England v Pakistan Women ODI, 3rd July 2013

Please be warned, this is not a Proper Match Report – if you want one of those, check out Cricinfo's. 

The following, if this is not too great a claim, owes something to the work of Alan Gibson.

Off I went yesterday to Loughborough from Surrey, a fair distance (though I nearly missed my train thanks to the woman in front of me appearing to check for a sell-by date on the ticket machine). It was an intrepid journey, only to be attempted by a diehard women's cricket fan (I wouldn't have gone if it was in the The North). England Women were playing Pakistan Women at Loughborough University in the second of two ODIs, with two T20Is to follow tomorrow.

Loughborough is the home of the ECB's National Cricket Performance Centre, and a lovely pitch, as it turns out. The main problem was the complete lack of signage when I arrived on campus. International women's cricket matches are rare breeds and some kind of sign proclaiming the presence of the match, with directions, would have helped me and many others a great deal. I ended up having to follow my ear, which fortunately can detect the sound of leather on willow from 100 miles away; a necessity that culminated in me peering through the large hedge at the side of the pitch, rather like a bizarre cricket stalker. It was all rather exciting.

Eventually I followed the hedge round the corner and found the entrance. By the time I arrived, Pakistan had won the toss and chosen to bat, and were already several overs into their innings. I settled on the grass. Meanwhile Nahida and Javeria Khan, the openers, took Pakistan to 34. No wickets lost, but it took them 12 overs to get there. At a run rate of 2.8 an over, I decided it was safe to eat my sandwich. It wasn't. The ball after I opened my sandwich (the last of that 12^th over), Javeira Khan was bowled by Brindle, for 17. Sorry if you want more details than that, I didn't really see it, if I'm honest. (Sandwiches require concentration.)

Edwards put Natalie Sciver on to bowl the next over. She was playing in only her second international match, but she looked an absolute natural, if you ask me. A reasonable pace, and very accurate. In her second over, she took 2 wickets: Nain Abidi, caught by Brindle at extra cover for 1, and Nahida Khan, caught by Edwards at mid-off for 17. She followed this up a few overs later with a wicket-maiden, bowling Asmavia Iqbal for 1. Pakistan were 45-4 at the end of the 18^th over.

Sciver finished with figures of 3-28, in 9 overs. It was a lovely performance and I was pleased to see it. I was also pleased to see that, of the group of ten-year-olds sat at the top of the mound watching the match, the ones watching Sciver's bowling most intently were the girls. “It might be you one day, kiddo!” I wanted to shout. (Only, along with my earlier hedge-peering incident, that might have been a bit too far. As well as making me sound at least 20 years older than I actually am.)

Sana Mir and Bismah Maroof went on to build a bit of a partnership, and took Pakistan to 95 before Mir was out, bowled by Brindle. I liked watching Sana Mir bat. England's bowling was tight, and the run rate was only about 2 an over at this point, but she wasn't having any of it. She blamed the bat. To be fair, the over after she changed bats she did hit three fours in a row. But the over after that she was bowled, so I think the bowling probably had something to do with the run rate as well.

Pakistan finished on 155-6. Positives: they batted out the 50 overs, and Bismah Maroof finished on 57*. Negatives: not a great total. The required run rate for England was only just over 3 an over.

Another positive: I managed to find Starbucks and the toilet during the innings break. I told you I was intrepid.

I went to sit on the other side of the pitch to watch England's innings. I'm glad I did, because the commentary on the second half of the game, provided by the people around me, was absolutely unmissable. Brindle and Edwards were opening for England, and began by taking the score to 51-0 in the first ten overs. It was quite overcast by this point – I was FREEZING – so I turned to look at the Duckworth-Lewis score on the scoreboard. It was 16. I figured we were doing okay.

It was around about this point that Enid Bakewell walked by and said hello, and I was actually a little bit starstruck. It's kind of the equivalent of Botham strolling past during a match and cheerily waving at you. I almost missed Brindle being stumped off the bowling of Nida Dar in the 15^th over. Lottie got her half-century before being bowled, also by Dar. Then Greenway got out – England 107-3 – and the trouble started.

