Australian Off Season 2017

[Starfighter]

I suspect that Peever is probably behind these proposed changes. He became chairman in 2015 and now all of a sudden this payment system has to be changed NOW! when there hasn't been much indication it's been problematic in the past. And as pointed out in the ABC article revenue sharing is a commonly used system.
Seems like Peever et al want to run CA like a big corporation to try maximise profit etc. when they're a not-for-profit and not structured anywhere near like a big corporation. I'm usually somewhat anti-union but I've always fully supported the players over this. CA's proposal to me has always seemed like a way to featherbed the corporate side and expand the administration, and misunderstands the purpose that it should serve.

I think there's been a few somewhat pro-CA articles in the Oz but their sports writing isn't the greatest anyway (especially when Patrick Smith is involved). I've noticed that there has generally been a lack of scrutiny of what CA's been saying/implying, with even the left-wing outlets such as ABC and the Age parroting the idea that all the players earn $200-$240k when that's nowhere near the truth. I don't think the ACA has done a great job communicating and making clear that it's the players nearer the bottom of the pile that stand to lose the most from this deal.

 

[brockley]

Players to skip 'A' tour if MOU isn't signed | cricket.com.au
A tour cancelled to S AFrica.

 

[AndyZaltzHair]

Can't believe its not sorted out yet

 

[Starfighter]

Could be a while yet, as the two sides hold pretty much mutually exclusive positions.

 

[Spikey]

Can't believe its not sorted out yet

Eh, it's a bit like the last NHL lockout. Some 'games' can be lost and some can't. I'm guessing the India OD series is the real deadline

 

[Spikey]

bloody hell even the guy who worked when Fairfax went on strike is getting into CA

Cricket Australia's David Peever is living in Narnia | afr.com

 

[Spark]

In what way is it short-sighted to say that a player should be able to show that they earn their revenue before expecting to be paid?

If any sport can't generate revenue, then the players can't/shouldn't be paid. That's pretty obvious innit? Yet I'm being told I'm being short sighted and narrow minded!

If women's cricketer can't generate revenue, and the women's cricketers are in fact elite athletes, and they turn to other sports to get paid, good luck to them.

If women's cricket can generate good income, then the players should be paid everything they deserve, once again good luck to them.

If they're not generating money, why do they deserve a share of the money that's being generated by others?

How do you intend to generate any money through women's cricket if you don't even bother to pay female cricketers for the time they invest actually making themselves good enough to bother watching?

It is extremely weird how you are so consistent on opposing anything remotely feminine when it comes to cricket, like they spread girl germs or something.

 

[Spikey]

Absolutely undeniable fact that they do spread germs tbh. And in dressing rooms that boys have to use too

 

[cnerd123]

women's cricket is in the category to many of women's sports that simply can't do what a lot of people love about the men's sports

the demographic of people who watch t20 for 100m sixes literally get nothing they want out of it for example

women's tennis is so widely loved bc the demographic of people who watch tennis for BIG SERVES is smaller when compared to the demographic who watch it for the general game, powerful serves only a small part of that

the issue is that the cricket following portion of people who want HUGE MAXIMUMS or HEADSEEKING BOUNCERS AT 150K can't get that as easily in women's cricket where, unfortunately (because they are incredibly skilled athletes), boundaries do not go as far (generally) and half the express pace bowlers are slower than dwayne bravo

it's such a shame bc like i said they are top athletes but it's an inherent flaw in a lot of womens' "power sports" in that the large portion of fans who watch it for the RAW POWER aren't satisfied

This section of cricket fans never ever made sense to me. If you want to watch athleticism then go watch real athletics. Cricket is literally the least athletic sport in the entire planet, yet people say they only watch it for the athleticism. It makes no sense.

Personally for me I just don't watch women's cricket because it's not easy enough to access and not covered to the same amount of depth as men's cricket. But having umpired a ton of women's games this season, I found them every bit as enjoyable as the men's. They bowl slow and don't smash the ball everywhere, but again, I don't get how that's the point of cricket.

 

[Starfighter]

Cricket is literally the least athletic sport in the entire planet, yet people say they only watch it for the athleticism. It makes no sense.

Heard of Golf? Billiards?

And that fact is people do watch cricket just to see batsmen belt the ball - That's why T20 is so popular - and because of this women's cricket will (likely) always be at a disadvantage. That's just the nature of it.

 

[Spark]

Right but generally speaking people don't have problems with the idea of different classes/categories within sports still being valid professional sports despite not being the absolute physical peak of human capability in whatever.

