It was a fitting end, because Gardner had been a catalyst in GG’s strong finish earlier in the evening. She scored 46 off 28 balls, and added 71 off 43 with Georgia Wareham to take GG to 167, a total that had looked distant for much of their innings.

It is not yet curtains for MI, though. They will now hope for a UP Warriorz win over Delhi Capitals in the last league fixture on Sunday, with net run rate coming into play.

While GG seemed to back a method that has worked for them this season, their toss decision was fraught with risk, especially after Beth Mooney fell cheaply. Sophie Devine and Anushka Sharma looked solid but couldn’t really force the pace until the final over of the powerplay, in which they scored 12 off Vaishnavi Sharma. Despite not picking up wickets regularly, MI had the innings under control: GG scored in double-digits in only two of the first 11 overs. When Devine and Anushka fell in successive overs, GG had to rebuild with only 45% of their overs left.

Gardner and Wareham hit at least one four in each of the first three overs of their partnership. The switch was truly flicked when Wareham danced down to Amelia Kerr and launched her over the sightscreen in the 15th over. Gardner then hit Hayley Matthews for 6, 4, 4, 4 in the 16th, and both batters hit two fours each in the 17th, Shabnim Ismail’s final over. Gardner was soon stumped off Kerr but Wareham kept the big hits coming, finishing on 44 not out off 26 as GG scored 61 in their last five overs.

With GG going spin-heavy, Harmanpreet began finding the boundary regularly. She particularly targeted the shorter leg-side boundary (51m vs 59m) against Rajeshwari Gayakwad’s left-arm spin, hitting her for two sixes and a four in the space of seven balls spread across two overs. But GG clawed back, with Gayakwad getting Amanjot Kaur stumped and Wareham trapping Sanskriti Gupta for a first-ball duck. Harmanpreet ended the night with the Orange Cap on her head, but it was the team in orange that progressed to the next round.

Brief scores:
Gujarat Giants Women 167 for 4 in 20 overs (Sophie Devine 25, Anushka Sharma 33, Ashleigh Gardner 46, Georgia Wareham 44*; Shabnim Ismail 1-29, Nat Sciver Brunt 1-36, Amelia  Kerr 2-26) beat Mumbai Indians Women  156 for 7 in 20 overs  (Sajeevan Sajana 26, Harmanpreet Kaur 82*, Amelia Kerr 20, Amanjot Kaur 13; Kashvee Gautam  1-12, Rajeshwari Gayakwad  1-46, Sophie Devine 2-23, Georgia Wareham 2-26, Ashleigh Gardner 1-26) by 11 runs

[Cricinfo]

Tom Moffat, the WCA CEO, highlighted differences across eight areas between the two versions: content/media appearances, behind the scenes content, changing room access, biological player related data, licensing, name, image likeness (NIL), player agreement and dispute resolution.

The WCA’s broader contention was that the 2024 agreement gave players the right to decide, and negotiate via the global players body, whereas the ICC version says player consent is not needed, with their boards having that authority.

An example of the significant differences is NIL rights, according to the communication Moffat sent to players. In the ICC’s new version, “the player is required to license their NIL to any third party; 3 players from the same team can be used by an ICC Partner for commercial content which can directly relate to the promotion of the Partners brand or product; the player’s national board approves all use of NIL on behalf of the player; Any use of NIL outside of the Squad Terms can be agreed by the player’s national board.”

In the 2024 agreement, the NIL rights were “restricted” only to the ICC’s commercial partners and the event hosts and the WCA is authorised on behalf of the players to negotiate terms and use. The 2024 version also said a group of players – not three per team – would be “represented in all content” promoting the ICC tournament.

There are significant differences in the terms for the usage of player data during the event as well. The WCA said in the ICC version, the governing body “can use and commercialise player data with the agreement of the player’s national board” and that the ICC “owns” the data. The approved version, WCA said, says the player owns the data and their consent is necessary “given the sensitivities.”

In the ICC version, once the players participate in a global tournament, “he /she is deemed to have accepted the Squad Terms regardless of whether they sign the Terms.” In the version agreed between the WCA and ICC, the players are required to agree the terms and sign for every event separately.

In the memo to players, Moffat accused the ICC and member boards of “deliberately removing” all the protection that players were assured of in the 2024 terms, while “attempting” to “own” players and “claim an almost unlimited ability to use and commercialise it with third parties without your consent, with the only recourse to an in-house dispute resolution process run by the ICC itself .” Moffat also said the ICC and member boards were trying to “exploit the most vulnerable, and worst paid player groups at this World Cup, some of whom are amateur,” through the non-approved version.

This week, Moffat told ESPNcricinfo that the WCA did not want to disrupt the World Cup, but admitted being “deeply concerned” by ICC presenting terms that did not “align” with the 2024 agreement. “The (ICC) terms provided significantly erode player rights and protections including around image and commercial use, compared to those agreed,” Moffat said. “It is especially concerning that it is the most vulnerable playing groups who appear to have been targeted and expected to compete under different terms and conditions to other playing groups participating in the same Men’s T20 World Cup. For many players affected, participation in ICC Events represents a primary source of income and career progression.

“The WCA supports the growth of the game and ICC events, but these objectives should be pursued in partnership with players, not at their expense. The agreed Squad Terms have now been signed by impacted WCA players, and our expectation is for these terms to be honoured by the ICC for the T20 World Cup.”

It is understood the ICC has not responded to WCA’s follow-up mail sent earlier this week. The ICC has been asked for a comment.

[Cricinfo]