The run rate went right down. Okay, we only needed just above 1 an over, but was there any need to bat like it? The two ladies next to me clearly didn't think so. “I've played in better matches than this,” one of them declared, after Heather Knight had scored 2 in about 20 balls. “GET ON WITH ITTT.” I'd wager she's more of a fan of Pietersen than Boycott.

England were 135-4 after 33 overs when another of the spectators stood up. “It's like watching paint dry,” she declared. “I'm going for a walk”. She never returned.

The bloke a little bit along from me, holding a camera, also seemed somewhat on edge, but I later figured out it wasn't because of the run rate. “I can't bear to watch Lauren bat,” he told somebody. It turned out to be Lauren Winfield's dad; his daughter was playing in only her second ever international. In Monday's match, she had been out for 1, and he was clearly nervous. He calmed down a bit when she got into double figures (she finished on 15*, and I was impressed with what I saw).

England took the batting powerplay at 35 overs. “We might get up to 2 runs an over now! Horray!” said someone next to me. I think there was an element of sarcasm there. Anyhow, we did get up to 2 runs an over. Winfield even hit two fours. And Knight – who finished with 14 from 46 balls – ended up hitting the winning run, in the last ball of the 38^th over. England had won by 6 wickets with 72 balls remaining and the grumbling about the run rate seemed a little unnecessary. Maybe.

Sciver got Player of the Match. Thoroughly deserved. I stayed as the spectators dispersed, some of them still grumbling, no doubt, because if you can't grumble about the match afterwards, then what's the point in going? The Pakistani players were kicking a football around. Apparently they'd only just been taught this mysterious new sport; I was impressed. I was even more impressed by their cricket: their tight fielding in particular, and their general demeanour as a team, even in defeat.

As I tried to say in this cricinfo article, what matters isn't that they lost, but that they played at all. And the Pakistani family who turned up to watch the culmination of the match – mother, father, son, daughter, complete with giant Pakistan flag, all eagerly supporting their team,  and none of them minding a 6-wicket defeat, in the end – seemed to agree with me.

How to attract more women to cricket: a response

In Matt Cleary's latest post for Cricinfo's The Cordon, 'How to attract more women to cricket', he writes this:

As for attracting women to the games, it's not as hard as one might think. In spring and autumn, Australian race-tracks are filled with young women who go along to dress up and drink champagne, and have a bet on a horse and a laugh with their friends. They go to flirt and look at boys in suits. And it's all good. They spend a bunch of money and everyone's happy.

Surely cricket can have champagne bars. And boys in suits. And girls can learn to love the game and understand that you don't actually "watch" every ball or every movement on the field, because there's often not much going on and you would go blind.

I appreciate that Cleary is referring to the Australian context and, sadly, I have never set foot on Australian soil (one day, Aussies, one day). But the issue of attracting women to international cricket matches is a global one and as precisely the same gender imbalance applies at every men's cricket match in England I have ever attended, the methods we should use to tackle this imbalance are presumably also very similar.

I agree with Matt Cleary on one thing: we need to think seriously about how to encourage women to rock up at cricket games. But as a woman who attends matches every summer, and considers herself a big fan of the game, I'm not sure that I agree on the methods.

Here's the problem: women don't feel like we belong at cricket grounds. So how do we attract more women to cricket? I've compiled a bit of a list. It isn't exhaustive by any means, and it won't solve the problem overnight - but I reckon it might make a difference.

1. Don't assume cricket fans are men.
When you repeatedly receive emails from Lord's which begin "Dear Sir", it's a little awkward. Not to mention horribly outdated.

Newsflash: women like cricket too. There are far more female fans than there are women going to games. Maybe part of the problem is the cricket authorities assuming we don't want to watch the cricket, when actually, there might just be other reasons preventing us coming to matches.

2. Make cricket grounds child-friendly.
Not that this should be the case, but women are still often the ones left holding the babies. Newsflash #2: It's hard to travel to cricket matches with a baby. Couldn't those in charge make it a bit easier? Make the changing facilities a bit better. Provide space to put the buggies. Free baby food with every pint of Guinness (bleurgh). Anything to make it seem that babies at cricket matches are welcome, rather than a nuisance.

