4. Very disappointing from Laura. Failed to register a single run in 3 attempts and only took 3 wickets at 40. She hasn't looked the same after coming back from a shoulder injury, and I wonder if her time could be up for England. If so it will be a shame to see her go as she has played very well for us in the past. Another quality player who looks short of form.
Wyatt: 5. The most knowledgeable, aged sages themselves do not know why Danni has not played more often for England this summer. If there was ever a more dynamic, classy, talented and popular player, I've not seen her. Danni's lack of games is a big black mark against the selectors. Just as bad, it would hard to think of how they could mistreat her more than they have when she is in the team. In and out of the side, and thrown up and down the order, not allowed to bat where she wants, or bowl at all, it's no wonder she can fail with the bat when finally given a chance. Enthusiasm and fielding are superb though, and her dynamism is something to behold. What an utter waste of such talent this summer has been. She could have been so brilliant for England, and still could be if we would just show some sense and put more trust in her.
Brunt: 8. A magnificent performance this summer, Brunt was unlucky not to get more wickets. Her bowling stats are good (8 wickets at 36) but not as good as they could have been. The real area that has progressed has been her batting, and she made a much better effort than many of those selected just for that role. Plays positively and hits the ball hard, also capable of working it round surprisingly well. Did not look out of place at five, despite the questionable tactic from the selectors of not backing the normal batters. Her aggressive and challenging opening spells will be remembered by all that saw them. A real credit to the women's game, she puts huge effort in for us and is one of England's best and most important players. Did well to stay injury free.
Shrubsole: 8. England's best and most consistent bowler overall throughout the series. She always challenged the Australians and never let them get on top. At the heart of most good things that England did with the ball. Offering late inswing and movement off the pitch, and quick enough to rush most batters, she got it right a lot more than she got it wrong and the stats are telling: 13 wickets at just 18 runs apiece, with two 4-wicket hauls. Very impressive economy rate as well. Disappointing with the bat though, as she apparently has some ability though did not show it here. A player of the series.
Hazell: 6. Effective in the T20s, but in truth she is a better bowler than 4 overs can do justice to. Australia must have breathed a big sigh of relief when they found out she was not in the ODI or test squad. It was another very questionable selection choice. Hazell remains our best spin bowler for me and should feature in the side more regularly.
Jones: 6. Amy is a young player with a lot of potential. She has succeeded so much at county and Academy level that England must give her an extended opportunity to prove herself. This must involve her batting at her usual/preferred position for at least 6-8 games unbroken, even if she initially fails. Anything else is not a proper trial. Nice cameo at Taunton, but was dropped after one failure (why oh why?) so did not get much chance to impress. Why she was not in the Test squad after scoring an unbeaten 150, will forever be a question the wisest sages cannot answer. Fielding looks OK, and can wicketkeep too. If we pick her, she has a bright future.
Gunn: 6. Only played in the third ODI defeat but did OK, batting too low. Obviously a very good player who can win us games, but for some reason has been out of favour of late. Her performances at county level have been excellent. The unfortunate timing of her injury on the first morning of the Test may have thwarted her this summer, however, I doubt she could have prevented the eventual defeat, or loss of the Ashes overall. Another selection mystery. It will be interesting to see how the contract renewals go as England can't really afford to lose (or not use) a player as good as Jenny.
Grundy: 6. Becky has done very well as a young player coming into the side and showed her ability in the T20 series with a good return of 4-48 in 2 games. Was less effective in the ODIs. It is debatable who should be preferred, Grundy or Hazell, but whilst Knight remains in favour, Grundy's left arm spin will likely get the nod for variety's sake.
Wilson: N/A did not play. Another player who has succeeded so much at county level that England simply must give her an extended opportunity to prove herself. Whilst knight and Winfield were failing in the T20 series, Wilson was off scoring runs for Middlesex. When England play her, this again must involve her batting at her usual/preferred position for at least 6-8 games unbroken even if she initially fails. Anything else is not a proper trial.
