By Josh Cockburn
While England men seem to pick their teams primarily on height and vibes, the increased use of data in cricket means that we do have a lot more information that we can rely on to assess players. Of course there are lies, damned lies and statistics and you need to watch games not just scorecards and spreadsheets to judge players, but over time I’d rather have the batters with the best strike rates not the best looking cover drives.
I have combined all performances from the Women’s Hundred, WBBL, WPL and CWPL as well as international matches played by England, Australia, India, West Indies, South Africa and New Zealand in the last 12 months (from August 2023 to August 2024). I’ve not included Pakistan, Bangladesh or any other country with no representation in those leagues as we only have their international averages which are easily available. I’ve not done Sri Lanka either, but I have done Chamari Athapaththu given the amount of cricket around the world she has played.
I’ve not included the Charlotte Edwards Cup, WNCL, SuperSmash or any other leagues which are overwhelmingly competed for without high quality overseas players. There are some issues with comparing between leagues – the WPL was considerably faster scoring than the CPL, but broadly speaking the standards are similar – the CPL might have had the weakest overseas player contingent, but the international players who did compete there didn’t do substantially better there than they did in the other leagues – because it was lower scoring the bowlers tended to improve their figures while the batters saw theirs deteriorate. It’s less useful for analysing players who haven’t played international cricket and only played in one franchise league – especially those who did very well in that league like Lauren Smith or Amy Edgar in the WBBL or Freya Davies in the Hundred.
For the international data I’ve included all players who have batted or bowled at least 12 times or though I’ve included a few players in the national discussions with slightly less appearances.
England
Squad | Innings | Runs | Balls | Avg | SR |
S Ecclestone | 19 | 153 | 106 | 13.91 | 144.34 |
D Gibson | 26 | 353 | 251 | 20.76 | 140.64 |
A Jones | 36 | 585 | 425 | 20.17 | 137.65 |
D Wyatt | 22 | 577 | 425 | 27.48 | 135.76 |
N Sciver-Brunt | 20 | 967 | 731 | 53.72 | 132.28 |
H Knight | 40 | 1005 | 803 | 38.65 | 125.16 |
M Bouchier | 38 | 722 | 592 | 19.51 | 121.96 |
S Dunkley | 31 | 491 | 421 | 16.93 | 116.63 |
A Capsey | 46 | 1046 | 924 | 23.24 | 113.20 |
B Heath | 23 | 225 | 201 | 11.25 | 111.94 |
F Kemp | 18 | 131 | 120 | 8.73 | 109.17 |
C Dean | 13 | 130 | 126 | 14.44 | 103.17 |
Contenders | |||||
P Scholfield | 8 | 190 | 138 | 27.14 | 137.68 |
C Griffith | 10 | 100 | 77 | 10.00 | 129.87 |
T Beaumont | 25 | 531 | 449 | 22.13 | 118.26 |
G Scrivens | 8 | 157 | 139 | 19.63 | 112.95 |
G Adams | 13 | 101 | 112 | 11.22 | 90.18 |
H Armitage | 8 | 62 | 69 | 7.75 | 89.86 |
B Smith | 20 | 192 | 220 | 9.60 | 87.27 |
Squad | Innings | Balls | Runs | Wickets | Avg | ER |
S Glenn | 29 | 577 | 565 | 41 | 13.78 | 5.88 |
S Ecclestone | 28 | 612 | 668 | 40 | 16.70 | 6.55 |
L Smith | 22 | 470 | 516 | 28 | 18.43 | 6.59 |
A Capsey | 21 | 296 | 343 | 16 | 21.44 | 6.95 |
C Dean | 27 | 516 | 604 | 26 | 23.23 | 7.02 |
H Knight | 13 | 150 | 180 | 5 | 36.00 | 7.20 |
L Bell | 21 | 416 | 500 | 26 | 19.23 | 7.21 |
N Sciver-Brunt | 28 | 491 | 609 | 25 | 24.36 | 7.44 |
D Gibson | 35 | 588 | 760 | 25 | 30.40 | 7.76 |
F Kemp | 12 | 173 | 271 | 9 | 30.11 | 9.40 |
Contenders | ||||||
F Davies | 8 | 140 | 132 | 11 | 12.00 | 5.66 |
R Slater | 8 | 105 | 114 | 5 | 22.80 | 6.51 |
L Filer | 13 | 247 | 276 | 10 | 27.60 | 6.70 |
M Villiers | 9 | 132 | 149 | 6 | 24.83 | 6.77 |
K Levick | 7 | 129 | 154 | 10 | 15.40 | 7.16 |
So. Smale | 9 | 151 | 181 | 9 | 20.11 | 7.19 |
C Pavely | 7 | 135 | 162 | 9 | 18.00 | 7.20 |
G Adams | 15 | 188 | 227 | 9 | 25.22 | 7.24 |
E Gray | 10 | 135 | 164 | 9 | 18.22 | 7.29 |
R MacDonald-Gay | 9 | 140 | 175 | 8 | 21.88 | 7.50 |
H Baker | 7 | 110 | 141 | 4 | 35.25 | 7.69 |
G Davis | 8 | 140 | 180 | 10 | 18.00 | 7.71 |
E Arlott | 7 | 135 | 185 | 11 | 16.82 | 8.22 |
