The ominous question still lingers: is the win a sign that England are going to dominate cricket for the next decade, and what could that mean for the future of other nations?
Alice Dean21-Jun-2009New Zealand coach Gary Stead put it best. His side’s defeat to Englandin Sunday’s ICC World Twenty20 final was, he said, like the amateursplaying the professionals. He only meant it figuratively, insofar as his team were outclassed on the day against a surprisingly clinical England. At last, the homeside’s bowlers and fielders truly rose to the occasion in a way whichthey hadn’t throughout the rest of the tournament.Stead was almost correct in the literal sense too, and therein lies a potential problem. The ECB has invested in English women’s cricket for more than a decade now, but the tree naturally takes a long time to first take root and then bear fruit. Only in the last 18 months have England looked like world-beaters. Now they have the World Twenty20, the World Cup and the Ashes in their pockets, and better investment than ever before.The ominous question goes thus: is this a sign that England women aregoing to dominate cricket for the next decade or more, and if so, whatdoes that mean for the future of other nations?England’s women are, through Chance to Shine coaching contracts, thenearest thing the women’s game gets to professionals; the gulfbetween them and the rest of the teams is in serious danger ofwidening. They have beaten world No. 2 New Zealand seven times in their lastmeetings, while India, the third-best in the world, have been their whipping girls for several years.Only Australia – whose players have a contract-lite version of England’s, but still have to work – have presented anything of a challenge. Players can attend the Academy in Brisbane and have funding through grants, but one wonders what’s going to happen in the next few years when Karen Rolton, Shelley Nitschke and Lisa Sthalekar cart all their weighty experience off with them into the sunset.New Zealand lost captain Haidee Tiffen earlier this year – she wroteon Cricinfo that this was partly down to a lack of funding – whileplayers such as Suzie Bates and Sophie Devine are in eternal danger ofdefecting to their other international sports of basketball (Bates)and hockey (Devine). The players are desperately keen to get morefinancial assistance and, given their record, certainly deserve it.Investment can only make the powerhouses stronger.England, partly due to the funding, have a well-gelled team who canconcentrate as much as they like on cricket. They have a young teambut one which is already very experienced and Charlotte Edwards – whois the same age as Tiffen – intends to be around for many years yet.And even though they have hardly played perfect cricket in eithertournaments this year, it’s still been more than enough to reignsupreme.So the future is certainly an issue. But at the same time, thepresent is very much worth celebrating. England’s women already beattheir men to an ICC trophy when they took the World Cup in March, thefirst tournament under ICC regulations. They promptly did the double on Sunday andare flying the flag in style.The investment from the ECB continues to pay dividends and Edwards waskeen to note that the World Twenty20 success shows the 50-over tournament “was nofluke”. The victory is also a win for women’s sport in England. While theimpact on the press may not be long-lasting in terms of a general liftin column inches, the fact that writers and editors witnessed theplay at Trent Bridge, The Oval and Lord’s for the first time might lead them to look more kindly on the women’s game in the future.The double-header staging of the tournament has been an unmitigatedsuccess. While there were no upsets in any of the games, thecricket was exciting and there were some superb performances, such as the West Indiesbatsman Deandra Dottin’s fastest international Twenty20 fifty againstAustralia in Taunton, and New Zealand captain Aimee Watkins’ 89 not outin Nottingham against India. The most memorable game will long standout as Australia versus England at The Oval where Claire Taylor, the player of the tournament, stroked her side home in thrilling circumstances.The ICC took a gamble on embracing the women’s game, or perhaps itwould be more accurate to say a calculated risk, the women havingalready been on the same stage as the men in domestic andinternational games. And the decision paid off handsomely.Women’s cricket has arrived on the world stage, and nobody tried toboo them off. Rather, they applauded a surprisingly entertaining newact which represented good value for money, and has the chance toshine again in the future.With the format to be repeated next year in the Caribbean, the ICC canboth breathe a sigh of relief at the successful staging this timearound, but also give itself a pat on the back.The ECB, too, should be applauded for setting the example – and nowit is hoped other countries can catch up with their view to a golden future.