3. Have a few female club members show up.
You know those shots on TV when they zoom in on the members, and they're all men? I know you do; it happens every Test. It's not the greatest advert for county cricket clubs in the world, to be honest. It's also a little off-putting.

If there were more female club members, more women would attend matches. And then they'd be on the TV. And then more women would want to join the club. Win-win for the club, right?

Admittedly, I may be exaggerating this problem, because I spend most of my time at Lord's. Every single MCC member that you see is a bloke. And when you remember that the MCC only let in female members with great reluctance 14 years ago, it doesn't exactly make you feel at home.

All of which brings me on to my next point:

4. Make cricket grounds feel more "gender-neutral".
Women exist. Hello. We also play cricket, and have done since the 18th century. You wouldn't think that if you rocked up at any cricket ground round the world, and had a stroll round. Read the names on the gates. Look at the statues. Go inside and look at some of the photos on display.

Here's an idea: build a Rachael Heyhoe-Flint statue at Lord's, to honour her successful campaign for female membership of the MCC. Or put in an Enid Bakewell gate at Trent Bridge.

Anything to show that cricket grounds aren't exclusively male spaces. Because it sometimes feels that way at the moment.

5. Don't have female cheerleaders at the IPL.
When women watch (men's) cricket, do we see other women? Not very often. And when we do, who do we see? Stunningly beautiful, skinny, skimpily-dressed IPL cheerleaders. And you wonder why we don't want to rock up at the Oval in an "I love cricket" hoodie and jeans (the weather doesn't usually allow for less).

How about more female cricket presenters? How about more female commentators on TMS, and not just during women's tournaments? (The Sofa are better than most at this, which is encouraging, but nobody's perfect.) How about a female umpire or groundsman? How about having a woman ring the bell to signal the start of play at Lord's? Or - now this would be fun - have a woman announcer.

If we see women involved in cricket matches, and not just as objects of fawning male admiration, we might end up being more likely to come along.

6. Promote women's cricket.
I'm boringly predictable, aren't I? Good.

It's part of the same thing, really. The point is that those involved in the game need to show that women and cricket do mix, to disprove the feeling many women experience that we need to keep quiet about the fact that we love a game which "only men can really understand". If we can read every day about other women who play the game a damn sight better than most men we know, it'd be pretty encouraging.

Why do you think that the only matches with more female spectators than male are women's matches? It's because it's a place where women feel we are allowed to like cricket. If we felt the same at men's matches...well, you do the maths.


Finally, don't patronise us. I've understood the laws of cricket since I was 10. I may be female, but I don't need champagne or boys in suits to make me head to Lord's or The Oval on a summer weekend.

And, unlike my dad, who normally fits in a snooze somewhere between lunch and tea, I quite like watching every ball.

What Margaret Thatcher did for women's cricket

Margaret Thatcher died yesterday (as if you didn't know).

She was, in the words of the BBC's Nick Robinson, "a woman who inspired passion - both love and loathing." The twitter reaction proves as much.

I have my own political views, of course. But that isn't what this blog post is about and I will keep those to myself for the moment.

This post is about what Maggie did for women's cricket.


The Lords Taverners, in case you hadn't heard of them, are the UK's leading youth cricket and disability sports charity. Their mission is "to enhance the prospects of disadvantaged and disabled young people using cricket and other forms of sport and recreation to engage with them." In the last decade (according to wikipedia) they have raised and distributed over £30 million to schools, clubs and special needs organisations.

The Taverners was formed in 1950 by a group of actors, including Martin Boddey, the founding Chairman; they were drinking buddies at the Tavern pub next to Lord's Cricket Ground. From the very beginning, the members raised funds for grassroots cricket "through an eclectic mixture of showbusiness and cricket" - including, notably, cricket matches starring big names from both worlds. They also quickly established the tradition of granting the sitting Prime Minister honorary membership of their organisation.

But there was a rule. Only men could become members.


The Taverners had been around for 29 years when Thatcher became the UK's first female Prime Minister. No one expected it - least of all the Lords Taverners. It is unlikely that they had even thought about what to do if she won the 1979 general election.

