Duleep Trophy semis: Central take on East, South clash with North

The Duleep Trophy reaches its business end here on Sunday with defending champions Central Zone taking on an East Zone side brimming with confidence, while last year’s runners-up South Zone face North Zone.

The last-four stage promises an intriguing contest, with East and North having negotiated the quarter-final hurdle while Central and South received direct entry.

This story has been sourced from a third party syndicated feed, agencies. Mid-day accepts no responsibility or liability for its dependability, trustworthiness, reliability and data of the text. Mid-day management/mid-day.com reserves the sole right to alter, delete or remove (without notice) the content in its absolute discretion for any reason whatsoever cricket-info.homes

Geoffrey Boycott Reacts Harry Brook: इंग्लैंड के पूर्व कप्तान जेफ्री बॉयकॉट ने इंग्लैंड के स्टार बल्लेबाज हैरी ब्रूक को लेकर बड़ी बात कही है। उन्होंने बताया है कि इस खिलाड़ी के भीतर सचिन तेंदुलकर और ब्रायन लारा जैसे बल्लेबाज बनने की काबिलियत है। बॉयकॉट ने ये भी बताया कि उन्होंने टेस्ट क्रिकेट में उनकी एकाग्रता को बेहतर बनाने में मदद करने का ऑफर दिया था, जिसको ब्रूक ने ठुकरा दिया। इंग्लैंड और पाकिस्तान के बीच लॉर्ड्स में खेले जा रहे दूसरे टेस्ट के तीसरे दिन बॉयकॉट ने ये बात कही।

Marizanne Kapp’s reaction to Anaya Bangar’s return to women’s cricket was blunt.

“Absolutely ridiculous, this should not be allowed,” the South African all-rounder wrote on Instagram after Cricket Australia confirmed that Bangar could pursue a pathway into elite women’s cricket in Australia. Kapp’s post immediately triggered a wider debate, not merely about one transgender cricketer, but about where cricket should draw the line between inclusion and competitive fairness.

It is an uncomfortable conversation, and one that needs to be handled carefully.

Bangar is a transgender woman. Her identity is not the question that sporting regulations are attempting to answer. The question is whether the criteria used to determine eligibility for a female sporting category adequately account for the physiological effects of puberty and whether those effects matter sufficiently in a particular sport to affect fairness.

Those are two different questions.

And cricket currently has two different answers to them.

What has Cricket Australia actually decided?

The first thing that needs correcting is the impression that Bangar has been handed a place in the Women’s Big Bash League (WBBL).

She has not.

Cricket Australia has cleared her to play community and Premier Cricket in Australia. Its determination also gives her a pathway to Elite Cricket, including the WBBL, from March 2027, provided she continues to satisfy the organisation’s eligibility requirements.

Cricket Australia’s existing policy requires a player seeking to compete in the female category of Elite Cricket to demonstrate that her serum testosterone concentration has remained below 10 nanomoles per litre for at least 12 months. CA has confirmed that Bangar’s eligibility for Elite Cricket from March 2027 is conditional on her satisfying the policy requirements, including a blood test confirming that her testosterone remains below the stipulated level.

That is an important distinction. Eligibility does not equal selection.

Bangar herself has acknowledged that she would still have to earn an opportunity to play at WBBL level. She has spoken about returning to competitive cricket, improving her batting, bowling, fielding and fitness and convincing a franchise that she can contribute. As she herself put it, “Eligibility is not selection.”

So Kapp’s objection is not really about an established WBBL player suddenly losing her place to Bangar.

It is about the principle behind allowing a transgender woman who has experienced male puberty to enter the female category under a testosterone-based eligibility rule.

And that is where the debate becomes considerably more complicated.

Cricket’s governing bodies do not agree

The International Cricket Council (ICC) does not use Cricket Australia’s approach for international cricket.

In November 2023, the ICC introduced regulations under which a male-to-female participant who has undergone any form of male puberty is not eligible to participate in the international women’s game, irrespective of whether she has subsequently undergone surgery or gender reassignment treatment. (icc)

The ICC is explicit that this is a sporting eligibility regulation, not a judgement on a person’s gender identity.

