Month: Jun 2023

Working Six to Leg

thelegglance17 Comments

Two Tests, two defeats for England, but in rather different ways and with different attitudes, yet in both cases it is Australia who are 1-0 up.

This morning the women concluded on the fifth day – praise be for that change – but England came up short and will have some regrets, firstly that they didn’t kick on a little more in the first innings and for the shot selection in the second (plus a couple of tight lbws that didn’t go their way, c’est la vie). Australia are a fantastic team, and the addition of a fifth day making a result far more likely meant that Australia would have been deemed the likely winners before the start, but England had their chances and didn’t take them, the very essence of sport. It is instructive to note that the England women, while they score quickly, adopt a more traditional approach to run scoring than their male counterparts, which ought to be notable in the sense that this did not make them immune from making errors under pressure and playing poor shots. It is not purely a characteristic of Bazball. But unlike with the men, this one defeat really wrecks England’s chances of winning the series.

The response to England’s defeat to Australia at Edgbaston has been rather interesting. Ranging from a shrug of the shoulders to outrage depending on outlook and approach. What can be said is that it was a terrific Test match, that swung one way and then the other and was in doubt through to the very end. That in itself is becoming something of a habit for this England team, and few would deny they are quite extraordinary to watch.

The question though is to what extent England threw it away and how much it was that Australia went out and won it – plus what it means for the rest of the series. There aren’t any right or wrong answers to this, and the criticisms have validity, but equally so do the words of the defenders.

What can be agreed is that England’s approach has brought a lot more success than they had been having up to the point they flicked a switch and went on a rampage – a single win in seventeen Tests has been succeeded by eleven wins in fourteen. Overall, few would deny that this is rather better, so the criticisms are around the matter of degree rather than in general, except perhaps for a few who particularly revel in a two runs an over approach for its own sake.

Plenty of teams have adopted a positive approach to the game, that’s nothing new, where England differ is that they do so with an insouciance that looks reckless to many. But I would argue that this is not quite what it seems, or more specifically, the recklessness is deliberate, strategic and built in. “Playing without fear” is a mantra heard often, but it hardly ever means what it says, as Test cricket even in its modern form isa game where restraint is almost always the order of the day. In essence, whatever they might say, “fear” is baked into the equation, the fear of getting out, the fear of a collapse, the reluctance to play with complete freedom. It’s not a bad thing at all, it’s normal, at least historically. Where England are unique is that when they say they are playing without fear, they really mean it. Getting out is met with indifference and an occupational hazard precisely because of that approach. Anaethema to many it may be, but it is central to how England are playing. And this is important to note, because when it is said that all England need to do is to reign it in a bit, it is to change this mentality completely – it is to add fear, it is add the reticence to play with complete abandon. You will not get a team who can romp along at seven an over with it.

That doesn’t mean England can only throw the bat, for after England were somewhat unfortunately batting in poor conditions (sporting luck and bad luck, so be it) and lost wickets, they did tick over a bit more slowly in the second innings as it proceeded, Root’s scoop first ball of the day notwithstanding; but the ability to do that still without fear is the central aspect of England’s approach, the urgent desire to cut loose being transparently obvious even as they scored a little more slowly. Indeed, Stokes has been fairly criticised for going too far on many an occasion, throwing his wicket away when he scores fast enough normally not to need to do so, and yet in that second innings that is precisely what he did – his eventual dismissal being one of those normal enough cricketing occurrences. But to believe that England could flick a switch in terms of their approach is to misunderstand how they are even capable of going berserk in the first place – to change it in one context is to change it in all, it cannot be to cheer them on scoring at seven an over only to insist they don’t have that mindset when it is deemed to be inappropriate, it is, in cricketing cliche, to ask them to hit sixes but not take any risks. It isn’t that people are wrong to do so however, but it is to emphasise that the only reason you can have the extraordinary sight of England going nuts is to appreciate that they cannot just defend and accumulate, it really is one or the other, the mental bridge is far too wide.