Dilemma: How do you grant honorary membership of an all-male organisation to the standing PM, when the standing PM happens to be a woman?


Discussions took place behind the scenes well into the 1980s. It took a while to answer the question above, but in 1987, eight years into Thatcher's premiership, a solution was reached: the Lady Taverners, an all-female branch of the organisation, was formed, with Thatcher becoming Honorary Lady Taverner No. 1.

23 other women were also invited to join - those who had already had some involvement with the Lord's Taverners, some who were wives of male members, including Joan Morecambe (the first President), and possibly the best known female cricketer to ever play for England, Rachael Heyhoe-Flint.

Intriguingly, the Lady Taverners website states that "there was some opposition in the early days" to their formation. It's that old chestnut, isn't it, that women and cricket just don't mix. But Thatcher was Prime Minister, and suddenly they had to.


There are now over 1,000 members of the Lady Taverners and, much like their male counterparts, they have proved an incredibly effective fundraising body, donating over £12 million to various causes since their formation in 1987. There are other legacies too. It is perhaps natural that an all-female organisation, with Rachael Heyhoe-Flint as one of its earliest members, would choose to devote resources to the encouragement of girl's cricket. One recent example is their support of the ECB's national girls-only cricket competitions for U11, U13 and U15 girls, which have brought many girls into the game who might well otherwise have never picked up a bat.

And one more. Throughout the 1990s, Heyhoe-Flint led a campaign for female membership of the MCC, in the face of continued "no" votes from the members, who appeared to think that if women were allowed into the Long Room the world might end. It took until 1998 for the necessary two-thirds majority to be secured and a change in the MCC's constitution to be effected, paving the way for the first female members in 1999 (Heyhoe-Flint among them). From what I've read, Rachael's membership of the Lady Taverners greatly increased her credibility in the eyes of some MCC members - and it also provided her with several contacts who managed to drum up high-profile support for the campaign, such as Tim Rice, David Gower and Rory Bremner.


I haven't found any evidence to suggest that Thatcher was personally interested in women's cricket. But without her, the Lady Taverners would quite likely not exist, and it's possible that the MCC would still be the last bastion of misogyny in England. Maybe, just maybe, having a female Prime Minister did change a few things after all.


If you would like to find out more about the Lords or Lady Taverners, please visit their website: www.lordstaverners.org

On Raj, "Resting", and Player Rotation

India Women have just concluded a T20I series whitewash against Bangladesh, minus two of their leading players, Mithali Raj and Jhulan Goswami. Prior to the series, it was announced by the BCCI that they had not been selected. The word "dropped" was very carefully not used when the announcement was made. Instead, Gargi Banerjee, chair of the women's selection committee, stated that the two players were being "rested" for the course of the series.

This is an interesting use of the term and in my view, it calls into question broader issues about the "resting" of players in both women's and men's cricket.


The resting of players, or "rotation policy" as it has been termed, is a fairly recent phenomenon in the cricketing world. A trawl through recent history suggests that it has come into vogue largely since the introduction of T20Is into the cricketing calendar nine years ago, a fact that has not only increased the workload of players at international level, but has lured many into further loading their personal schedules by heading abroad to play in T20 leagues, notably the IPL.

Notable examples from the past 12 months include Anderson's exclusion from the squad for the third Test against the Windies in June 2012, the non-selection of Anderson, Swann and Trott for England's ODI series in India in January 2013, KP missing the New Zealand ODIs in February, and of course a number of high-profile decisions by Australia to rest players - including, possibly most controversially, Mitchell Starc, who missed the second Test against Sri Lanka in December 2012 after taking 5-63 in the first Test. I could go on...

But you might be wondering why it is that I haven't used a single example from women's cricket. Well, player rotation in women's cricket is practically non-existent. Why? Let's think for a minute about the chief reasons which have been put forward to explain why player rotation is now regularly practised in the men's game:

1. There is a hell of a lot of international cricket being played these days.

2. It prolongs the careers of players, in particular fast bowlers, if you don't select them for every single match.

3. Resting players will mean they perform optimally when they return to the side, and will possibly return hungrier for success.

