Thursday 24 December 2015

Christmas 2015!

It's Christmas 2015!

Well a merry Christmas to everyone! Welcome to my final blogpost of the year!
It's really just a very, very quick mash-up of topics I put together in a couple of minutes. I've been pretty busy all-round actually.
I don't know how many more posts I'll do for this blog. It may only be a few on special occasions from now on. I'm probably going to put out more about sport (cricket and maybe a bit of football) and the photo blogs again (see here http://jpiesports.blogspot.co.uk/) come the spring and summer. It's certainly been fun and rewarding though, and I've put out a lot of what I've wanted to say over the past couple of years. They're not really meant for anyone especially to read but if anyone has any comments, please let me know.

Dr Who
Well what a season of exciting sci-fi TV we've had! It's probably been my favourite season of Who since the reboot in 2005. And Capaldi is the best Doctor for a while too, up there with Tom Baker and David Tennant. And we have had some of the best companions too. Clara and Isildur/Me were vastly entertaining and my favourites since Martha...
In particular I loved the episode “Heaven Sent” (Season 9, Episode 11). It was dark, scary, unimaginably epic, and actually pretty horrific. And it was brilliantly carried by Capaldi, who was pretty much the only character in the episode.

Favourite music / albums from 2015
A quick collections of stuff from my favourite genre, in no particular order.
Ones and Zeros (Young Guns)
The band from High Wycombe have done it again, produced a brilliant rock album that will keep you on your toes from start to finish. This one is full of soaring choruses and has no filler songs. With many great tracks it is an instant classic and probably my favourite this year!
Ghosts Again (Foreveratlast)
A female-fronted punk band along the lines of Paramore, but heavier. The album is well put together and rocks along at a merry old pace.
Baby Eater (Monster On Sunday)
This band are overtly atheist and also have a female singer. A bit lo-fi, but the song “Just Like You” is really worth listening to.
Other recommendations:
Into the Wild Life (Halestorm)
Black Clouds EP (Grant Nicholas)
Adrenaline Rush (eponymous)

Favourite video games from 2015
Well I've enjoyed playing a lot of games this year. Highlights have to be Pillars of Eternity, Just Cause 3, Divinity Original Sin : Enhanced Edition, the expansion packs for Dragon Age Inquisition, Resident Evil Revelations 2, Halo 5 and Rise of the Tomb Raider. All excellent.
Most of these games are available for PC on Steam or Origin, or PS4. The latter 2 games are only on Xbox One (Tomb Raider temporarily, in a puzzling move by the developers).
At Christmas I hopefully going to get Fallout 4 and the latest incarnation of the Call of Duty series!

Favourite films of 2015
Well there was Spectre, the latest James Bond offering; The Martian; Mission Impossible Rogue Nation and Star Wars VII: The Force Awakens among a few others. Avengers: Age of Ultron was fun too. I do enjoy these sci-fi movies and I might review the latest Star Wars at some point. I wasn't quite as keen on it as most people, not being one overly fond of nostalgia, so I'm currently listening to the audiobook of the accompanying novel ,which fleshes out a few of the areas the film was a bit light in, in my opinion.

Skeptoid - anti-science websites
Just a quick final shout-out to the cool guys at Skeptoid! Here is a great summery of online sources that simply cannot be trusted and contain a lot of very unreliable, dubious information.
Beware these dodgy websites!

Christmas
Here are all my family's presents before we opened them! Another lovely Christmas was had by all!

Cricket

On Boxing day the South Africa vs. England test series starts. We also have the Big Bash League competitions in full swing so it's going to be an exciting time in the next couple of months (well in the southern hemisphere at least!)

---

Sunday 13 September 2015

Comments on the LinkedIn sexism storm

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.

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

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.

Sunday 30 August 2015

A point of view: John Gray on "Evangelical Atheism"

John Gray's latest "Point of View" would seem to be entirely his own delusion.


If Gray actually took the time to speak to more atheists, I think he'd find that there was less disagreement between his own "religion friendly" version of atheism and their beliefs. The falsehood here is his own personal belief that modern atheism is all Dawkins and Harris: combative, offensive, provocative, disrespectful and rude; somehow inferior to that of the previous, considerate intellectual giants he reveres from his ivory tower. His confusion stems from the belief that so many current atheists follow so closely in the footsteps of said New Atheism; Gray is inventing a host of enemies where few actually exist.