The same applies to the declaration on day one. In the first instance, to assume a day one action led directly to the day five result ignoring all that went between is to beg the question, but also because the thinking and mentality was so clear. It was to put Australia on the back foot and try and get late evening wickets and then have another go the following morning with a still new ball. It can be disagreed with certainly, but the logic of the aspiration was clear and we cannot solely judge on the outcome as though if they’d taken three wickets on that first day it was a stroke of genius and because they didn’t it wasn’t. In terms of the attempt to put Australia on the defensive in approach, it did work – Australia were oddly passive throughout the Test match (the very vocal sledging coming from Australian sidelines is instructive too – you don’t need to do that if you’re not a teeny bit concerned), and while they won, that might have an impact further down the line when England carry on doing this. Or not, there are no guarantees. Furthermore, Australia might have won, but they are in any case a far better side than England, defeat in itself doesn’t mean the approach was wrong, any more than believing a more restrained England would have got across the line has a great deal to back it up. The suspicion has to be a more defensive England would be hammered. It is, in essence, the opposite – England’s best chance of beating Australia is to go all out, and if that is concurred with in principle, then it means accepting the downside that it cannot, will not, always work, and may even not work at all.

The same applies to selection. Whether Moeen Ali was the right call or not is open to question, but believing a tailor made alternative would have come in and scored a century and taken ten-fer is to indulge the realms of fantasy. No player is as good as when he’s been left out of the team, but the criticisms there need to be aimed at the structural weaknesses of the England cricketing structure that meant that he was a viable option in the first place. Another player might have done better, or might have done worse, to assume certainty is to reprogramme the matrix.

Similarly, Bairstow’s inclusion came at the expense of an extremely unlucky Ben Foakes. When analysing the reasons for England’s defeat the dropped catches and missed stumpings loom large, and unlike with Moeen Ali, it is reasonable enough to acknowledge that Foakes is more than good enough for it to be assumed with reasonable cause he would have taken more of them, especially stood up to the stumps where he excels. But few would deny that Bairstow should be in the side as a batsman, and as a result a decision had to be made about where. Given Zak Crawley has few advocates, the option there would be to move someone else to open and have both Bairstow and Foakes, but it is an either/or and they went with retaining Crawley. On that one, it is selectorial stubborness for sure, but Crawley himself is very much part of the England thinking because of how he plays – it is less a matter of whether he is worthy in itself and more whether someone else can do precisely that role better than him. To understand is not to concur, but failure to understand means the wrong criticisms are made.

Those dropped catches had far more consequence in terms of outcome than anything else. It is a cricketing normal, catches win matches being more than just a cliche. Indeed, even at the end a difficult chance put down by Stokes could be viewed as being the game right there. But it also must be said that some of the critiques failed to sufficiently acknowledge what an outstanding partnership it was from Cummins and Lyons – whatever else went on, to win the game eight down from there was an exceptional performance. Australia won that game rather than England losing it, and sometimes you simply have to doff your cap. Had two quick wickets fallen some of the earlier England decisions that have been criticised would have been praised as creating the time to secure an England win. And this is no small matter, a more conservative England approach, even had it succeeded, would have resulted in the match being drawn. And yes, 0-0 might be preferable to 1-0 down, but it created the opportunity for England to win the match, that they ultimately didn’t take it is a separate matter.

England do have a tendency to state their aim is save Test cricket, which irks plenty of Australians – and therefore is a good thing in itself – but also English fans who say their first priority should be winning matches. And so it should too, but the reason England players say this in defeat is to give affirmation for their approach when they’ve lost. It is evidently human to say such things.

This is somewhat lofty, but all teams do need that self-justification when things go wrong, to reassure themselves they are on the right path in what they do. It’s understandable, and when looked at in the wider context it is also welcome in that it is pleasing that they believe it to be worth saving,
but it is also undoubtedly fair comment to point to the discrepancy, as long as there’s understanding why they say these things.

Many are annoyed, many more are disappointed. I just can’t be. Might you disagree?  Absolutely so, and that’s fine, but I will challenge that and say why I feel as I do.  It’s certainly not that I’m right and others are wrong, it is that sensing an affinity as to why they do what they do means that I remain entirely content to take the rough with the smooth on these things. The question then put is how I’d feel if England lose the series heavily, and I can honestly respond that it will be with the same general indifference to individual outcome when set against the bigger picture. I do get why others differ, but I can only express how it is for me. And I will leave you with one thing – anecdote isn’t data and there’s no reason to assume it ought to be, but three friends generally relatively indifferent to Test cricket followed, listened and watched this one with fascination, enjoyment, excitement and at the end crippling nerves. And that gives me hope for the game. Hope has been missing for a very long time.