Cross: 5. Kate had a strange, quiet summer. She was conspicuous from her absence after the Test. Another player perennially mucked around by the selectors, she was dropped for the 3rd ODI, picked again for the Test then dropped again for the T20s. When she did play, she was not able to put much of a case forward though, only taking 3 wickets at over 50. Her economy rate of 4.0 shows she was not able to settle into a good line and length either. Kate is an important bowler for England, being young and well able to take wickets, but may not be in favour whilst Brunt and Shrubsole are playing so well.
My England Player of the series - joint award between Greenway, Shrubsole and Sciver. Brunt an honourable mention as well.
My Overall player of the series - Ellyse Perry (Australia)
England selections
Izzy Westbury on Wyatt
http://www.independent.co.uk/sport/cricket/womens-ashes-danielle-wyatt-ready-to-go-on-the-attack-as-england-try-to-save-series-10471757.html
Two non-selected England players doing it for their counties:
"Kent Womens Cricket
@KentWomensCrick
WICKET!! Much needed breakthrough as Farrant bowls Wilson for 90.
Midd 191/4 off 37
1:23pm · 30 Aug 2015 · Twitter for iPhone "
Selection failures - "what a mess"
How a player as good as Danni Wyatt could ever be left out by England for a sustained period is anyone's guess. When she came in at Hove in the second T20 she showed the kind of positivity that we desperately needed. Her end was one of the most unfortunate dismissals you'll see (run out at the non-striker's end) and she can't really be held responsible for it. OK, so she failed at Cardiff but fielded and caught brilliantly again, and at least got her duck out the way using only one ball in the process! Critics who don't know much about women's cricket (yes I point the finger at you, George Dobell) like to point to the fact that Wyatt's international record is disappointing - she has never scored a 50 for England in 59 iT20 games. I accept that her average of under 13 is not great.
However, I would point out that 50s are relatively rare in women's T20 (Greenway only has 2) and her strike rate, which is more important is actually very good (102). She also has 46 iT20 wickets at under 15 apiece. The bigger question however is who could do better? Knight's iT20 batting record (no fifties, ave. 14, SR 103) is uncannily similar but over a shorter time, certainly not much better and has got worse over this summer. Knight however remains cemented in place as vice-captain. Danni therefore has sustained Knight's record, along with better bowling, for a much longer period. She is one of England's most exciting players and a real fan favourite, so we would do well to keep her in the side.
Elsewhere we have Winfield struggling to get runs, certainly at a rate suitable for T20 cricket. Why anyone thought that the ushering in of the T20 series would just magically evaporate these issues away, I have no idea. Winfield was included in the T20 squad for the first 2 games, then having failed twice was dropped for the Cardiff game. Meanwhile, exciting young players like Georgia Elwiss (fresh from the most positive innings England played in the Test) and Fran Wilson are either languishing on the sidelines or not even involved at all, and are being left to whack it around at county level. The argument that either of these players are not suited to T20 is made irrelevant by the fact that on her current form, neither is Winfield.
This is a selection mess. Choose your players and stick with them. I would have put Wyatt in the middle order for Knight, and played Elwiss for Gunn lower down. Fran Wilson would have replaced Winfield opening. I would have stuck with the same players as closely as possible for all 3 games.
Having picked Winfield though, the selectors should have stuck with her for all 3 games. As we have it, Winfield has played a mishmash of formats; been dropped, picked then dropped again. It can't be easy for her. England aren't making it easy for her. This constant fiddling and micro-management does no-one any favours.
England's bowling, one might argue, could not be improved that much and yet it needs strengthening in depth. We need more young seam/swing bowlers. Brunt won't always be around and Shrubsole has looked a little injured at times this series. It has been impressive and probably one of the big plusses that the extra Loughborough training and conditioning has given us - injury resistance. Inclusion of the very promising Tash Farrant regularly into the side in the extra games England urgently need to schedule, would only stand us in good stead for the future.