Its policy is based on the principles of protecting the integrity of the women’s game, safety, fairness and inclusion. (icc)

Cricket Australia, meanwhile, has retained a domestic policy based principally on testosterone suppression.

CA itself has explained that gender eligibility for international cricket is a matter for the ICC, while domestic eligibility is determined by individual member boards.

That means Bangar can potentially play elite domestic cricket in Australia while remaining ineligible for international women’s cricket under the ICC’s regulations.

The apparent contradiction is therefore not between Bangar and cricket as a whole. It is between two different regulatory philosophies within the same sport.

Why does male puberty matter?

This is the scientific question at the heart of Kapp’s objection.

The reason sport has traditionally separated male and female categories is that puberty produces substantial physiological differences relevant to sporting performance.

Testosterone exposure during male puberty contributes to increases in muscle mass and strength, haemoglobin and other characteristics of the cardiovascular and musculoskeletal systems. It also affects skeletal growth and body dimensions. (DOI.org)

The crucial question is what happens to those changes when a transgender woman subsequently undergoes gender-affirming hormone therapy and testosterone suppression.

There is broad agreement that hormone therapy changes the body.

What is much less settled is how completely those changes translate into a female-typical athletic profile, how long that process takes, and whether any residual differences matter enough to create a competitive advantage in a particular sport.

That distinction is critical.

The evidence supporting Kapp’s concern

A 2021 systematic review published in the British Journal of Sports Medicine by Joanna Harper, Emma O’Donnell, Behzad Sorouri Khorashad, Hilary McDermott and Gemma Witcomb examined the effects of testosterone-suppressing gender-affirming hormone therapy on transgender women. (PubMed)

The review examined 24 studies and found that hormone therapy reduced haemoglobin relatively quickly and produced reductions in lean body mass, muscle area and strength. However, the authors reported that strength, lean body mass and muscle area remained above those of cisgender women even after 36 months of hormone therapy, although they also noted that data beyond the first year were limited.

A separate 2021 review by Emma Hilton and Tommy Lundberg, published in Sports Medicine, argued that the performance gap between males and females becomes substantial around puberty and that testosterone suppression after puberty may not completely remove the physiological differences associated with male development. The authors highlighted characteristics including muscle mass, strength and skeletal dimensions as areas relevant to sporting performance. (DOI.org)

That body of research provides a scientific basis for asking whether simply measuring an athlete’s testosterone level captures every physiological characteristic that matters for sport.

It is also part of the scientific reasoning behind policies that place greater weight on whether an athlete has undergone male puberty.

But this is where the article, and the wider debate, needs to be careful.

Because the research has moved on.

The latest evidence complicates the argument

In February 2026, the British Journal of Sports Medicine published a much larger systematic review and meta-analysis by Sofia Mendes Sieczkowska, Bruna Caruso Mazzolani, Danilo Reis Coimbra, Igor Longobardi, Andresa Rossilho Casale and colleagues.

The study analysed 52 studies involving 6,485 participants, making it one of the most comprehensive reviews of the subject to date. (ROmedic)

Its findings are important.

The researchers found that transgender women undergoing gender-affirming hormone therapy experienced changes including increased fat mass and reductions in lean mass and upper-body strength over one to three years.

But when transgender women were compared with cisgender women, the meta-analysis did not find statistically significant differences in relative lean mass, upper- or lower-body strength, or maximal oxygen consumption.

The authors concluded that the available evidence did not support the theory of an inherent athletic advantage in transgender women after gender-affirming hormone therapy. However, they also graded much of the evidence as low or very low certainty and highlighted considerable heterogeneity between studies. (SMC España)

That matters enormously.

Because it means that saying “science proves that transgender women retain an unfair athletic advantage after transition” would be an overstatement.

The latest evidence does not establish that.

But neither does it settle every question raised by Kapp’s objection.

The missing piece: elite sport

One of the biggest limitations of the scientific literature is that physiological measurements are not the same thing as sporting performance.

The 2026 meta-analysis itself highlights the limitations of the evidence base: only a minority of the studies included any form of physical activity assessment, and most did not compare transgender athletes with cisgender athletes. (Medical Xpress)

That distinction is particularly relevant to cricket.

