Having sat and blogged through two days of the ongoing Women’s Ashes Test between Australia and England, it’s not hard to see why women’s cricket still has its knockers.
Let me preface this by saying it’s come along way – 3,000 people rocked up to North Sydney Oval yesterday, as they did on Thursday, and that’s a lot more than maybe was expected.
The Cricket Australia live stream has been superb, as was the TV coverage on Nine of the first three one day international matches.
However, there’s an element of me that’s glad I have other commitments on Saturday and Sunday that will prevent me from watching the entire final two days of the match.
Let’s be honest, the quality of cricket has been well below what we may be used to. Heck, it’s below the standards many were expected after the one-day matches, which I was pleasantly surprised by.
The pitch at North Sydney Oval has had no gremlins in it apart from the odd ball keeping low. With the exception of some tail-end wickets at the end of England’s innings and Katherine Brunt’s brilliant bowling to get rid of Rachael Haynes last night, the batters have got themselves out with a selection of poor shots and getting bogged down.
There’s no way around it: 201 overs of cricket across 12 hours for a return of 15 wickets for just 457 runs is boring.
It’s dull, boring, lifeless cricket. I’d be saying the same if it were the men.
That’s only just two and a half runs per over, and it only got that high because of some big overs from Ellyse Perry and Rachael Haynes before the second new ball was taken by England at the end of Day 2.
It’s a different story if the bowers were jumping out of their skin and the pitch was a minefield. The simple fact of the matter is that it’s not. The ball is not doing a lot, the pitch is not providing extravagant bounce.
Conditions couldn’t be much easier for batting, yet the runs are few and far between.
The commentators have done a good job trying to bring some life to the action, but even they were a bit turned away by it all at the end of the second day’s play. I mean, there are only so many ways to describe a ‘forward defensive push to cover’ or ‘a shot worked off the pads to midwicket.’
Now, some of the blame has to go on the bowling team – and in this case, both teams – as well. Right from the first ball of the Test, ring fields have been set with the primary aim seemingly to prevent runs being scored rather than taking runs.
It’s made life hard for batters to take singles and keep the scoring rates ticking over, but it’s also meant edges are going through the slips and the like.
Given all the talk of aggressive intent before the Test match from both teams, it’s been sorely lacking across the first two days, both with the ball and the bat.
It has to be acknowledged that the players don’t get to play many Tests. In fact, the last was two years ago in the last Women’s Ashes series, so there is an excuse for captains Rachael Haynes and Heather Knight to be caught up in setting defensive fields.
They are used to trying to save runs.
There’s also an excuse batters can use for not scoring runs. They are suddenly in white clothes against a – well, pink – ball and have four days to play with instead of 20 or 50 overs. It’s new for them and so most have got bogged down.
(AAP Image/Dave Hunt)
But there needs to be a better intent from the sides. Maybe you could say the skills aren’t there to score runs, but that would be a lie because we have seen it in the one-day matches.
When you have Lauren Winfield scoring four off 56 balls, Alex Blackwell making six off 35 and Beth Mooney 27 off 102 after being ten off 70, you have to wonder what the plans are.
There is no intent to score runs, no intent to keep the matches moving.
While crowds have been good at North Sydney Oval, they are going to fall away from future Women’s Tests both in the Ashes and not if the standard of play doesn’t improve. This is a momentous occasion, so of course people are going to rock up and watch.
But what about two steps into the future when the occasion isn’t so huge. What then?
People go to see a high-quality cricket match. Not to see 450 runs in two days of play when you full well know the players can do better.
No-one is asking them to score at David Warner rates, but when there are periods of the game with runs coming along in dribs and drabs – like when Australia scored just six off 12 overs during the middle of the second session yesterday – you have to ask why you’re watching.
It’s boring, and that’s coming from someone who doesn’t find cricket boring in the slightest.
Playing more Tests might be the answer for the women’s side, but until they do and learn how to score runs and make the game have a little bit of intensity behind it, it’s always going to live in the shadow of their male counterparts.
It’s not now or never, but the women’s revolution in sports is here. It’s time for cricket to pick up its act or be left in the dust.
Ashley
Guest
Well done Scott on at least having the courage to call it as you see it. These days, too many writers and commentator, particularly those covering the AFL, see themselves as servants of the game rather than observers and lack the guts to express what they really think.
steve
Guest
TBF, watching the Aussie mens team is equally boring at times too. Would rather stick pins in my eyes sometimes. The lack of any personality at all from the men team has seen me switch them off. I just fins some womens sports boring. I like watching netball, tennis AFLW but cricket, just too boring.
