*Unofficial* New Zealand Black Caps Thread

[Athlai]

He’s actually a really nice guy ?

Hard to say no to that face ?

 

[RossTaylorsBox]

Stealing all the revenue he brings in.

 

[HeathDavisSpeed]

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

No. Please tell me more simplistic soundbites.

 

[SteveNZ]

If that last comment was directed at me I think it’s pretty uncalled for and to be perfectly honest pretty childish. It’s why I absolutely hate talking about this subject, it just turns into a **** fight. But you’re definitely someone whose posts I always enjoy reading so I really want to reply to this.

For starters imo here is a better comparison and something I took a real look into yesterday. The NBA and the WNBA. For those that don’t know it’s obviously the female version over in the states.

The WNBA has been around in its current version for nigh on 30 years now. The average salary is 128k a year which is absolutely outstanding and would easily allow you to be a full time athlete working on your skills everyday of the week, rehabbing,, resting etc etc.

There would easily be women in that competition more ‘skilled’ then some of the big galoofs they have in the NBA that are only there because they’re freakishly tall and athletic. But every single year that competition loses money, every single year. On average it’s losing 10 million dollars a year and only survives because it’s propped up by its male counterpart.

I guess what I’m getting at by bringing this up is that even with making more then enough to be full time professional athletes the product at the end of the day just isn’t good enough to sustainable. Well wouldn’t be without help from its male counterpart.

it’ll be the same for cricket here. The difference here is that NZC isn’t flush with cash like the NBA is. This will have ramifications down the line I can guarantee you that.

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.

It wasn't directed at you, it was directed at the people I see on social media who bang on about it and troll incessantly about the superiority of the men's game (which isn't you). I will acknowledge that the way I worded the post directed it at you though, and I apologise for that. I respect your views on the game, they're strong ones usually backed up with facts and a lot of observation.

I've just got very involved and often heated - seemingly a bit over the top at times - since I've had daughters.

The way I see it, the game doesn't have to be 'sustainable' in the way that might be the default metric: ie making more money than they use. I think it's OK for the women's game to be a bit of a loss leader for general interest in the game, allowing females to see a pathway where this hasn't been one previously.

By your rationale, Test cricket should be abolished tomorrow. It's not sustainable financially. It's propped up by the other forms. Are we OK with that too?

And out of genuine interest, what ramifications do you think will be seen down the line?

 

[SteveNZ]

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.

By all means, start women's series threads. How many women posters are on here? A couple at the most? Let's be serious here - we are growing the game for the sake of women. Men already have a beyond fair crack at the sport. Pay parity and more money in the women's game is not for us to get more invested in the game - we already are. It's got nothing to do with us watching more women's cricket, or at least very little. It's to provide a pathway for women, and a viewership so that young girls can see a future for themselves (one of the key indicators for uptake of sport at junior level is exposure to the professional game, or that horrid word 'eyeballs' on TV coverage) but also it is for women casuals to be able to get into as well.

 

[Flem274*]

By all means, start women's series threads. How many women posters are on here? A couple at the most? Let's be serious here - we are growing the game for the sake of women. Men already have a beyond fair crack at the sport. Pay parity and more money in the women's game is not for us to get more invested in the game - we already are. It's got nothing to do with us watching more women's cricket, or at least very little. It's to provide a pathway for women, and a viewership so that young girls can see a future for themselves (one of the key indicators for uptake of sport at junior level is exposure to the professional game, or that horrid word 'eyeballs' on TV coverage) but also it is for women casuals to be able to get into as well.

There's only a couple of women who post regularly but plenty of generic sports tragics have taken up an interest in the women's game since the recent exposure. Cnerd in particular will happily post 20 times about Antarctica U20s vs Hong Kong.

 

[SteveNZ]

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.

No one has said their level of play is going to go through the roof. No one. Not a single person. No one has said the crowds will roll in. No one.

Honestly, who's the victim here? Who misses out? The men? They're still getting paid the same. So no, they don't miss out. If you can tell me who suffers from this decision, then I'll acknowledge it as such.

