*Official* Women's Cricket discussion thread

[Molehill]

More than anything, there was no way of dressing up that crapulence in the field with those snippets. That was village!

I'm not sure they even showed some of the worst ones. Lamb seems to be a serial offender, she managed to misjudge a catch that landed about a metre over the ropes for 6.

It is also highlighted by the fact India were excellent, and took some real stunners during the series (Deepti with another corker yesterday to dismiss Jones).

 

[_Ed_]

Yeah, not sure if it's the WPL or some other reason, but India seems to have become a very good fielding side.

 

[Spark]

They're a bunch of snowflakes. Ecclestone was saying how she nearly quit the game earlier this Summer, but the love of Bell/Capsey etc helped bring her back. All that off the back of a bit of grief following the thrashing in Australia. What did she expect, to be welcomed back to this country with a pat on the back after such an appalling display? Seems like they want the benefits of professional sport (travelling the world, earning good money etc) without wishing to put in the hard yards. You'd think mixing with the Aussies in various franchise teams might've taught them something, but apparently not.

When Brunt played, you could never accuse her of not trying, or having the wrong attitude, she was far more like a hardened Aussie. There just appear to be none of those characters left now in this team. Looking back on that 2017 squad, it would appear that the likes of Hartley, Shrubsole, Taylor, Winfield etc were much steelier individuals than we gave them credit for.

What kind of pathways structure does English women's cricket have these days? In Australia, the thing that guarantees that the standard of professionalism is remains extremely high and is rigorously adhered to by everyone who rolls through the team is the incredibly intense level of competition; everyone knows that there's a full XI or more's worth of talent eager to take the place of anyone who decides they cbf doing the boring but necessary work of maintaining high standards. India seems to be increasingly benefiting from this competitive atmosphere as well.

England may not have the embarrassment of riches that Australia has talent wise but surely they at least try to create a similar structure; from a distance it seems like the English team is full of "pathways" players who were earmarked at a very young age to be "England players" and may not have never really had to face that same level of competition, adversity and frankly just fighting for their place against a sceptical crowd because they've been told all the way that their place is essentially gift-wrapped for them. That seems to have bled badly into the general culture surrounding the team; it's genuinely embarrassing that this fully professional, well-renumerated outfit who likely has as good a support structure around them as exists in the women's game treats it like a park game with mates.

Perhaps the difference between now and the players of England's golden era - your Taylors, your Shrubsoles, your Edwards - is that they had to fight and earn everything they got, nothing was just given to them.

 

[kevinw]

KSBs attitude in the back end of her career annoyed me at the time. She seemed to have a very poor approach to younger players who messed up in the field, staring daggers and not being supportive. In hindsight, I was being harsh. At least she cared or had standards. These girls don't seem to really care about winning.

 

[Molehill]

What kind of pathways structure does English women's cricket have these days? In Australia, the thing that guarantees that the standard of professionalism is remains extremely high and is rigorously adhered to by everyone who rolls through the team is the incredibly intense level of competition; everyone knows that there's a full XI or more's worth of talent eager to take the place of anyone who decides they cbf doing the boring but necessary work of maintaining high standards. India seems to be increasingly benefiting from this competitive atmosphere as well.

England may not have the embarrassment of riches that Australia has talent wise but surely they at least try to create a similar structure; from a distance it seems like the English team is full of "pathways" players who were earmarked at a very young age to be "England players" and may not have never really had to face that same level of competition, adversity and frankly just fighting for their place against a sceptical crowd because they've been told all the way that their place is essentially gift-wrapped for them. That seems to have bled badly into the general culture surrounding the team; it's genuinely embarrassing that this fully professional, well-renumerated outfit who likely has as good a support structure around them as exists in the women's game treats it like a park game with mates.

Perhaps the difference between now and the players of England's golden era - your Taylors, your Shrubsoles, your Edwards - is that they had to fight and earn everything they got, nothing was just given to them.

My own daughter went through the County structure in Berkshire which has produced both Knight and Bell. To be honest, I thought it was pretty ruthless in working out who the real talents were (and I had no issue with that).

The growth of football (and the success that team is having) is undoubtedly grabbing some talent that may have gone down the cricket route, but I don’t think the issue is really a talent one anyway. I wouldn’t mind if they’re just not good enough, but the team that went to the Ashes had enough talent to at least win 2 games. The issue is far more with attitude. Australia have taken things to the next level since not winning the 2017 World Cup, India are now clearly the closest to them.

But perhaps an even bigger concern is that this rabble (without Ecclestone) comfortably dealt with WI. The gulf between top and bottom in Women’s Cricket is just getting bigger. Hard to see that crazy T20 happening again.