4. It's a good idea to have a large pool of players to choose from, in case of injury (which is inevitably going to happen to your top players at some point). To improve the performances of your secondary players, they need to have as much international match experience as you can possibly give them.

5. It gives the fans and journos something to moan about.

None of these (bar reason 5, ahem) are applicable in the women's game. While it would be amazing to have a large player pool, in a sport where resources are stretched to the maximum and there is minimal funding, most squads for international tours contain only 15 players. Players cannot be rushed over from abroad mid-series, and, with only limited contracts available (this varies between countries), there is far less opportunity for new players to break into the squad at short notice.

Too much international cricket? The concept in women's cricket is, frankly, laughable. In 2012 Raj played 28 days of international cricket. Yes, 28. (By comparison, the top male players are playing for probably 10 months of every year, not including stints in the IPL.) The next series India are scheduled to play has not yet been fixed (such arrangements are often made at the last minute), but will most likely not be for several months. The women's game is crying out for MORE cricket, not less. This also invalidates reasons 2 and 3, because players by most measures simply do not play enough cricket to worry about being too tired to perform at their best, or having their careers cut short (for most women retirement still comes at a time when other commitments, such as the careers they are forced to have outside cricket, take over, and not when their bodies wear out).

In short, "resting" players in women's cricket is - right now, anyway - totally unnecessary.


Which leads me to think that ultimately, this whole thing isn't really about player rotation at all. What is it about? Banerjee said the following when questioned about the decision:

the seniors such as Mithali and Jhulan have played more than 100 ODIs. Also, they are 30 years [Raj is 30, Goswami is 29] and I don’t see them playing in the next World Cup, which is four years away. We have to look at the future.

Aside from the fact that 30 is hardly past it, especially for Raj, a batsman; that neither player looks past their prime; and that both performed admirably at the recent World Cup, in spite of the team's overall poor showing there, this throws into question the use of the word "rested". The term is totally inappropriate to describe what has happened to Raj and Goswami. They don't need rest (unless there's something going on behind the scenes with either player, which I doubt). They've been sidelined to make room for newer players.


There are wider issues at stake here. In my view there is nothing wrong with "resting" players in theory. The real problem with player rotation is that no one is quite clear precisely what it means, or when it is being used.

Is it only about giving players who look tired a rest, or is it also about not using players in formats of the game in which they are weakest? (Then again, isn't that just being "omitted", or "dropped"?) Is it partly about making players keener to compete for their place in the side, even if they don't feel tired? Should players miss whole series', or just individual games? Should it be used when there is a dead rubber, to "blood" new players? Should it be used against "lesser" teams, when there is a bigger series like the Ashes coming up?

Is it only really applicable to fast bowlers with a large workload? Do the players get a say in it? Who decides when a player needs rest? The player themselves? The coach? The sports scientists behind the scenes?

As far as I can see, no one has answered any of these questions satisfactorily.


This isn't the first time the term has been used deceptively. At the end of last year, Peter Siddle missed the Boxing Day Test. The selectors claimed at the time it was because he was being rested - but we later found out he was in fact already carrying an injury. This was deliberate deception on the part of the Australian administration. The concept of "player rotation" has also been used to justify the poor treatment of Usman Khawaja and Steve Smith, who were brought in for the first match of the ODI series and then discarded for the remainder. All this quite possibly explains why Inverarity is so touchy about use of the term "player rotation".

Inverarity reckons the fans and the media have no right to know if a player is being "rested" or is injured. In his words, in the press conference following the Test matches against Sri Lanka: "I don't think it's in the interests of the player to reveal every little niggle. Players don't want to be seen as vulnerable or physically suspect and we respect that. We'd rather take the heat than the players. We won't always say that he's got a bit of a bad knee because more can be made of it and it's awkward for the player." I happen to disagree with Inverarity here. I can't quite see the point of trying to cover up an injury when presumably it will come out at a late date anyway. Does being dishonest really benefit anybody in the long run?

