*Unofficial* New Zealand Black Caps Thread

[HeathDavisSpeed]

One other thing I want to add real quick is that I’ve been part of this forum for over a decade now and in that time I have never seen a single NZ women’s cricket thread created about a tour or series. So for all you guys saying you love watching it, or prefer it to the male version. Stop it. If you did we’d see threads with pages and pages of fighting and bickering like we do when the Blackcaps play.

I'll ramble a bit here, but here's my experience.

My wife was a much better cricketer than I was. I'd play on a Saturday, then I'd go and watch her play on a Sunday (this was in the UK). I watched her team play teenage boys; games umpired by the boys' fathers who'd routinely rip off the women. A common catch call was "That's a great delivery son, out every day of the week!" when you could tell from any angle that the ball was heading down leg or had hit the bat. After a few weeks of this, I went for my umpiring qualification and umpired every game - often from both ends - unless there was another qualified umpire around. When actually given an even chance in a game, the standard of the women improved steadily. My wife ended up training with Hants before we decided to move.

Then we moved to NZ. She went to play for a club team who batted her at 11 and didn't let her bowl. I referred to a colleague of mine who died earlier this year who was a big cricket fan. She played for Queensland (her record is on Cricinfo, though their photostock of her has the wrong person assigned). She moved back to NZ and again, her club team batted her at 11 and didn't let her bowl.

The lack of attention and value placed on women's cricket has led to this bull**** cliquey environment. It was also the source of the unfair practices that took place in club cricket in the UK. People just weren't taking it seriously. My wife didn't even bother playing a full season that year we moved to Wellington. It was the same for my former colleague.

Anything that can bring a reasonable standard of professionalism and set higher expectations of what players, coaching and administration should be doing is a huge step forward. Sure, the quality hasn't been great, but is it any surprise when this sort of unprofessionalism dictates practice?

One final thing - my 8 year old is vaguely interested in cricket. She'll play backyard cricket with myself and 16Tins when we get a game together. But, now she has a choice, she doesn't seem interested in coming to the cricket anymore (I took her loads when she was a littl'un). When the women's world cup came to Wellington though and we showed her the material she was interested and we went to a game or two. If taking her to women's games continues to help her develop her interest, then maybe she'll be interested in playing or even, in the future when she's an adult, going to watch cricket with her family. Failing to show any interest in engaging 50% of the population in the game is costing NZC.

This additional payment won't be a negative to the NZC accounts in the long term and it should have a massively positive impact on the professionalism and quality of the women's game. Your NBA/WNBA comparison absolutely fails to recognise the interest that women have in the NBA - somewhat because of the WNBA and the support for girls in playing at School.

 

[Flem274*]

Howsie makes a decent point about threads. Should we start women's series threads now? There's a fair few of us who are regular posters in the main thread. Concurrent series can see a bit of overlap in posting and multiple discussions happening which is cluttery.

When's the next high profile series or tournament after England SA? Separate threads might even draw in new posters. There were a lot of us for the world cup.

 

[_Ed_]

Absolutely, and the Comm Games will definitely need a separate thread too IMO. Really looking forward to that (albeit with only Barbados instead of a full-strength West Indies).

 

[Howsie]

Y

This additional payment won't be a negative to the NZC accounts in the long term and it should have a massively positive impact on the professionalism and quality of the women's game. Your NBA/WNBA comparison absolutely fails to recognise the interest that women have in the NBA - somewhat because of the WNBA and the support for girls in playing at School.

Of course it will don’t be ridiculous. Under the collective bargaining agreement signed by NZC and the players association they obviously came to what they thought was a fair amount per player per game in regards to what NZ cricket is making off each game. Seeing as the women don’t bring in anywhere near the amount of live crowd attendance nor tv viewership they’ll lose money out of this big time. That or the men are insanely underpaid…

Investing in women’s cricket and paying them what they are worth and two completely different things. I have absolutely no problem with investing in there game, but there is a massive difference

As for the WNBA example I think it’s pretty apt here. Everyone seems to think that by giving them more money the level of play is just going to go through the roof and we’ll see the crowds roll in. Those women are paid really well, they’re full time athletes and yet it hasn’t made a difference. The product they put out just isn’t very entertaining and you can see the proof there in regards to the league losing money every year. It’s the same with women’s cricket, the product just isn’t very good. Most casuals watch cricket to see people bowl quickly and see the ball whacked into the stands, two things you just don’t get with the women’s game.

