Three cricketers have been nominated for the International Cricket Council’s monthly award for women’s cricket in August. The first name on the list is Suleeporn Laomi of Thailand. She used accurate spin in two cricket formats and at the Asia Cup, repeatedly preventing opponents from increasing their score. Next on the list is her Thailand teammate Nannapat Koncharoenkai. She consistently increased her team’s score. The third name is Lucy Barnett from the Isle of Man. She increased her team’s score quickly and used the ball accurately enough to make opponents leave the field during the Women’s Continental Cup. Each nominee had a different role, so the three performances cannot be judged by one number alone.
Laomi: accurate spin across several formats
She contributed during Thailand’s one-day and short-format series against Papua New Guinea before taking that form into the Asia Cup. Her best sequence with the ball in a one-day match came at the end of a series Thailand won without defeat. Against India in the Asia Cup, her accurate balls caused three Indian players to be declared out. The match still ended in defeat for Thailand, but she showed that her method could challenge a stronger team.
Her value was not limited to one ball that caused an opponent to be declared out. The fielders’ positions, the ball’s speed and its landing place determine how easily the opposing team can increase its score. She repeatedly limited easy opportunities while giving Thailand a chance to remove opponents from play. Moving between match formats required her to adjust risk without losing control. Her nomination reflects those repeated decisions across a month, not one isolated moment.
Koncharoenkai: Thailand’s reliable source of points
She produced Thailand’s highest individual score in the shorter series against Papua New Guinea. She then contributed steadily in three one-day matches as Thailand won that series without defeat. These were not three identical attacks. She remained in play and let partners increase the score around her, even when the pace of the match changed. That gave her team a reliable player around whom it could build its performance.
Her result against India was forty-one points. That contribution mattered differently because no other Thailand player reached a two-digit figure. There was little support from the other end of the field. Her work could not reverse the match result, but it prevented an immediate collapse and showed individual resistance against a strong opponent. An award can recognise that work even when the player’s team loses.
Barnett: influence in both major roles
She produced the Women’s Continental Cup’s highest individual score as Isle of Man reached the final. Her result in one important match was seventy-one points, and she remained unbeaten while her team successfully reached a target set by its opponent. Her result against Norway was one hundred points without being declared out. In the final against Turkey, she again added more to the score than any teammate and caused two Turkish players to be declared out. Her influence continued when the tournament reached its most demanding game.
Barnett’s fast point production gave Isle of Man momentum, but her nomination also recognises her work with the ball. Those are separate tactical responsibilities. Success while trying to add points does not guarantee good decisions when the same player has to challenge an opponent with accurate balls. Barnett did both during the tournament and carried a large share of her team’s work. That variety distinguishes her nomination from one based only on a points total.
Context keeps the comparison fair
The three nominees competed in different tournaments and against different opponents. It would be misleading to treat every increase in a team score or every removal of an opposing player as if it happened under identical conditions. Laomi’s accurate spin challenged India. Koncharoenkai’s play repeatedly helped Thailand increase its score and resist India in a difficult Asia Cup match. Barnett’s record includes the highest individual score in her tournament as well as useful work with the ball in the final.
The award judges must ask which woman used her role most effectively across the month. There is no need to list every average or rate to answer that question. Laomi controlled how often opponents could add points, Koncharoenkai gave Thailand a reliable presence, and Barnett changed matches in both of her roles. Each nomination is supported by performances that mattered to the player’s team.
The award recognises a month of play across different cricket formats. It is not a contest to see which type of player naturally produces the largest single number.