Edwards' future as captain
Izzy Wstbury on Edwards following Ashes loss
http://www.independent.co.uk/sport/cricket/england-women-vs-australia-charlotte-edwards-stands-firm-despite-defeat-10478511.html
Journalist Stephen Brenkley thinks Edwards should call it a day
http://www.independent.co.uk/sport/cricket/womens-cricket-time-for-charlotte-edwards-to-stand-down-as-england-captain-10480475.html
Crickether opinion
http://crickether.com/2015/09/01/opinion-are-questions-over-edwards-future-as-captain-justified/
Brenkley seems typical of the regular newspaper journalists commenting on women’s cricket. He is assuming that, like with men’s cricket, there is a host of ready replacements for the role waiting behind the scenes. And the captain has to be held responsible. He talks about what he knows – which isn’t much. His reasoning for Lottie's proposed departure is strangely short of detail - funny that.
This is because it is probably more the management and selectors who made a mess of this series, not Edwards. Edwards' batting does seem to be on a slow decline – I wonder if we will see the heights of 2014 again – but it is more her running that is the main issue on the field. However it appears that we can accommodate the “lack of athleticism” of certain players including Edwards which has been mentioned by many journalists. This is a red herring and non-issue in my view. England are more than capable in the field and one thing the Loughborough conditioning definitely has achieved is improvement there.
It is right to ask who else could do the job though. It’s difficult to suggest a suitable candidate. For me it would be Brunt (whose batting is on the up these days) or Greenway. The others are not in form themselves, would have logistical problems, or are in and out of the team. Greenway was out of the team not long ago, but that ship seems to have passed now.
The series loss was always going to prompt criticism from different commentators with varying levels of knowledge. If Edwards were to go, the only way of bringing it about that I can see would be to convince her that it was the only option. At the moment, and probably for the next couple of years I can see Edwards continue - and that would be best for the England side, especially whilst we undergo the “review” that the ECB/Connor has been mentioning. If there is to be upheaval, we need a few anchors in place to keep the England ship safely moored and afloat.
Match 1 Chelmsford 26 Aug - the BOOM
http://www.espncricinfo.com/womens-ashes-2015/engine/match/798377.html
http://www.alloutcricket.com/cricket/blogs/chelmsford-win-keeps-england-alive
http://crickether.com/2015/08/27/random-thoughts-womens-ashes-1st-t20/
Match 2 Hove 28 Aug - the BUST
http://www.espncricinfo.com/womens-ashes-2015/engine/match/798379.html
http://crickether.com/2015/08/29/random-thoughts-womens-ashes-2nd-t20/
All out cricket Raf Nicholson article - A sad collapse
Martin Davies - England "expire"
Match 3 Cardiff 31 Aug - the BOOST (credit to CricketHer!)
http://www.espncricinfo.com/womens-ashes-2015/engine/match/798381.html
http://www.espncricinfo.com/womens-ashes-2015/content/story/916005.html
http://crickether.com/2015/08/31/random-thoughts-womens-ashes-3rd-t20/
Here is a link to my photo blog of the Cardiff game!!
England took the sting out the bushwhack delivered by the Australians this summer, with a win by five wickets in the last of the 3 iT20s at Cardiff. It gave England what would have seemed to be an unlikely 2-1 series win coming out of the desolation of the Test loss. It is something positive to take away from a summer so devoid of positive notes, I find myself clamouring to grab hold of anything I can.
It was hard to have predicted this series result. I got it wrong, having predicted Australia would win. But then I hadn't betted on England taking the first game, nor Australia's batters not really turning up at all in any of the 3 games. Giving the scores we were chasing (123, 108, and 112) England actually should have won all 3 games. As it turned out, we failed the easiest chase of the three. I was anticipating chasing scores of more like 130-140 which would probably have been too many even on paper.
I was wracking my brain to try and figure out which was worse, losing the Test match (final innings challenge: survive 85 overs) or losing the second T20 (challenge: get 107 in 20 overs)? England failed in both. My initial thoughts went with the Test loss being the greater sin, but Raf Nicholson makes a good case for the T20 reverse. Overall, I'm not sure which was worse, but they were both defining moments of England's abject failure with the bat this summer.
Make no mistake though. This 2-1 iT20 series win was scant consolation for the drubbing that England, and primarily its batters, received throughout the summer. The Test loss is now made all the more painful by the thought that, if we could have just held out for a couple more hours or so, we would have got a draw in that game and the 2-1 iT20 win would have been enough to draw the series and retain the trophy. Or, if England could have made the scant total of 107 required to win the second iT20 on Friday at Hove, the same result would have been achieved.