OK, So You’re Brad Pitt

LordCanisLupus23 Comments

Hello everyone. It’s been a while. There’s been some exciting cricket played while I have been away from here. The media has gone all in for the “saviours” of test cricket. What’s not to like? Well. I have some concerns. We’ll get to them. But let’s start with an opportunity.

Two weeks ago I received a message from a work colleague. Would I be interested in a ticket for the Friday of the Lord’s Test? England v Australia, second test. I think you might guess my reaction…

“How much?”

“£120”

“Nah, you’re alright.”

There is so much sorrow in that response. Like it wasn’t even given a thought. That’s a No. Life has moved on and changes have taken place that have altered a lot of my foundations. I’m not a Londoner by residence any more. I live near Stonehenge now. Even living in London, that’s still too much to pay. It would take me less time to get to Taunton than Lord’s.

My last day at an Ashes test. Smith got 200. Root didn’t.

The price is just too much in these economic times, with a much higher mortgage, higher running costs of life. That I could even consider paying £120, with the £50 return ticket by train, the cost of feeding and watering myself for the day, taking the weather risk, and whether the teams can be bothered to stick in an 80 over, let alone 90 over shift for the day, and I thought not. It wasn’t even close. No regret. There are plenty of other, much better off, and much more committed supporters of the game, and frankly, good luck to them. I still love the sport, but it’s a diminished love these days, and I get my kicks elsewhere. If you follow me on Twitter you will know it is in non-league football, and well down the pyramid too.. Top level sport and its costs have passed me by. The economy and my enthusiasm waning. But there is a spark? Test cricket remains fun. So enjoy, from the sofa, what you can.

Which leaves me more detached when it comes to cricket blogging and following. I had a look before I wrote this piece, and it appears the last thing I wrote on Being Outside Cricket was over a year ago. Before the Bazball Bonanza took over. I know the other blog stalwarts have had their say on the way England play, and I thought Chris did a masterful job for the pro-lobby. But I am not quite the fan that most others seem to be. I am in the minority, but not a vocal one. 2014 me would have been blasting off the ceiling about throwing away a series win in New Zealand on the back of our godforsaken ego, but then realising that we would not have won the four preceding overseas tests playing the way we used to. I think my anger was in enforcing the follow-on. That was pure ego. It abandoned sense. It was different for difference sake. it provided an entertaining match, which due to me packing in everything that isn’t Sky, I couldn’t watch (those cost of living cuts again).

You can change approach if sense dictates you need to. So far the media, well the UK media, are giving Bazball a free pass. It’s bish, it’s bash, it’s bosh, it’s Baz and Ben. But a part of me dies when Joe Root, as good a player as we have ever produced, who when flowing naturally is majestic, is ramp shotting early in his innings and looking like giving away his wicket. A part of me dies when Ollie Pope miscues and gets away with it, and in the case of the Ireland innings, repeatedly. There is the concept of return to mean, of balance, and if so England could be in for a rude awakening.

But it’s entertaining Peter. It is never dull with this England team. Just live life and let yourself be free. Go with the flow. Sure. They aren’t going to read an article like this and go “that moany old KP loving bore don’t like it, so let’s go back to being 30 for 4 every week”. Nor should they. Believe me, if this style means we bash up the Aussies, unable to respond to the aggression and ferocity of Ben Duckett being able to achieve what the world’s best openers struggle to do, succumbing to Crawley’s fluent shot-making, and preventing keeping Harry Brook to human levels, I’d pay my train ticket and be at the parade (they’d need to be quick to squeeze it in before the Hundred, though). The canary in every Ashes failure goldmine is there. Key bowlers appearing to fall by the wayside, veterans on their third “last hurrah” needing to carry the load, and the gnawing feeling we are putting all our positive thoughts into the “hope” category rather than “expectation”.