Cricketers like all sport stars are entertainers at the end of the day. And entertainers have always been paid by what they bring in. Why should it change here?

 

[HeathDavisSpeed]

You’re completely missing the point of the value of a greater number of female fans to the overall NZC coffers and the significant extra income that can bring. I don’t understand why you would want to try to include that other 50% of economic value, even from a purely mercenary economic perspective.

And this is just about match fees, not about salary. The men are still taking home a vast percentage more than the female players overall.

 

[Athlai]

Crowds don't really matter much these days, it's all about TV. Not making a particular argument here as I don't know the numbers because in NZ it's pretty frustrating to find that data.

 

[RossTaylorsBox]

The idea that differences in revenue is solely caused by The Product itself is pretty asinine.

 

[Howsie]

You’re completely missing the point of the value of a greater number of female fans to the overall NZC coffers and the significant extra income that can bring. I don’t understand why you would want to try to include that other 50% of economic value, even from a purely mercenary economic perspective.

And this is just about match fees, not about salary. The men are still taking home a vast percentage more than the female players overall.

Yeah I get where you are coming from. My view is that of a current men’s cricketer I guess. Where I’m looking at it as that’s ‘my money’ you’re giving away. And trust me there is definitely one that thinks like that ?

 

[Howsie]

The idea that differences in revenue is solely caused by The Product itself is pretty asinine.

why?

 

[RossTaylorsBox]

For one, men's sport is promoted a hell of a lot more than women's sport.

 

[HeathDavisSpeed]

Yeah I get where you are coming from. My view is that of a current men’s cricketer I guess. Where I’m looking at it as that’s ‘my money’ you’re giving away. And trust me there is definitely one that thinks like that ?

I can understand that, but I still think the aim here will be to grow the overall pie for the better of everyone. After all, NZC have to compete for men’s salaries with the IPL (or county cricket c.f. Will Williams). If more women tune in to the men’s game, they can sell the tv rights for more. I guess we’ll see in time whether that bares out in reality… and it’s always hard to convince people in the here and now of potential future gains, particularly as current men’s players aren’t likely to be the beneficiaries (though hopefully the next crop will be)

 

[Shady Slim]

Yeah I get where you are coming from. My view is that of a current men’s cricketer I guess. Where I’m looking at it as that’s ‘my money’ you’re giving away. And trust me there is definitely one that thinks like that ?

and he's a ****, fwiw!

 

[HeathDavisSpeed]

and he's a ****, fwiw!

Is it Kuggeleijn?

 

[Shady Slim]

Is it Kuggeleijn?

nah then i would've used a certain word of six letters

 

[Howsie]

For one, men's sport is promoted a hell of a lot more than women's sport.

Well I wonder why…

 

[Howsie]

and he's a ****, fwiw!

He’s actually a really nice guy ?

 

[Shady Slim]

Well I wonder why…

LMGTFY - Let Me Google That For You

For all those people who find it more convenient to bother you with their question rather than to Google it for themselves.

lmgtfy.app

 

[GotSpin]

You’re completely missing the point of the value of a greater number of female fans to the overall NZC coffers and the significant extra income that can bring. I don’t understand why you would want to try to include that other 50% of economic value, even from a purely mercenary economic perspective.

And this is just about match fees, not about salary. The men are still taking home a vast percentage more than the female players overall.

There's a difference between trying to improve investment in womens cricket and ensuring 'equal pay' for match fees.

 

[RossTaylorsBox]

Nope.

 

[Shady Slim]

There's a difference between trying to improve investment in womens cricket and ensuring 'equal pay' for match fees.

but if the players aren't getting enough pay, you can have some of the greatest facilities and infrastructure in the world for the women, the quality of play stays as semi pro and the women can't see cricket as a serious livelihood. and sure for your sophie devines and ellyse perrys et al they might get enough coin when sponsorships etc are added in, not so for the fringe players

shield players in australia as at the most up to date stats i could find were on ~58k https://questionerlab.com/how-much-do-sheffield-shield-players-earn. now meanwhile in 2017 before they got the big pay bump oz women on national contracts were only on 40k https://www.cricket.com.au/news/cho...ditions-professionalism-iwd-part-1/2021-03-01 - now even before the women's game got as big as it was now, you can't tell me the shield was a bigger draw than the women's national side even in 2017. you're paid what you earn is a myth!