Australian Off Season 2017

[Red]

Let's be honest. I love cricket, and I will watch any sort of cricket. Tests, BBL, local 4th grade, juniors, women's cricket...

But televised women's cricket is not as captivating as men's cricket. I'm not exactly sure why, but I think it is partly to do with the power aspect (and no, I don't need big sixes to be satisfied) but the bowling just looks floaty and they don't hit with the same power. Neither of these things are bad, but they don't make the game as entertaining to watch as a spectator.

And before I am again accused of being something I'm not, I absolutely love women's AFL. It's engaging, it's a great contest, sometimes it's better to watch then men's for a number of reasons (more focus on positional play and shorter kicks make the game interesting). And it's popularity will draw revenue if the AFL does it right.

Perhaps it's just that cricket doesn't translate as well as a female sport for spectators? And won't make revenue because of that.

 

[TheJediBrah]

Let's be honest. I love cricket, and I will watch any sort of cricket. Tests, BBL, local 4th grade, juniors, women's cricket...

But televised women's cricket is not as captivating as men's cricket. I'm not exactly sure why, but I think it is partly to do with the power aspect (and no, I don't need big sixes to be satisfied) but the bowling just looks floaty and they don't hit with the same power. Neither of these things are bad, but they don't make the game as entertaining to watch as a spectator.

And before I am again accused of being something I'm not, I absolutely love women's AFL. It's engaging, it's a great contest, sometimes it's better to watch then men's for a number of reasons (more focus on positional play and shorter kicks make the game interesting). And it's popularity will draw revenue if the AFL does it right.

Perhaps it's just that cricket doesn't translate as well as a female sport for spectators? And won't make revenue because of that.

FTR I think that both viewpoints (1. that it needs more exposure and can be profitable, & 2. that it already gets plenty of exposure and it's throwing money away) are valid

I guess only time will tell.

Tbh it's already getting a huge amount of more money and exposure than its "earned" and asking for more is being a bit greedy

 

[cnerd123]

Do we know how that got started for female MMA though? I have a feeling it was already a lot more popular, comparative to the Men's version, than women's cricket is. And brought a lot more money in as well.

I think your point is valid and that more coverage will inevitably help it's popularity somewhat, but comparing the financial validity of women's cricket to women's MMA is not really a great comparison. And some would argue that Women's cricket already gets far more coverage than it deserves, as this thread shows.

Dana White said women would never fight in the UFC

Then came along a woman everyone wanted to watch fight (Ronda). Then he built the division (now divisions), and put her on PPVs.

So while he had 1 star to build off, it was very much a case of giving the audience what they want before they knew they wanted it.

It's not really the same for cricket because you can't showcase woman's cricket alongside a men's cricket match, like you could with woman's MMA on a fight card featuring men as well. It's always going to have to be a separate event that you tune into. That's the problem. It's hard to put the product out to fans who aren't interested yet, when you need to get the fans to tune in to see it first.

There is definitely more coverage now. All things are pointing upwards. Might just be a matter of time before women's cricket becomes mainstream.

I do think they should get paid well first though. How else are they supposed to raise their game to a higher, more appealing standard. Men's cricket is where it is now after decades (if not a century?) of being a professional, reasonable paying sport. The first men's cricketers weren't of great standards, but they didn't have some other gender to be compared against. They were the best of the time. So they got the money they needed to go professional. Bit unfair on the women now to compare them to the men.

 

[Red]

Men's cricket is where it is now after decades (if not a century?) of being a professional, reasonable paying sport. The first men's cricketers weren't of great standards, but they didn't have some other gender to be compared against. They were the best of the time. So they got the money they needed to go professional. Bit unfair on the women now to compare them to the men.

This isn't true though. WSC happened when the players realised that all the money they were generating was going into the pockets of CA (or the ACB as it was known) rather than to them. They were getting paid next to nothing while packing out stadiums in the Lillee/Marsh/Chappell era.

 

[TheJediBrah]

I do think they should get paid well first though. How else are they supposed to raise their game to a higher, more appealing standard. Men's cricket is where it is now after decades (if not a century?) of being a professional, reasonable paying sport. The first men's cricketers weren't of great standards, but they didn't have some other gender to be compared against. They were the best of the time. So they got the money they needed to go professional. Bit unfair on the women now to compare them to the men.

They didn't. They had to have other jobs.

 

[Starfighter]

***** does indeed seem to be forgetting that the Australian team were amateurs up until after WSC. The match fees weren't exactly great either, I think generally being in the $200 sort of range.

 

[quincywagstaff]

Heard the Ed Cowan interview and it just underlined this isn’t about pay and conditions but about the concept of whether the players are ‘partners’ in the game, with CA obviously resentful of this. It has become a bafflingly idiotic battle of ego.

Can’t say Cowan was that impressive in the interview, and this was despite Slater not being particularly skilful in his questioning and counter-arguments.

Despite Cowan being emphatic that it was all about the players being partners and revenue-sharing, he then went on to complain about the lot of domestic-only cricketers, including apparently having to live close to the SCG for training purposes being a major imposition. And Cowan did state that domestic players who also play Big Bash earn about 150k a year; are the public really going to feel sympathetic about players who can earn that much annually when they never represent Australia?

As I’ve said previously, CA have acted arrogantly and abrasively throughout this process and deserve little sympathy. But as this drags on to a likely disastrous conclusion, I’m finding it hard to have much empathy for how ACA have handled all this.