A laboratory measurement of muscle strength is not the same thing as bowling speed.

Lean body mass is not the same thing as batting ability.

VO2 max is not the same thing as fielding.

Cricket is a highly skill-dependent sport in which technique, timing, anticipation, decision-making, training history and psychological factors all contribute to performance.

At the same time, cricket does involve qualities such as strength, power, sprinting and throwing velocity, which means physiology cannot simply be dismissed as irrelevant.

There is currently not enough cricket-specific evidence to say precisely what residual advantage, if any, a transgender woman who has undergone male puberty would have in elite cricket after hormone therapy.

That is arguably the most important fact missing from much of the public debate.

What about the effects of puberty that cannot simply be reversed?

This is where the argument becomes particularly nuanced.

Some characteristics established during puberty are structural. Height, for example, does not simply decrease because testosterone is subsequently suppressed.

Research into skeletal dimensions also suggests that the timing of puberty suppression and hormone treatment can influence the extent to which skeletal characteristics change.

A 2025 study in the Journal of Clinical Endocrinology & Metabolism, examining skeletal dimensions in transgender individuals, found that some skeletal dimensions in people assigned male at birth were altered when puberty suppression was initiated early, while several dimensions remained comparable with those of the sex assigned at birth when treatment began later. The authors concluded that skeletal dimensions were most similar to the affirmed gender among those who started puberty suppression early, suggesting that some skeletal changes become less reversible as endogenous puberty progresses. (OUP Academic)

That does not prove that a transgender woman who has experienced male puberty has an unfair advantage in cricket.

But it does demonstrate why the question cannot be reduced entirely to a single testosterone reading.

A testosterone test measures what is happening hormonally now. It does not provide a complete historical record of how an individual’s body developed during puberty.

That is the scientific question at the centre of the disagreement between policies such as Cricket Australia’s and the ICC’s.

So is Cricket Australia’s testosterone threshold wrong?

That is much harder to answer.

A testosterone threshold is not irrational.

Testosterone is an important biological driver of muscle mass, strength and several other performance-related characteristics, and hormone therapy clearly changes these parameters.

The problem is that testosterone is not the only variable.

Nor is there universal scientific agreement about what happens after several years of suppression, particularly in elite athletes.

A 2026 review in the International Journal of Sports Medicine concluded that the available research is limited by small cohorts, short follow-up periods, different hormone-treatment regimens and the fact that outcomes are rarely sport-specific. It described the certainty of this evidence as low and argued that existing data are insufficient to support uniform policies across all sporting disciplines. (PubMed)

That is perhaps the fairest description of where the science currently stands.

There are credible scientific arguments that support concern about the effects of male puberty.

There are also increasingly substantial data suggesting that hormone therapy substantially reduces, and in some measured characteristics may eliminate, differences between transgender and cisgender women.

What remains uncertain is how those changes translate into elite sporting performance, and whether the answer should be the same for every sport.

This is where Kapp’s objection deserves to be separated from its wording

Kapp’s Instagram post was categorical.

“Absolutely ridiculous, this should not be allowed.”

That wording understandably provoked a response from Bangar, who said that people speaking against her participation should educate themselves and pointed to her compliance with Cricket Australia’s guidelines.

But the underlying question raised by Kapp is not inherently illegitimate.

It is a question that cricket’s own governing bodies have answered differently.

The ICC has decided that experiencing male puberty is a sufficiently important factor to make a transgender woman ineligible for international women’s cricket.

Cricket Australia has decided that, for domestic elite cricket, a testosterone-based eligibility framework can provide a pathway.

Both policies are attempting to balance competing considerations of inclusion, fairness and the integrity of the women’s category.

The disagreement is over where that balance should be struck.

And that distinction matters for Anaya Bangar

Bangar should not be reduced to the controversy surrounding her eligibility.

She is a cricketer attempting to return to a sport she previously played, and she is now operating within the rules of the governing body that has jurisdiction over the competition she wants to enter.

Her eligibility does not guarantee her a WBBL contract.