M Corteen-Coleman | 8 | 135 | 186 | 6 | 31.00 | 8.27 |
K Cross | 10 | 170 | 235 | 8 | 29.38 | 8.29 |
K Gordon | 8 | 140 | 194 | 3 | 64.67 | 8.31 |
England’s batting problems are fairly obviously at the top of the order. Wyatt’s figures are fine, but neither Bouchier or Dunkley have great figures – you’d probably be tempted to go with Bouchier as the marginally faster scorer. Tammy Beaumont has very similar figures to them both, I guess England have gone for Dunkley’s room to improve over Beaumont’s experience. Winfield-Hill had a poor 12 months, and doesn’t look like she’s in line for a comeback. Then Alice Capsey at 3 where a player renowned for fast scoring has spent a year with the lowest SR of any front line batter. England really need her to rediscover some of that uninhibited hitting as they don’t need solidity from number 3, they need dynamism.
Sciver-Brunt’s brilliance goes without saying at number 4. Knight’s had the best 12 months of her T20 career in my opinion, able to score fast as well as heavily. Previously you’d be reassured by her coming in at a crisis but not excited by her coming in with the run rate needing boosting, but she’s fulfilled both roles this year. From those who haven’t been selected, Paige Scholfield has much the best record and probably should be next in line for a batting place.
Amy Jones has done really well and has exactly the sort of figures you’d hope for from your number 6. For the all rounder slot, Danni Gibson outperforms Freya Kemp by a mile in batting terms (we’ll come to bowling shortly).
Also worth noting is that Ecclestone’s SR is one of the best in the world. Stats can be deceiving, and we’ve seen occasions when she’s been promoted and she’s looked a bit hapless, but her boundary striking ability shouldn’t be underestimated – she clearly doesn’t herself judging by when she’s come in to bat for Originals this summer.
Looking at the bowling, it’s clear why England have gone spin heavy, and it’s not just anticipating spin friendly pitches in Bangladesh then UAE. With the exception of Davies and Filer (neither of whom made the squad), basically every spinner that England might choose from (including Georgia Adams and Katie Levick who aren’t really part of the conversation as well as Capsey’s part-time spin) is more economical than the seamers. This isn’t something inherent to T20, brought about by fast bowlers bowling more in powerplays and at the death or something, it’s not the case for India or Australia. For whatever reasons, England’s spinners are better than their seamers at T20 currently.
Ecclestone and Glenn have world class figures – especially Glenn who is in the top 5 in the world for both average and economy. I don’t think Glenn gets enough recognition for the quality of her performances, hopefully she can demonstrate it on a global stage at the World Cup. Linsey Smith clearly outperforms Charlie Dean for the third spinner. Dean being an off spinner may count ahead of playing a second left armer, but Capsey actually has better figures than Dean if England just need an offspin option for particular matchups.
As for the faster bowlers, Davies was very economical for the Fire in the Hundred, it’s a shame she didn’t play any international cricket or other franchise leagues to give us more data to judge her current level, and she didn’t have a great Charlotte Edwards Cup. Otherwise, in the choice between Lauren’s for the new ball, Bell has a much better average than Filer, and although Filer has the better economy rate you can see why England would value Bell’s ability to get wickets early on. Filer would clearly be a useful option to have and I’d be very surprised if she hadn’t been picked if a 16 player squad had been chosen. Kate Cross can’t have any complaints at her exclusion on her T20 form this year. Sciver-Brunt is a bit more expensive than you’d want as a second seamer, assuming she’s fit to take on that role. England had better hope she is, as neither Gibson or Kemp have figures that inspire confidence, both averaging over 30 this year and with high economy rates, (stratospheric in Kemp’s case) as well as their own fitness issues. Spin to win for England then.
