Is cricket co-ed?

A month or so ago, I read on Cricinfo that India had beaten Australia in a quadrangular one-day tournament in Chennai. India won with an over to spare. J Sharma opened India's innings and scored an unbeaten century that saw India home. The reason you haven't heard of a J Sharma at the top of India's batting order is because this was a women's tournament. The last time we won a series against Australia in India, the country went mad -- Harbhajan Singh mutated into a national hero and VVS Laxman temporarily became god. Somehow I don't think Jaya Sharma is going to become a household name. She wouldn't have become one even if India had gone on to win the tournament. Because cricket, as the Nawab suggested, is a man's game.

This isn't literally true. Women play cricket; women like Sharda Ugra and Kadambari Murali and Nishi Narayanan report on it with insight and distinction for well-known magazines, newspapers and websites; I've heard two women, one West Indian and the other Indian do running commentary on international matches; and women routinely turn out to watch one-day cricket in stadiums. But none of this disproves the NOP (Nawab of Pataudi) Assumption: Women collectively, women as a sex don't play cricket or understand it or like it. And when they do, people (women included) don't take them seriously.

Why is cricket gendered?

This is the wrong question. It should be, why is nearly all sport gendered? The only game I can think of where the spectator, regardless of sex, is as likely to watch women play as men, is tennis. Alone amongst international sports, team or individual, the women's version of the game is as lucrative and popular as the men's. Maria Sharapova makes more money than nearly all the men in the game. The great symbolic acknowledgement of this parity arrived this year when Wimbledon announced that it was going to pay women the same prize money as men.

	'Anjum Chopra, a former India captain and an active international, did wonders for the profile of women's cricket in India by appearing on a cricket talk show. She was articulate, knowledgeable and, most importantly, attractive. ' © AFP

Boys and men routinely play team sports more often than girls and women do, and even where women play organised, competitive team sport it's always the male version that is the greater public spectacle. Cricket's no different. Volleyball, hockey and basketball are team sports that lots of women play but with the partial exception of basketball in US television markets, no one wants to pay to watch, and commercial sponsorship is hard to find.

Why does this happen? A large part of the explanation has to be historical. The world's team sports (with the exception of America's) were all given their modern form in 19th century England. That nursery of empire, the English public school, appropriated rugby, football and cricket and made them exercises in 'character' building, little theatres in which the future soldiers, civil servants and clergymen of the Raj were taught deference, leadership, hierarchy, and teamwork: In short, the skills and virtues that helped male Britons run the world.

So it isn't surprising that a game shaped by Victorian definitions of maleness (the 'manliness' that Pataudi spoke of) is a poor fit for contemporary Indian women. As far as the costume of cricket is concerned this is literally true. The batsman's rig, for example, is like a modern take on knightly masculinity. In place of armour you have pads, gloves, arm guards, the 'box' and the helmet, that modern accessory that ironically makes the contemporary batsman look more than ever like a medieval jouster.

Sex and the Sporting Girl

Appearances matter. Women's teams from Australia, England and New Zealand used to play in skirts (the Indian women have always, for reasons of modesty, worn trousers), but given pads and shin guards this was clearly inconvenient, so they switched to trousers. Putting a woman into standard cricket kit is a bit like cross-dressing: She becomes a cricketing man. And if cricketing gear is going to make women look like men, why would you watch less powerful nearly-men play, when you could watch the genuine article, the real thing?

I don't think it's a coincidence that women's tennis has always flirted with knickers and nipples and necklines, that Serena Williams and Maria Sharapova wear tiny frocks that make it quite clear to their audiences that they're women, not feebler versions of Rafael Nadal, that Sania Mirza and Venus Williams wear elaborate earrings on court: Women's tennis, unlike women's cricket, has no interest in unisex clothing. The sex appeal of women's tennis is an important way in which it has differentiated itself from the male game and is a crucial element in its success. From 'Gorgeous Gussie' Moran to Evonne Goolagong Cawley to Maria Sharapova, women's tennis has drawn attention to its womanliness and its audiences have responded with enthusiasm.

There's a flip side to this which isn't pretty: Women players who don't fit the templates of sexiness that marketing executives work with make much less money than women who do. So Venus Williams who is black (and not Madison Avenue's definition of a sex goddess) will never see a tenth of the money that Anna Kournikova, who never won a tournament of any consequence but who was blonde and leggy, did. And Martina Navratilova, arguably the greatest player in the history of the women's game, never made any real money out of endorsements because she came out as a lesbian and looked butch.

There are team sports which have gone down the same route. In 1998 the secretary of the Federation of International Volleyball concluded that a snugger costume would help the game find a larger audience. This meant that women volleyballers began wearing tight little shorts that showed a lot more bottom. A few years later in 2004, Sepp Blatter, President of FIFA, used the volleyball precedent to suggest a way forward for women's football. In a newspaper interview he said that women's football needed to attract sponsors from the cosmetics and fashion industry and the way to do this was to imitate women's volleyball by changing to more 'feminine' uniforms. Blatter's definition of 'feminine' wasn't complicated: "Tighter shorts, for example. In volleyball the women also wear other uniforms than the men. Pretty women are playing football today. Excuse me for saying that."

In the early Seventies when women's cricket in took off in India, international matches drew large crowds. A game between India and the West Indies in Patna attracted 25,000 spectators. In a short essay on the history of the women's game, Shubhangi Kulkarni suggests that the large crowds that greeted white touring teams had something to do with the interest Indian spectators had in the novelty of cricket played in skirts.

The pioneers of the women's game, players like Shanta Rangaswamy, Diana Edulji and Sandhya Agarwal did become famous but this wasn't enough to keep their sport in the public eye. India in the Seventies and Eighties wasn't the sort of place where promoters and marketing mavens packaged sport the way ESPN/STAR is trying to package the Premier Hockey League, with large doses of regional machismo. And the nature of cricket makes it hard to make women on the field look sexy. But whether we approve or not, that's the road women's cricket will have to take to find an audience for itself.

Anjum Chopra, a former India captain and an active international, did wonders for the profile of women's cricket in India by appearing on a cricket talk show. She was articulate, knowledgeable and, most importantly, attractive. Some face recognition through television shows and costumes that make it clear that Anjum Chopra isn't Rahul Dravid by another name might help women's cricket top that zenith of 1997 when eighty thousand people in Eden Gardens watched Australia play New Zealand in the final of the World Cup. Or maybe not. Perhaps the nature of cricket makes it hard to 'feminise'. But the moral of the story is depressingly clear: Women's games that can't be sexualised, can't be sold to the networks and the paying public.

In the meanwhile women correspondents and commentators will continue to be patronised by politically incorrect men. When Kadambari Murali spoke about cricket in that panel discussion, there were moments when I could almost see thought balloons growing out of the male panelists' heads, and the thoughts they contained were all variants of this one: I'd like to see her face Brett Lee with a bat in her hand.