The irony that the print and TV media, and some of those so protective of Sir Alastair and so disgusted with that awful Pietersen chap, who was derided for his “that’s the way I play” comments, are now so in line with the “that’s the way we play” mantra now adopted. Indeed Stokes appeared to say there would be no way into the team for a modern day Sir Alastair. I’m not laughing. No, honestly, I’m not. You’d think these Bazball Barnburners were just waiting for their hero to come along and take up the assault, and not the same people who threw themselves in front of the flak for their hero Sir Al, and the ECB. By the way, much respect for Sir Al for playing on for Essex. Huge respect. Loves the game. That much is clear.

Yes, let’s be clear. I enjoy watching the England team, and that’s not to be sniffed at. They haven’t been entertaining for a while now and the last year has been a fun time. I am not going to be the one to just say “you are all wrong” because I enjoy being contrary. Heavens, given the mental health stuff I have been going through, my counsellor thinks I am mad enough without bringing this stuff into my sessions! I’ve told her many times that people say my angry writing is good, and yet I know, deep down, that the blog was an exercise in self-harm for a long time. Be angry. The readers loved angry.

But anger isn’t a positive thing, not for me now. I just want to enjoy sport with meaning, and that last part is important. Meaning. That the prize is delivered through endeavour and spirit and not bought. That upsetting conventional methods, which I find almost unsettling because it attacks my value system (and I couldn’t play a shot in front of square to save my life), takes some getting used to. But when I hear Nasser Hussain say to Stokes, you are 300 in front, 2-1 up in the Ashes, last test, last day, three wickets down, are you declaring, and Stokes says “yes” then I want to scream. Out loud. You’d ego throw away a series, the one to us, rightly or wrongly, that matters the most on your own principles/ That’s not meaning. It’s madness.

Of course, does he really mean it? I don’t know. That he would even say it has me reaching for my non-existent calming pills.

“You can’t control what he does, Peter. So why let something make you anxious that you can’t control. What will being anxious achieve?”

My counsellor never watched Millwall chuck away a play-off place on the May Bank Holiday. I could see that car crash coming.

I deal in logic. Logic suggests that for the first time in 22 years, we will lose a home series against Australia. There looks to be mountains of runs in Smith and Labuschagne. Head will contribute, Green looks dangerous with bat and ball, Carey might contribute a few, Opener is a clear weakness, but you either trust your instincts that the two have failed a lot in England, or that the law of averages suggests one of them might “get it”. The bowling looks miles better than ours. We could, potentially, be carrying a passenger in Stokes. Broad and Anderson have to end sometime. We have no extreme pace. I think we’ll still be fretting over Jofra’s elbow in 2027.

Sport isn’t logical, not all the time. I thought we would lose in 2005, and especially after the first test. That team had built up over a number of years, and brought in talent, especially in the bowling department. They had nurtured Harmison and Jones, had the steadiness and swing of Hoggard, the power of Flintoff, and the under-rated with bat and ball, Ashley Giles. The bowling here is two OAPs in cricketing age, a steady seamer with fitness doubts, and Potts and Tongue are not Harmison and Jones. But if they play well, they might just get three wins. You never know. The batting might fire on all cylinders.

I am so amused at how Bazball appears to have got under the skin of the Aussie media and resident rent-a-gobs. That’s probably worth it all on its own. Sure, some of them pretend they are joking, but I see them. They want it both ways. Malcolm Conn will only see it one way. I am not sure why I bother looking at him at all!

It should be fun. I doubt I am going to get to see much of it as work is busy, spare time is spent on motorways and trains, non-league football is my true sporting love now, and, well, there’s just not enough hours in the day.

Not sure how we are going to play it over the course of the next six weeks or so on Being Outside Cricket. I am a bit of an absentee landlord these days, but I am sure I might stick my oar into the pond. Whatever, the one thing I am determined to do is enjoy what I do watch because life is too damn short to get angry with everything. If England had stayed on their path, they would have been beaten. In 2019 we won a dead rubber, in all essence, and relied upon a miracle that will never be repeated. Now we have a punchers chance, maybe a bit more, but England need to put Australia on the ropes early.

If all else looks grim, I can turn away and read one of my secondhand book purchases. Yes, for 50p I bought “That Will Be England Gone” by Michael Henderson. Call the nurse!

Why Was The Women’s Hundred A Success, And How Can We Replicate It?

dannycricket11 Comments

It is almost universally acknowledged that the women’s portion of The Hundred has been ‘a success’ so far. Women’s matches in the competition have been praised for their high quality, but also noted for attracting a significant audience both on TV and at the grounds. Cricket fans and administrators have tried to identify what the reasons for this have been, in order to replicate it elsewhere. Their answer, almost universally, has been doubleheaders with men’s matches.