England have had their chances this summer, but unfortunately the batters could not take them. The Ashes were ours for the retaining, as it were, but Australia's bowling and England's mental frailties with the bat were just too much. We needed to play at least quite well in every game, and we didn't.
Here is Raf Nicholson's very good review of the series as a whole
Amy Lofthouse: Another well-written article
On a lighter note you also get lovely, vibrant pieces like this
...and this!
Absolutely wonderful.
Overall multi-format stats
Here are my combined multi-format averages for the summer for England. Results are based on the 3 ODIs, the Test and the 3 T20s, not academy games etc. These are not official and were calculated on my own spreadsheet, so if they are wrong, please point it out to me and I will be happy to correct!
Batting - qualification: more than a few runs - note Lauren Winfield did not qualify for this despite batting five times!
Bowling - qualification: took at least one wicket
| England Women Cricket Ashes Summer 2015 averages | |||||
| Batting | |||||
| Name | Runs | Balls | SR | Ave | HS |
| Lydia Greenway | 202 | 452 | 44.7 | 28.9 | 53 |
| Natalie Sciver | 175 | 281 | 62.3 | 29.2 | 66 |
| Charlotte Edwards | 159 | 254 | 62.6 | 19.9 | 58 |
| Katherine Brunt | 154 | 201 | 76.6 | 30.8 | 39 |
| Sarah Taylor | 135 | 129 | 104.7 | 16.9 | 50 |
| Heather Knight | 112 | 220 | 50.9 | 18.7 | 38 |
| Georgia Elwiss | 99 | 214 | 46.3 | 24.8 | 46 |
| Bowling | Wckts | Runs | Econ | Ave | BB |
| Name | |||||
| Anya Shrubsole | 13 | 234 | 2.8 | 18.0 | 4-11 |
| Natalie Sciver | 9 | 158 | 6.3 | 17.6 | 4-15 |
| Katherine Brunt | 8 | 290 | 3.7 | 36.3 | 3-48 |
| Rebecca Grundy | 5 | 146 | 5.2 | 29.2 | 2-20 |
| Heather Knight | 5 | 215 | 4.8 | 43.0 | 2-44 |
| Jenny Gunn | 3 | 73 | 6.1 | 24.3 | 2-52 |
| Laura Marsh | 3 | 120 | 3.2 | 40.0 | 2-42 |
| Kate Cross | 3 | 151 | 4.0 | 50.3 | 1-9 |
| Danielle Hazell | 2 | 76 | 6.3 | 38.0 | 1-21 |
| Georgia Elwiss | 1 | 22 | 3.7 | 22.0 | 1-11 |
Now follows a brief performance summary and the possible future chances for each player.
Ratings Explained: 1-3 very poor, 4 poor, 5 average, 6 OK, 7 good, 8 very good, 9 excellent, 10 unbelievable
Edwards: 6. A mixed summer for the captain. She played well in the second ODI at Bristol, the first innings of the Test and the 1st iT20. Seems to be getting out to wide or short deliveries more often, either nicking behind or playing on to her stumps too often for comfort. I wonder if we'll see the heights of 2014 again. Her captaincy was too conservative, and devoid of inspiration at times, and she was shown up badly by the much less experienced Lanning on several key occasions. Her very average performance was, unfortunately, matched by a few other England players in the series, which is chiefly why we lost the Ashes.
Taylor: 6. Consistently superb with the gloves, Taylor continues to excel as wicketkeeper. However her batting has been a mixed bag to say the least. It started OK, with 2 decent knocks, but then fell away with a run of 3 very poor innings, and only picked up with one fine 50 at Chelmsford before another final dip. The very disappointing failures at Worcester, in the Test, and at Hove keep her score down to moderate levels I'm afraid. She has not been consistent enough this series. Either terrific or terrifically frustrating, Taylor can be the most aesthetically pleasing player in the side on her day, which usually comes along regularly. It didn't as much this summer though. At her worst, you wonder if she's played in the last month. She looks a bit out of form at the moment, unfortunately.