Interestingly, I didn't see that thought balloon rise when the non-playing male panelist who represented a television channel gave us his expert views on the game, though confronted with Lee running up to bowl, he would have very likely become incontinent.

But there it is: life isn't fair, guys are like that and cricket remains, in Pataudi's quaint phrase, a 'manly game'.

A shorter version of this post was first published in 'M' magazine, Mar-Apr 2007. More details here.

well written piece: first, it takes us away from the theme of the wc debacle and second, it draws us closer to a bit of history, cultural critique and gender studies without being pedantic. Point taken: women's game has to be sexualized so as to find a profitable market. By the way, a scottish friend of mine agrees: women dont look good in cricket uniform. Thats one of the reasons why she has never tried playing cricket.

Another sexing up controversy rears its ugly head.

Mukul’s blog makes depressing reading. His opinions plunge me back to a world I thought we had left years ago, not to mention the many glib assumptions thrown in there.

Take, for example, this which Mukul writes: “But none of this disproves the NOP (Nawab of Pataudi) Assumption: Women collectively, women as a sex don't play cricket or understand it or like it. And when they do, people (women included) don't take them seriously.”

Hang on – where’s Mukul’s evidence to prove this? How odd. As for disproving, that’s easy: two million women play the game in England alone. Neither do I know any woman who doesn’t take the game seriously, player or non-player. And, I know from my own experience that to be a player, you have to be twice as committed as any man. At international level, currently the players have to have jobs alongside their cricket career – or must put their careers on hold – for, while the ECB give them an allowance, it’s not enough to sustain them.

I’d like to explode a few more of Mukul’s myths. “Putting a woman into standard cricket kit is a bit like cross-dressing: She becomes a cricketing man.” First of all, the writer clearly has no idea that most women don’t wear a box, nor that in actual fact cricket kit is custom-made for the female figure.

As for the charge of cross-dressing; by extension of this flippant argument, should we now no longer allow women to wear trousers in the office – or elsewhere – for fear of looking manly? And when we do, does that make us all cross dressers? Are half of the world’s population, then, cross dressers? Or are we just being practical? And are a flattering cut of trouser and practically mutually exclusive? I expect not.

“Why would you watch less powerful nearly-men play?” he asks. Our physical strength may not be something we can control, however our aim is not in fact to act, or play, like men. We don’t compete to look like men; our game is different; we offer other attractions: superior technical competence for example. But maybe he’s never been to a game, so maybe he doesn’t know.

The ridiculous assertion of “nearly men” is so wide of the mark. Just as feminists don’t want to be like men - they want to celebrated in their own right, searching for equality, not uniformity; a subtle, but vital, difference – so female cricketers are not seeking to emulate men. To suggest otherwise is to pedal false, unsubstantiated innuendo.

Sport is gendered because of the physical limitations on women, not because of the reluctance of the spectator to watch both sexes. In fact, women’s sport doesn't need sexing up – it’s the viewers’ perceptions that need a culture change.

But even if it was sexed up, his argument that this would work is based on little evidence, too. In fact, women’s basketball and netball tried doing just this in Australia - and things got worse. Purists wanted quality. The marketers just ended up wasting whatever little money they had on advertising. Women’s swimming isn't popular over there because they're in swimsuits - it's because Aussie women are good at it.

The only reason you would want to sex up a "manly game" would be to convert an existing audience, and the presumption the writer makes is that they are primarily a macho audience, instead of attacking the real issue which is to attract new fans to a sport.

As for "I don't think it's a coincidence that women's tennis has always
flirted with knickers and nipples and necklines", well, no it hasn't. Women's tennis was a crowd draw over 50 years ago, back in the long-pants days. My fiancé, Dan, is a big tennis fan and he told me this: “I love Serena Williams - she's hardly "sexy" in any traditional terms, but I have great affection for her never-say-die attitude and her professed ‘I love proving people wrong’ approach.” Quite so. That's what real people want. Real fans sit front and centre, not in corporate boxes, so please don't insult the fans by suggesting they pay money to women’s events just for a jolly (old perve).

In cricket, the current problem is more of a lack of exposure. The vast majority of people who do come to a women’s game go away impressed. However, it is true that often the cricket isn’t as entertaining – and that’s irrespective of whether someone’s attractive or not. Do male sports fans go to see Dravid and co because they find them sexually attractive? My guess is that the vast majority do not.

But why isn’t the cricket (as yet) that entertaining? Despite women coming up with the World Cup – two years before the men – and inventing overarm bowling during a history that stretches back just as long as the men’s, they haven’t had the investment, and they’ve had to pin down a job on top of this, which is a full-time job. It’s been a vicious circle. Until now. The intervention of the ICC has helped, and the dividends will be seen soon enough – it’s just a question of patience.

And men do look good in cricket uniform. Yeh, Dwayne Leverock is a complete sex god, and Paul Parker just gets the women so excited in his umpiring outfit. And as for your friend not playing cricket because she doesn't look good in the outfit - well, that says more about your friends that the game.

The WNBA is not vialble on its own, but only survives due to the support of the NBA.

It's an interesting viewpoint. Personally, though, I rather like the fact that womens' cricket is not rampantly commercialised, and that the players almost universally are motivated by a real passion for the game.

As an aside, I wonder whether anyone has read Mad Dogs And Englishwomen by Pete Davies, an account of the 1997 Womens' World Cup in India? It's a great, down-to-earth cricket book, and showcases a lot of the really good things about the womens' game as opposed to the mens.

As a final aside, I have often thought that their is no reason why a female spinner could not be as good as a male spinner? Obviously, they cannot bowl as fast or hit as hard with the bat, but as a spinner if you can turn it and flight it, you'll succeed whether your opponent is male or female. To my knowledge - correct me if I'm wrong - there has never been an iconic spinner in women's cricket, as opposed to say Catherine Fitzpatrick, so I guess we'll have to wait until one turns up...has Shane Warne's daughter mastered the flipper yet?!

To consider a game like cricket as manly is laughable. If you want to see real courage in the face of physical danger in a sporting context, you should watch American football. Cricket looks like a game for middle aged accountants when compared to American football.

Most Indian batsmen have historically been flat track bullies who have not earned their props by taking their blows (Gavaskar being an exception) and staying out there to score runs. Much easier to give a catch and come back in. Indian record against Imran Khan, Akram, Waqar and the great West Indian bowlers shows that most of them have not fared that much better against the genuine quicks as someone like Kadambari Murali or Mukul Kesavan potentially would’ve.

The point that everyone misses is that playing fast bowling is also about hand-eye co-ordination. Take a defensive lineman in American Football. Nobody has a iota of doubt about the guys courage in the face of physical danger, but this person may not have the hand eye coordination required to face fast bowling. The likes of pataudi, a person who has a test average of 18.52 against the West Indies in 10 matches, will probably cry like babies if they had to deal with the tackles which are common place in American Football.