In fact, that was precisely what Richard Gould (the new ECB chief executive) said on a podcast released on Thursday:

“I think the progress and movement on women’s cricket over the last three or four years is incredible and we’re on the brink of really punching through in terms of making a proper commercial success. When I look back at team sports over the last twenty years, how women’s sport has been treated whether it’s rugby, football or cricket, it’s shameful. It’s only now that we’re starting to look and go ‘Oh my word. What have we missed out on over those years?’ And that’s where The Hundred has helped us as a game, punch through, when we’ve got the doubleheaders.”

The early evidence from this season’s T20 Blast/Charlotte Edwards Cup, and attempts from previous years stretching back to the Kia Super League, suggest that this approach doesn’t work outside of The Hundred.

One of the great myths about The Hundred is that it was designed by the ECB to push women’s cricket to the forefront, and therefore establish gender equality within the English game. The planned fixtures for the women’s Hundred in 2020 show that it was considered a lesser competition in almost every aspect. Whilst the men played every home match at one of the eight largest cricket stadia in the country, each of the women’s teams would have had to make do with one per season. Welsh Fire’s women were only scheduled to play a single match in Wales every year, making their team name appear utterly ridiculous. Instead, they were due to play at smaller county grounds and, in some cases, amateur club grounds. Sky Sports hadn’t committed to broadcasting any women’s matches on their main TV channels beyond the nine planned doubleheaders and probably the final, which was to be held at Hove rather than Lord’s.

In other words, the women’s Hundred looked an awful lot like the Charlotte Edwards Cup does now and would probably have had a fairly similar attendance and impact.

Then COVID-19 hit. The 2020 Hundred is cancelled and the ECB has to implement bio-security bubbles around all matches to make sure it can be held in 2021. Given the high demand for such measures at the time, and therefore the high cost, they decided that it would be cheaper to hold every women’s match at the same ground on the same day to save money. With every match shown live on TV and played in a big city as a result, the women’s Hundred attracted fans in a way that the men’s competition didn’t. Whilst attendance for the men’s games shrank from 2021 to 2022, it grew for the women.

It’s important to point out that the women’s Hundred is not the only success that women’s cricket has had in England. The 2017 World Cup final at Lord’s was a sell out, the women’s cricket competition in the 2022 Commonwealth Games had an average of roughly 10,000 people attending every match, and this year’s women’s Ashes appear to have very strong sales. None of these had any ties to men’s games, no doubleheaders involved.

If being a doubleheader (offering existing fans of men’s cricket a chance to see a women’s match for free) does not automatically build an audience for the women’s game, then what is it about the women’s Hundred that has led to it being successful? One answer is that it gave each team a home ground. The connection between a team and a town or city is practically the foundation upon which all English sport is built. People don’t attend matches (whether football or cricket) if they don’t care who wins or loses, and local pride is a quick and easy way to make people care. When Western Storm play their only T20 match at Cardiff this year, they are as much a visiting team as their opponents despite it being nominally their ‘home ground’. It is virtually impossible to develop a relationship between a team and the local populace with just one game per year. The women’s Hundred guarantees four home group matches in the same city and, perhaps even more importantly, no home games in other towns or cities. The teams have a clear local identity, even if they are named after rivers or broad geographical areas. The only Charlotte Edwards Cup team to play more than two group matches in the same ground this year is the Yorkshire Diamonds.

An annoying side effect of being hosted by multiple grounds is that every cricket club in the country seems to require a different app to buy tickets and enter the ground. If you’re a fan of Western Storm, for example, you might need the Glamorgan, Gloucestershire and Somerset apps in order to attend their home matches.

