1st February 2013:
Sri Lanka Women 244 for 9 (Atapattu 62, Kaushalya 56) beat England
Women 238 for 8 (Gunn 52, Jones 41) by one wicket.
On Test Match Special
this morning, Alison Mitchell described the above England-Sri Lanka
result as “the biggest upset in the history of the women's World
Cup”. Other commentators are apparently now describing it as the
biggest upset ever in women's cricket.
This is quite some
claim. Are they right?
To answer that
question, you need to delve a little deeper into the history of the
women's game. To my mind, there are three phases to that history.
The first phase began
with the first international women's cricket tour, England in
Australia and New Zealand in 1934/5. Until 1973, these three
countries, aside from a few matches with South Africa, were the only
teams playing official international cricket, mainly because very
little women's cricket existed anywhere else. Their domination (in
particular after the ban on sporting contact with South Africa) was
such that a book on women's Test cricket was published in 1987
entitled The Golden Triangle.
The second phase was
ushered in with the first women's World Cup in 1973 - the first ever
ODIs played by women. By this stage other countries were beginning to
form women's associations – in particular India and the West Indies
in 1973. Women's cricket quickly became extremely popular amongst
Indian women – it was on this basis that India was chosen to host
the 1977 World Cup – and the standards rapidly improved. However,
the sport remained underdeveloped in the West Indies, Netherlands,
Denmark, and Ireland, who nonetheless participated in international
tournaments alongside the other teams.
Thirdly, in the period
following the 1993 World Cup, South Africa were welcomed back into
the international fold post-apartheid, and women's teams were formed
in Pakistan (in 1996) and Sri Lanka (in 1997), and began to compete
on the international stage. But, as women's cricket developed in the
countries where it received most government support, becoming more
and more professional, these newer teams continued to struggle to
match up to the standard of the rest.
So, since 1934 there
has been an unofficial two-tier system in place, summarised as
follows:
Phase One, 1934-73
Top tier – England,
Australia, New Zealand (generally in that order)
Bottom tier – South
Africa
Phase Two, 1973-93
Top tier – England,
Australia, New Zealand, India
Bottom tier – West
Indies, Netherlands, Denmark, Ireland
Phase Three,
1993-present
Top tier – England,
Australia, New Zealand, India
Bottom tier – South
Africa, Pakistan, Sri Lanka, West Indies, Netherlands, Denmark,
Ireland (and more recently, Bangladesh, Japan, Scotland, USA,
Zimbabwe, etc.)
This two-tier system
is, of course, now recognised by the ICC: the top-tier countries
participate in Quadrangular ODI Series' (and in 2002/03 a 'World
Series' of women's cricket – trust me, it was awesome), and
automatically qualify for the World Cup.
An “upset” would
(fairly obviously) be defined as any team in the bottom tier
defeating a team in the top tier. This is what happened today in the
England-Sri Lanka match. The question is, has this ever happened
before?
(Caveat: I'm not
including T20Is here, but with very few exceptions, they follow the
same pattern as described below.)
Well firstly, in Test
matches, no. There has never been a female equivalent of, say,
Pakistan men defeating England at the Oval in 1954. Why? Partly
because there hasn't been that much women's Test cricket, and barely
any at all since the newer teams were formed.
However, in ODIs, there
have been three key examples of “upsets”.
The first and most
recent upset has been more of an ongoing trend than a one-off. This
is the West Indies' recent form in one-day cricket. Since 2009, they
have won ODI series' against England (2-1, in the November 2009
series in the West Indies) and India (2-1, in the 2012 series in
India), as well as winning 2 ODIs against India, in India, in January
2011, but losing the series. None of this is a surprise, however,
because it has coincided with the career of Stafanie Taylor, one of
the most talented female cricketers I have ever seen. In almost every
one of these upsets, she played a pivotal role, with the ball, the
bat, or both. She's been well supported by Dottin, Aguilleira, and
Anisa Mohammed, all quality cricketers.
Actually, the West
Indies are starting to undermine the whole concept of a two-tier
system. But, anyway, the point is that while the above results were
“upsets” in the strictest definition of the term, they weren't
really shocking, as such.
