Girls playing with boys?

[Neil Pickup]

Ahh. Chauvinism. What a ridiculous thing to whinge about - christ, it's the FIRST XI. That means the best eleven. No barrier of any kind...

 

[magsi23]

Best title ever

lol i thought exactly the same

 

[The Baconator]

Not really the same thing at all, but we had to have a girl in some league we played in at primary school. Most of them were fairly bad, my teacher once retired me because I kept picking out one in the field, where she'd miss it most times saying I was being "unfair". Ours was alright though, I think she actually tried to find some way of playing for a proper club but gave up cos she couldn't find owt.

 

[Perm]

If she is good enough then she should be allowed to play but I can understand where the Old Boy is coming from, I mean are boys are allowed to play rugby for the Girls 1st XV? No they aren't.

 

[Neil Pickup]

If she is good enough then she should be allowed to play but I can understand where the Old Boy is coming from, I mean are boys are allowed to play rugby for the Girls 1st XV? No they aren't.

This is like comparing sumo-wrestling with chess.

 

[Jamee999]

Tbh, the fact there is a girl's XI is because girls are naturally less strong, and so are at a natural disadvantage, so boys playing in it would be unfair.

It's like asking why Pietersen can't play in your local U11 league, when an U11 COULD play in the England team.

 

[Burgey]

i'd still go as far to say that 1st CAS/GPS would definately be on par with about 3rd grade cricket... perhaps 4th

You're kidding aren't you?

Since Stan McCabe, how many GPS/ CAS players have risen to international level? I think Matthew Nicholson and Phil Emery are probably the only 2 who spring to mind. Could be mistaken though.

Playing for CHS, it was always a giggle to play GPS/ CAS.

Anyway, good luck to her. As for those saying why can't guys then play in women's softball teams, netball teams, etc., the point really is that a number of elite female athletes want to test themselves against the blokes to see if they can compete against the (generally) physically stronger males. For example, Michelle Wie and Annika Sorenstam on the US PGA tour.

 

[age_master]

nope i went to st andrews in town. possibly the worst cricket school this side of the equator. We did produce daniel rixon but. but hardly produced him. that was his dad.

Dont forget our greatest ever cricketer in VV

It was always entertaining watching Daniel keep up to the stumps to our opening bowlers when he did play with us though.

 

[age_master]

Where girls usually lose out is on the athleticism - less muscular build, etc. Not so much of a factor in cricket, at least at lower levels.

Field hockey's another example where athleticism doesn't necessarily play a large part - mixed leagues are popular right up to university level.

The argument against allowing boys to play in (girls') netball teams is that boys are (generally/potentially!) superior in terms of athleticism - it would be akin to allowing a 19yo boy to play in the aforementioned U17 team.

I'm not saying that all girls can't run - I'm talking averages here. For example, I've played in mixed hockey games where some of the girls could simply run rings around me...and have done

We played tennis against (and with) girls at school, a sport which is spot at professional levels, as is hockey. There are certainly plenty of mixed netball and touch football competitions going round. I see no reason why boys shouldn't be allowed to play in those sports if they wanted too, its only fair surely?

If you want the best 1st XI to include a girl in cricket surely you could allow a boy to be part of your best VII in netball, or your best (however many) softball team?

 

[Neil Pickup]

Tbh, the fact there is a girl's XI is because girls are naturally less strong, and so are at a natural disadvantage, so boys playing in it would be unfair.

It's like asking why Pietersen can't play in your local U11 league, when an U11 COULD play in the England team.

That's a dismal, dismal effort at an argument. The fact that there is an U11 XI is because little kids are less strong, are at a natural disadvantage, so adults playing in it would be unfair. Pietersen can't play U11 because he's 26. Under-X age groups are restricted in the same way as girls teams are - extra chances for people to develop who aren't good enough to play 1st - UNRESTRICTED - XI. There is nothing stopping women playing men's International cricket except lack of ability to date.

11 year olds play adult cricket on merit. 8 year olds play adult cricket. First years play First XI cricket at Public Schools where age group provision still exists because they're good enough. What's the point in a girl playing girls' cricket against a bunch of incompetents who she can destroy with no effort when she can compete evenly with boys? None.

 

[Kweek]

hmm...

we've had two girls in our team from 1st year U15, till last year.(1st year U18 so in total 3 years) (we had a U13 girls team before that, and in U10 its all mixed anyway)
for one it added enormous in teamspirit, thats what girls do, they tend to make it that way, that it's enjoyable for them, so it was all good fun.
one girl to be fair, was ****, she scored 10 runs in a season, got 2 wickets and 200 runs against her ,dropped ???? amount of catches, but all was in good spirit.
the other girl I got herself to Holland U21 ladies.
she was joined highest wicket taker twice and could bat a bit, and fielding was fine.
while we guys tried to bowl as fast as we could, she just tried to be accurate, and it showed off.
we played a girl that now plays for Holland ladies(not so hot level but still decent)
and everytime we played her, none of us could get her out, and she'd easly score 30/40 against us without getting out.

Girls in boys cricket...why not, aslong as they don't take the level down, I don't see a problem.

 

[Dasa]

No way. I don't subscribe the the PC **** that Women's cricket can be as interesting and exciting as Men's. I was bored out of my head when I was watching the Women's test match, and to be honest, women just wouldn't be able to cope with the pace of mens bowling. I can quite freely admit that the England Women's opener could hit me for fours all day, but I still believe that they should be kept well apart.

Sounds a lot like separate but equal...

 

[Slow Love™]

That's a dismal, dismal effort at an argument. The fact that there is an U11 XI is because little kids are less strong, are at a natural disadvantage, so adults playing in it would be unfair. Pietersen can't play U11 because he's 26. Under-X age groups are restricted in the same way as girls teams are - extra chances for people to develop who aren't good enough to play 1st - UNRESTRICTED - XI. There is nothing stopping women playing men's International cricket except lack of ability to date.