Knight: 5. A distinctly moderate and unimpressive summer from Heather I'm afraid. She did not produce any innings of real quality, failed regularly with an average under 20, and was only average with the ball as well, taking 5 wickets but only at 43 runs apiece. On current form she is struggling to justify her place in the side, despite being vice-captain. After a good winter down under, this summer was especially disappointing for her as good things were expected (from me at least!). She has looked badly short of form.
Sciver: 8. Natalie did very well overall. You now get the feeling that Sciver is really starting to realise some of that early promise. She won 2 games for us in this series: the first ODI at Taunton with the bat and the final T20 at Cardiff, the latter both with bat and ball. At her best, she's a fine bowler with good variations who is difficult to get away, and and even better batter; with time, poise and class who hits the ball hard and can find the boundary with ease. The good news is that she appears to be both a match-winner and a player who feeds off her own performances with bat, ball and her exemplary work in the field. Edwards under-uses her as a bowler, presumably in part at least due to the excellence of Brunt and Shrubsole. Any search for more consistency should not come at the expense of match-wining potential. Talented, tall and athletic, Sciver has it all, and a long bright future ahead of her.
Greenway: 8. Lydia topped the batting stats for England. An excellent performance, especially considering the lack of support she often received. She was solid and dependable, if not exciting or match-winning aside from the knock in the first ODI. She stuck at her batting despite wickets tumbling around her, and despite signs that showed she was not at her most fluent. This was a lesson that should have been followed by some of the other batters. Fielding was as impressive as ever. Probably one of two of England's only experienced players (along with Brunt) who actually performed somewhere near her potential. Well done Lydia.
Winfield: 3. Very poor from Lauren I'm afraid. Failed repeatedly with the bat. Looks mentally shot, despite having good technique, and we know she can hit the ball well. Hardly managed to register a score in 5 attempts. I'm not sure what will happen re. her contract but questions must be asked if England may not get more out of someone else. It's unfortunate she was unable to perform, as she can be a good player to watch.
Elwiss: 6. Did not play much in the latter stages of the series. Two very good batting displays from Georgia and a couple of poor ones. A new player (to me anyway), and during the second innings of the Test, she made Greenway and the rest of the team look average. It's no mean feat. Seemingly underused by the management and selectors, and mysteriously left out of the first 2 T20s when it was pretty clear she'd do better than Winfield or Knight on their current form. Still, there is plenty of promise there, and if England can manage her correctly, she could fulfil a similar role to Sciver. May do well abroad on flat slow pitches. Needs to play more consistently and bat higher up to improve. Also appears to be a capable bowler, and next fastest after Brunt and Shrubsole in this series. A very useful player, we should not ignore.
Marsh: 4. Very disappointing from Laura. Failed to register a single run in 3 attempts and only took 3 wickets at 40. She hasn't looked the same after coming back from a shoulder injury, and I wonder if her time could be up for England. If so it will be a shame to see her go as she has played very well for us in the past. Another quality player who looks short of form.
Wyatt: 5. The most knowledgeable, aged sages themselves do not know why Danni has not played more often for England this summer. If there was ever a more dynamic, classy, talented and popular player, I've not seen her. Danni's lack of games is a big black mark against the selectors. Just as bad, it would hard to think of how they could mistreat her more than they have when she is in the team. In and out of the side, and thrown up and down the order, not allowed to bat where she wants, or bowl at all, it's no wonder she can fail with the bat when finally given a chance. Enthusiasm and fielding are superb though, and her dynamism is something to behold. What an utter waste of such talent this summer has been. She could have been so brilliant for England, and still could be if we would just show some sense and put more trust in her.
Brunt: 8. A magnificent performance this summer, Brunt was unlucky not to get more wickets. Her bowling stats are good (8 wickets at 36) but not as good as they could have been. The real area that has progressed has been her batting, and she made a much better effort than many of those selected just for that role. Plays positively and hits the ball hard, also capable of working it round surprisingly well. Did not look out of place at five, despite the questionable tactic from the selectors of not backing the normal batters. Her aggressive and challenging opening spells will be remembered by all that saw them. A real credit to the women's game, she puts huge effort in for us and is one of England's best and most important players. Did well to stay injury free.