 

[social]

Heard the Ed Cowan interview and it just underlined this isn’t about pay and conditions but about the concept of whether the players are ‘partners’ in the game, with CA obviously resentful of this. It has become a bafflingly idiotic battle of ego.

Can’t say Cowan was that impressive in the interview, and this was despite Slater not being particularly skilful in his questioning and counter-arguments.

Despite Cowan being emphatic that it was all about the players being partners and revenue-sharing, he then went on to complain about the lot of domestic-only cricketers, including apparently having to live close to the SCG for training purposes being a major imposition. And Cowan did state that domestic players who also play Big Bash earn about 150k a year; are the public really going to feel sympathetic about players who can earn that much annually when they never represent Australia?

As I’ve said previously, CA have acted arrogantly and abrasively throughout this process and deserve little sympathy. But as this drags on to a likely disastrous conclusion, I’m finding it hard to have much empathy for how ACA have handled all this.

Yeah pretty much

Seems obvious to me that players don't trust CA, particularly wrt revenue projections and what they will do with their share

Tough tomale really

Worst case: settle for a massive guaranteed sum for distribution, move on and if CA hose the rest up against a wall then so be it

Has to be a better option than arguing endlessly about ideology

 

[cnerd123]

yea Aussie players have had it bad for a while huh? I was thinking more about County cricket I guess for some reason. Professional Cricketer is a very recent thing in Australian cricket history.

 

[social]

yea Aussie players have had it bad for a while huh? I was thinking more about County cricket I guess for some reason. Professional Cricketer is a very recent thing in Australian cricket history.

Breaking point was roughly '72 Ashes tour where players received less than minimum wage

Those conditions made WSC an attractive proposition

Despite an improvement thereafter, I played with a fringe test cricketer who lived at home with his Mum just so that he could afford to play cricket full time in the late 80s

 

[TheJediBrah]

yea Aussie players have had it bad for a while huh? I was thinking more about County cricket I guess for some reason. Professional Cricketer is a very recent thing in Australian cricket history.

Breaking point was roughly '72 Ashes tour where players received less than minimum wage

Those conditions made WSC an attractive proposition

Despite an improvement thereafter, I played with a fringe test cricketer who lived at home with his Mum just so that he could afford to play cricket full time in the late 80s

It's pretty amazing that Australia were competitive back then when you think about it

 

[Starfighter]

Jeff Thomson said in a cricinfo interview that when he was getting paid $200 a test match he'd get paid $400 for a victory with his club football side.

The side in South Africa in 69/70 were offered $200 each to play a fifth test match, they asked for $400 and the match never happened.

I was thinking more about County cricket I guess for some reason.

Conditions in England weren't rosy either. I'm not bothered to rustle up any post war statistics, but Fred Root wrote that in the twenties he was paid £300 a year and had to pay all expenses. I don't know how that compares to the average income of the time (I can only find adjusted figures) but it's hardly superstar amounts.

Men's cricket is where it is now after decades (if not a century?) of being a professional, reasonable paying sport.

From Root:

It is popularly supposed that there is quite a lot of money in first-class cricket. If there is, I have not found it. It is the worst paid of all the professional games.

The only people who made good money were some of the amateur types (like WG Grace) who often had a lot of money to start off with and who could demand 'expenses' well in excess of any pro's pay, or in later years shilled for whatever product (like Denis Compton and Brylcreem).

 

[social]

It's pretty amazing that Australia were competitive back then when you think about it

Everyone was in roughly the same boat

I was offered a county contract in the early 80s at 3k for the season

To put that into perspective, a basic office job paid 10k and most pros had to work in winter to make ends meet

Cricket boards ripped the players off for more than a century

 

[flibbertyjibber]

Everyone was in roughly the same boat

I was offered a county contract in the early 80s at 3k for the season

To put that into perspective, a basic office job paid 10k and most pros had to work in winter to make ends meet

Cricket boards ripped the players off for more than a century

You even had England players who played in the summer and missed tour squads having to get jobs in winter. Wasn't well paid back then.

Insert joke that there would have been about 30 of them who missed the winter given how they chopped and changed the side all the time.

 

[vic_orthdox]

Yeah pretty much

Seems obvious to me that players don't trust CA, particularly wrt revenue projections and what they will do with their share

How would you? They've under projected for the previous agreement, and trying to roll the surplus amount into the current deal.

 

[Starfighter]

How would you? They've under projected for the previous agreement, and trying to roll the surplus amount into the current deal.

Yes, this is one thing that's being missed. They're basically trying to retroactively retract the old deal as well.

 

[Burgey]

Everyone was in roughly the same boat

I was offered a county contract in the early 80s at 3k for the season

To put that into perspective, a basic office job paid 10k and most pros had to work in winter to make ends meet

Cricket boards ripped the players off for more than a century

One of he great ironies of he whole WSC thing was Bradman was prepared to toss in playing for Australia in the early 30s to secure his financial future, but 40 years later when he was quite obviously a millionaire administrator tested the ACB's money like it was his own.

 

[Top_Cat]

**** you I got mine - old man logic.

 

[Spikey]

iirc the don only became a **** when he moved to sa

 

[quincywagstaff]

For those wanting an overview of Australian cricket in the 1970s and the growing discontent amongst the players, this early 2000s documentary is a pretty good summation.