I must have mentioned women’s cricket: a topic seldom aired in the Black Swan, and certainly not by the guy sitting at the bar. “Women can’t play cricket”, he said, in a tone of voice which didn’t invite further discussion, and went back to reading his newspaper. This brief exchange has stayed with me for months, and I’m slowly realising why.
It’s obvious that women can play cricket - just watch them! - but can they play well? Considering that women have only been able to treat cricket as a paid profession - rather than a recreation - for just a few years, the standard of play is very good… and rapidly improving, season on season. England men would beat England women at every time of asking; with the extra power with bat and ball it would be a one-sided contest. Any county XI would probably beat England women too. For a more even contest, we might have to find a good men’s league team. But, guess what, this really doesn’t matter: there is no need to make comparisons. Over my thirty-odd summers of playing village cricket, we wasted no time at all in comparing ourselves to better teams. We played as well as we were able and that was that.
Teams from around the world are currently in New Zealand playing for the Women’s World Cup. It’s 50-over cricket: the same as I used to play on Saturday afternoons in summer. This may be the best format for women’s cricket: better for players and spectators alike (Twenty/20 cricket, for men and women, is too frantic for my taste). Though England women have lost their first two games in the competition, there’s still plenty to enjoy.
Of course, the implication that “women can’t play cricket” has nothing to do with their ability. It really means that “women shouldn’t be allowed to play”, or just “I don’t want them to play”. Since men have traditionally claimed the right to decide what women should or shouldn’t do, some men seem reluctant to relinquish their veto.
Licenced today: Dore Abbey, in the village of Abbey Dore, Herefordshire…
No comments:
Post a Comment