It's actually OK. Maybe the women's game won't improve. But will it actually hurt to give them an opportunity to grow their game both in terms of numbers, quality and viewership?

And I, and others, completely disagree with you that the women's cricket product is not good. The World Cup was outstanding. Australia are as intriguing to watch as any men's team. England have some outstanding cricketers. There were some epic games in the World Cup. The skill level is different, but it's so watchable. I didn't expect to watch the last few overs of Pakistan v Bangladesh (I think it was) in that tournament, but I did. I actually watched more of that tournament than I did of the rest of our men's summer, mostly because of the time it was on, but I did.

 

[Mike5181]

There's a billion entertainment options for people these days and viewership doesn't just come out of thin air. Word of mouth is hugely important. A lot of the women interested in cricket, playing for teams like the White Ferns even, were exposed to it through fathers, brothers, etc. More men talking about women's cricket = higher chance of the women in their lives watching the product. This is not a bad thing. I don't know why we are talking down to people questioning whether cw users should make a more conscious effort to talk about the product.

 

[GotSpin]

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!

Yeah I really don't think that's correct

 

[NZTailender]

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?

Haha, cricket itself needed a huge shakeup in the late 70s because cricketers weren't getting paid much and the 'product' has improved immensely since players could make a living from it. The precedent is literally there from the mens game. And even then WSC ran at a loss, but its effects had huge benefits for the 'product' decades down the track.

 

[thundaboult]

The FIFA women's world cup is so much fun to watch. Would love if cricket can get near that level.

 

[Jezroy]

Actually the selectors etc do have to start taking the ODI side seriously. Have the following series coming up (to qualify for the WC…)

3 games in WI - August - I guess this is when we’ll get a better idea of our “strongest” squad
3 in AUS - Sep
3 vs Ind in NZ - Nov
3 in Pak - Jan (by the looks)
3 vs SL in NZ - Mar

Could potentially struggle in a few of those series. World Cup set for Oct/Nov next year, and we’re looking shaky aren’t we? What’s the best team?

Guptill (if he makes it)
Kane
Conway
Macewell (big call on one innings really - but they seem pretty set on him)
Santner
Ferg
Boult

Then who?

Jamieson
Sodhi
Young
Henry
Southee
Milne
Philips
Latham
Allen
Cleaver
Chapman
Mitchell
Neesham - doesn’t seem to be in the frame much anymore.

 

[Flem274*]

6 in a row vs Australia and India is gonna end some coaching (and maybe playing) careers. Every casual eye in NZ will be watching.

We are not winning those games with the team playing like this.

 

[Moss]

Actually the selectors etc do have to start taking the ODI side seriously. Have the following series coming up (to qualify for the WC…)

3 games in WI - August - I guess this is when we’ll get a better idea of our “strongest” squad
3 in AUS - Sep
3 vs Ind in NZ - Nov
3 in Pak - Jan (by the looks)
3 vs SL in NZ - Mar

Could potentially struggle in a few of those series. World Cup set for Oct/Nov next year, and we’re looking shaky aren’t we? What’s the best team?

Guptill (if he makes it)
Kane
Conway
Macewell (big call on one innings really - but they seem pretty set on him)
Santner
Ferg
Boult

Then who?

Jamieson - too important in red ball at the moment, would leave him to sort out his issues there
Sodhi - I personally think his performances have tailed off and seemed to get a lot of wickets bowling trash last year, but they've always liked him, let's see how he goes with the remodeled action
Young - Should be there for sure, with Taylor retired and Guppy on the wane you need specialist batsmen
Henry - 50-50 on him, was effective in 2019 because the conditions suited, could occasionally get away with bowling him at the death. Have a feeling he'll get smacked around in India
Southee - World T20 both proved you can't write him off while at the same time wilts in crunch games, have a feeling experience will likely give him the nod over Henry
Milne - beginning to think he gets selected for the idea of Milne rather than the reality, but useful to have in the frame if fit
Philips - should be there, but needs consistent cricket against top sides, and the ability against spin is a concern
Latham - Always had time for Latham the white ball player, will be needed in India given the wickets
Allen - Honestly I think it's time someone like him takes over from Guppy, but his shot selection really lets him down
Cleaver - Potentially a good choice as reserve keeper/batter. Need to trial him ASAP
Chapman - he's an interesting one, another you feel would be very useful in a SC World Cup, but like Phillips has never really knocked the door down
Mitchell - should be a definite starter you'd think, very dependable
Neesham - doesn’t seem to be in the frame much anymore. - Big believer in Neesham but I think his bowling is his worst enemy, won't make it as a batsman alone. Tends to come good in WC games so would hope there's a way back in

