*Unofficial* New Zealand Black Caps Thread

[ataraxia]

I think a main reason women's cricket isn't followed so much, especially at the domestic level, is because of its low quality. It definitely draws me away from paying attention to a match when a loopy straight breaker comes on and goes at 5 an over in the Super Smash. Obviously, increasing the pay - by that much - results in it being a more worthwhile job, and will increase the quality of women's cricket in NZ significantly.

Reckon NZC should look at upgrading both Super Smashes to franchise level; coordinate with the WBBL so it's the opposite side of the summer to the Women's Super Smash and go from there.

 

[Flem274*]

Women's T20 is unironically better to me than men's tbh.

ODIs up there too. They're like 2002 all over again.

I do hope the professionalization gets women bowling consistently 120-130 though. Looking forward to some genuinely athletic women's quicks. Shut down netball tbh. Pretend basketball is a waste of tall women .

 

[RossTaylorsBox]

Lol weird how "you make what you earn" is brought up only in this particular scenario.

 

[Shady Slim]

It’s stupid. It goes against the simple economics of why sports “people” are paid what they are paid. This isn’t a Men vs Women thing at all.

The best example I heard this morning was a comparison between the NBA and the NBL (two different basketball leagues for people that might not know) The average salary in the NBA is 8 million dollars a year. While the average salary in the NBL is only 100 thousand. Why? They’re both full time professional athletes that train just as hard as each other….

It’s because one league has an annual revenue of 8 billion dollars a year while the other makes 18 million a year. You make what you earn and in this case they make a **** ton more

The same goes for cricket. The men have much bigger live crowds, muuuuuch bigger tv audiences. They just bring in more money, and now they’re getting paid the same as the women who don’t. Makes absolutely no sense.

"the whites are much more qualified, and work much more prestigious jobs, than children of the stolen generation. they just bring in more money..."

 

[Magrat Garlick]

of course these are numbers to be taken with a grain of salt like all broadcast figures but the video streaming figures from the WWC in March/April were apparently really good. not unreasonable that some of that drifts through to players.

Cricket News | ICC

Official source of ICC Cricket news, highlights, match reports, commentary, live scores, fixtures, videos and photos. Top stories, team rankings and more.

www.icc-cricket.com

besides, the wilt chamberlain argument that people will only watch the best of the best and that generates its own reward has even more holes in it than the standard nozick bullshit. you need a whole ecosystem of people to support professional sport, from the grassroots to the very top. You could argue that the standards would be diminished slightly if the revenue that the top players get is shared over a wider fanbase, but counter to that if women see no pathway to the top for themselves or aren't welcome in the sport due to specious and dull arguments like these, then they aren't gonna get involved. that means you've cut yourself off from a good 25% (given we're apparently only talking economic power here it seems) of the revenue base.

 

[GotSpin]

"the whites are much more qualified, and work much more prestigious jobs, than children of the stolen generation. they just bring in more money..."

Saw cricinfo and I came in here for Shady. I'm not left disappointed

 

[GotSpin]

I think a main reason women's cricket isn't followed so much, especially at the domestic level, is because of its low quality. It definitely draws me away from paying attention to a match when a loopy straight breaker comes on and goes at 5 an over in the Super Smash. Obviously, increasing the pay - by that much - results in it being a more worthwhile job, and will increase the quality of women's cricket in NZ significantly.

Reckon NZC should look at upgrading both Super Smashes to franchise level; coordinate with the WBBL so it's the opposite side of the summer to the Women's Super Smash and go from there.

Things like short boundaries are ridiculous in womens cricket

I think they're quite skilled in certain facets of the game - Especially since they need to make up for the lack of power- but some of the most attractive parts of cricket, like hostile fast bowling or really powerful batting, is just non existent in the womens game.

Watching dibbly dobblers being delightfully late cut can get a little repetitive. It's like watching a team bowling like Chris Harris all day

I don't mind it as an investment...probably can't run around and complain about inequality though when theyre not generating the same revenue and are being subsidised by the men

 

[Neil Young]

It’s stupid. It goes against the simple economics of why sports “people” are paid what they are paid. This isn’t a Men vs Women thing at all.

The best example I heard this morning was a comparison between the NBA and the NBL (two different basketball leagues for people that might not know) The average salary in the NBA is 8 million dollars a year. While the average salary in the NBL is only 100 thousand. Why? They’re both full time professional athletes that train just as hard as each other….

It’s because one league has an annual revenue of 8 billion dollars a year while the other makes 18 million a year. You make what you earn and in this case they make a **** ton more

The same goes for cricket. The men have much bigger live crowds, muuuuuch bigger tv audiences. They just bring in more money, and now they’re getting paid the same as the women who don’t. Makes absolutely no sense.

But, it's an investment, isn't it? Paying women domestic cricketers 3k a year is simply not viable from the cricketer's perspective. Now they can dedicate more time to their game, improve their game, better spectacle, more revenue, better pay, improve their game, better spectacle, more revenue...

 

[Flem274*]

Things like short boundaries are ridiculous in womens cricket

agreed, and i don't think they need them anymore. they're pretty patronising.

sure, lots less sixes will be hit and replaced by fours instead....but i don't have an issue with that. it's pretty dumb when players like sophie devine are bombing sixes well over the 2012 standard ropes. women will never hit like the men but they're hitting it noticeably further now thanks to professionalization, modern bats and giving them better pitches etc.

i guess with the mens boundaries creeping inwards around the world, the womens will only get shorter.

