“The Test is to be broadcast on Sky – a first for the women’s game – and both are aware of their roles as ambassadors for women’s sport,” gushed one national newspaper of the women’s Ashes Test last year, triumphantly.
In recent years, or even months, the coverage of women’s sport, and cricket, has skyrocketed beyond imagination. Double-page spreads of the women’s Ashes adorned national newspapers in the UK over the winter. In Australia, the domestic women’s game for the first time was regularly broadcast to hundreds of thousands on free-to-air television.
Where previously game attendance numbers were discretely concealed, or rounded up, they are now being proudly announced for all to see. We heard endlessly about the transition of the top level women from full-time amateurs to full-time professionals, and the pace at which it has occurred.
It’s a transformative time for women’s sport, and these are huge and positive steps for the game.
Yet there’s something missing.
We’re all guilty of it for it is pervasive; we’re covering the coverage, and liking what we see, but forgetting the fundamental basis of the whole thing – the sport itself. The coverage of women’s sport, and cricket, is fast becoming an opportunity for self-congratulation – a pat on the back for how far we’ve come. “Hurrah – women’s sport,” ring the headlines.
Where budgets allow, media outlets are falling over themselves to show how much they’re doing for the development of women’s sport. It’s all relative of course, and there’s much still to do to reach the level of the men’s coverage. However the fundamental flaw is that, amidst the hype, we’re forgetting to tell the public what’s happening on the pitch, not off it.
By all means mention the numbers – they’re brilliant – but that shouldn’t be the focus.
Melinda Farrell, an accomplished journalist of all sports and genders – rugby, football, cricket etc. – was recently applauded on Twitter for her efforts in promoting the women’s game. “Thanks,” replied Farrell. “I’m not promoting though. Just reporting as I would on the men’s game.”
Farrell’s is a mindset that needs to be applied more rigorously. The women’s Ashes series last year offered a turning point, of sorts. In a Test in which England were outclassed by a strong Australian unit, attention through some of the coverage started to turn to on-field performances – or the lack of them.
If England men had capitulated in the manner that their female counterparts had, the assorted press would have had a field day. A loss, after all, is far easier to romanticise and reminisce over than a win, no matter how triumphant. The men’s performance would have been torn apart, piece by piece, and analysed for weeks with a fine tooth comb.
On-field analysis of the Ashes Test was offered in some corners, but too often as an unfortunate, and perhaps unfair, comparison to the men’s game. Comparisons of the two teams on the pitch that day however, one women’s team against the other, was too few and far between.
The final of this year’s inaugural WBBL was one of the worst matches of the tournament. Compared to the high calibre of some of the preceding games the fielding was shoddy, the batting bitty and the bowling wayward – as often happens in high pressure finals situations – but it barely got a mention, for we were too busy congratulating ourselves on how well the tournament had been received.
We need to move beyond the days where the story is already written before any play takes place. It’s not just women’s cricket either. Over the last couple of seasons, the AFL Women’s Exhibition matches between the Western Bulldogs and Melbourne have created much publicity, even if just for a day. That they were taking place was something most footy fans knew. Ask them who the winner was, however, and here’s banking on a blank response. Hopefully the launch of the proposed national women’s league will fine tune its focus.
The upcoming Women’s Cricket Super League in England has been widely criticised for its timing – during the Olympics and a men’s Test match – and the lack of proposed coverage. A broadcast deal is yet to be announced, and increasingly becoming an unlikely proposition. These are all legitimate questions of course, yet not enough is being made of the on-field quality the venture proposes.
Clare Connor, head of England women’s cricket, wrote recently that 65 overseas players had applied for just 12 spots. Such an endorsement by the players themselves is unprecedented, the league is set to offer the highest quality of domestic women’s cricket yet, exceeding even that of the WBBL. That in itself should be written of far and wide, and in turn, generate an interest of its own accord.
On the international stage certainly it is professional cricket that women are now playing, and it should be covered as such. It is their job to perform, and to train for those performances, and it is the media’s job to scrutinise that. Praise where praise is due, and criticism where that too is warranted.
The players themselves acknowledge that professionalisation brings with it the good and the bad, and they welcome that. In theory, so do the media; in practice, we are yet to fully latch on.
For women’s sport to achieve real equality, it needs to be approached the same was as the men. Analyse the cricket, not the fanfare.
Yawn
Guest
The issue is there isn't enough men interested in womens sport. Period. Nobody can force people to watch womens sport.
paulie bro
Guest
It's whoever the media tells people to care about.
Chris
Guest
Probably the most obvious example of this is a while back when Serena and Venus were winning everything their sponser money was still significantly less than Anna Kournikova. That was pretty sad.
Chris
Guest
Dont we have to also cover the spectacle of female sports though aswell as the sports themselves, because without the spectacle we wouldnt care about the sport as professional female sports standard are worse than all all professional and most semi professional male standards. Professional female sports exists because we are being sexist, in a good way being sexist but we are still being sexist so we have to acknowledge the spectacle that is professional female sport whilst also appreciating the sports women playing the sport.
Broken-hearted Toy
Guest
Austraia does love success but that doesn't translate to people wanting to watch sports they find either confusing or boring. The mighty Kookas are a case there. Phenomenally successful team for decades that no-one gives a toss about.