Australia
Squad | Innings | Runs | Balls | Avg | SR |
G Harris | 30 | 795 | 511 | 31.80 | 155.58 |
G Wareham | 31 | 575 | 409 | 26.14 | 140.59 |
A Healy | 20 | 543 | 398 | 28.58 | 136.43 |
B Mooney | 42 | 1397 | 1048 | 43.66 | 133.30 |
A Sutherland | 28 | 573 | 433 | 23.88 | 132.33 |
P Litchfield | 37 | 768 | 588 | 24.77 | 130.61 |
E Perry | 40 | 1297 | 1007 | 41.84 | 128.80 |
T McGrath | 30 | 624 | 525 | 24.96 | 118.86 |
A Gardner | 39 | 666 | 577 | 18.50 | 115.42 |
A King | 16 | 132 | 123 | 14.67 | 107.32 |
Contenders | |||||
L Harris | 12 | 122 | 60 | 10.17 | 203.33 |
J Jonassen | 33 | 462 | 352 | 14.00 | 131.25 |
M Lanning | 30 | 785 | 641 | 27.07 | 122.46 |
K Mack | 15 | 452 | 381 | 30.13 | 118.64 |
G Redmayne | 27 | 589 | 560 | 23.56 | 105.18 |
Squad | Innings | Balls | Runs | Wickets | Avg | ER |
K Garth | 24 | 507 | 548 | 17 | 32.24 | 6.49 |
M Schutt | 26 | 564 | 612 | 30 | 20.40 | 6.51 |
A Sutherland | 37 | 717 | 780 | 40 | 19.50 | 6.53 |
S Molineux | 13 | 300 | 328 | 18 | 18.22 | 6.56 |
A King | 23 | 464 | 529 | 26 | 20.35 | 6.84 |
E Perry | 26 | 365 | 419 | 31 | 13.52 | 6.89 |
G Wareham | 43 | 841 | 1009 | 39 | 25.87 | 7.20 |
A Gardner | 42 | 866 | 1081 | 51 | 21.20 | 7.49 |
T McGrath | 22 | 291 | 377 | 17 | 22.18 | 7.77 |
G Harris | 17 | 191 | 252 | 7 | 36.00 | 7.92 |
Contenders | ||||||
L Smith | 8 | 150 | 146 | 11 | 13.27 | 5.84 |
A Wellington | 24 | 449 | 458 | 33 | 13.88 | 6.12 |
L Cheatle | 21 | 443 | 473 | 28 | 16.89 | 6.41 |
A Edgar | 15 | 286 | 322 | 20 | 16.10 | 6.76 |
H Graham | 21 | 396 | 503 | 25 | 20.12 | 7.62 |
J Jonassen | 38 | 780 | 970 | 52 | 18.65 | 7.46 |
For Australia, the two main talking points have been the inclusion of Brown and Vlaeminck despite practically no top-level cricket in the last year and the exclusion of Jess Jonassen. As this article is primarily a statistical analysis of top-level cricket in the last year, I can’t assess Brown and Vlaeminck’s inclusion except to note that at their best they are very dangerous bowlers and the do allow Australia that fabled point of difference. More crucially, the fact Australia have 6 other bowlers who conceded less than 7 runs an over in the last year, plus Wareham, Gardner and McGrath means that they have plenty of alternatives if the gamble doesn’t pay off.
On statistical grounds, Jonassen can’t really complain about her omission. Her economy rate is 23rd among all the Aussie bowlers in the sample, below 7 bowlers in the squad, and only above Gardner and McGrath. Her average is much better – only worse than Perry and Molineux in the squad, but only marginally better than her rivals for a place in the squad. Wellington has a much better claim to be in the squad/team for her bowling and although her batting isn’t as good, it’s perfectly fine for a number 8 or 9.