 

[cnerd123]

You can't possibly tell me with a straight face that people who will watch and respect a sport where Ravi Ashwin is the number 1 bowler in the world will then also turn around and say they find women's cricket unappealing because of a lack of athleticism

 

[Starfighter]

Do a lot of people really respect cricket that much though? I'd say that the people who watch it just for 'explosive' batting don't (in the sense that we do), so they won't really care that the number one bowler isn't very athletic.

 

[Spark]

You can't possibly tell me with a straight face that people who will watch and respect a sport where Ravi Ashwin is the number 1 bowler in the world will then also turn around and say they find women's cricket unappealing because of a lack of athleticism

I mean this is a sport in which Shane Warne and Inzamam-ul-Haq are considered great players

 

[Shady Slim]

Eh, it's a bit like the last NHL lockout. Some 'games' can be lost and some can't. I'm guessing the India OD series is the real deadline

from memory didn't evgeni malkin win the smythe that year? if malkin can win the bbl best player award this lockout can go for as long as it likes faic

This section of cricket fans never ever made sense to me. If you want to watch athleticism then go watch real athletics. Cricket is literally the least athletic sport in the entire planet, yet people say they only watch it for the athleticism. It makes no sense.

Personally for me I just don't watch women's cricket because it's not easy enough to access and not covered to the same amount of depth as men's cricket. But having umpired a ton of women's games this season, I found them every bit as enjoyable as the men's. They bowl slow and don't smash the ball everywhere, but again, I don't get how that's the point of cricket.

yeah i have nothing against women's cricket as a sport either and i don't watch it for similar reasons to you

but especially with generation t20 you can not deny that's a huge part of cricket's fanbase... just not to mention in general in australia for example how from birth we're fed that you're not a real bowler unless you put it through above 140 clicks

 

[TheJediBrah]

Absolutely undeniable fact that they do spread germs tbh. And in dressing rooms that boys have to use too

They must be using the dressing rooms for very specific non-cricket-related activities if they're spreading germs to the boys in them

 

[TheJediBrah]

This section of cricket fans never ever made sense to me. If you want to watch athleticism then go watch real athletics. Cricket is literally the least athletic sport in the entire planet, yet people say they only watch it for the athleticism. It makes no sense.

Personally for me I just don't watch women's cricket because it's not easy enough to access and not covered to the same amount of depth as men's cricket. But having umpired a ton of women's games this season, I found them every bit as enjoyable as the men's. They bowl slow and don't smash the ball everywhere, but again, I don't get how that's the point of cricket.

It's not just about the power and speed though, for me at least. Women's cricket is just terrible to watch (again, for me) because they are just such low level in ability relative to mens cricket. You would genuinely get a higher standard heading down to you local park to watch a club 2nd's match. How can the batters be as skilled when they never face anything more than 115-120kph? Facing fast bowling and quality spin (spin bowling in womens cricket is a joke) is what challenges International standard batsman and makes it worth watching. Because they're doing something special that not many in the world can do. Watch womens cricket and sure they're playing at a level that not many women can do but is that the same thing?

Hence while I can see where Red Hill is coming from and agree with him to an extent, you also have to realise that Women's cricket isn't going to get better if you don't sink some money into it. You shouldn't look at it as throwing money away, but more of an investment. Only time will tell whether it pays off or not.

 

[mr_mister]

I've played with some nsw women in indoor cricket who had some pretty awesome batting techniques tbqh


I was impressed

 

[cnerd123]

Most cricket fans haven't played cricket to a standard remotely close to what the women's world cup is being played at.

Again, just like the 'we watch cricket for the physicality' crowd, the 'we can't watch cricket that is a lower standard to the level we play' crowd doesn't seem to me to be a large one.

 

[Gob]

It's not just about the power and speed though, for me at least. Women's cricket is just terrible to watch (again, for me) because they are just such low level in ability relative to mens cricket. You would genuinely get a higher standard heading down to you local park to watch a club 2nd's match. How can the batters be as skilled when they never face anything more than 115-120kph? Facing fast bowling and quality spin (spin bowling in womens cricket is a joke) is what challenges International standard batsman and makes it worth watching. Because they're doing something special that not many in the world can do. Watch womens cricket and sure they're playing at a level that not many women can do but is that the same thing?

Hence while I can see where Red Hill is coming from and agree with him to an extent, you also have to realise that Women's cricket isn't going to get better if you don't sink some money into it. You shouldn't look at it as throwing money away, but more of an investment. Only time will tell whether it pays off or not.

I don't like girls either cos they are mean to me

Think in an universe where men's cricket doesn't exist, women's cricket would be such a hit. As mentioned few times in this thread, raw power and pace are the two things people crave so much to see in this sport and its genuinely difficult to enjoy women's cricket knowing that far greater level of the same thing exists for me at least.