Isn’t it time women and men played professional sport together?

Tenpin bowling. Presumably they could in darts as well.

Agree.

This is where we will disagree. There are plenty of examples of Female athletes hoping to compete alongside men and having it shot down by administration.. The Author sites Hope Solo as an example, and there are countless others. .

Ok lovely idea but surely if what you said was true there would be a woman somewhere who is good enough to play league 3 or so in any male sport. Doesnt have to be cricket can be any sport anywhere. There has to be a freak of nature woman who was brought up playing sports, as many ladies are, is gifted beyond anything genetically and is kicking ass somewhere in the world. There isnt though, not because there are not women who truly great athletes or because they dont want to but because they just physically cannot.

I get that skill is linked to speed and strength. but you are overstating it. In Cricket the extra strength and speed of male bowlers would actually help female batsmen scoring runs behind square as all you have to do on late cuts and leg glances is to redirect momentum provided by the bowler. So Ironically it would actually be easier for female batsmen to score against male quicks then female medium pacers. Provided the female batsmen had the required reaction times and training (both of which are not exclusive to either gender) Your anecdote about Don Bradman proves my point. He found an effective way to score runs without hitting sixes. that he could hit sixes is less important then the fact that he didn't. There are many ways to be an effective batsman and hitting sixes isn't really a requirement. Someone could score at 12 runs an over just by running 2's every ball. that cricketer would have the best strike rate in world cricket without ever hitting a boundary. I understand that Skill is linked to speed and strength. but it works on a baseline level. once you have enough speed/strength/athleticism to perform a skill any extra Speed/Strength/Athleticism can be a disadvantage in any sport where playing within the flow of the game is more important then going at full speed 100% of the time. This happens all the time in basketball and many other team sports.

It's not about the fact they are women, but the physical limitations that women generally have compared to men. It's not sexist, it's just a fact. Besides, one of the main factors would be exposure to that type of bowling. Having never faced anything over 120 and then suddenly getting almost every ball at 145+ would mess with anyone.

They do in equine events: horseracing, show jumping, 3day event, dressage etc. Can't think of any others

Matt is obviously being sarcastic.

The closest I can think of at a reasonably high level in cricket would be Sarah Taylor, who was in the frame for Sussex second XI a couple of years back. I can't find any record that she actually got a game. But even then you are talking about an international stretching her limits to play 2nd XI games. I do think that in amateur and similar ranks it could work. The women may play a grade or two lower in a mens/mixed comp than they would in a womens only competition, but if that's the choice so be it. And in some rural and regional areas, there may not be the option of playing in a womens league.

Lmao - Bradman scored a 100 off 22 balls once in an exhibition match. He stated many times he attempted to keep every shot on the ground in tests. He did manage to score almost a third of his runs in fours however. Again I'll say people aren't understanding the relationship between speed strength and skill. Skill is heavily linked to speed and strength in most physical sports. Even golf.

Somehow I can not see Ellyse Perry or Meg Lanning facing up against a bloke hurling a cricket ball at 145kph. Not matter how good they are. Unisex may work in some contact sports. Some of those big Pacific Island women look like they could handle themselves against a big brawny male. just watch where he puts his hands in the tackle. lol.

Maybe they should play with ping pong balls then. They'd hit them to the moon.

Obviously a team or superior Athletes will beat a team of inferior Athletes. But in every sport people play specific roles, Where Solely female teams get destroyed by men's teams is that they lack the Power/Enforcer players and get destroyed by the opposition's power players. Johnathan Thurston isn't going to put Sonny Bill or a Burgess on their ass any time soon and that's ok. He's still one of the best players in the NRL. In most sports Superior Athletes aren't always the best players. Just look at guys in the NBA like Gerald Green, or former Toronto Raptor Jamario moon. or any of the And1 guys who are great dunkers like "the air up there" or "Mr 720". Yet none of them have stuck in the NBA for their whole careers despite having 40+ inch verticals. We might never see a female fast bowler top 140kmph, or a female batsman capable of hitting like Gilly, or Dhoni or Chris Gale, Brendan Mccullum ect but that doesn't mean there wouldn't be a place for a skilled female cricketer at elite levels. I mean Don Bradman averaged 99.94 with a strike rate higher then David Warner. yet he only hit 6 test sixes in a 20 year career, Obviously is an outlier but to suggest that someone can't have success with refined skills seems ignorant. Chris Rodgers wasn't exactly hitting the ball out of the ground last ashes and he has an impressive first class record. Spin Bowling is another Area where it would be reasonable to assume a female cricketer could have success as that is more about flight and control then speed and revolutions per minute

In most physical sports its unlikely that the top female athletes would make the top male team. On the other hand individual sports like Horse riding, swimming, athletics, gymnastics etc Women could be more competitive. I am certainly a fan of Wome Cricketers, hockey players, Footballers, Soccer players etc playing in a mens comp that is equal to their skill level. In cricket I reckon a lot of them could perhaps play grade cricket?