For the batting, Healy and Mooney are certain of their places and both had good seasons. Perry has had a really strong season too, speeding up her scoring while maintaining a high average. Depending on how many all-rounders Australia play, they may only choose one of Grace Harris or Litchfield. If that is the case then I suspect they might go for the younger player, though Harris probably has been the outstanding T20 batter of the year, one of only two batters to have a SR of over a run and a half per ball, while maintaining a decent average of 31. The only batter with a higher SR was her sister, Laura managing over 2 runs a ball which basically puts her on a different level to the rest of the women’s game at the moment. However, Laura Harris only just averaged over 10 and that’s not enough runs to get picked however fast they are scored, especially for Australia. There’s no-one else from out of the squad who has produced the sort of elite performances that would warrant inclusion as a batter – even Meg Lanning.
What I would question is whether either Tahlia McGrath or Ashleigh Gardner is worth their places in the team. Both are top all rounders of course, but in the past year they have been substantially out- performed by Perry, Sutherland and Wareham in both batting and bowling. McGrath is vice-captain and Gardner obviously has masses of credit in the bank so I’d be surprised if they don’t play, but on form I think Australia’s team should have looked something like this (assuming they include one of Brown or Vlaeminck). Cheatle and Schutt basically have identical economy rates over the year, but Cheatle has a better average.
Healy
Mooney
G Harris
Perry
Litchfield
Sutherland
Wareham
Wellington
Molineux
Cheatle/Schutt
Brown/Vlaeminck
India
Squad | Innings | Runs | Balls | Avg | SR |
R Ghosh | 27 | 616 | 435 | 32.42 | 141.61 |
Sh Verma | 30 | 894 | 649 | 34.38 | 137.75 |
S Sajana | 10 | 117 | 86 | 19.50 | 136.05 |
J Rodrigues | 28 | 663 | 512 | 36.83 | 129.49 |
D Sharma | 21 | 572 | 449 | 71.50 | 127.39 |
D Hemalatha | 15 | 301 | 240 | 25.08 | 125.42 |
S Mandhana | 35 | 999 | 808 | 31.22 | 123.64 |
Y Bhatia | 9 | 240 | 197 | 26.67 | 121.83 |
H Kaur | 35 | 863 | 738 | 31.96 | 116.94 |
P Vastrakar | 16 | 100 | 117 | 9.09 | 85.47 |
Contenders | |||||
K Navgire | 8 | 110 | 75 | 13.75 | 146.67 |
A Kaur | 11 | 89 | 66 | 17.80 | 134.85 |
S Meghana | 6 | 168 | 149 | 33.6 | 112.75 |
S Sehrawat | 7 | 108 | 106 | 15.43 | 101.89 |
Squad | Innings | Balls | Runs | Wickets | Avg | ER |
D Sharma | 37 | 797 | 820 | 44 | 18.64 | 6.17 |
R Yadav | 22 | 438 | 488 | 32 | 15.25 | 6.68 |
R Singh | 25 | 522 | 600 | 21 | 28.57 | 6.90 |
P Vastrakar | 29 | 542 | 630 | 31 | 20.32 | 6.97 |
S Patil | 20 | 381 | 457 | 29 | 15.76 | 7.20 |
A Sobhana | 13 | 222 | 267 | 16 | 16.69 | 7.22 |
A Reddy | 12 | 243 | 304 | 11 | 27.64 | 7.51 |
H Kaur | 11 | 107 | 136 | 9 | 15.11 | 7.63 |
Contenders | ||||||
T Sadhu | 9 | 162 | 147 | 9 | 16.33 | 5.44 |
T Kanwar | 12 | 270 | 283 | 11 | 25.73 | 6.29 |
S Pandey | 14 | 309 | 363 | 13 | 27.92 | 7.05 |
S Ishaque | 12 | 210 | 270 | 14 | 19.29 | 7.71 |
R Gayakwad | 10 | 203 | 265 | 9 | 29.44 | 7.83 |
M Singh | 8 | 144 | 242 | 5 | 48.40 | 10.08 |
For India, Ghosh and Verma are their fastest batters and both average over 30 so they are obvious selections. Deepti has had an astonishingly good year in franchise cricket averaging over 100 and scoring at 134. International form has not been nearly as good, dragging her down to a mere average of 71 and SR of 127, but that’s still elite figures – it is bemusing that no-one picked her up in the WBBL draft. The rest of their batting is all very similar with SRs in the 120s (compared to the Aussies who are mainly in the 130s). Harmanpreet has only managed 116.94 so it’s less surprising she was passed over in the WBBL, though Mandhana is only slightly quicker. There’s not many alternatives out of the squad who have performed better. Kiran Navgire might have been worth a place as she scored at 146 even with a low average.
Among the bowlers, Sadhu is one of a handful of bowlers to have conceded less than a run a ball in T20 this year, and probably deserves a place. Tanuja Kanwar also put up some very good figures, but the competition for places among Indian bowlers is fierce. Deepti is world class again. Radha Yadav, Renuka Singh and Pooja Vastrakar all went at under 7 rpo, with Yadav having the best average. Patil and Sobhana were more expensive but still have very good averages. Probably the luckiest bowler to get in is Reddy but there’s not a huge queue of Indian seamers behind her – indeed Meghna Singh who might have been in the running in the past had a very poor tournament for Gujarat. Shihka Pandey could have come in for her though. India’s main issue is that (Deepti apart) they lack allrounders. Harmanpreet is the only batter who has bowled much this year, and only Vastrakar of the bowlers has had much batting. Vastrakar has traditionally been called upon when a bit of tail end hitting is required but she’s had a very bad season with the bat, averaging below 10 and scoring at below a run a ball.
West Indies
Squad | Innings | Runs | Balls | Avg | SR |
H Matthews | 27 | 1403 | 1149 | 34.22 | 122.11 |
D Dottin | 5 | 119 | 109 | 23.80 | 109.17 |
S Taylor | 9 | 216 | 211 | 27.00 | 102.37 |
A Alleyne | 30 | 114 | 121 | 10.36 | 94.21 |
Q Joseph | 10 | 151 | 161 | 15.10 | 93.79 |
S Campbelle | 28 | 243 | 260 | 22.09 | 93.46 |
C Henry | 21 | 49 | 62 | 9.80 | 79.03 |
C Nation | 15 | 94 | 124 | 9.40 | 75.81 |
Squad | Innings | Balls | Runs | Wickets | Avg | ER |
Q Joseph | 10 | 192 | 173 | 9 | 19.22 | 5.41 |
A Fletcher | 11 | 214 | 235 | 16 | 14.69 | 6.59 |
A Alleyne | 15 | 268 | 296 | 15 | 19.73 | 6.63 |
C Henry | 11 | 144 | 159 | 7 | 22.71 | 6.63 |
H Matthews | 47 | 949 | 1124 | 56 | 20.07 | 7.11 |
K Ramharack | 13 | 246 | 295 | 10 | 29.5 | 7.2 |
S Connell | 11 | 162 | 221 | 10 | 22.10 | 8.19 |
Z James | 9 | 96 | 151 | 2 | 75.5 | 9.44 |
You don’t need recourse to statistics to know the West Indies have problems with batting – but they do lay bare how deep the problems are. Taking Matthews out of the equation (and while her figures are fine they are a bit short of the best batters globally), none of their batters who have played enough qualifying innings manage to score at over a run a ball, and Campbelle is the only batter among them to average over 20. No surprise then that they are hoping Taylor and Dottin can roll back the years. The bowling looks much better, Fletcher and Joseph have fine figures, and Alleyne, Henry, Matthews and Ramharack are reasonably economical. The only qualifier is that a lot of those figures come from the low scoring CPL plus a middling international calendar (5 matches vs Pakistan, 3 apiece against Australia and Sri Lanka), only Matthews has been playing in the other leagues.
New Zealand
Squad | Innings | Runs | Balls | Avg | SR |
S Devine | 43 | 990 | 771 | 26.05 | 128.40 |
J Kerr | 13 | 88 | 70 | 9.78 | 125.71 |
A Kerr | 35 | 940 | 768 | 32.41 | 122.40 |
I Gaze | 10 | 111 | 102 | 13.88 | 108.82 |
S Bates | 31 | 580 | 579 | 20.00 | 100.17 |
M Green | 15 | 190 | 199 | 19.00 | 95.48 |
B Halliday | 11 | 162 | 174 | 16.20 | 93.10 |
Squad | Innings | Balls | Runs | Wickets | Avg | ER |
F Jonas | 14 | 294 | 339 | 11 | 30.82 | 6.92 |
E Carson | 7 | 132 | 162 | 7 | 23.14 | 7.36 |
J Kerr | 11 | 230 | 292 | 4 | 73.00 | 7.62 |
A Kerr | 34 | 699 | 896 | 30 | 29.87 | 7.69 |
L Tahuhu | 11 | 180 | 258 | 10 | 25.80 | 8.60 |
S Devine | 34 | 536 | 773 | 27 | 28.63 | 8.65 |
H Rowe | 9 | 114 | 181 | 5 | 36.20 | 9.53 |
New Zealand have obviously slipped in recent years with their great players retiring or declining and not being adequately replaced. Devine and Amelie Kerr both have respectable figures, but neither can manage the 130 SR that seems to be the elite level for women’s T20 at the moment. Bates sadly has dropped to mediocrity with a SR of just a run a ball and would surely be in line for being replaced was anyone else doing better, but the three other qualifying NZ batters (Gaze, Green and Halliday) all average sub-20 and only Gaze scores at (marginally) above a run a ball. Only Jonas averages under 7 rpo among the bowlers and Tahuhu, Devine and Rowe all average above 8.5. Carson and the Kerr sisters return respectable economy rates in the 7po range but nothing that would frighten the opposition. Jess Kerr may want to claim bragging rights for being above her sister for both SR and ER.