Whilst there is undoubtedly merit in looking back at the lives of these atheists from bygone years, and indeed these case studies are the most interesting parts of Gray's article; the usefulness of his point of view ends when he starts taking his own personal vendetta with a small number of radical anti-theists to a larger stage, just to try and prove a point. One might argue that these people he describes need to exist, as they are just one end of the spectrum of beliefs  - and you can't right a ship by jumping up and down in the middle - regardless, there is no particular reason to consider them "mainstream". And even these "atheist extremists" who I might add do not really represent the views of most atheists, tend to be wordsmiths or activists-lite. There are very few if any who actually resort to violence because of their unbelief. The same cannot be said of religious zealots.


 "An atheist, we tend to assume, is someone who thinks science should be the basis of our beliefs and tries to convert others to this view of things"


No. YOU tend to assume, Prof. Gray, thus it's in your interests to paint this myopic viewpoint as fact. There is no need to convert others to a scientific view of things, as its benefits are self evident. One of the biggest factors leading to the fall in religiosity the world has seen in recent years has been that scientific and technological advancements actually work; and belief in Gods, seemingly, does not. And even if anyone wanted to convert someone - you can lead a horse to water but you can't make it drink, as the saying goes.


Atheists these days possess a huge range of beliefs and attitudes. If you put ten together in a room, none of them may agree exactly on anything. Embracing science and philosophy, which more and more atheists do, allows for nuances and perspectives that enhance our individuality. Far from being monolithic, modern atheists have some of the most diverse opinions you could hope to come across.
 

"But for both of them (Leopardi and Powys), religion was much more than an outdated theory. If Leopardi believed religion of one sort or another was beneficial for human happiness, Powys valued religion as a kind of poetry, which fortified the human spirit in the face of death."

Religion isn't a theory at all, it's a hypothesis. It's "outdated" only in the sense that it was devised a long time ago and in many cases hasn't changed much - plenty of people still believe it and this number will increase as the world population rises and parents continue to indoctrinate their children. So in fact it is very much still "here and now". And you can still believe that "religion of one sort or another" is beneficial to human happiness and be an atheist today. We just don't necessarily need the supernatural parts. The benefits of engaging in ceremony, ritual and being part of a large friendly group has been studied to death. And it's well known that kidding yourself (and having to believe it) is one way to increase performance or overcome hardship and psychological barriers. Again, there are ways of doing this that depart from what would be considered "religion" as well. For all his aggrandising of religion, Gray's reductionist views of the scope, range and variety of modern atheism are what's really short-sighted here.


His last paragraph just rehashes the same arguments from earlier in his article. What evidence does Gray have that most atheists even behave like this? I'd sure like to know. Until then I consider it to be his own personal delusion.

Review: Ashes 2015 - England vs. Australia 5th Test, The Kia Oval, 20- 23 August 2015

Review: Ashes 2015 - England vs. Australia 5th Test, The Kia Oval, 20- 23 August 2015

Ashes-winning England crumble as captain Clarke bows out with final win


Fifth Test review: Australia won by and innings and 46 runs.  England won the 5-match series 3-2


I don't want to overly dwell on the fifth test too much - it's been well covered elsewhere (see the many links I've provided in this post) and from an England perspective, after the series was already won, was a bit of an anti-climax!


England wasted a golden opportunity to give leg spinner Adil Rashid some extra experience before going out on their UAE tour. Instead they stuck with the same team, yet still succumbed to Australia by an innings thanks to some dodgy batting, especially in their first innings. Forced to follow on by outgoing Australian captain Michael Clarke, England made a better effort in the second innings but just failed to make Australia bat again, finally losing by an innings and 46 runs.


The Ashes were already won, but it felt slightly strange to parade the Urn round the Kia Oval having just lost the match so decisively. The celebrations should have ideally taken place at Trent Bridge after the last Test. It was a great series in many ways, but also an unusual one. Each side performed either very well, or very poorly in spells. England just had more very good spells than Australia. The victory was unexpected, but it may be telling for England going forward that the only 2 games that were played on good, flat batting wickets (Lord's and the Oval), Australia won comfortably.