Shrubsole: 8. England's best and most consistent bowler overall throughout the series. She always challenged the Australians and never let them get on top. At the heart of most good things that England did with the ball. Offering late inswing and movement off the pitch, and quick enough to rush most batters, she got it right a lot more than she got it wrong and the stats are telling: 13 wickets at just 18 runs apiece, with two 4-wicket hauls. Very impressive economy rate as well. Disappointing with the bat though, as she apparently has some ability though did not show it here. A player of the series.
Hazell: 6. Effective in the T20s, but in truth she is a better bowler than 4 overs can do justice to. Australia must have breathed a big sigh of relief when they found out she was not in the ODI or test squad. It was another very questionable selection choice. Hazell remains our best spin bowler for me and should feature in the side more regularly.
Jones: 6. Amy is a young player with a lot of potential. She has succeeded so much at county and Academy level that England must give her an extended opportunity to prove herself. This must involve her batting at her usual/preferred position for at least 6-8 games unbroken, even if she initially fails. Anything else is not a proper trial. Nice cameo at Taunton, but was dropped after one failure (why oh why?) so did not get much chance to impress. Why she was not in the Test squad after scoring an unbeaten 150, will forever be a question the wisest sages cannot answer. Fielding looks OK, and can wicketkeep too. If we pick her, she has a bright future.
Gunn: 6. Only played in the third ODI defeat but did OK, batting too low. Obviously a very good player who can win us games, but for some reason has been out of favour of late. Her performances at county level have been excellent. The unfortunate timing of her injury on the first morning of the Test may have thwarted her this summer, however, I doubt she could have prevented the eventual defeat, or loss of the Ashes overall. Another selection mystery. It will be interesting to see how the contract renewals go as England can't really afford to lose (or not use) a player as good as Jenny.
Grundy: 6. Becky has done very well as a young player coming into the side and showed her ability in the T20 series with a good return of 4-48 in 2 games. Was less effective in the ODIs. It is debatable who should be preferred, Grundy or Hazell, but whilst Knight remains in favour, Grundy's left arm spin will likely get the nod for variety's sake.
Wilson: N/A did not play. Another player who has succeeded so much at county level that England simply must give her an extended opportunity to prove herself. Whilst knight and Winfield were failing in the T20 series, Wilson was off scoring runs for Middlesex. When England play her, this again must involve her batting at her usual/preferred position for at least 6-8 games unbroken even if she initially fails. Anything else is not a proper trial.
Cross: 5. Kate had a strange, quiet summer. She was conspicuous from her absence after the Test. Another player perennially mucked around by the selectors, she was dropped for the 3rd ODI, picked again for the Test then dropped again for the T20s. When she did play, she was not able to put much of a case forward though, only taking 3 wickets at over 50. Her economy rate of 4.0 shows she was not able to settle into a good line and length either. Kate is an important bowler for England, being young and well able to take wickets, but may not be in favour whilst Brunt and Shrubsole are playing so well.
My England Player of the series - joint award between Greenway, Shrubsole and Sciver. Brunt an honourable mention as well.
My Overall player of the series - Ellyse Perry (Australia)
England selections
Izzy Westbury on Wyatt
http://www.independent.co.uk/sport/cricket/womens-ashes-danielle-wyatt-ready-to-go-on-the-attack-as-england-try-to-save-series-10471757.html
Two non-selected England players doing it for their counties:
"Kent Womens Cricket
@KentWomensCrick
WICKET!! Much needed breakthrough as Farrant bowls Wilson for 90.
Midd 191/4 off 37
1:23pm · 30 Aug 2015 · Twitter for iPhone "
Selection failures - "what a mess"
How a player as good as Danni Wyatt could ever be left out by England for a sustained period is anyone's guess. When she came in at Hove in the second T20 she showed the kind of positivity that we desperately needed. Her end was one of the most unfortunate dismissals you'll see (run out at the non-striker's end) and she can't really be held responsible for it. OK, so she failed at Cardiff but fielded and caught brilliantly again, and at least got her duck out the way using only one ball in the process! Critics who don't know much about women's cricket (yes I point the finger at you, George Dobell) like to point to the fact that Wyatt's international record is disappointing - she has never scored a 50 for England in 59 iT20 games. I accept that her average of under 13 is not great.