 

[Flem274*]

of course these are numbers to be taken with a grain of salt like all broadcast figures but the video streaming figures from the WWC in March/April were apparently really good. not unreasonable that some of that drifts through to players.

I just had the thought that viewers have never been easier to catch as well. Everyone under 50 multi screens these days. Every weekend we have 2-3 screens following the Rugby, NRL and often an AFL game. Over summer we had several cricket games running including obv womens cricket.

It's a great era to watch sports tbh.

 

[Bahnz]

It's also just a solid investment bet from the point of view of trying to grow the fan base for the sport. Cricket in NZ has such a miniscule following amongst women, much moreso than in England or Australia. Looking to grow women's cricket is probably the best way to promote interest in the men's game as well.

 

[HeathDavisSpeed]

It's also just a solid investment bet from the point of view of trying to grow the fan base for the sport. Cricket in NZ has such a miniscule following amongst women, much moreso than in England or Australia. Looking to grow women's cricket is probably the best way to promote interest in the men's game as well.

Yep. I've noticed a decent increase in women at live games in recent years and I think that publicised changes like this will help move things in that direction. The women's super smash is still a pretty poor product as each team is too heavily reliant on their one or two star players. Making it possible for women to commit professionally to domestic cricket - at least over the summer - should hopefully lead to a significant improvement --> more fans for the women's game and, ultimately, more fans for cricket in general. I suspect they've done the analysis (at least I'd hope) and determined that there's a net financial positive in the long run anyway, absolutely countering Howsie's initial response.

 

[Athlai]

My nephews started playing cricket last summer and about 30% of the players were young girls. It's great for the game.

 

[_Ed_]

That's great to hear - such a big improvement on when I was a kid, and the only options my sister had were netball or hockey.

 

[thundaboult]

Black Caps fast bowler Tim Southee the butt of Virat Kohli's sledge at Jonny Bairstow

Tim Southee was the butt of Virat Kohli’s sledge at Jonny Bairstow, who scored his third successive ton, but India are in command against England.

www.stuff.co.nz

didn't help much tho did it virat

 

[SteveNZ]

But, it's an investment, isn't it? Paying women domestic cricketers 3k a year is simply not viable from the cricketer's perspective. Now they can dedicate more time to their game, improve their game, better spectacle, more revenue, better pay, improve their game, better spectacle, more revenue...

If only everyone could see it this way.

How the hell are women meant to improve their skills without the necessary resources (ie time and money) to do so?

I really feel like you can spot a Neanderthal by the comment 'do they create the same revenue?'.

And the NBA/NBL comparison that Howsie gave is way off. Those are two different leagues in different parts of the world. NZC are charged with the viability of both the men's and women's game, and that is not just a financial responsibility. If the revenue from the men's game needs to be redistributed to the women to ensure they are able to build a better product and have the utmost opportunity to be as good as they can be, then I for one are 100% for it and I can't see why anyone else isn't.

Women's cricket is, and now will continue to be, a great product. The World Cup was great, I really enjoyed it. Australia play a really entertaining brand of cricket. I haven't watched much T20 but I'm sure it's alluring to fans.

Giving more money to women's cricket is a victimless strategy, unless you have a fragile male ego.

 

[Chubb]

If equal pay helps create more depth in the women's game in NZ that's a great thing. The womens T20 is fun but the gap between the top players and the rest is really obvious. Sophie Devine is a great batter, but it's not really challenging for her to destroy an attack of teenagers bowling loopy legbreaks.

 

[Howsie]

If only everyone could see it this way.

How the hell are women meant to improve their skills without the necessary resources (ie time and money) to do so?

I really feel like you can spot a Neanderthal by the comment 'do they create the same revenue?'.

And the NBA/NBL comparison that Howsie gave is way off. Those are two different leagues in different parts of the world. NZC are charged with the viability of both the men's and women's game, and that is not just a financial responsibility. If the revenue from the men's game needs to be redistributed to the women to ensure they are able to build a better product and have the utmost opportunity to be as good as they can be, then I for one are 100% for it and I can't see why anyone else isn't.

Women's cricket is, and now will continue to be, a great product. The World Cup was great, I really enjoyed it. Australia play a really entertaining brand of cricket. I haven't watched much T20 but I'm sure it's alluring to fans.

Giving more money to women's cricket is a victimless strategy, unless you have a fragile male ego.

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.

 

[RossTaylorsBox]

Go to bed old man

 

[Neil Young]

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.

The NBA/WNBA comparison is a strange one. You appear to think (apologies if I'm wrong) that the NBA is some bastion of free-market capitalism. It is anything but. The reasons - the ONLY reasons - teams are profitable in that league is the salary cap and the draft system.

The whole NBA profit lark is completely manufactured (rightly or wrongly) and bears no absolutely no comparison with men's/women's cricket in NZ. Remove the NBA salary cap, all the foreign (non American) owners come in with their sports-washing/country promoting ways and, boom, teams are no longer profitable as wages increase out of sight, and the few richer teams rise to the top and stay there. Forever. Until a new richer owner comes along. The whole revenue generation/salary argument folds rather quickly once this happens. See any number of European football clubs and competitions as examples.

Speaking of football, women's football is now the fastest growing sport in the UK. This follows investment by both the FA and the clubs at both grass-roots and professional level. Rocket science it isn't.