Links:

Scorecard
http://www.espncricinfo.com/the-ashes-2015/engine/match/743971.html
 

ESPNCricinfo review
http://www.espncricinfo.com/the-ashes-2015/content/story/912791.html
 

Nicholas: High Drama, low tension
http://www.espncricinfo.com/the-ashes-2015/content/story/913043.html
 

Overall series ratings - Swanny
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/cricket/34034006
 

Preview going forward
http://www.alloutcricket.com/cricket/blogs/tougher-tests-ahead-for-englands-ashes-winners
 

BBC TMS podcast
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p030hgyf
 


Match ratings

Ratings Explained: 1-3 very poor, 4 poor, 5 average, 6 OK, 7 good, 8 very good, 9 excellent, 10 unbelievable


England - Overall rating: 5
Cook*- 7
Lyth - 4.5
Bell - 4
Root - 4.5
Bairstow - 5
Stokes - 5.5
Buttler+ - 6
Moeen Ali - 7
Broad - 5
Finn - 7
Wood- 6

Australia team rating - 8
 

---
 

Overall series ratings (all 5 Tests)

England Team Average - 7.2
Australia Team Average - 5.9


Average Player ratings (ordered with top first):


Finn - 7.8 (only 3 matches)
Broad - 7.7
Anderson - 7.5
Cook*- 7,4
Root - 7.3
Moeen Ali - 7.2
Stokes - 7.0
Wood- 7.0

Buttler+ - 6.3
Bairstow - 6.3
Bell - 6.1
Ballance - 5.8
Lyth - 5.3


---


Going forward:


Here is a brief summary of the England fixtures up to and including next summer. We have a couple of long winter tours ahead of us, followed by the excitement of the iT20 world cup next spring. Sri Lanka and Pakistan will be the visiting teams next year. The life of an international cricketer is sure a busy and hard one!


2015-16
Oct-Nov: PAKISTAN (in UAE) - 3 Tests, 4 ODIs, 3 iT20s


Dec-Feb: SOUTH AFRICA - 4 Tests, 5 ODIs, 2 iT20s

 

2016
Mar-Apr: ICC iT20 World Cup (India) 


May-Jun (in ENG now): SRI LANKA - 3 Tests, 5 ODIs and 1 iT20


Jul-Sep: PAKISTAN - 4 Tests, 5 ODIs and 1 iT20

...

Sunday 16 August 2015

Women's Ashes: Only Test Review, comments, opinions, fallout and iT20 series Preview

Women's Ashes: Only Test Review, comments, opinions, fallout and iT20 series Preview

Let's just get this out of the way first: I absolutely love this team and want them to do well. They are a terrific bunch of girls and outstanding role models for aspiring young players both male and female. They are all very talented and committed, and many are world-class.

This is not a rant. I've tried to take on a more reflective tone. I've got the rant out of the way already earlier this year. I'll leave it up to the papers for that - I doubt they'll be kind. The next few lines will suffice.

This Test match was a disaster for England Women cricket. There's no other way to put it. We were outplayed in all departments, out-thought and outclassed.

On Friday afternoon after Nat Sciver walked off for 2, having edged Megan Schutt behind to keeper Alyssa Healy, England were 29-5. Amazingly, it was the 21st over. The run rate was closer to 1 run an over than 2. At that point, as a pessimistic onlooker who loves to moan, even I was shocked. It was another stuttering, frightened and fearful performance where we just didn't do ourselves justice. We were playing like the proverbial rabbits in the headlights.

The scorecard, if you dare, can be found here.

Of course, captain Charlotte Edwards has to talk up our remaining chances, such that they are. 

She has to pretend everything can be fixed with a bit more work. 

But it does appear the problems go much deeper.

Test Review

Australia won the toss on what started out as a good pitch and batted. England put on early pressure and managed to restrict the Aussie openers early on. Shrubsole returned for a devastating spell which ripped through the middle order, removing the top four players. Brunt also struck. The Southern Stars were in trouble at this point but there was then a period of recovery when Healy and Jonassen put on 77 for the sixth wicket. Marsh then made an impact with a couple of wickets but another partnership between Jonassen and Beams took Southern Stars to a very competitive score, which they finally declared the following morning with 274-9, Jonassen out for 99 finishing just a single short of her maiden Test century on debut. It was a classy, punishing innings full of beautiful off drives. England had let Australia off the hook after getting them in trouble early on, and it did not bode well.