My Issue isn't with different levels of competition at lower levels. If a park league or Junior league wants to segregate into Female only or male only i have no issue with that. But Elite sport is meant to just that Elite. Its meant to feature the best of the best. I think it is incredibly sexist to suggest that a female isn't capable of competing at an elite level alongside men. Especially in team sports where being able to function as part of a team is just as important as elite athleticism. Payton Manning was one of the best QB's in the NFL last year, despite being close to 40 and having a surgically repaired shoulder that isn't as good as it used to be. Clearly the lack of Peak male Athleticism for a male athlete in their prime didn't effect his performances notably enough to not belong in the NFL. as for your evidence. Usain Bolt vs Hicham El Guerrouj is a flawed comparison because they are different events requiring athletes to do different things. Its like saying a 20/20 cricketer should score that quickly in test matches. Last time the Australian cricket team tried that they were bowled out for 60. None of the rules, field sizes, Stump height ect are different between men's and women's cricket. they are playing exactly the same game (admittedly with the female competition Currently being a much lower standard) but to suggest an elite or Dominant female cricketer shouldn't have the chance to test her skills at the next level of competition above her current one because of her gender seems flawed. Combat Sports are a different consideration. Recently when asked about it Rhonda Rousey said (i'm paraphrasing) that she wouldn't want to fight a man because it would be a bad look for the sport and that as a society we shouldn't be condoning and cheering on men beating the crap out of women. Which due to inherent genetic advantages would happen more times then not.

In your reply you never once explained what a person's gender has to do with being scared of fast bowling. Yes Mitchel Johnson bowls fast. Yes fast bowling is dangerous, and yes english batsmen had a difficult time facing him in 2012/13. Yet only a very small selection of cricket playing men ever reach test level. I'd say that there would be quite a few club cricketers scared of facing fast bowling in the mid 120's. So to suggest women wouldn't be capable of facing a bowler of Johnson's pace and skill solely because of their gender is ignorant. Especially if the women facing that level of bowling were trained professional cricketers. these women wouldn't be scared children. They would be capable adults who are certainly capable of making decisions about their well being for themselves

I was once a very average basketballer. When I was 16 years old my club (level Z) was asked to play a couple of games against the local WNBL franchise who happened to be the national champions as well as having a number of opals in their team and an import that played for the USA. A motley bunch of skinny 15 & 16 year old boys that were barely coachable flogged the national women's champions by 30 - 40 points in both games. In fact half way through the first game we had to change the rules such that we weren't allowed to jump to block shots or run fast breaks. And we got beaten up too. I've never played a dirtier team in my life. But our speed, skill level, athleticism and stamina were so far above our opponents it was embarrassing. The world record in 800m for women is 1min 53.5 thereabouts. There would be a million or more males at least that have run faster than that time since it was set in 1983 (dubiously). Not a single female has run faster than that over the last 32 years. Physiological differences cannot be ignored.

Umm (a) you don't understand physical differences and (b) you misunderstand the importance of strength and speed in relation to 'skills' at the highest level.

Aside from the notion of a female getting injured by a male competitor.

I can't what everyone has a problem with here... I think the argument has merit and is more than likely the future of sport. For example, if you woman was to face Mitchell Johnson on the pitch then that woman would firstly have to have the skill set to make the team... I can't see a problem that if someone has the ability to play cricket at that level they should be excluded because of gender. I don't think the article is saying a male team should vs a female team, just that if a female is good enough to be in the best 11 cricket players in her country she should be able to play. To be fair I think it is a little sexist to suggest a woman is incapable of reaching standards set by male sport. I think most sports people are a product of the environment they come from and if say a female has grown playing in mens teams and competitions I can't see any reason why they would develop there skill set any slower then males. If they're good enough they're good enough.