How many cricketers can be boxers or footballers(American)? Even if they had the skills, they need to have the courage to face physical danger, day in and day out. Boxers know that, win or lose, they are going to face a lot of pain in the next few minutes. Some women box and women’s boxing is becoming popular across the world while a lot of cricketers will not have the courage to step in the boxing ring. What does that say about the capacity of cricketers to face physical pain or danger, about their manliness as Pataudi like to fantasize, and what does that say about the capacity of women to face physical pain or danger?

Forget about sports. Courage has a lot more to do than the ability to face physical danger. But even if we talk only about physical danger, the ability to face physical danger does not come only in the form of some man throwing a ball at you in a park.

There is immense physical danger in the daily lives of men and women who work as construction workers in places like India where there are little are no safety measures. There is immense physical danger in the jobs of soldiers (men and women) , war correspondents (men and women), pilots (men and women), police (men and women), logging workers, miners, or women and children employed in matchstick making, fireworks, or men women and children working in dingy cramped rooms in the unregulated small sector industries in India, getting exposed to all kinds of chemicals.

Men women and children, in places like India, face real physical danger day in and day out and I find it laughable to think that some has-been aristocrat who played a silly game once upon a time thinks that he knows what courage and manliness is because he faced someone like Andy Roberts for 30 minutes? More importantly, that he thinks that women are incapable of knowing what courage is just because they haven’t faced Andy Roberts in a park?

Really, people, get a reality check!!!

Firstly, an article that is as long winded as this has no place in a blog, please be succint Mukul.

JT's comments are quite earnest; however, I must say changing viewer perception is easier said than done. Her point is: watch the women's game for what it is , a slow yet technically superior game. If not, you are not a true cricket fan.

But let me provide an analogy using the film industry. There are big budget studio produced movies which are often inane but watched by millions, and there are also small independent arthouse pictures which are superior with a limited appeal.

Now, if the arthouse movies need to be seen by more people they need to encompass the elements of the big movies or have something of interest to a wider audience.

The modern men's game has evolved in to a more entertaining and powerpacked game and if people prefer it, its not a crime.

At the same the people who run women's cricket need to understand that claiming to have a superior product is insufficient for the growth of the game. It needs to be out there and appeal to people.

Hmmmm.... two sides of the coin in the single post. The author and NOP seem to suggest men play better cricket than women. JT seems to suggest that women's cricket is technically superior to men.
To be honest, quality and fascination of sport isnt all about "manliness" or technical finesse. What makes sports so appealing is the drama associated with it; what brings on the crowd is the "never say die" attitude of the competitors. Something which men and women can bring in, irrespective of sex; something which unfortunately, our Indian team couldnt show (yes, they are all men).

It is definitely interesting to see Mukul's well written article and Jenny's spirited retort.In a way I suppose both of them are right but they are debating two completely different things.

My two cents to the matter is that sport in general is followed by men.It is true that boys play sport and women in general have much more useful things to concentrate on (like reading,forming opinions on relationships,honing social graces etc).One of the things I would be eternally grateful for, is my non-obsession with football and baseball.It makes quite a difference in the dating scene when one speaks something other the latest depressing run for the Chicago Cubs.And since boys are more interested in sports,it is natural for the primary audience of most sports to be men.And as we call can agree,most men (Sepp Battler included) have an one track mind.

One other disconnect might be the cultural difference.I grew up in 80s and 90s India and someone from the West cannot appreciate the extent of gender chauvinism that exists in India(changing but still rampant).I can totally see most otherwise wonderful middle aged men ask "But why should she as a girl play?" and their wives agreeing with them wholeheartedly.So while I agreed with Mukul's opinions,someone without the same cultural reference would find his arguments overreaching and exaggerated.

While it might seem extremely perverse to Jenny( and it is),I can definitely imagine a game in Jamshedpur in the 90s seen by 25000 lusty men who wouldn't give a hoot about the quality of a stroke.

Maybe it is good that the women's game does not go the route that the men's game has taken.Maybe it is better to play the game as it supposed to be.Without the Pawars and the Modis.

The women's tennis game is aesthetically better(at least was).For a long time,I preferred watch a nice game of tennis with its long rallies rather than the boom-boom power game in the men's section which usually was about who was the more powerful server.

It would be a tragedy if people running women cricket should base their decisions on the same problem afflicting men's cricket and measure success the same way-dollars!!

NOP belongs to another era, but I have to agree with him on that. Very good article. I really enjoyed it and all those who wana moan n complain abt sexism, the article speak the truth. Its in male nature to admire beautiful woman no sexism there, when volleyball changed thier outfit it drew crowd, so lets be clear its not the skill of the woman but the amount of flesh that drew the crowd. Viva la political incorrectness lolz

Hey Mr. Kesavan,

Was this post an April Fools Prank? or are these actually your views?

I did not knew that CricInfo is such a good place, we can write about anything we want.
BTW, this is the most disgusting piece of thing I have ever read...about cricket. I emphasize that I did not feel disgusted while reading it...I found that it's so disgusting I wasted my time. Frankly, I know Iam wasting my time writing this, but I should let it go. Have fun.

Out of all Mukul's analogies to describe cricketers (or any sportsmen), the one that makes most sense is 'knightly masculinity'. Not because of the rig they wear, but because of the job they do. Remember the (male) knights and soldiers who went out and fought for their nation during times of war, with the fate of an entire nation resting on their shoulders; so too, are today's (male) cricketers, an army of 11 representing their country, duty-bound to fight for her prestige, and to return victorious at any cost.

For die-hard supporters, it is not a question of whether or not women deserve the same opportunities as men in a particular sport. They can hardly be bothered with such 'trivialities' as gender equality. What they want is the real battle - an all or none 'dog-fight', if you please. And when it comes to that, people - just like they do in war - would rather invest their money, time and belief in the stronger sex.

To quote an anonymous source, 'It's not a tea party - it's cricket!

Unfortunately for women, that's how serious it is.

I am with JT and Anshuman on this. The same way cricketers are different from (Amercian) footballers, the audiences are different. And so, the audiences for womens' sports are different. Tell me if there is any sexing up required in women's chess or women's golf, games where skill, concentration and practice matter more than "manly" power.

Attempts by the cricketing authorities to power up the game of cricket by creating one-day and half-day (T20) versions, introducing rules like powerplays, shortening boundary lines have enlarged the audiences (as PB points out - bring more people to watch the game). Still, the game of cricket still suffers from a lack of serious audiences - most non-cricketers people find the rules too complex and difficult to understand [in soccer, there are two teams trying to net the ball into their respective goals with just one complex rule called off-side]. The audiences in the South Asian sub-continent are just an exception - I hear from my friends staying in Dublin that FM radio stations there have started explaining what is LBW and Yorker to the audiences, now that Ireland have entered the Super 8 in "mens" cricket world cup. Most of the audience support that we see in the stadia are there to have fun in the crowd, and not to watch the technicalities of the game.