Sumo
Guest
Fair call. I blame the authorities for their patriarchal mindset. Why mix up one day, T20 and four day cricket and call it an ashes series. Separate them . The women's game is good enough to stand on its own two feet.To watch the leg spin artistry of Wellington brought back memories of the 'Warnie' ball. And Perry's batting. The elegance of classical stroke play. It only has to be three tests. The T20 always stands on its own, we know that. The 50 over game is stale but if it has to be, make it a three game series.
Joe Bell
Roar Rookie
Disagree with that. Read this article http://www.thecricketmonthly.com/story/1104475/how-far-can-women-s-cricket-go The problem is lack of exposure and training at that level. According to people who actually know what they're talking about it. "David Epstein, author of The Sports Gene, believes that women facing fast bowling would be no more dangerous than men doing so, and that with training, women could make contact as regularly as men"
I ate pies
Guest
What? I didn’t say anything about unwarranted criticism. You seem to be upset that I pointed out that the warranted criticism will be jumped all over by the usual types. Obviously I should have pointed out that it’ll be the people who point out that warranted criticism will be the ones who are getting jumped all over.
JohnB
Guest
Sometimes you just can't win Scott. The first 2 days of this Test did seem decidedly pedestrian judging from the scorecards and the ball-by-ball and can't have been great from a commentator's point of view. But luckily you got to miss the 3rd day to do Australia v Lebanon instead!
Peter
Guest
How's that aggressive attacking schtick working for the men?
Peter
Guest
I suggest you go back and read your first post, then this one. Why did you say even legitimate criticism needs fortitude blah blah, women's cricket is sacrosanct blah blah? Unless it was not you but a ghost in your machine who wrote that? I repeat: legitimate and warranted criticism is highly desirable. Tendentious nonsense is not.
George
Guest
Rabbitz and yourself getting these comments in so as to lessen the validity of any criticism you may receive for your article?
Timmuh
Roar Guru
Test ricket is the ultimate, mens and womens, and what the international game grew on - mens and womens. Even financially it barely makes sense. Its not as though womens ODIs are pulling 50k crowds worldwide (nor are mens ODIs for that matter any more) and a four day Test doesn't incur far greater expenses than a three game ODI series. In fact, with gaps between playing days and perhaps travel changing cities the ODIs may well cost more - for very little extra revenue either through the gate or the media rights. The use of ODIs in particular - T20 is becoming more financially successful - seems to be in the hope of increasing revenue. The women could reduce ODIs, increase Tests (even to one a tour) and financially not see much difference. And, in the process, bring back the traditional game cricket was built on at the international level. Sadly, and much to the detriment of the sport, administrators have gone too far down the path of destruction to turn back.
I ate pies
Guest
Not sure what your point is. We're not saying we're prevented from having an opinion, and it's not us jumping down the throats of people who have the wrong opinion.
I ate pies
Guest
There's no way a woman would be able to compete with the men in a test match. Just imagine Elise Perry facing Mitch Starc. That'd be downright dangerous.
Duncan Smith
Guest
If either men or women want test cricket to survive, they need to play an attacking brand of play. That's just a reality of 21st century life, or people won't watch it. Stodgy, tedious batting went out with 6 week boat trips to England. If women's cricket is getting exposure now, then they are crazy to blow the opportunity by not playing aggressive, attacking cricket.
Pope Paul VII
Guest
Spot on Pete.
Peter
Guest
Scott, pies, Rabbitz, next you'll be whinging about how political correctness prevents you from saying what you think. BS. If cricket is boring it's boring and should be called as such. The discussion of reasons for slow scoring etc was enlightenening and useful, just as is discussion of reasons for inept displays and batting collapses in men's cricket. God knows the Australian men give us enough reasons for such discussions. I look forward to the Southern Stars having more opportunities to play the long game.
JoM
Roar Rookie
This was their first day/night pink ball test so while they had a bit of inside info it was still new. Our whole family is going tomorrow and are looking forward to it. Ellyse Perry, what a player she is but she also had a bit of help from some of the others. Absolute gun.
Doctor Rotcod
Guest
Sorry,meant Jonassen
Doctor Rotcod
Guest
Good to see Perry get a double century with a strike rate of 57,better than Smith, Khawaja or Williamson in the Trans-Tasman a year or so back Haynes, Healy and Johansen pushed it along too. After scoring 160 or so off the first 80 overs, the Aussies made 260 from the next 80.No complaints about that.
Working Class Rugger
Guest
Yep. They should be looking at developing both the WBBL and the WNCL more. Perhaps even maintaining the WBBL franchise brands throughout.
Timmuh
Roar Guru
$