11 year olds play adult cricket on merit. 8 year olds play adult cricket. First years play First XI cricket at Public Schools where age group provision still exists because they're good enough. What's the point in a girl playing girls' cricket against a bunch of incompetents who she can destroy with no effort when she can compete evenly with boys? None.

I could be mistaken, but I think Jameee was agreeing with you, rather than trying to make a counter-argument. I think he was just explaining why it wouldn't work the other way, and you wouldn't have a guy playing in the girls' comp.

 

[vic_orthdox]

WRT the private school thing, in Melbourne the APS (equivalent of the GPS) is about halfway between 3rd and 4th XI in our District Competition, although 4ths is our lowest level. I personally see the merits in playing school cricket, as it provides a stepping stone between junior and senior cricket, especially if you play as a year 10 or 11 against older players.

I think another thing that is overlooked often with development is nurturing the ability for a player to "dominate" as such, and be the number one player who the others depend on quite a bit. This is something else school cricket can facilitate.

I personally think that a mix of club and school cricket worked really well and provided a good balance.

 

[Burgey]

WRT the private school thing, in Melbourne the APS (equivalent of the GPS) is about halfway between 3rd and 4th XI in our District Competition, although 4ths is our lowest level. I personally see the merits in playing school cricket, as it provides a stepping stone between junior and senior cricket, especially if you play as a year 10 or 11 against older players.

I think another thing that is overlooked often with development is nurturing the ability for a player to "dominate" as such, and be the number one player who the others depend on quite a bit. This is something else school cricket can facilitate.

I personally think that a mix of club and school cricket worked really well and provided a good balance.

I think you're right with the balance thing. The only problem is that GPS schools (not sure re CAS but think its the same) make students play sport for them on Saturdays, the same day as Club and Grade cricket is played. So there's not much of a balance.

Does a background of playing in schools-only comps produce hard enough players in Australia? The evidence from Rugby Union, where most of the players for senior representative teams are drawn from private schools, would seem to suggest not.

 

[Burpey]

WRT the private school thing, in Melbourne the APS (equivalent of the GPS) is about halfway between 3rd and 4th XI in our District Competition, although 4ths is our lowest level. I personally see the merits in playing school cricket, as it provides a stepping stone between junior and senior cricket, especially if you play as a year 10 or 11 against older players.

I think another thing that is overlooked often with development is nurturing the ability for a player to "dominate" as such, and be the number one player who the others depend on quite a bit. This is something else school cricket can facilitate.

I personally think that a mix of club and school cricket worked really well and provided a good balance.

Some interesting points there, Jack. I don't know about in Melbourne but I assume it's the same, but the Sydney grade system basically nurtures players from the age of 15, with each club having a Green Shield squad (Under 16's) and Poidevin-Gray Shield squad (Under 19's) each summer. I see this as a more effective stepping stone than school cricket, though it depends on your school and club I guess. I would say in general the training and coaching regime would be much stronger in a club than in a school. Even the richest schools wouldn't pour that much money into their cricket program so to rival the atmosphere at a cricket club.

I do take your point about "dominating", though in the end it could render someone a bit of a bully in the Hayden mould brought back down the Earth when they hit a touger stage.

 

[vic_orthdox]

See, in Melbourne the U/16 and U/18 programs are a lot more limited than in NSW (both are only one week carnivals, although until recently U/16s was two weeks), and only involve four games, maximum of 5 if you make the final. This is a massive downfall of the Victorian system, IMO.

So basically, if you're not at a private school, you end up down at your local club for a few years and then eventually head to a district club, or you head to a district club at 16/17 and end up playing a lot of 3rds and 4ths cricket.

The other thing that makes the standard of school cricket hard to gauge is that you will get quite a few players well above your 3rd grade cricketers, and talent wise there are very few guys who would play 4ths (or 5ths) but there's still a lot of dumb cricket.

 

[Slats4ever]

Ahh. Chauvinism. What a ridiculous thing to whinge about - christ, it's the FIRST XI. That means the best eleven. No barrier of any kind...

can guys play in the first XI netball team in your world Neil?

 

[Slats4ever]

You're kidding aren't you?

Since Stan McCabe, how many GPS/ CAS players have risen to international level? I think Matthew Nicholson and Phil Emery are probably the only 2 who spring to mind. Could be mistaken though.

Playing for CHS, it was always a giggle to play GPS/ CAS.

Anyway, good luck to her. As for those saying why can't guys then play in women's softball teams, netball teams, etc., the point really is that a number of elite female athletes want to test themselves against the blokes to see if they can compete against the (generally) physically stronger males. For example, Michelle Wie and Annika Sorenstam on the US PGA tour.

the argument isn't about who rises to play for Australia though! It's about the standard of school cricket versus grade cricket buddy. Nothing of what you said about past players having played GPS/CAS really says that they're not the standard of 3rd/4th grade

 

[Dydl]

You read my mind! If the girl is good, why can she not play? But, if she isn't all that good, then its a whole different story!

I agree 100%. I remember when I was in the U12s and 13s in the SEJCA comp, we had two girls playing for us, and they were the only two in the comp. One was half-time keeper (didn't have a full-time keeper yet, too early) and the other would keep if required. When not keeping, they fielded just as well as the boys and bowled equally as well, if not better. I remember vividly when the younger girl got their best batsman out LBW in their first game and ball of the season for like 40 and then another wicket the following over. We won the game because of that breakthrough (he was in the rep team and was also the fastest bowler in the comp...) so with them particularly, there was no direct disadvantage. To Ian Healy's niece, I say good on her. From the clips on Channel 9 News, she looks a great player.