This is a game that is a marketer's paradise - discontinuous action in a small strip; extensive opportunities to analyze; thousands of ways to create records [how many records can you think of in soccer apart from the number of caps and number of goals!]; and opportunity to insert commercials every three minutes [with Shahid Afridi bowling, once in every 90 seconds]. So, the "best" audiences are on TV and not in the stadia. Hardly a manly audience.

And Mukul K7, even if this is an April Fools prank, you still have a long discussion going.

Mukul is quite right. There can be no interest in watching women play any game, because the male version is far more intense. Tennis is truly not an exception, because somebody like Sharapova, routinely glosses her image and dresses up in such a way, that any male cannot resist looking at her rather than her game. Kournikova is another example, Mukul is dead on the money. And how many women seriously watch sports! And why should men watch women sports any way - think, people, think. If marketing and commercialization of the sport is to be successful, than women are marketed in the only way, that admen and sponsors deem fit, i.e., looks, looks and looks. That is the truth. New age women may squirm, but better looking women sportspersons always are sought after more than the others. So enough of this hypocrisy, and cribbing about the lack of growth of women sports. Just forget about it. Mukul praises Kadambari Murali's journalism so much - I disagree, it is full of personal opinions and regular Greg Chappell bashing! I dont have to read that crap.

Dont know if cricket is a man s game or both gender's game, but i think commentary for men s cricket shud be left for men themselves and also the anchoring for the pre and post game shows. Likes of Roshni Chopra on 4th umpire on DD and Mandira Bedi who in 2003 said Harbhajan Singh to e a leggie, should not be encouraged any further to host or co-host the game shows. They just addup as glamour dolls and interrupt the serious discussions between real experts...Mandira Bedi might have improved on her cricket knowledge, but her presence is no more required on Extra Innings or this kind of shows in times to come. And the entry of so many sports channels to host India games have almost made the best team of ESPN as extinct or very rare in appearence (Aus, Eng , SA and NZ tours)....

For a game already murdered by the new crop of journalists and fans, we need a reprive from half baked knowledge and pathetically dressed women anchors....Few ppl might object this comment to aanti naari comment or hit back to me with some fiery comments, let me make it clear, i mean we dont need glam dolls with limited or no cricket knowledge, however if u convert former women cricketers and knowledgeful lady journos to glam dolls then it might go good........but i guess that wont happen!!!!!!!!

i agree with RS, it's better that womans cricket just be played by passionate people (women) who play for the win, and not money. lets see 10/15 years down the line what happened to mens cricket and i will bet that womans cricket will slowly but surely get more interest as long as big money keeps staying away. to Anshuman, thinking that american footballers are tough makes me laugh so much, with all their protection and boddy padding (ten times more than cricket) i couldnt see a new born baby being hurt. try real rugby instead. afsaal khan, just because something is true doesnt make it right - grow up boy..

Part of what makes Women's tennis popular is that you get to see rallys, the games don't go on serve so often because most female players aren't so strong as to serve ace after ace. The improved technology that has gone into racquets has made the men's game less exciting.

I wonder if the same thing might now occur in Cricket? The bats are becoming more powerful and the boundries have been brought in, pitches are being prepared more as 300+ wickets, and the battle between bat and ball is becoming lopsided as a result. Even the ability to place the ball is becoming less important, I fear that we may never see another Michael Bevan (a player who could always find 2 through placement) because of this. I enjoy watching a 200 run game much more than a 300 run game.

But hold on. The women playing at the top level aren't as powerful as the men. All the skills of placement I fear are being lost in the men's game are alive and well in the women's. The battle between bat and ball is much more even. If only there were a few women's games on TV, I might enjoy watching them. I'd probably go to state games if they had them in my area (Newcastle, Australia).

In summary, perhaps the modernisation of the game will serve to popularise the women's form at the expense of the men's in the same fashion that has occured in tennis.

you think american football is manly? have you seen the rugby union with 20 stone guys banging into each other with no protection barring for a mouthguard?now that's rough and tough!!!

I think Mr (Nawab of) Pataudi, was just curious about the lady's views on cricket. I, am a curious and proud follower, of the Indian ladies Cricket Team. They are hard players, and carry themselves well. Mr Pataudi, was one of the most inspiring of all gentlemen, to have played for India.

Mukul,

I quite enjoy reading your articles.

Could you please do an article analizing the cricket commentators of the current world cup ?

I am not very happy of the quality of commentary in this world cup.

As this is quite unrelated to this article you may not show this posting on line.

"...Women collectively, women as a sex don't play cricket or understand it or like it..." At least from the evidence in sub continent, it would be a fair statement to say that 'men collectively, men as a sex' do not play cricket either; and given the asinine reactions to the defeat, one can never say how many of the millions who watch cricket understand it.

The need for sexualising women's sports depends on the vision of sports that we share. Given the narrow base of the game, cricket administrators have mainly targetted a television audience and not emphasised on the element of active participation. Thus, the primary ploy to attract audience has been to focus on the lowest common denominator through gimmicks of different types. Sexualization of the game is an inevitable by-product of this process and has happenned independent of the question of bosting the profile of women's cricket.

As far as the route adopted by the Federation of International Volleyball is concerned, it will be helpful to test whether attendance to such games has actually increased.

Having watched a lot of women's football, I can safely assert that Sepp Blatter's comments are entirely uncalled for (we cannot expect anything better from a man whose most important concern right now is to find a better honorific for the post of President, FIFA)and the game is indeed in good health. There are several elements of women's game like short passes, off the ball movemement to create space and to compensate for lack speed (elements that are slowly vanishing from the men's game)that make it very attractive to watch.

Pratik has already pointed out universal appeal of drama that informs sports.

Ralph, lot of us Indian fans grew up with this legend of Sunil Gavaskar having backed out of facing the greatleft arm spinner, Diana Eduljee.

Can we please have JT's comments back on the blog.

Anshuman,

And American footballers look like wussy babies, with all their padding and protection (and some of them are so fat), compared to rugby, which is much more physically challenging and intimdating.

It's silly to compare these sports, which all have different structures and different aims. I think you miss the point of Mr. Kesavan's calling cricket a manly game (which it is, even in the sense that you understood it), which he was saying in relation to gender. I assume, then, that you don't think chess is a manly game, since brain power and mental stamina without physical contact is not a feature of manliness?

Change women's kit to what they wear in tennis and I can bet the players would be as popular as any Sharapova or Kournikova!!