South Africa
Squad | Innings | Runs | Balls | Avg | SR |
N De Klerk | 13 | 154 | 113 | 25.67 | 136.28 |
C Tryon | 33 | 592 | 465 | 21.93 | 127.31 |
M Kapp | 36 | 720 | 568 | 24.83 | 126.76 |
L Wolvaardt | 42 | 1378 | 1126 | 37.24 | 122.38 |
A Bosch | 12 | 326 | 267 | 27.17 | 122.10 |
T Brits | 16 | 527 | 443 | 35.13 | 118.96 |
S Luus | 13 | 176 | 159 | 19.56 | 110.69 |
Unavailable | |||||
L Lee | 13 | 409 | 280 | 37.18 | 146.07 |
M Du Preez | 17 | 382 | 309 | 23.88 | 123.62 |
Squad | Innings | Balls | Runs | Wickets | Avg | ER |
M Kapp | 39 | 825 | 803 | 36 | 22.31 | 5.84 |
C Tryon | 34 | 571 | 634 | 28 | 22.64 | 6.66 |
N Mlaba | 17 | 300 | 353 | 9 | 39.22 | 7.06 |
M Klaas | 14 | 248 | 305 | 10 | 30.50 | 7.38 |
N De Klerk | 14 | 269 | 357 | 13 | 27.46 | 7.96 |
T Sekhukhune | 7 | 132 | 186 | 7 | 26.57 | 8.45 |
A Khaka | 10 | 212 | 309 | 3 | 103.00 | 8.75 |
Unavailable | ||||||
S Ismail | 29 | 640 | 619 | 35 | 17.69 | 5.80 |
South Africa with all their players available would be a very dangerous side. Kapp is probably the best T20 quick bowler in the world right now, averaging 22 and conceding less than a run a ball, but there’s not much penetration elsewhere. Mlaba, Tryon and Klaas are economical enough, but don’t take enough wickets (Tryon’s figures got a big boost by taking 8 wickets for 66 runs in the WCPL) while de Klerk, Sekhukhune and Khaka are all pretty expensive. Add Ismail’s 17.69 average and 5.8 ER and things suddenly would look much better.
In batting, Wolvaardt averages 37 and has shown improvements in scoring quicker but a strike rate of 122 makes her a good anchor, but needing runs to come fast at the other end. However, only de Klerk scored at faster than 130 with Tryon, Kapp and Bosch all in the 120s. Luus struggling with a SR of 110 and a sub 20 average doesn’t help. Getting Lizelle Lee back who averaged 37 with a SR of 146 in the WBBL surely would.
Conclusion
Now putting all the data together to find the most effective players in world T20 over the last year. Players in bold are in the World Cup squads.