Onto the second
example. This one is very relevant: it is the only time in history
before today that a second tier team have beaten a top tier team in a
World Cup match. I'm referring to South Africa's 5-wicket victory
over England in New Zealand during the 2000 tournament, in which
England were bowled out in 47.3 overs for 143, one of their lowest
ever totals in a World Cup. South Africa made the required runs with
19 balls to spare, and went on to reach the semi-final, where they
lost to Australia. England, for the first time ever, failed to make
the final stages of the tournament. An upset? Yes, certainly.
But was it a shock? Not
if you'd been present at their win against England, at Taunton in
1997. Their first international cricket tour since 1972, and they win
a match against the current world champions. That was the real
shocker. How did they do it? A lot to do with Daleen Terblanche,
their keeper, who stumped Edwards when she had got to 102, ran out
Metcalfe on 44, then hit 27 runs. She was also instrumental in their
success in the 2000 World Cup. Quite a player, and South Africa's
second-highest ODI run-scorer ever, on 1256.
South Africa went on to
create further international upsets, beating England on 4 further
occasions, ending with the 2003/04 series in South Africa. But
Terblanche retired in 2008, and South Africa went back to being
nothing too special. (They lost to Australia today, by 150 runs.)
There's one more
example of an “upset”, and I think this is the main contender to
rival today's result. In 1979 the West Indies toured England for the
first time. They did not win a Test, and lost the first ODI. Then out
of nowhere, playing at an obscure ground in Shireoaks, they somehow
restricted England to 167-6 in 50 overs, and struggled their way to
169-8, hitting the winning runs with 2 balls remaining. Patricia
Whittaker was instrumental in the victory, taking 3-36, including the
wicket of Rachael Heyhoe-Flint, the leading batsman in the world at
the time, and scoring 40 not out.
How do I explain this
one away? I can't. There isn't really any explanation, other than the
sheer grit and determination of the incredibly inexperienced West
Indians, who happened to be facing one of the best female cricketers
ever, and still triumphed. If the match had gained any media
exposure, and if twitter had been invented back in 1979, you might
well have seen a similar reaction to the one that hit the airwaves at
about 10.30 this morning. But it didn't, and it wasn't, and it
remains largely forgotten as a match – the West Indies Women's
first triumph against England.
On reflection, though,
I do think this morning's result is the biggest ever upset in the
history of women's cricket. Mainly because it was just so absolutely
impossible to predict. In 1979, and in 2000, England weren't the
reigning world champions, and they weren't the fittest, most
professional and quite possibly the best international women's
cricket team there has ever been. They are now. And they were facing
a team of almost total unknowns, whose top batsman, before this
morning, averaged less than 30.
No wonder it's hard to
believe.
As an England fan, I'm
disappointed, naturally. (And exhausted.) But this can only be a good
thing for the women's game. For one, it has excited cricket-lovers
the world over. And secondly, it's a testament to the massive
improvements that can be made when women's cricket is
professionalised. In the 2009 World Cup, Sri Lanka lost every single
match they played, and didn't look like doing otherwise. Since that
time, the set-up has changed completely. The players are now given
jobs within the armed forces, and can dedicate far more of their
lives to playing cricket. They no longer worry about money.
Take note, countries
who refuse to fully support your female cricketers: financial
investment, a proper coaching set-up, more time devoted to cricket –
all these breed success. It's not rocket science.
As for future “upsets”?
I like to think that eventually (assuming the fundamental tenet of
gender equality continues to make progress in all societies where
women's cricket is played, which won't happen if the BCCI has
anything to do with it), the standard of women's cricket will improve
so much that the two tier system will be effectively phased out. And,
as in the men's game, teams will move up and down the rankings in
accordance with the quality of the players available to them at the
time. (If the players aren't being rotated, that is ;) ) There'll
still be upsets; they just might not be as upsetting as this one.
England fans, like me,
who woke up at 3.30am, might be permitted to wish this was all just a
bad dream. It wasn't. What everyone is saying is true – this really
was the biggest upset in women's cricket history. It also bodes
extremely well for the future of women's cricket.
And now for some sleep.