There is also the issue of capacity. If the Charlotte Edwards Cup only has thirteen matches this season at the eight largest stadia in the country, then it stands to reason that most women’s matches are being held in grounds with lower capacities. It’s impossible to achieve an average attendance of 10,423, like the women’s Hundred did in 2022, if the women’s teams play most of their matches in places which can’t hold 10,423 people. I know this argument annoys a lot of people who read this blog, particularly those who support counties which don’t host teams in The Hundred, but women’s cricket in England needs to maximise its revenue in a way that men’s county cricket doesn’t have to. A county team can play in front of a mostly-empty ground, not develop any England players for well over a decade, and still receive a huge payout from the ECB every year without anyone batting an eyelid. Any money spent on women’s cricket, on the other hand, is instantly attacked (often by people who unironically use the phrase “I’m not being sexist, but…”) as subsidising an unprofitable aspect of the sport rather than being an investment for the future of the game. Playing professional women’s matches at small amateur club and school grounds in 2023 removes any possibility that they can attract the ticket revenue they need to become profitable.

There are few examples of the disparity between how men’s and women’s cricket are treated in this regard than the ECB’s plans for The Hundred in 2020. Whilst the women’s teams were relegated to smaller stadia (often amateur club grounds) in order to save money, the budget for local marketing and in-the-ground entertainment at the men’s matches was more than twice as much as they stood to make from ticket sales. Once the local adverts, posters, social media campaigns, fireworks and musicians are all accounted for, it costs the ECB roughly £2 for every £1 they get on the gate. This meant that the women’s competition received an absolutely enormous boost in terms of cash allocated to attracting fans once every match became a doubleheader in 2021, because they received the benefits of the profligate promotional budget available for the men compared to the skeletal and largely token amounts they would otherwise have been allocated.

On this topic, Richard Gould claimed that the ECB are “probably spending three times more than the revenues that are being created” by women’s cricket in England. By my reckoning, the women’s competition is responsible roughly a third of the total TV views for The Hundred and around two-fifths of the total attendance. If The Hundred’s total annual revenue is £51m, then the women’s matches contribute £15-20m of that. It doesn’t seem an unreasonable suggestion that the value of England women’s team is at least £10m per year when the TV figures, ticket sales and sponsorships are all considered. This leaves two possibilities: The ECB is spending upwards of £75m on women’s cricket every year or the ECB may be undervaluing the financial contributions of women’s cricket, perhaps in order to justify the lack of investment from themselves and the counties.

One of the more frustrating aspects of the Charlotte Edwards Cup doubleheaders is that none of them have been televised on Sky Sports so far. In the original plans for The Hundred in 2020, virtually the whole reason for the nine planned doubleheaders (out of thirty matches) was to allow those women’s games to be shown on Sky and the BBC with minimal extra expense to the TV companies. There have even been cases where Sky have broadcast the men’s T20 Blast match from a doubleheader but not the women’s Charlotte Edwards Cup game, despite obviously having all of the crew and equipment there at the ground. There is a very large difference between the potential audiences on Sky Sports and the current internet streams. Whilst women’s cricket matches might attract a few hundred thousand UK viewers on TV, the comparable figures on YouTube might be a tenth as much. Although streams are free to access, compared to Sky Sports’ expensive subscription, they don’t reach as many people in reality. This has a huge impact in terms of promoting the competition. Sky’s blanket coverage of the women’s Hundred allowed its popularity to grow because a lot of people watched women’s domestic cricket on television, possibly for the first time, and they liked what they saw. If the Charlotte Edwards Cup isn’t afforded the same exposure, it can’t possibly have the same effect.

Ultimately, a lot of this lack of direction and investment comes from an almost total lack of accountability within the ECB when it comes to women’s cricket. If a men’s T20 competition like The Hundred was attracting an average crowd of less than a thousand people, every senior executive and manager involved would be fired. As a result of incredibly low expectations, zero investment of money and resources with regards to marketing and promotion, and no willingness whatsoever to persuade Sky to maybe show a few more women’s matches, progress in English women’s cricket will always be ponderously slow.

England might currently be the second-most advanced country in the world with regards to women’s cricket, behind Australia, but that is no excuse for progress not being made as quickly as it could or should be. It’s certainly no excuse for relying on doubleheaders to magically build an audience for it when the examples of what does work are plain to see. The things the 2017 World Cup final, the women’s Hundred and the 2022 Commonwealth Games tournament all have in common are a strong marketing campaign, extensive TV coverage, large grounds and, most importantly, the will to actually commit to women’s cricket rather than just going through the motions and hoping for the best.

Thanks for reading my post. If you have any comments on it, the Ashes, or anything else, please leave them below.