Toss & Conditions

Head-to-Head

Warwickshire W lead the last two meetings 2-0. In the most recent clash, Warwickshire chased down Durham’s total to win by 7 wickets with 10 balls remaining, a finish that showed clear control in the chase. The previous meeting was even more one-sided: Warwickshire won by 42 runs after Durham were bowled out. The pattern so far is Warwickshire repeatedly finding a way past Durham in this matchup.

DUDurham W 162/5

WAWarwickshire W 165/3

2025-06-11 · WAR-W won by 7 wickets (with 10 balls remaining)

WAWarwickshire W 193/6

DUDurham W 151/10

2025-05-31 · WAR-W won by 42 runs

Durham W

Durham W are 6th in the T20BW regular season on 4 points with a 1W-1L record and a +0.209 NRR. Their latest game was a tight loss where they were dismissed for 102 and Surrey still needed only 2 wickets to win with 20 balls unused. The bounce-back is there too: their most recent win was a 32-run result over Hampshire W.

DUDurham W 102/10

SUSurrey W 103/8

2026-05-27 · SUR-W won by 2 wickets (with 20 balls remaining)

DUDurham W 178/5

HAHampshire W 146/8

2026-05-24 · DUR-W won by 32 runs

DUDurham W 155/8

ESEssex W 164/3

2025-07-18 · ESS-W won by 9 runs

Warwickshire W

Warwickshire W are 8th in the T20BW regular season with 0 points, a 0W-3L record, and a -1.328 NRR. Their last three games have all been defeats, including a close chase where they fell 4 balls short against The Blaze W. The trend is consistent: they’ve been competitive at times, but they haven’t closed out a result yet.

WAWarwickshire W 158/8

TBThe Blaze W 159/6

2026-05-27 · TB-W won by 4 wickets (with 4 balls remaining)

WAWarwickshire W 166/9

SOSomerset W 167/3

2026-05-24 · SOM-W won by 7 wickets (with 10 balls remaining)

WAWarwickshire W 164/8

ESEssex W 166/3

2026-05-22 · ESS-W won by 7 wickets (with 34 balls remaining)

Playing XI

Key Stats

Verdict

All four models are in consensus for Durham W, with the average probability at 66% for DUR-W. Bookmakers diverge, pricing DUR-W at 48% (1.90) vs WAR-W at 52% (1.80). Key stats lean Durham 5-2 overall, driven by the stronger season start and better run-rate profile, but Warwickshire’s 2-0 edge in the last two head-to-heads is the main counterweight. This comes down to whether Durham’s superior season indicators override a matchup that has recently gone Warwickshire’s way.

Heath counterpunches after wobble

Bess Heath turned a shaky start into a match-winning platform, powering Durham W to a defendable total and then watching their bowlers finish the job for a 27-run win. Durham were 37/2 in the powerplay, but Heath’s clean striking changed the tempo and forced Warwickshire W out of their preferred lengths. The chase briefly threatened when Warwickshire matched the early rate, yet once wickets began to fall in clusters, the target kept stretching away.

Middle overs choke the chase

The game was decided in Warwickshire’s middle overs, where momentum drained fast. After 42/2 in the powerplay, they managed only 60/5 through the middle phase at 5.9 an over, losing set batters and the ability to line up boundary options. Durham’s spinners and cutters hit a hard length, turning singles into dots, and the required rate climbed beyond control. By the time the death overs arrived, Warwickshire had just 11 runs left in them for three more wickets, ending at 113 all out in 18.1.

Heath sets it up, Turner seals

Heath was the difference-maker, her 61 from 38 balls providing both acceleration and stability, and her 79-run partnership with Player 4595 giving Durham a base they hadn’t had at 37/2. Emily Windsor’s 31 helped bridge the quieter periods and ensured the total didn’t stall. With the ball, Sophia Turner’s 2 for 13 kept the squeeze tight, while Mady Villiers and Katie Levick shared four wickets to turn Warwickshire’s promising start into a collapse despite Chloe Brewer’s 27.

Season indicators trump recent H2H

Pre-match, the tug-of-war was clear: Durham’s better season profile versus Warwickshire’s recent head-to-head edge. This match followed the broader form line. Durham absorbed early pressure, then won the more repeatable battles—strike rotation and wicket control—rather than relying on a powerplay burst. Warwickshire’s recent struggles showed again when the chase moved past the initial surge: once Durham slowed the scoring lanes, the innings lacked a second gear.