Offtopic again: American football is a much much faster game than rugby...and remember that the guy whos tackling you has extra gear on to hurt you more...so its all about momentum, and the guy whos about to tackle the life out of you in the NFL probably was the fastest sprinter in college...I guarantee any NFL cornerback/safety/wide receiver can outrun any rugby player...so now imagine an extra fast, athletic, menacing, geared up and a brute of a 250 lb linebacker charging up someone's blind-side

i'd like to see a fat rugby player do something like this
http://youtube.com/watch?v=7vL19q8yL54

Mr.Anshuman,
correct me if Im wrong but you said about American Football as courage in the face of danger? As a fan with a team to back in the sport, I beg to differ. Yes, its a full contact sport but with all the gear the players wear, even the scrawniest wouldnt fear a hit.
Courage in the face of danger was cricket in it's pre-helmet days or perhaps rugby to some extent.

As for women in cricket, why not make it a unisex game? A few years ago I read reports in the Times of India about an excellent woman allrounder from England who was beating the boys for their spots in the under 19 championship. Whatever happened to her? The laws of cricket dont seem to forbid women from playing with men on the same field. Neither do the laws of physics or gravity.
And who said women cant hit the ball that hard with the bat? Surely, you must have seen washerwomen go at dirty clothes with a wooden bat. They would have not done too much worse than Sachin did against D.Fernando's 147km/h ball.

I don't know why my last comment didn't get published. I thought the blog was about free speech. On Jayoti Mehr's last comment. Does anyone really want to see Indian/Pakistani/Sri Lankan women cricketer's in the clothes that Kournikova or Sharapova wear? I think not.

Where are JT'S comments. It has been removed. Cricinfo is turning in to ICC !!! UNDEMOCRATIC !!!

Great article! Pay no attention to some of the dim bulbs who've commented otherwise. This is the stuff! And as a HUGE fan of American football, I will still take exception to any statement that proclaims it a greater sport than cricket. I'm not intending to write an article titled 'Cricket could be the greatest sport in all history', so I won't. But, my dear fellow American residents, please don't diss cricket. Both are great sports in their own right. I could get into a discussion on steroids, and the fact that most of the super heroes you speak of are African Americans, who just happen to be the strongest race in the world and therefore have a natural ability to take seemingly sickening blows in their stride, etc, but I won't. Leave it alone.
By the way, I read in one the comments that you should do an article about the mind numbingly stupid commentary we've been subjected to. Please take it seriously. I have to mute the volume anytime that great stalwart of the one day game, and most brilliant batsman of his era - L. Sivaramakrishnan comes on air and starts advising Sachin Tendulkar how to bat in the slog overs, or indeed, Glenn Mc Grath how to bowl at the death. Please. Help a poor suffering fan of the game.

WHAT BUGS ME ABOUT THIS GUY IS THAT HE IS UTTERLY INCAPABLE OF SAYING SOMETHING CLEARLY, TAKING A STAND AND MAKING SENSE.
IT HAS BECOME FASHIONABLE IN INDIA TO WRITE ON CRICKET. ALL SORTS OF TOMS, DICKS AND HARRIES WITH SOME KNOWLEDGE OF ENGLISH GRAMMAR AND RIGHT CONNECTIONS HAVE STARTED WRITING ON CRICKET.
IN THIS CASE IT IS CLEARLY FASHION NOT PASSION.

On topic: Go women's cricket! If women want to play it, let them. They'll have an audience if they have the skill.

Offtopic: I agree with KS: Give me rugby any day. American football is stop-start. Linebackers know how to do one or two things: push and maybe tackle. Quarterbacks know how to throw or give it to another player. And after a touch down, they kick from the centre. What a joke!

In response to RS's youtube, I'd like to see the equivalent of a rugby centre, which is probably a running back do this:

http://youtube.com/watch?v=kzN8Hg7yCkE
http://youtube.com/watch?v=4P-GRlJ9u0U&mode=related&search=

In case you didn't realize, that was Gavin Henson of Wales. He crunched Matthew Tait of England in a tackle in the 2004 Six Nations. Henson also kicked the winning penalty in the game from an amazingly narrow angle.

Show me an NFL footballer who can defend, attack and kick goals like that. They're probably all one-hit wonders!

And if you thought rugby was better than NFL, watch Aussie Rules! That's somewhat better than rugby but orders of magnitude better than NFL. Players have to be able to defend, attack, tackle, charge down kicks, score goals and handpass. For close to 3 hours.

Oh and in response to your NFL clip of someone jumping in a gym with no pressure, show me an NFL player who can do this in a game:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rtm9AVjqTUc&NR=1

Cheers,

Anshuman, from your response, you seem to portray the stereotypes of the "I'm cool because I emigrated to the States" NRI, embracing anything and everything American. Strange as it may sound, manly is not synonymous to violence, unlike what most Americans (and thus, you) think. All American sports involve extreme violence that people revel in - seems strange that a brutal form of rugby gains so much respect in your eyes, given the amount of protective clothing worn.
Sports like tennis, swimming, football, cricket - even badminton and table tennis - have a substantial gulf between male and female players because they play on endurance as opposed to brute force. I'm sure the people who like to watch NASCAR over F1 would disagree.

I wrote a long post 6 hours back but it didn't get posted. There must be a glitch in the system. Hopefully someone will fix that.

Also, JT's post appears to have vanished. Whats with that?

Anjan: If it make it easier for you to stereotype me rather than respond to the content of my post then, well go for it.

hmm.. my shorter post went through.

Well, here is my point. The physicality of a sport doesn't make one sport more manly than another. Apart from physical ability, there is grace, innovativeness, mental toughness and determination to win which also matter. Most of these things are not a function of gender. Physical strength and ability is gender dependent. But mental toughness is not!

People like NOP are emotional dinosaurs of they think that women are less capable courage or mental toughness. It takes a combination of physical ability (relexes, eyesight, hand eye coordination) and mental strength (to overcome the fear of physical pain) to play fast bowling. Men have no advantage over women when it comes to mental strength and courage. Thats all I am trying to say.

The only men who play cricket are the fast bowlers, the rest are mostly wimps. No wonder we have overweights, midgets and slouches that bandy about as professional sportsmen.
Cricket definitely cannot be touted as an example of a manly game, and if wasn't for the subcontinent, cricket would have died a slow death a long time ago. No wonder in past cricketing powerhouses like West Indies, the younger generation is drifting away to more professional and demanding sports.
Having said that, it is already difficult to market 'men's' cricket games that does not involve any of the subcontinental giants (India and Pakistan), so the difficulty to market a ladies game is all too apparant.

A very interesting article.As in a country where Cricket is a religion it is suprising that the women crickeers haven't attained demigod status.The woman look more male with their gear, which would have reduced the emotional attachment to the players and also leads to being compared with the male counterparts.You just cannot shed clothing to devolop a passion for a sport .More you cover you are safer.
Let us leave this game for the men,women can play with in their own circles.
Commercialising and popularising the women's game would definetely need same changes in their attires to look more girly,like the evlution of women's tennis .But with kind of passion for the game in India, will lead to more complications in the already confused society.Fans if want to watch women play like their male counterpart do watch, or just leave them alone.Please donot make them sex objects just for the sake of cricket.