England started slowly and were soon losing regular wickets, as Winfield and Knight departed, with Taylor out LBW playing across the line for a golden duck in between. Edwards (30) then added some solidity and played nicely for a while with Greenway (22) before she was bowled by a beauty from Megan Schutt. Sciver came in and batted well, top-scoring with 35 before she was erroneously judged LBW to Schutt, the ball clearly going down the leg side. Elwiss was then bowled by Jonassen's left arm spin - a ripper which turned sharply from leg to hit the top off off stump. Brunt offered late, typically belligerent resistance, but the remainder of the tail could only block and add few extra runs. When Brunt was castled by Coyte, the scoring innings was effectively over. England were soon all out for 168. It has been a slow and underwhelming effort, at under 2 runs an over. So ended day 2. We thought that was bad, but worse was to come unfortunately.

Being 106 runs ahead, Australia could have been more positive on the heavily rain affected day 3. Instead they batted relatively slowly and did not declare. An inspired early spell by Brunt saw Australia reduced to 2-2 as she claimed the impressive scalps of Villani and Lanning, both for ducks. Nicole Bolton who survived the early onslaught only to be later dismissed by Cross for 25, said it was some of the best bowling she'd ever faced. Shrubsole then removed Perry cheaply, but there was another very good partnership between Blackwell (47*) and Jonassen (54), the latter carrying on where she'd left off in the third innings. Play had now progressed to the final day, and Southern Stars were leaving their second declaration worryingly late. But England did not bowl well on the final morning and went defensive. Something did not feel right. The England players did not look up for the fight to come. Fielding and bowling was tentative. And they showed us why after Australia declared, setting England a victory target of 263.

England were soon in trouble again with the bat. The pitch was taking more turn and showing inconsistent bounce. And Southern Stars bowled very well. The batters seemed intent on playing around their pads or wafting outside off stump. This time, there was no middle order recovery even like the small one we'd seen in the first innings. England were 29-5 in the 21st over before they knew it, unable to meet the run rate needed for victory, and in a rapid downward spiral. It was Perry, Schutt and Coyte wot did it. Let's face it, England may not have reached the target with a third innings! In stepped Greenway and Elwiss, and  there was a serene period between lunch and tea when the sun shone, and one could almost be forgiven for thinking that England might actually get a draw. The Southern Stars bowling wilted towards Tea, and with Greenway dead batting everything at one end and Elwiss (46) playing the best innings of any England player in the game so far at the other, that dreaded feeling emerged - hope. I could cope with the despair, but not with the hope, as the saying goes. 


Shortly after Tea though, the game rapidly moved towards its conclusion. Greenway, having been hit by the Perry short ball, ducked under what she though was a bouncer and was bizarrely bowled on her leg stump as the ball kept extremely low. Marsh soon followed, to complete a miserable pair with the bat, and Brunt was given another bad decision by the umpires, incorrectly adjudged to have edged a short ball when actually it hit her helmet. That effectively ended all hopes of resistance with only Shrubsole and Cross to come. As a final insult, the magnificent Perry (6-32) denied Elwiss a much deserved 50 when her delivery was tamely patted up to mid on for Schutt to take. Shrubsole didn't last much longer and England were all out for 101. Southern Stars won by 161 runs, but effectively it was an innings and 5 runs, as the Aussie second innings only amounted to 156-6 dec. This was, by all accounts, a very effective and very clinical performance by Australia.


Post-Match

Ebony Rainford-Brent (ERB) gave a particularly candid summary on BBC's TMS: She said certain players were underperforming badly and could do with a "refresh" (referring to Sarah Taylor). And also that she thought England would now be entering a "potential 5 year lull" before the effects of the upcoming domestic T20 (WCSL) and 50 overs franchise competitions kick in. 

I agree. There is no reason to expect things to pick up significantly before this time. During this "lull" I predict we will move away from the top couple of spots in world women's cricket and maybe down into fourth or fifth. As much as I've previously resisted it, now even I will admit that our automatic qualification spot in the 2017 world cup (50 overs) may be in jeopardy. England don't look as good as the Aussies, West Indies, New Zealand (who we narrowly beat recently when playing much better than right now) or even South Africa. 

This winter we are touring South Africa. Their women's team have a lot of promise and have improved under captain Mignon Du Preez (who is a good, positive player if maybe a little too forthcoming with her personal religious beliefs on social media!) England almost lost out to them in one match when we last played them in 3 T20s last summer. The last game, was pretty much won by Nat Sciver's fielding and what I regard as Lauren Winfield's best performance for England. 

It seems some time ago now. England have gone backwards since then, whilst South Africa have no doubt improved. We were, I'm sure, playing much better than now. On their home turf, I fear that we may lose out to South Africa, especially in the ODI format.

The WCSL (women's cricket super league) just can't come quickly enough. 

If it's anything like the FAWSL is for women's football, it will be fantastic.

On now to some of the criticisms received so far. Some are fair, others maybe misplaced. One of the common themes and one I'm not sure I care too much for, is the insinuation that the England team is much less athletic than the Australian one. There seem to be geographical, cultural and genetic reasons for this: for Example the Australian women's football team (The Maltildas) are mostly tall, blonde and athletic, more so than the England's Lionesses but that doesn't mean they're better. In fact we beat them 3-0 earlier this year in the Cyprus cup. Australia is hotter, and its inhabitants have more of a penchant for the outdoors. Spend too much time outside in England and you're likely to get drenched to the skin.

But could there be other reasons for the difference in athleticism? Indeed, and here may lie the answer - because and it reveals another issue with the England development system.


Player Ages of Test squad (Source: ESPN Cricinfo)

Name
Age (Yrs - at Test match)
Australia: Elyse Villani
25
Nicole Bolton
26
Meg Lanning
23
Ellyse Perry
24
Alex Blackwell
31
Jess Jonassen
22
Alyssa Healy
25
Sarah Coyte
24
Megan Shutt
22
Kristen Beams
30
Holly Ferling
19 (Australia average: 24.6 yrs)


England: Heather Knight
24
Lauren Winfield
24
Sarah Taylor
26
Charlotte Edwards
35
Lydia Greenway
30
Natalie Sciver
22
Georgia Elwiss
24
Laura Marsh
28
Katherine Brunt
30
Anya Shrubsole
23
Kate Cross
23 (England average: 26.3 yrs)



England's team was almost 2 years older than Australia's on average. Australia have more very young players around 19-21, and even their quite young players (23-25) like Lanning and Perry seem to have been around forever because they started at such a young age. Meanwhile England are just starting to bring through Academy players who are already in their mid-20's. We need to be better at identifying talent at a young age and backing it, all the way through to a later level more often. Inclusion of Academy players Amy Jones (22) and Fran Wilson (23) would bring the average age down.

Unrest in the England camp?

I wondered if there’s some sort of psychological contagion in the dressing room affecting the batters – whenever a player is in the team for more than a few games, they start to play negative, frightened cricket; but Elwiss didn’t catch the bug yet. Jones and Wilson won't have, either.

I wondered. Then came this article. Entitled "There's a hubris about England"

All connected to the women's game in England would do well to read it.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/cricket/33932360

Defnition:
Hubris ("Hyoo-bris") 
noun
1. excessive pride or self-confidence; arrogance.

Izzy Westbury continues some of her excellent punditry and analysis on the women's game by telling it like it is. She should know as a former England player, tossed out by the system like so much waste. There are serious structural problems that must be addressed, but basically can't be, because of the current set-up.

There is an "Old Guard" of players who get kept in the squad despite any bad performances - they are effectively allowed more "chances" than the players who have to prove themselves coming out of the academy. The obvious example would be Amy Jones who is young and VERY talented but got dropped after just a couple of failures. I know I said she looked out of her depth before, I may have been wrong but nevertheless, we need to give her another go in the upcoming T20 series. Whereas Jenny Gunn has been around for a long time, not done too much for us for a while, but still would have played in the Test if it were not for a late injury. This is some strange selection protocol going around.

* See "The squad - going forward" later on

One of the most unfortunate things that's happened with Lottie's captaincy this summer has been the disconnect between her rhetoric and the reality of England's cricket. How, for example,  she claimed that England would adopt a more attacking style of play against the Aussies in the wake of the England men's team one-day renaissance against New Zealand. I'm sorry, but there has been very little sign of that. In fact, quite the opposite has happened. England have now gone into their shells. They turned turtle, and are batting with a timidity and lack of confidence which is neither good to watch, nor good for results.