However, I would point out that 50s are relatively rare in women's T20 (Greenway only has 2) and her strike rate, which is more important is actually very good (102). She also has 46 iT20 wickets at under 15 apiece. The bigger question however is who could do better? Knight's iT20 batting record (no fifties, ave. 14, SR 103) is uncannily similar but over a shorter time, certainly not much better and has got worse over this summer. Knight however remains cemented in place as vice-captain. Danni therefore has sustained Knight's record, along with better bowling, for a much longer period. She is one of England's most exciting players and a real fan favourite, so we would do well to keep her in the side.
Elsewhere we have Winfield struggling to get runs, certainly at a rate suitable for T20 cricket. Why anyone thought that the ushering in of the T20 series would just magically evaporate these issues away, I have no idea. Winfield was included in the T20 squad for the first 2 games, then having failed twice was dropped for the Cardiff game. Meanwhile, exciting young players like Georgia Elwiss (fresh from the most positive innings England played in the Test) and Fran Wilson are either languishing on the sidelines or not even involved at all, and are being left to whack it around at county level. The argument that either of these players are not suited to T20 is made irrelevant by the fact that on her current form, neither is Winfield.
This is a selection mess. Choose your players and stick with them. I would have put Wyatt in the middle order for Knight, and played Elwiss for Gunn lower down. Fran Wilson would have replaced Winfield opening. I would have stuck with the same players as closely as possible for all 3 games.
Having picked Winfield though, the selectors should have stuck with her for all 3 games. As we have it, Winfield has played a mishmash of formats; been dropped, picked then dropped again. It can't be easy for her. England aren't making it easy for her. This constant fiddling and micro-management does no-one any favours.
England's bowling, one might argue, could not be improved that much and yet it needs strengthening in depth. We need more young seam/swing bowlers. Brunt won't always be around and Shrubsole has looked a little injured at times this series. It has been impressive and probably one of the big plusses that the extra Loughborough training and conditioning has given us - injury resistance. Inclusion of the very promising Tash Farrant regularly into the side in the extra games England urgently need to schedule, would only stand us in good stead for the future.
Edwards' future as captain
Izzy Wstbury on Edwards following Ashes loss
http://www.independent.co.uk/sport/cricket/england-women-vs-australia-charlotte-edwards-stands-firm-despite-defeat-10478511.html
Journalist Stephen Brenkley thinks Edwards should call it a day
http://www.independent.co.uk/sport/cricket/womens-cricket-time-for-charlotte-edwards-to-stand-down-as-england-captain-10480475.html
Crickether opinion
http://crickether.com/2015/09/01/opinion-are-questions-over-edwards-future-as-captain-justified/
Brenkley seems typical of the regular newspaper journalists commenting on women’s cricket. He is assuming that, like with men’s cricket, there is a host of ready replacements for the role waiting behind the scenes. And the captain has to be held responsible. He talks about what he knows – which isn’t much. His reasoning for Lottie's proposed departure is strangely short of detail - funny that.
This is because it is probably more the management and selectors who made a mess of this series, not Edwards. Edwards' batting does seem to be on a slow decline – I wonder if we will see the heights of 2014 again – but it is more her running that is the main issue on the field. However it appears that we can accommodate the “lack of athleticism” of certain players including Edwards which has been mentioned by many journalists. This is a red herring and non-issue in my view. England are more than capable in the field and one thing the Loughborough conditioning definitely has achieved is improvement there.
It is right to ask who else could do the job though. It’s difficult to suggest a suitable candidate. For me it would be Brunt (whose batting is on the up these days) or Greenway. The others are not in form themselves, would have logistical problems, or are in and out of the team. Greenway was out of the team not long ago, but that ship seems to have passed now.
The series loss was always going to prompt criticism from different commentators with varying levels of knowledge. If Edwards were to go, the only way of bringing it about that I can see would be to convince her that it was the only option. At the moment, and probably for the next couple of years I can see Edwards continue - and that would be best for the England side, especially whilst we undergo the “review” that the ECB/Connor has been mentioning. If there is to be upheaval, we need a few anchors in place to keep the England ship safely moored and afloat.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)