Her gender identity should not become a proxy for judging her cricketing ability.

And criticism of a sporting eligibility policy should not automatically be interpreted as a denial of a transgender person’s identity.

Those principles can coexist.

It is entirely possible to respect Bangar’s identity and her right to participate in sport while still asking whether the criteria governing a female sporting category are sufficiently robust.

Likewise, it is possible to believe that inclusion should be prioritised while acknowledging that the science surrounding elite transgender participation is still developing.

The question cricket cannot avoid

Perhaps the most useful way of looking at Kapp’s intervention is not to ask whether she is “right” or “wrong”.

It is to ask what the purpose of the women’s category is, and what evidence should determine who is eligible to compete in it.

If the purpose is simply to ensure that testosterone levels are within a particular range, Cricket Australia’s policy has a clear and measurable criterion.

If the purpose is to account for the physiological consequences of puberty, the ICC’s policy takes a different approach.

And if the answer is that neither approach perfectly captures the complexity of human physiology, then cricket has a much harder policy problem on its hands.

The latest science does not provide an easy answer.

It does tell us that hormone therapy produces substantial physiological changes. It also tells us that the evidence about residual athletic advantage is mixed, that much of the research is of limited certainty, and that there is a shortage of data involving elite athletes and sport-specific performance.

That uncertainty should not be used to dismiss either side of the debate.

It should be a reason for cricket to investigate the question more rigorously.

Kapp may have chosen unnecessarily blunt words, and it would be wrong to infer from a short Instagram post precisely what motivated her.

But the sporting question behind her post is legitimate.

So is Bangar’s right to expect that question to be discussed without reducing her identity to a sporting controversy.

For cricket, the challenge is to find a way to do both: protect the integrity and fairness of women’s competition while treating transgender athletes with dignity and respect.

The difficult part is that science has not yet supplied a universally accepted answer to where that line should be drawn.

Follow RevSportz for latest sports news

The post Why Marizanne Kapp questioned Anaya Bangar’s eligibility, and why the science is more complicated than the debate suggests appeared first on Sports News Portal | Revsportz.

Sri Lanka began their Women’s Asia Cup 2026 campaign in ruthless fashion as the defending champions thumped UAE by nine wickets at the Dubai International Cricket Stadium on Saturday.

After bundling out the home side for just 79 runs, Sri Lanka chased down the target with nine wickets and 12.1 overs to spare, handing themselves a huge net run rate (NRR) boost along with two crucial points. It also turned out to be Sri Lanka’s biggest-ever WT20I win in terms of balls remaining.

Dismal batting from UAE

After being asked to bat first, the home side completely faltered with their batting approach. Captain Esha Oza top-scored with 18 off 24 while a few others reached double figures. However, UAE were eventually bundled out for just 79 in 19.5 overs.

Impressive T20I debut for Chethana Vimukthi as SL pacers shine

Chethana Vimukthi, playing her first T20I, left an immediate mark with an impressive spell of 3/16 in four overs. She was well supported by her pace bowling partner Mithali Ayodha, who also picked up three wickets for 14 runs in 3.5 overs.

On a slowish Dubai track, where spinners generally tend to find assistance, Sri Lanka’s pace duo stood out, combining for six wickets while conceding only 30 runs in 7.5 overs. Vimukthi was also named the Player of the Match.

Attacking opening pair and huge NRR boost

Both Sri Lanka openers – Imesha Dulani and skipper Chamari Athapaththu – adopted an ultra-aggressive approach, adding 57 runs in just 5.5 overs.

An unfortunate run-out at the non-striker’s end saw Dulani dismissed for 25 off 18, but Athapaththu remained unbeaten on 48 off 25, striking at 192. The defending champions had announced their arrival in style.

With this huge win, Sri Lanka now have an NRR of +6.263.

Next Games

Sri Lanka – vs Indonesia, Dubai, September 2

UAE – vs Indonesia, Dubai, September 4

For More Exciting Articles: Follow RevSportz

The post Women’s Asia Cup, 2026: Vimukthi stars on debut as Sri Lanka crush UAE appeared first on Sports News Portal | Revsportz.