I wonder if the team have been sat down and just told to play aggressively. I wonder if there's too much control-freakery and micro-management going on behind the scenes in the England camp. When things go so badly wrong, this often turns out to have been the case.

As an example of how this tactic does not work, please see the following:



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KE0-zQBL-Sc
(Youtube search: 

The Simpsons Movie clip 11 "Whipping Dogs")


I hope you'll agree - it's a very amusing little light hearted clip but possibly quite appropriate to the current situation with England Women. That is, if there has been too much interference from the top-down. 

I always laugh when Homer yells "Rest!" while carrying on with the whip. The huskies is an unfortunate analogy - I hope you accept that in no  way or by no means do I consider any member of the team "dogs" or anything - nor as dumb as Homer Simpson! 

D'oh! :-)

Raf Nicholson also agrees that the problems for England go deeper than their own camp would like to make out. 

Her writing is impressive, and always worth a look.



Predictions

So it seems my predictions have been not too bad, so far. I predicted the ODI series loss, Test loss ("possibly by an innings" and seeing as Australia's second innings was 156-6 and they won by 161, it's effectively an innings and 5 runs; and 161 was pretty close to England's first innings of 168; so I regard this as a decent call). I am predicting Aussie to go on and win the Ashes, certainly within the first 2 games. They will win the iT20 series either 2-1 or 3-0. England may fight back a bit more - this could come in the first game, but more likely in the dead rubbers to follow if they lose that first one.

I wondered if the third ODI at Worcester, bad though it was, would be the nadir for England - and indeed it wasn't, because the test match beat it by some margin. Looking at it from outside, people must think "what on earth is happening?". The bedrock of women's cricket has shifted - this is change on a tectonic scale. The televising of the women's Ashes Test may have led to some tense and interesting cricket, but it was not fast-paced enough for some.

Even some of those involved in the broadcast (Paul Allott) on Sky TV basically advised the viewers to go elsewhere if they wanted to watch something more exciting. I don't need to remind people that when a programme is hinting at you not to watch it, there are serious problems around. When he said that the match was not easily watchable, with Lisa Sthalekar and Isa Guha sat there in the studio, there was an uncomfortable moment of silence which spoke volumes. (I, and no doubt the two women in the studio, wanted to shout "Be quiet Allott you great big sexist!" but there was some truth in his words which stopped us).

But looking at it analytically, this defeat for England had been coming for some time. Going forward in the series, it seems like Taunton will continue to have been the zenith for England - any T20 glory will surely be darkened by the overall series loss. I even wonder if anything further can be gained. It would disappoint me greatly (but not surprise me too greatly) if England failed to reach 100 in any of their upcoming 3 T20 innings. That would be both embarrassing, and devastating, so let's hope it doesn't happen. One more win to get us up to that 4 point mark is surely possible. Isn't it?

Positives

Enough doom and gloom. What plus points can England take out of the game?

+ Well Georgia Elwiss batted absolutely beautifully in the second innings of the Test. She kept on trying to score and didn't get bogged down like Greenway, who herself at least showed more resistance than most. Elwiss showed the resolve, technique and temperament that was desperately needed, but ran out of partners unfortunately. She plays positively and is particularly effective on good flat batting tracks like those often found abroad. At times in that session between lunch and tea, she looked like the best test player in all of England. 

But she isn't. This is my larger point so don't jump to conclusions yet. Her speciality is really the shorter formats of the game. Hell, Elwiss isn't even a batter, she's an allrounder who used to be a bowler. Greenway’s been one of England’s few consistent players this summer and Elwiss looked much better than her at the crease. Most observers think that Amy Jones and Fran Wilson, who staggeringly continue to languish in the background, are just as good as Elwiss, if not better. They're specialist bats, plus Jones can keep wicket. Just imagine how good we could be if all these players were on their game at once (and all playing for us at the same time, as they should be). 

Anyway Elwiss would hopefully have won a few fans out there and is just the type of player we need – dynamic, positive, classy and able to do herself justice with bat and ball. Plus she obviously has the type of resolve so lacking amongst many of the other players. You could tell she was absolutely devastated in her post match interview – she really believed England could save the game. On top of all that, as a last minute replacement for Gunn, I think Elwiss did better than we can possibly have expected. Hopefully she'll be given a proper chance now. The main area of her game that needs to be improved first as far as I can see is her fielding.