Jarrod Free
Roar Rookie
I think it is strange that the Matildas are not covered as much as the Socceroos. Australia loves success, and they seem to do a fair bit better than the Socceroos. I think in this case it is quite clear that the focus is not on the performance, othwerwise the Matildas would have all the headlines, rather than their recent win in Japan being a footnote on the news.
Jack
Guest
Compared to male sports commentators all women sports journalists are above average looking
Freddie
Guest
Interesting article, but can't help feeling the photo used on the tab (of Ellyse Perry), sort of sums up the issue in a nutshell. Ellyse is fantastically talented at both football & cricket, but let's be honest about this, she is also a very attractive girl, which the media are drawn to, as it makes their job easier. Look at the women presenters on television covering sport, there's not many you would call "average" looking. I'll believe in true equality of the sexes when I see an ordinary looking woman presenting the sports news (or any news), just like the men. Perhaps then, the focus on women's sport will actually be on the on-field action. The focus on the spectacle is not confined to women's sport though. As a football fan, the media in Australia invariably focus on crowd problems over the action on the pitch. It's because they don't understand the actual game.
marcel
Guest
Isabelle, a question came up in conversation today that you may be able to help with....are male journalists allowed into the dressing rooms at women's sports?
Broken-hearted Toy
Guest
The Sky commentators do a good job when they cover the women's game they also have a lot of women on the team,. They don't really appear to have much issue in using comparisons with the men's game, that is, I haven't heard them do it very much. But then they commentate what is in front of them.
DaniE
Roar Guru
While I think it's ultimately true that women's sport should be reported on in a parallel voice to men's, I feel that as a minority sport, public voices speaking on its behalf necessarily need to advertise it. I do the same for rugby - when I volunteer I'm conscious that I need to promote it, be it's advocate, generate goodwill to it. You have to do some kind of advertising through reporting just to bring it to people's consciousness in the first place. Might not be pure journalism, but what's that nowadays anyway?
The Bush
Roar Guru
"In an ideal world journalists do their job, scrutinise the players (male or female), criticise if they’re underperforming, praise where it’s due, and we all take it as part and parcel coverage of the game." And this is somewhat hard to do when coverage of the sport on a large(ish) scale has only just begun. It's hard to scruitinise a player when you've never seen them play before. It's even harder when you've seen very little of this version of the sport itself. I admit I would struggle to commentate/report on women's sport in the manner you suggest without making a critical comparison to the men, as I simply don't have any other standard by which to judge it at this stage.
The Bush
Roar Guru
If you believe CA's figures, about a quarter of a million girls/women play cricket and they represent over 20% of the playing population in Australia. The Australian Women's team has been playing since the '30s and along with England is the most active women's side in world cricket. I suppose football probably has both larger female participation rates and likely a more even gender spread, but that'd be about the only sport that comes close out of the major codes (AFL and the rugbies).
Agent11
Guest
Im not sure if I agree with this. I think the media should start to take more responsibility and leadership with its reporting. At the moment it just reflects the blood thirsty, quick gratification seeking society that it feeds. Someone has to start making changes, why not the media?
Onside
Guest
Isabelle, media organisations are shrewd investors. If there was a dollar to be made in broadcasting more womens sport, they would do it. That evades your question. I have no stats; but assume the TV programming and marketing people do. I suppose it begs the question; if I am wrong , and a critical mass of women are in fact prepared to pay to watch games live , and regularly follow women sport, why aren't the media scheduling coverage. I am not anti womens sport. I really enjoy womens football , tennis (but only finals) and basketball. I love womens basketball. Netball 's not my bag. Many thousands of females play amateur sport in Australia. This does not seem to translate into a commercially viable audience, either live or on TV for the womens professional game.
Isabelle Westbury
Expert
Any stats for this? Evidence and I'll believe it.
Isabelle Westbury
Expert
Nice example re Sarah Taylor playing men's first grade in Adelaide. She took a couple of catches by the way but didn't bat - she was next in, and her team won. Agree almost impossible to find out though...
Isabelle Westbury
Expert
Agree with this comment: "...there may be a fear to be seen as sexist..." and something that's always going to be difficult to handle. In an ideal world journalists do their job, scrutinise the players (male or female), criticise if they're underperforming, praise where it's due, and we all take it as part and parcel coverage of the game. Realise that this isn't an ideal world and many interpretations possible. Hopefully with increasing coverage journalists and the public accept it's not a reflection of a sex, but of a performance...
Onside
Guest
'Yet there’s something missing ". What's missing is there are not enough women interested in womens sport. It's not the job of the media to either educate or entertain for the sake of it. Covering the coverage is the story. If enough women were interested ,that would change, and be reflect in increased TV ratings and newspaper sales. How many people under the age of 26 do you see in the local news agency. How many young people aged from 18 watch TV. They stream their shows. A immutable of professional womens sport, is that very few women follow it.
Kimbeth
Roar Rookie
I think the answer is quite simple. The media is generally private enterprise and everything is about profits and more profits. Stories that will generate outrage will ultimately attract more readers to click, to buy the paper, to watch the 6pm bulletin too. They will engage because their emotions drive them. I agree that more focus should be placed on the performances on the field but I think with most women's sports there may be a fear to be seen as sexist if the players are scrutinised. Women's cricket is no where near the quality of the men's. The bowlers are slow, the shots are smaller, the fielders not as nimble. I just said what others will not dare express. But yes, the crowds at the game and TV ratings have been phenomenal and that should be celebrated.