I remember watching an interview, of a leading women's cricketer (maybe Mithali Raj, I'm not sure), a couple of years back which was pretty depressing. According to her, one of the reasons for a relatively smaller number of girls taking up cricket in India is that, as cricket involves spending a long time under the sun, women are concerned that they'll become "darker". And considering that in India beauty is almost synonymous with fairness, they fear a career in cricket will affect their marriage prospects.

I wish I was making that up. I'm not.

Can't really argue with any of that. Doesn't mean that these things are right. Quite rightly you do point out that life isn't fair. I think the sooner people accept that and deal with it the better!

When women can run the 100m faster than men. When women have a higher high jumper than men. When women can send the javelin further than men. When women compete equally on the sports field to men... then that will be a wonderful day. I don't see it happening soon. More games of battle of the sexes? I don't see 15 women standing on a rugby field to take on a team of 15 men. But possibly that isn't the answer. Why not have a mixed side? Or is simply the case that the top player in each position will be a man?

Think about it.

I agree with the comments made by mukul here. its a damn pity that people only watch women sports as long as it can be marketed and publicised sexually.

A good social article. Mukul you are wrong on many counts, most of which have already been pointed out by Jenny et. al. The one point I'd like to make is that while Venus Williams may not be as attractive as Sharapova. The Williams have their own designer brand (shoes, clothes), had a reality tv show and a number of other celebrity deals. In fact when Sharapova appeared on "The Tonight show with Jay Leno" after winning the Wimbledon definitely looked uncomfortable with all the new attention.
What was the reason behind the success outside of Tennis? Simple, they found a new audience and served as role models to kids in poor communities across the country and didn't need the Madison Avenue glitz-mag-audiences. Similarly, Women cricket needn't sex up their image - they simply need to play the game with passion and find an audience that will appreciate them what they offer in terms of the sport.

He has made me want to become a feminist. This article just jumped out and slapped me round the face like a wet fish.

He has a number of facts totally wrong as well, for example Navratilova was not butch in fact she is quite small and petite with immense power and a few muscles that due to her petite frame may look slightly out of place. He should also check his spelling and grammar.

Dressing up, sexing up - do not even get me started on that one. It totally annoys me when women wear make-up for sport.

I was also there at the function. I had a conversation with Kadambari, who is a friend, before the debate began and the name of a former New Zealand cricketer came up. Kadambari commented: "Oh, he is a very good-looking man." Mukul does not mention this part of the on-stage debate that follows. Nawab of Pataudi (NoP) asked Kadambari if women watch cricket for cricket or to watch the men. To which she shot back: "Even men go to watch the men; I mean gays." NoP's response (complete with raised eyebrows) was: "Not during my playing days, I hope." The audience exploded in laughter.
Just thought the readers might be interested in these exchanges.

ALWAYS TO NICE TO BE SEEN TO BE POLITICALLY CORRECT. THUS STATING THE EXPECTED OBVIOUS AND NOT NECESSARILY TELLING THE TRUTH.

HOWEVER, IT CAN BE DAFT TO BE REMINDED THAT A WORLD CUP IS GOING ON AT THIS VERY MOMENT. SCATTER BRAIN WON'T NOTICE IT OF COURSE.

Why can't the public ingeneral look at females as human beings contributing to society in ever aspect and not as "Sexual Objects". I hope and pray for that day to come.

The fact of the matter is that women's cricket, whether sexed-up or not, is hardly as entertaining as the men's version and hence not nearly as popular or appealing to the masses. Period. It's obvious that Mukul's comments were made in an Indian context. So, somebody arguing that women play cricket in England seriously, or that sexing-up some sports failed in Australia, is beside the point.
It's true that very few women play cricket in India or take it seriously, and the ones that play are concerned that they might become dark skinned, as someone already pointed out. Even the outstanding ladies like Mithali Raj et al can never hope to attain the same fame or recognition as the Tendulkars and the Dhonis. Not because cricket is a manly sport, but more of a man's sport in India! And the ladies do go to watch men because of their sexual appeal - eg. remember England's glorious 2005 Ashes, when cricket found many new fair weather fans thanks to Simon Jones ?!

A truth well written and is a sad thing.Hey, I might become a fan of Indian Women Cricket if they exhibit stronger will to win and fighting instinct than our men(Indian Cricket) do.

The reason most (if not all) women cricketers play the game is because they love the combination of physical and mental skills in a team sport. Even at international level, I personally was more interested in competing to the best of my ability against the best teams. The size of the crowd didn't come into it but is important to remember that if the media ignore women's sport because it doesn't draw the crowds or because the women can't compete physically with the men, they are showing a gender bias that mirrors the racial barriers that black Americans struggled against before baseball and other sports became integrated.

Just because women's cricket isn't widespread, doesn't mean that it should be ignored and that certain individuals should attempt to demean those who play it. Skimpy outfits and sexy poses won't do anything to improve the skills in a sport that, at its best, provides matches that are skillfully played and just as gripping as the most exciting men's matches.

poor timing for the article,,,
there are dozens more interesting topics going on in the world....
Mukul have to be little sporting ,than be a social science man...
y r earlier articles were great...

Plz . do some article about WC commentators ,cause they are most horrendous bunch i ve ever seen.they are killing the World cup

Dear Mukul;
u r earlier ones were interesting,,but reading this one is like listening to WC commentry,,

Think the best article which is hot will be about these new WC commentators...

Looks like the ICC have this plan to bore the fans to death with this monotone commentries.
where have all the OZ commentators who had great insight and sense of humour gone..
Tony Greig, IAN chappel , Bruce, Ian healy.....

the two guys from OZ are pathetic and dont have any insight into the issues about WC.
Those 2 are really setting a bad standard to OZ commentry(Am sure the OZ fans here will agree) , who normally set the trends in commentry.

Earlier i decided to watch this boring match with Bangla and OZ ,thinking i ll get some insight from these commentaries. Boy ... was i disappointed......Its hard to stay awake with these guys muttering shit.

Solution: Fielding side wears mini skirts? It might just as well create a bowing/fielding dominated game as opposed to a batsman's game.

KESAVAN WILL DO WELL TO READ SOUMYA BHATTACHARYA'S BLOG "OUTSIDE LOOKING IN", HERE IN CRICINFO.
PERHAPS HE CAN LEARN A THING OR TWO ABOUT HOW TO WRITE COGENTLY AND TOPICALLY AND NOT SHOOT BLANKS IN THE HOT AIR WITH NO DIRECTION.