Best Strike Rate
Batter | Nat | Inns | Runs | BF | Avg | SR | |
1 | L Harris | Aus | 12 | 122 | 60 | 10.17 | 203.33 |
2 | G Harris | Aus | 30 | 795 | 511 | 31.80 | 155.58 |
3 | L Lee | SA | 13 | 409 | 280 | 37.18 | 146.07 |
4 | S Ecclestone | Eng | 19 | 153 | 106 | 13.91 | 144.34 |
5 | R Ghosh | Ind | 27 | 616 | 435 | 32.42 | 141.61 |
6 | D Gibson | Eng | 26 | 353 | 251 | 20.76 | 140.64 |
7 | G Wareham | Aus | 31 | 575 | 409 | 26.14 | 140.59 |
8 | Sh Verma | Ind | 30 | 894 | 649 | 34.38 | 137.75 |
9 | A Jones | Eng | 36 | 585 | 425 | 20.17 | 137.65 |
10 | A Healy | Aus | 20 | 543 | 398 | 28.58 | 136.43 |
11 | N De Klerk | SA | 13 | 154 | 113 | 25.67 | 136.28 |
12 | D Wyatt | Eng | 22 | 577 | 425 | 27.48 | 135.76 |
13 | H Graham | Aus | 19 | 276 | 204 | 21.23 | 135.29 |
14 | C Knott | Aus | 20 | 315 | 233 | 19.69 | 135.19 |
15 | B Mooney | Aus | 42 | 1397 | 1048 | 43.66 | 133.30 |
16 | A Sutherland | Aus | 28 | 573 | 433 | 23.88 | 132.33 |
17 | N Sciver-Brunt | Eng | 20 | 967 | 731 | 53.72 | 132.28 |
18 | J Jonassen | Aus | 33 | 462 | 352 | 14.00 | 131.25 |
19 | P Litchfield | Aus | 37 | 768 | 588 | 24.77 | 130.61 |
20 | J Rodrigues | Ind | 28 | 663 | 512 | 36.83 | 129.49 |
Dominated by Australians who fill half the top 20, England have 5 representatives, India 3.
Best Average
Batter | Nat | Inns | Runs | BF | Avg | SR | |
1 | D Sharma | Ind | 21 | 572 | 449 | 71.50 | 127.39 |
2 | N Sciver-Brunt | Eng | 20 | 967 | 731 | 53.72 | 132.28 |
3 | B Mooney | Aus | 42 | 1397 | 1048 | 43.66 | 133.30 |
4 | E Perry | Aus | 40 | 1297 | 1007 | 41.84 | 128.80 |
5 | H Knight | Eng | 40 | 1005 | 803 | 38.65 | 125.16 |
6 | L Wolvaardt | SA | 42 | 1378 | 1126 | 37.24 | 122.38 |
7 | L Lee | SA | 13 | 409 | 280 | 37.18 | 146.07 |
8 | J Rodrigues | Ind | 28 | 663 | 512 | 36.83 | 129.49 |
9 | E Villani | Aus | 12 | 324 | 279 | 36.00 | 116.13 |
10 | T Brits | SA | 16 | 527 | 443 | 35.13 | 118.96 |
11 | A Athapaththu | SL | 51 | 1615 | 1317 | 35.11 | 122.63 |
12 | S Verma | Ind | 30 | 894 | 649 | 34.38 | 137.75 |
13 | H Matthews | WI | 47 | 1403 | 1149 | 34.22 | 122.11 |
14 | R Ghosh | Ind | 27 | 616 | 435 | 32.42 | 141.61 |
15 | A Kerr | NZ | 35 | 940 | 768 | 32.41 | 122.40 |
16 | H Kaur | Ind | 35 | 863 | 738 | 31.96 | 116.94 |
17 | G Harris | Aus | 30 | 795 | 511 | 31.80 | 155.58 |
18 | S Mandhana | Ind | 35 | 999 | 808 | 31.22 | 123.64 |
19 | K Mack | Aus | 15 | 452 | 381 | 30.13 | 118.64 |
20 | T Wilson | Aus | 13 | 323 | 273 | 29.36 | 118.32 |
This is much more widely spread around geographically and is probably closer to what most people would say are the best batters in women’s cricket, but it is debatable how useful it is to a T20 team to average over 30 if you are scoring at under 120. The best batters at the moment, appearing on both lists are Grace Harris, Richa Ghosh, Shafali Verma, Beth Mooney, Nat Sciver-Brunt and Jemima Rodrigues.