Some it seems though, are keen to play down Elwiss's performance, now what reason there could be for that I can't possibly imagine. It's almost as if they may have something against her, but I'd never suggest such a thing so I suppose it must be my imagination. Why you wouldn't want to take one of the few genuine positives from the game, I'll never know.

http://crickether.com/2015/08/14/random-thoughts-womens-ashes-test-day-4/#comments

"A cameo with a lame dismissal". Seriously?

Right, so my last words on this issue, because it's a sideshow to the main event of England and where they go from here, and distracting me from moving forward. No-one is claiming that Elwiss covered herself in glory, just that she covered herself in less of the bad-smelling stuff than everyone else who batted. That's something. It was more the manner in which she played which was impressive rather than the score she got. Top score for England in either innings though, for what it's worth, and a pretty long "cameo" at 118 balls, almost an entire T20 innings. Her end was tame, but when most of the other England batter's ends were too, if not more so, that's not saying much. Even Jonassen holed out so mid off/on in similar fashion, it was just a harder catch which Greenway took comfortably. Also not saying much is the assertion that Elwiss is not as good as Jonassen. So what? Right now, who is? On the evidence of that game, Lanning and Perry can't bat as well as JJ either, but we're not all shouting that from the rooftops. Because we know they are great players.

Anyway enough of that, back to the positives (for England).

+ Brunt and Shrubsole can still tear apart the opposition batting. We saw in a couple of devastating spells from both of our main strike bowlers, what they can still do with the ball. Shrubsole has that dangerous swing and nip that the batters never feel truly "in" against and Brunt can take her pace and aggression to another level when she wants. Both are great exponents of their craft.

+ Sarah Taylor is a fantastic wicket-keeper. Some of her keeping in the test was class. Hand speed and awareness is on another level. But at what price does this excellence come? We should study how she bats in comparison, when relieved of her glove-butler duties. If only she could bat well in Tests...

T20 preview

One advantage that England have is that they won't be needing scores up above 200 now the T20s are up. As long as they bowl reasonably well, that is. 

Just a quick aside to set the tone. In 1964, great film director Stanley Kubrick made a film called: "Dr. Strangelove, Or: How I learned to stop worrying and love the bomb". 

It is a political satire on the cold war. In it, an  unhinged US military commander seeks to destroy everything by initiating a first nuclear strike. There are parallels to the current England situation. Their management seem to have "gone nuclear" in tactics and team selection, and have had a good go at destroying England's reputation and chances of retaining the Ashes. 

But let's turn this around. The film's eccentric title is ripe for satire itself. Now, I wait all year to be able to use lines like this:

"Dr. StrangeGlove, or: How England can learn to stop worrying and love the BOOM!" 

Apologies. It's a crummy, stolen line and one that I admit does sound a bit condescending coming from a bloke. But, that single line contains a lot of content, not only to describe England's current travails, but also the solution required. Mix up the wicketkeeping. Bringing the superbly talented Amy Jones into the side will enable her to keep wicket and allow Taylor to focus on batting. We need to lose our fear at the crease and play naturally, as Sciver did in ODI 1, and as Elwiss did in the second innings of the Test. But this should not be done by just putting further demands on the players. Micromanage less. Let players do things their own way. We should not be afraid to get out, but should be looking to score whenever possible. Every batter trying to be defensive, as if they'd been told they would get dropped if they got out (which probably wasn't the case but it sure looked like it in the Test) just makes everyone play badly. If we need more solid players, sure include them but don't give everyone the same job.

In the T20s everyone should play as positively as they can. Whack the ball to the boundary! Hence the BOOM! 

My worry is, our best possible score seems to be around the 140 mark; 

(I was at that game by the way - it was absolutely fantastic)

whilst Australia can surpass that with scores of around 150. 