Hullo Mukul, Well, I'm not sure whether to say thank you or get mad about some of the stuff, so here goes... thank you for a bit of it but there's a lot of which I would have liked to say that Jenny already did. And more of which I have discussed with you --- that the cricket fraternity in India (and elsewhere, I might add), is a highly sexist world. Anyway, I'm writing this comment more in response to Gulu's comment that I remarked that a player was good-looking. Well Gulu, so what? I head a predominantly male sports desk and often, the conversations I overhear relate to a good-looking woman athlete/ player. There's a bit of ribbing, some laughter and the remarks are taken in the same spirit as they are made with --- in fun. Why does the fact that I remarked that Sir Richard Hadlee was good-looking, have to be remarked upon? I've had many conversations with you when you've remarked in passing that a certain sportswoman was goodlooking, I've never thought twice about those remarks nor have they detracted from my taking your opinion on sport seriously. Just like my male colleagues' obvious interest in the female form has never made me doubt their passion for the sport they cover, live and breathe, day in and day out. I do not recall that response to Mr Pataudi's statement but if I did make it (and I am sure you noted it), it was probably made in response to his being patronising about women. I also did say more than once, in conversations both public and private on that day, that many women follow sport seriously, any sport and to tar all women with the same brush is unfair, as it is unfair to label all the men who watch women's tennis as watching it simply because a certain woman playing has sex appeal. I think an interest in sport is not gender-specific but social and cultural orientation have made it so. Things are changing, but in some places, that change is slow. Like here in India obviously!

Hi Kadambari: Your response/views duly noted. However, please note that in our "many conversations" I have NEVER remarked "in passing" about a sportsperwoman being goodlooking. Do look forward to "many conversations" in future though!

Mukul I am not quite sure what you have written about in your long winded article and it has given me a head ache! First you criticise Tiger Pataudi then a long diatribe where you agree with him!The only point which made sense to me was about Tennis being the one sport that has gendre equality - that's spot on.Couldn't you have written this article more concisely?

And to you and to Jenny: you both will be surprised: true cricket lovers enjoy reading/ watching CRICKET. I have personally followed the fortunes of the Indian Women's team for which I have to thank CRICINFO who perhaps are the only site which cover women's cricket in such detail.Testimony to that is the excellent coverage of the just held women's series between England and India where there were many pleasent articles/ diaries and even ball by ball commentary! on Cricinfo. And am sure there are lot's of others who are taking a keen interest in women's cricket.

True lovers of the game will enjoy a good game of cricket period: if the women's teams can provide that and if properly marketed people will watch.Obviously they have it tougher because historical bias and basic human psychology will not change that fast - just as we would rather like to watch Shakira do her stuff than Adnan Sami doing a video! That's perfectly natural and normal whether we are men or women (in the latter's case substitute Shakira for Ricky Martin) so why all the excitement and pointless issues of women's clothing etc - ridiculous just play the game and enjoy it!

I continue to enjoy Jenny's articles and ball by ball commentary on Cricinfo as well. And perhaps Jenny can point out how many complaints has she received about her gendre status while doing all this? I would imagine that no true lover of the game would have any problems at all.

I dont' know who PK is but would like to congratulate this person - looks like this person has played the game at the highest level and talks from first hand experience - short sweet n excellent and correct/ apt comment!

Now to Mr.Anshuman: you mentioned about an athlete having nerves, character, reflexes etc- there is no better example of this in Cricket than the Nawab Of Pataudi: he played international cricket ONE EYED for a while imagine that! So before you call him a dinosaour think about that - cause a time will come when you are old and may have certain anachronistic views in a changed world - what should we call you then?

Also Ms Kadambari: please could you keep your personal issues with "Gullu" (who is he now) to yourself and himself and not use this forum as an e-mail or sms centre - we don't really care whom you find good looking or whom he doesn't. So if you answered (and admirably so) to the Nawab about being a professional journalist please show the same here as well.

Cheers, Nirbhay

This is a reply to Jenny's comments. Jenny, yes the article was sexist and looked a lot audacious. But I think Mukul is trying to target the cricket followers and the media that feeds the followers. He thinks a considerable percentage of the followers want to see a 'lot of woman ' in any game played by women. That is why he quoted examples from tennis and a match played in India when the foreign team players were showing their legs and other body parts . Fans who are more voyeuristic (and I believe that is a considerable lot) in cricket happens to be mostly men. His last lines in the article beg you to understand his point view.

Nirbhay Singh,I enjoyed reading your comments except that the Shakira/Adnan Sami analogy left a bad taste in the mouth! But for you pointing out, I wouldn't have noticed the petty squabble between a professional journalist and her friend/foe on here. It drove home the fact that these days any Tom, Dick or Harry with the right connections can pass off as a cricket journalist!
Wonder if people like Neville Cardus, CLR James et al are turning in their graves! So, Mukul, how about an article on the "Decline and fall of cricket journalism in India" ?!

Talking about cricket journalism, I'm appalled that the quality is declining even on an esteemed site like Cricinfo. The other day I happened to follow some cricket commentary when a Cricinfo journalist described Power Play as the "period in which field restrictions are done away with", much to my amusement. Another writer had the temerity to describe the Zimbabwe-Ireland match as one of the greatest ever WC matches - it may have been great for WC 2007 but the quality of cricket was far from great. The Indian journalists are also guilty of deifying Indian batsmen after some typical "flat-track-bullying" performances.

The point I'm coming to is about the tendency of the media for "instant glorification" - any recent match or player's performance is often hailed as the "greatest ever" without any historical perspective - examples being the SA-Aus Jo'burg run-fest, the 2005 Ashes (with some justification). Wonder if Mukul could come up with some blog along those lines.

On a lighter note, quoting Jenny, "Real fans sit front and centre, not in corporate boxes, so please don't insult the fans by suggesting they pay money to women’s events just for a jolly (old perve)." Coming from someone who complained during some WC commentary that the cameras are focussing too much on the girls in the party stand, and that the only men in the crowd are
all above 70, it's a bit rich!!!...just kidding!

Perplexed:Contemprory Cricket Journalism/Media can be summed up in one very simple sentence: "If you can't dazzle them with brilliance bamboozle with the bullshit!!" And this is sadly something happening in other spheres of the media as well!

Good comment(s) you have given.Noted your sentiments and apolagise for any irrtiation caused. Cheers, Nirbhay.

I’m an Aussie guy in my mid twenties and I have a big involvement in sport – wilfully ignorant of gender.

Mukul, I disagree with you.

You don’t think Jaya Sharma is going to be a household name but reason it’s because cricket is a man’s game. You then clarify this by saying women collectively as a sex don't play cricket or understand it or like it. And when they do, people (women included) don't take them seriously…

Perhaps if you used a caveat on your article that you were only referencing Indian professional cricket I may agree with you… But to suggest that cricket in its entirety is a man’s game because a female cricketer isn’t a household name is fallacious. To suggest that because women don’t collectively play or understand a sport, then suggest they can’t be taken seriously because of this, is also wrong. Laila Ali I’m sure would like to discuss this point with you…. So would Layne Beachley.

You assert that Tennis is the only international sport that women are as likely to be followed as the men. Here in Australia we recently concluded the FINA World Swimming Championships and I assure you that women (rightly) receive equal coverage to the male swimmers. If you dare suggest that it is because of their attire you will only vindicate my suspicion that you are naïve about your subject matter. Women swimmers rightly have great admiration of the Australian and American public.