Thoughts inline in bold. Others to consider are:
Seifert - hasn't kicked on, but like Phillips and Chapman really stagnated due to lack of proper white-ball opportunities
Blundell - List A record is below par, but like Mitchell the kind of guy you'd want in your team when the chips are down
Duffy - Maybe a better bet than Henry as a frontline bowler in the subcontinent?
Rippon - Would like to see him pushing for Sodhi's spotc, he and Duffy really need to be given opportunities now
Nicholls - I don't think anyone in this forum wants him in the ODI side, but he's an incumbent so no doubt we'll see a bit more of him in the lead-up
Sears - a long shot for him, probably 2-3 years away from becoming a fixture?
Ravindra - same as Sears, if the management wants him to go away and focus on his game for a bit it's probably a good thing
Ajaz - I would really want him in a SC World Cup, was tremendously effective during that T20 series in Bangaladesh last year. Wishful thinking probably given that a 10-fer doesn't get you further opportunities in tests
CdG - WC is probably a bridge too far for him, but I suspect the selectors would like to give him one last chance

 

[nzfan]

6 in a row vs Australia and India is gonna end some coaching (and maybe playing) careers. Every casual eye in NZ will be watching.

We are not winning those games with the team playing like this.

I'm with this.... we're definitely not there. We are huffing and puffing into every game no matter whom it's against. Even worse we are relying on the fairly new comers in the side to win us games. I don't think the environment is all that conducive now. Doubt we can afford to terminate coach in the middle of his term. We're not that rich. I think we need to brace for some **** results coming up in all formats in the months to come and then a reasonable clean up.

 

[Zinzan]

We need a horses for courses approach in our ODI selections, and I mean outside of just bowling the extra spinner in the SC.

For starters Latham should be a lock in the middle-order in the SC but not necessarily convinced he should be outside of that.

 

[Fuller Pilch]

I'm with this.... we're definitely not there. We are huffing and puffing into every game no matter whom it's against. Even worse we are relying on the fairly new comers in the side to win us games. I don't think the environment is all that conducive now. Doubt we can afford to terminate coach in the middle of his term. We're not that rich. I think we need to brace for some **** results coming up in all formats in the months to come and then a reasonable clean up.

Sounds like our rugby team - except they're not winning many games.

 

[TheBrand]

If Macewell makes the WC squad, I'm burning all my jerseys.

15 months out, my WC squad is looking something like this:

Guptill
Allen
KW
Conway
Latham
Phillips
Neesham
Santner
Henry
Ferguson
Boult

CdG, Young, Sodhi, Mitchell.

Probably a bit light on fast bowlers, I assume Southee makes it regardless.

 

[NZTailender]

If Macewell makes the WC squad, I'm burning all my jerseys.

15 months out, my WC squad is looking something like this:

Guptill
Allen
KW
Conway
Latham
Phillips
Neesham
Santner
Henry
Ferguson
Boult

CdG, Young, Sodhi, Mitchell.

Probably a bit light on fast bowlers, I assume Southee makes it regardless.

I don't hate the idea of Bracewell in a L/O side, but only as a batsman who can roll his arm over as 6th or 7th bowler. In that sense he and Phillips should be competing for the same spot, but I get the feeling the selectors see Bracewell and Santner in the same category.

 

[Fuller Pilch]

We had Neesham and CDG as 5th and 6th bowlers and finishers batting 6 and 7. Phillips and Bracewell can bat as well as those two, but questions remain if they can bowl as well as those two.