My T20 squad

Edwards*, A. Jones +, Sciver, Greenway, Taylor, Elwiss, Wilson, Wyatt, Brunt, Hazell, Shrubsole

(Winfield, Knight, Cross, E. Jones, Farrant, Gunn)

Australia: We already know they will be missing Delissa Kimmince which is a big loss, as she is a fast-scoring batter and medium pace bowler who can bowl out 4 overs in T20. Although this is a plus for England, the Aussie squad so far otherwise looks strong, and barring any further injury should prove more than a match for a dispirited England team. 

T20 is possibly their strongest format. They will surely welcome back the destructive batter Jess Cameron who has been unlucky to not play more, probably only kept out by the strong performances of her compatriots so far. Expect her to replace the more sedate but solid Nicole Bolton in the team. We may also see Erin Osborne and Rene Farrell return during the series. 

It will be more exciting, and I expect Australia to post some very challenging scores (140+) should they bat first. If England bat first, they will need at least 130 depending on the pitch, to have any sort of chance, and will also need to bowl very well and take early wickets, as well as field well and take all the catches that come.


So up next in the series England head off to Chelmsford to start the 3-match iT20 series. The games come thick and fast with only a 1 or 2 day break in between. England must win ALL 3 matches to retain the Ashes trophy. Seeing as Southern Stars are reigning iT20 champions, coupled with the fact that England's scoring rates have been very low so far, this seems extremely unlikely indeed. Here are the fixtures. Just to note, I will be attending the final game at Cardiff on the bank holiday Monday. I will take pictures and also for the men's iT20 afterwards and publish them on the picture blog. Expect to see more excitement than the Test, and I expect England to put up at least one good performance (hopefully when Australia have a bad day at the office) and be more competitive all-round.


Date
Format
Venue
Points for a win
Points for a draw

Wed August 26
NatWest T20I
The Essex County Ground, Chelmsford
2 points 
N/A
Fri August 28
NatWest T20I
The BrightonandHoveJobs.com County Ground, Hove
2 points  
N/A
Mon August 31
NatWest T20I
SWALEC Stadium, Cardiff
2 points
N/A


I hear tickets are selling out fast, but as always with England Women offer excellent value for money. Before this, to warm up, Southern Stars are heading out to Ireland to play their women's side in a 3-match iT20 series on 19, 21 and 22 Aug. Ireland are much improved of late, but still expect the Aussies to win comfortably.



* The squad, going forward

It appears that some England players are "passengers", according to various observers and journalists, that is neither contributing with bat or ball. If this moniker were to apply to anyone, the following names spring to mind. Not a final nor exhaustive list and only my opinion of course. These players have not stepped up so far and could take a little look at themselves. I'm not suggesting they never play for us again or anything, but their role in the team needs to be considered. They need a "refresh", as ERB puts it. Think about how our contracts can be renewed. Mix up their position in the order and rework their bowling roles with the benefit of the team in mind. The final 3 players, although decidedly members of "The Old Guard" as it were, I have included in brackets as I don't agree with Izzy that there's quite enough evidence to include them here.

Laura Marsh, Lauren Winfield, Kate Cross, Heather Knight

(Jenny Gunn - although she's not played much of late so this is a bit harsh in my view)

(Lydia Greenway - having performed somewhat more consistently this summer, I also think her inclusion here is harsh)

(Sarah Taylor - Her failures with the bat have mostly been in Tests. Her ODI / T20 record still very strong. And wicketkeeping remains excellent. Too good a player to drop)

Further ideas

We need to bring in more left-handers to keep opposition bowlers on their toes. Greenway will only be around a few more years at most and I understand Evelyn Jones is the only other left-handed Academy prospect. So bring her in closer to the team and give her a few try outs.

The central contracts need to be looked at every six-months, or certainly every year at most. 2 years is too long a gap. Most if not all of the contracted players should be playing decent standard of cricket somewhere in the winter, especially if not in the current main squad. At the moment this seems to be just a few rather than most of them.

International fixtures need to be stepped up so we are touring for longer series every winter; and have 2 sides over here to play every summer with ODIs and T20s against both.
---

Finally, we all know how fickle sports fans can be. England fans in particular are known for their penchant for moaning. And moaning can be fun. So much fun, in fact, that it can become our only recourse. Especially in tough times like these.

How wonderful it would be if England Women's cricket team could deliver a performance so supreme** (**beating Australia in T20 counts) that revelling in its glory would actually be more fun than moaning! They have the ability to make it happen and make a BOOM, and let's hope they do.