You ask why cricket is gendered and come up with a few answers: no one wants to pay to watch women’s televised sport (tennis aside – in your opinion) and that commercial sponsorship is hard to find. I will agree with you on that point, women’s team sports in general finds sponsorship difficult to secure. Because male team sports attract more sponsorship money is no grounds to prove that cricket is a man’s sport, it’s simply more able to generate business which is a state of affairs which is increasing in parity between the sexes…. Slowly, but surely. Because a game can’t be sold does not substantiate the claim that it is a man’s game.

“Putting a woman into standard cricket kit is a bit like cross-dressing: She becomes a cricketing man”… No mate, she’s still a woman, take a closer look. Women players who don't fit the templates of sexiness that marketing executives work with make much less money than women who do… Well, that’s plain wrong – and offensive. The inability to sexualise a sport does not guarantee an absence of sponsorship – cycling, skiing, swimming for a few. You need to accept people watch tennis for the tennis mate, not always the skirts.

“In the meanwhile women correspondents and commentators will continue to be patronised by politically incorrect men.” Well, in your opening statement you said in response to Kadambari Murali’s views “I thought it was a daft thing to say. Daft, anachronistic, patronising… and true." By your own admission you are patronising... also politically incorrect.

In my honest opinion cricket is not gendered. Nor is any sport, game or leisurely pursuit. Male team sports are just simply more diverse, traditional and popular. I think you need to stop looking at cricket as a product if you are going to write about it as a sport.

Well the day women cricketers start hitting the ball around like Kevin Pieterson, Andrew Symonds, Jayasuriya it will instantly start attracting a lot of people's attention. I mean if scoring 200 runs in 50 overs is going to be the norm when we are getting accustomed to seeing over 300 in men's cricket who's going to watch it.Also even if the runs are not scored does women's cricket have fast bowlers like Lee, Bond, Malinga who can realy make the bastmen jump around their crease?Whichever way you look at it, women's cricket is highly boring compared to men's.Now whether you blame the pitches, conditions, administrators nobody cares we want to see some excitement not a perfect defensive shot every ball like Dravid.Till that day women's cricket is going to remain very much in the darkness.

Thing is, even if you want to watch women's tennis for the sport aspect, rallies and all, it's hard to concentrate on the game when legs like Sharapova's are running around...

I have only come in on the tale end of this discussion and cannot claim to have read every one of the above contributions in detail, but I will say this. I watch and follow sport, particulary cricket. I saw Ian Botham's first day of Test Cricket and Shane Warne's ball to Mike Gatting, and, I saw England win the World Cup at Lord's and England's women regain the Ashes after forty two years at Worcester. All of these things gave me pleasure as a cricket lover, and, since the human race is made up of two sexes it rather makes sense that sport has particpants from both sexes too, and that they are equally enjoyable to watch and follow. As for what they wear, who on earth cares? Anyone who choses to go into some great long explanation about why women's sport is of no interest to them should shut up and leave it to those of us who are. I live in the twenty first century and those whose attitudes are stuck in a previous one might do better to hold their tongues or typing fingers until they have caught up.

As a longstanding sportswriter (28 years )and woman cricketplayer in The Netherlands (and NZl), being the current editor of the Dutch national cricket magazine, I've been battling the sexist approach to women's sports, but especially cricket, for many years. Womens sports should be watched, talked about, read about, written about in the same way as men's sports: if the competition is fierce, what does it matter whether it's a men's or a women's game? What's the difference between the men's or women's 100 meters sprint at the Olympic Games: it's all about who wins the competition, excitement in the last few meters, who scores most goals, whether it be rowing, horseracing, swimming, cycling, fieldhockey, soccer etc..
Because that is what sport is all about. A world record is a world record, be it for a man or a woman. Men nor women go into a sporting match wanting to look nice or sexy; they dont play sports to outplay each other's gender. Women's sport should be treated exactly as men's sports, being an activity that people enjoy, be competitive in, and try to be the best in. An exciting Wimbledon's final could be either the women's (usually is btw) or the men's. And not exciting because of Maria Sharapova's skirt (if you could call it a skirt anyway). Stop dividing, support each other!!!!
And btw: American Football (derived from rugby), baseball and softball (derived from cricket): these sports can never beat he original game, as far as I'm concerned. And also: American sports hardly seem to be about sport: it's one big showtime with "pretty" looking cheerleaders (ugh), loud music, fireworks, numerous breaks so there can be ads on tele: what has that got to do with competing in a sport?
Re. cricket: what's the difference when it comes to excitement when the England women need one run off the last ball to beat Australia, or when the England men need a ball off the last over to beat Australia. The only difference is that the latter is a lot more unlikely.

How refreshing to read Ingrid van der Elst's comments above. I saw the Dutch women's cricket team play England during the 1993 World Cup in Ealing, and have twice seen the Dutch women's football team play in England (although I have yet to see the men's teams in either sport.) I follow men's and women's sports equally and can't imagine doing anything else.

Gurjot Singh Ahluwalia you are in a way wrong. A WOMENS cricketer holds the record for the highest score in a ODI in both female And Male forms of the game.

Miss Emily, I was talking generally about the women's game and you have picked out 1 rare incident which is probably never going to happen again.So I think I'm pretty much spot on.

you must remenber emily that the woman that made the highest score was playing against women. I don't mean to be sexist but if she was facing the likes of Brett Lee or Shane Bond I don't think she would have even made double figures. I think it is unfair for women to be compared to men in sports because of their physical limitations but like I said before, the women play against women and the games can be just as exciting as the men's version. But yes, women's cricket should be enjoyed and watched just as much as men's cricket and women should be allowed to do whatever the men can do.

JT;-I have spent 25 years playing mens cricket in Cheshire, women's cricket as a first team captain was in the past nothing more than a pain to be managed.I only got into women's cricket 3 years ago; since then i have coached senior county women, supported women's league cricket and help make the women's game in Cheshire more dynamic. I have read some of the above, some good, some bad, some basically rubbish comments about the women's game; the bottom line is that all who participate and support the womens game should be encouraged to perform and enjoy to the best of their ability by all. There should be both recreational and competitve cricket for women and men should help to develop and be supportive of the female version of our sport. I have seen how dedicated women at England, county and club level are - they are no different from the mens game and should be encouraged; not ridiculed or not given the time of day. This applies to the UK and all over the world. If the sport can be 'glammend up' by a good looking female cricketer, so what, its no different from Flintoff or Pieterson trying to make the mens game more high profile, more attractive - in the end both are trying to attract more players into the game. So what is wrong with that, it doesnt matter whether your female or male, lets keep this game exciting, sexy and full of fun, with loads of technically ability, competitve and in the end great to be part of.......

Очень признательна, по-настоящему полезная информация.