Best Economy Rate
Nat | Inns | Balls | Runs | Wkts | AVG | ER | ||
1 | S Ismail | SA | 29 | 640 | 619 | 35 | 17.69 | 5.80 |
2 | A Wellington | Aus | 29 | 563 | 546 | 38 | 14.37 | 5.82 |
3 | M Kapp | SA | 39 | 825 | 803 | 36 | 22.31 | 5.84 |
4 | S Glenn | Eng | 29 | 577 | 565 | 41 | 13.78 | 5.88 |
5 | D Sharma | Ind | 37 | 797 | 820 | 44 | 18.64 | 6.17 |
6 | A Athapaththu | SL | 43 | 745 | 778 | 37 | 21.03 | 6.27 |
7 | T Kanwar | Ind | 12 | 270 | 283 | 11 | 25.73 | 6.29 |
8 | S Bates | Aus | 14 | 312 | 330 | 5 | 66.00 | 6.35 |
9 | L Cheatle | Aus | 21 | 443 | 473 | 28 | 16.89 | 6.41 |
10 | K Garth | Aus | 24 | 507 | 548 | 17 | 32.24 | 6.49 |
11 | M Schutt | Aus | 26 | 564 | 612 | 30 | 20.40 | 6.51 |
12 | A Sutherland | Aus | 37 | 717 | 780 | 40 | 19.50 | 6.53 |
13 | S Ecclestone | Eng | 28 | 612 | 668 | 40 | 16.70 | 6.55 |
14 | S Molineux | Aus | 13 | 300 | 328 | 18 | 18.22 | 6.56 |
15 | L Smith | Eng | 22 | 470 | 516 | 28 | 18.43 | 6.59 |
16 | J Barsby | Aus | 12 | 168 | 186 | 7 | 26.57 | 6.64 |
17 | C Tryon | SA | 34 | 571 | 634 | 28 | 22.64 | 6.66 |
18 | R Yadav | Ind | 22 | 438 | 488 | 32 | 15.25 | 6.68 |
19 | L Filer | Eng | 13 | 247 | 276 | 10 | 27.60 | 6.70 |
20 | A Edgar | Aus | 15 | 286 | 322 | 20 | 16.10 | 6.76 |
The depth of Australian cricket illustrated here, with 5 bowlers here who didn’t make the squad, in addition to 4 who did. Again England come in second with 4 bowlers.
Best Average
Nat | Inns | Balls | Runs | Wkts | AVG | ER | ||
1 | S Day | Aus | 14 | 294 | 337 | 27 | 12.48 | 6.88 |
2 | E Perry | Aus | 26 | 365 | 419 | 31 | 13.52 | 6.89 |
3 | S Glenn | Eng | 29 | 577 | 565 | 41 | 13.78 | 5.88 |
4 | A Wellington | Aus | 29 | 563 | 546 | 38 | 14.37 | 5.82 |
5 | R Yadav | Ind | 22 | 438 | 488 | 32 | 15.25 | 6.68 |
6 | S Patil | Ind | 20 | 381 | 457 | 29 | 15.76 | 7.20 |
7 | A Edgar | Aus | 15 | 286 | 322 | 20 | 16.10 | 6.76 |
8 | H Darlington | Aus | 13 | 264 | 365 | 22 | 16.59 | 8.30 |
9 | A Sobhana | Ind | 13 | 222 | 267 | 16 | 16.69 | 7.22 |
10 | S Ecclestone | Eng | 28 | 612 | 668 | 40 | 16.70 | 6.55 |
11 | L Cheatle | Aus | 21 | 443 | 473 | 28 | 16.89 | 6.41 |
12 | S Ismail | SA | 29 | 640 | 619 | 35 | 17.69 | 5.80 |
13 | S Molineux | Aus | 13 | 300 | 328 | 18 | 18.22 | 6.56 |
14 | L Smith | Eng | 22 | 470 | 516 | 28 | 18.43 | 6.59 |
15 | D Sharma | Ind | 37 | 797 | 820 | 44 | 18.64 | 6.17 |
16 | J Jonassen | Aus | 38 | 780 | 970 | 52 | 18.65 | 7.46 |
17 | L Bell | Eng | 21 | 416 | 500 | 26 | 19.23 | 7.21 |
18 | S Ishaque | Ind | 12 | 210 | 270 | 14 | 19.29 | 7.71 |
19 | N Hancock | Aus | 17 | 373 | 446 | 23 | 19.39 | 7.17 |
20 | A Sutherland | Aus | 37 | 717 | 780 | 40 | 19.50 | 6.53 |
A bit of a theme developing as Australia dominate once more with 10 representatives, 7 of whom don’t make the squad. Averaging under 20 makes you a very useful bowler whatever your economy rate, but only Darlington and Ishaque went at over 7.5 an over.
The elite performers, appearing in both lists, Shabnim Ismail, Amanda Wellington, Sarah Glenn, Deepti Sharma, Lauren Cheatle, Annabel Sutherland, Sophie Ecclestone, Sophie Molineux, Linsey Smith, Radha Yadav and Amy Edgar.