When it comes to communicating with strangers on social media there are certain key ‘tells’ – klaxons that indicate you’re speaking to someone who might turn out to be odd, angry or generally wrong on every single detail of human existence. The obvious ones are well known. Use of the word “methinks”. Men who describe themselves as ‘proud dad to X and loving husband to Z’, a sure sign of displaced guilt and/or being into dogging. Plus of course either liking or disliking or having any strong opinions on Piers Morgan, including and obviously magniied by actually being Piers Morgan.
When it comes to talking about women’s cricket there is one obvious tell-tale. This is of course Comparing It To The Men’s Game, which is a pointless exercise for various reasons. Firstly because it makes little sense. Men’s cricket is a inely structured professional sport that has been around for 150 years. Women’s cricket is still a start-up, growing fast from a miniscule base and still in need of care, faith and resources. Mainly, though, these are just two diferent but related sporting entities that exist on their own terms, and which will bloom in the right conditions and with a well-matched ield. This last point is vital. Here’s a thing not many people know. Last summer the women’s 1st XI at a major county played the boys’ under-14 age-group team – and got thrashed. This is not an uncommon experience. But it was instructive hearing the feedback from the 13-year-olds on the winning side. What struck them most was the unevenness of their adult opponents, the diference in quality between the best batters, who were very good, and the worst – a big contrast with boys’ agegroup cricket, where the sheer weight of competition precludes any weak links. Kids are more evolved on these issues generally. I watched most of the Women’s World T20 in the company of assorted boys and it was a massive hit, a high-quality thing played out on lovely soft, fragrant-looking ields in front of fun, noisy crowds, with the full glossy Sky Sports production package. We loved Deandra Dottin’s adrenal ielding, the elegant severity of Harmanpreet Kaur’s backswing, the pristine, high-spec skills of Ellyse Perry, the way in the tense late inishes the damp air seemed to cling to every surface. In fact it was all great, gripping, fun stuf, so much so that by the end I’d realised it probably is a good idea to start comparing it to the men’s game, just not in that habitually sneering way, but in a way that demands the same standards and the same unblinking eye. And that this might actually be a good thing for all concerned. There can be a misplaced gallantry in coverage of women’s cricket, a notion that every critique has to gush with unremitting positivity or risk being seen as disloyal. But the fact is, as in most sports, there are bits that really could do with some work. Most obviously the pitches, which were the usual putrid things, encouraging the loopy spin and medium bobbers that drag the spectacle down. But it isn’t just the pitches, or indeed the occasionally wonky umpiring. The fact is that in a professional set-up England should be looking to improve on what we saw in the Caribbean. Like the under-14 boys said: it was great in bits, but also uneven. England were underpowered. They hit 48 boundaries all tournament (Alyssa Healy hit 36 on her own). The ielding was terrible in patches, the drop-of between the best bits and the worst far too high. Only Amy Jones, Nat Sciver and Tammy Beaumont were notably at or above the highest standards of athleticism and intensity coach Mark Robinson has said he wants. The Sciver–Jones partnership against India was high class, the pitch read perfectly, the chase chiselled away with a clean, clear belligerence. It is worth pointing it out, because this is the level England can get to with the right structures behind them. Women’s cricket faces the same problems all cricket faces: problems of access and spread, just magniied. Talk to those involved and there is a frustration at the best athletes being drawn to other sports, at a lack of ixtures at all levels, a culture that frowns on remedying this by playing men and boys’ cricket, and even of cliques in selection. This should be a concern for the simplest reasons. Women’s cricket is the obvious window for commercial growth in the game. It demands investment, the same structures and privileges as the men’s and the same standards. These pioneers of the early professional age deserve our applause; but let’s not pretend we don’t still owe them quite a lot more. Visit for ipl 2019 updates
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |