Hurrah for England's women

It's early days, but England's women have got off to an excellent start on the first day of their Ashes series at the Bowral Oval. Actually, I call it a series but ludicrously they are playing only one Test match on this tour. When Australia's women came here, they played two but surely, given how rarely they play, three would not be impossible to stage.

Anyway, England need to win this solitary Test to retain the Ashes and they have started well by dismissing Australia for 154 in their first innings. Isa Guha, the fast bowler, bowled Alex Blackwell with her second ball and went on to take five for 40, her first Test five-for, with only Karen Rolton, the Australia captain, and Kate Blackwell showing much resistance in making 34 and 45 respectively.

In reply England were 22 for nought at stumps, although wicket-preservation was clearly the priority as they took 16 overs to do so.

Of course, if this were a male England team playing in Australia, they'd probably get bowled out for 120 tomorrow and see Australia make 500 in their second innings, but I suspect our ladies are made of sterner stuff.

Comments

[Kap]

I haven't bothered to read the article because it is about women playing cricket so forgive me. All I want to know is who is the babe pictured? Very tidy although her legs do appear freakishly short. Maybe they should play the game in short skirts. And heels.

[Ann]

No, I didn't: I said that I don't like --snide-- comments being thrown in for the hell of it when something else entirely is being discussed (this is not the same thing at all - I am a fierce critic of England's strategy, tactics and individual and team performance as relevant and where that is the topic of conversation).

Teams win matches and teams lose matches, that is nature of the real world: there are plenty of strong teams out there. To win 8 out of 28, some of those matches being against top teams, is disappointing, but hardly 'useless'. No team can be expected to win and win and win.

I have missed barely a minute of either of the last two Ashes series. I regard the strategy and tactics of the last one as very poor, the choice of captain wrong.

I will continue to stand by my assessment of Stewart as brilliant. Perhaps that is less a question of being 'blinkered' as one of having my own opinion, which happens to differ from yours. I have seen him bat a wonderful century in a match where he was also an excellent keeper.

Pax.

[Patrick Kidd]

Ann, My apologies. You haven't said that England are infallible, you just have stated before that you don't like negative comments about them (although since they have won only eight of the 28 Tests they have played since the 2005 Ashes, it is perhaps wrong to talk about their uselessness being "mythical"). Maybe you didn't stay up through the night to watch the last Ashes.

Not quite sure that my criticism of England is non-stop, either. Believe me, I'd love the chance to praise them. After all, they have some fantastic players (Cook, Vaughan, Hoggy and Pietersen to the fore).

You did also once take me to task here for saying that Alec Stewart (batting average as wicketkeeper of 35) was a nearly man, and in reply you called him "brilliant", which suggests a slight blinkeredness. Very fine player he was, certainly, but brilliant???

[Ann]

I would love to know where I have ever said or suggested or implied that the England men's team are infallible.
What I get tired of is their mythical uselessness being dragged into any discussion, whatever the topic may be. I was under the impression that this discussion is about the women's team. Using it as an excuse for dragging in spiteful comments about the men's team is simply tiresome.

[Patrick Kidd]

LATEST UPDATE ON WOMEN'S TEST: Australia may have cause to regret there being only one Ashes Test in this series as the match at the Bradman Oval was locked in stalemate with a day to go (they play only four day matches in women's cricket). England's tail barely wagged and having been 173 for two, they were bowled out this morning for 244. Australia wobbled at the start of their second innings, being 33 for three, but regrouped and by stumps they had reached 195 for four, a lead of 105.

If England can rattle through the tail, the match is still there to be won but both sides are suffering from some turgid batting (barely 600 runs in total in three full days) and if Australia can last beyond lunch the match may end in a draw. Some brilliance from one side's bowlers or batsmen is needed.

[Patrick Kidd]

Ann, Yes it is REALLY necessary. Sorry. I know you think the England men's team are infallible, but I believe criticism is fair. They are paid well enough to take it and they have still to make up for the debacle, particularly at Adelaide, last winter. Sorry it bores you.

[Ann]

Is it REALLY necessary to make these non-stop snide comments about the England men's team, especially when it has nothing whatsoever to do with the subject at hand? Talk about negativity ... It is becoming very tedious and excruciatingly boring.

[Steve]

But at least the match got onto the ABC 7pm News. I don't know about your neck of the woods, but that was possibly a first for women's cricket here in Oz. Though perhaps because it was at the Bradman (hallowed name) Oval

[Patrick Kidd]

Indeed they have Steve. No time for a full post today, but close of play score was England 222 for seven, a lead of 68, but having been 173 for two at one stage, with Charlotte Edwards and Claire Taylor both making fifties in a record stand of 159, that looks rather desperate for the lower middle order. Given that CE and CT added 97 between lunch and tea, England's total of barely 200 runs in a day seems painful.

[Steve]

But Australia have staged a fight-back, as they do, with an English collapse of 4-3. so it could still fall apart for England lassies, in the time-honoured fashion of their great nation.