But in any case, the trouble with so-called "Informed Player Management" is that it's not informed at all. I'm willing to bet that both Raj and Goswami, given the choice, would have bitten your right arm off to play those three T20Is. So what if it's "only" Bangladesh? They play so little cricket as it is that for these women, each time they get to walk out onto a cricket field in an Indian cricket shirt and represent their country is doubly, no, triply precious. It's obvious they had no involvement in the decision.

I think it's similar for male cricketers - because the risk always, of course, is that someone else will come in and do well, and possibly knock you out of the running. Anderson made it quite clear that he wanted to play in that third Test against the Windies. He didn't get to. Back in 2007, Kallis was "rested" for the T20 World Championship without being consulted first - and promptly quit as vice-captain. Presumably the vast majority of these decisions are made without input from players?

Do players even understand whether they are being rested or omitted due to lack of form? As Stuart MacGill said recently, in reference to the Australia selection policy:

I don’t think the rotation system has been clearly defined to the players. If it is clearly defined you might have a difference of opinion. For example, in one day cricket I thought the best way to stem to flow of runs was to take wickets, whereas John Buchanan thought it was to keep the run rate down. I disagreed with him, but I was comfortable with the selection policy at the time. I don’t think that same clarity can be claimed now.

The latest example of confusion came only yesterday. Matt Prior has been omitted from England's provisional squad for the Champions Trophy this summer. Eh?? This is the best wicketkeeper-batsman in world cricket, who has just miraculously saved a Test for England. Several people on twitter described this as "resting" Prior. Is it resting? Or do England still not consider him good enough to bat in this format? It would be helpful to know.


So, here's my point: the selectors, in both men's and women's cricket, need to come right out and actually say what they mean. Trying to obfuscate the issue by using the terms "rested" and "rotated" when what they really mean is "we lack faith in this player in this particular format", or even just plain "we have dropped this player", is not helpful for the players, the media or the fans. There are occasions when resting is appropriate, of course, and maybe it's fair enough to not have selected Raj or Goswami for a series against a weaker team like Bangladesh, and to bring in some newer players - but to use the term "rested" as a synonym for other issues is a problem. It doesn't tell the whole story, and it undermines the whole concept of player rotation.

We'd have one less thing to moan about, but it would be nice, all the same, for the selectors to practice a little bit of Informed Fan Management when it comes to player rotation.

A feminist analysis of Homeworkgate

Homeworkgate: noun. A controversy in which four Australian players (Watson, Pattinson, Johnson and Khawaja) were dropped for the third Test after failing to provide coach Mickey Arthur with feedback on their own and the team's performance in the humiliating loss against India.


We've all read about it and we've all (with the possible exception of some Australians) had a pretty good laugh about it. But what, precisely, is behind it all?

It's obvious that it's about more than just the failure to complete a piffling piece of homework set by Mickey Arthur. If that was all it was, it would, indeed, be the "very harsh" punishment Watson considers it to be, and the ridiculously drastic move it has been labelled by commentators and fans. But that's not the whole story.

So what is it about? The key is this statement from Clarke, in a press conference yesterday:

"I want the public and the media to understand...it's not just about one incident. Firstly on this tour our performances have been unacceptable and there has been some stuff off the field [that has been unacceptable] for the standards an Australian cricket team needs to present itself to achieve what we are trying to achieve...In my opinion, for the four players to not do it, not only does it let the team down, it also shows a lack of respect for the head coach and in the Australian cricket team that is unacceptable."

In my view it's not the lack of respect for the coach that really matters here. Homeworkgate is symptomatic of a more significant problem in Australian cricket: a lack of respect amongst a not insignificant group of players, influenced by the media and the fans, for their captain. Why is it lacking? With my feminist hat firmly in place I can safely say it's about something pretty damn fundamental: masculinity.


As many have pointed out, this is not the first time that Clarke has faced issues with other members of the Australian team. Previous form has included the infamous confrontation with Katich, the ending of Symonds' career, and the rumoured fall-out with Hussey following his retirement earlier this year. Pat Howard has also alluded to "difficulties" in the relationship between Michael Clarke and Shane Watson prior to this incident. In the media coverage of and fan reactions to all these incidents, Clarke has faced continued criticism. He has more often than not been portrayed as the one at fault. Why? His lack of "blokey" credentials.

The Katich scrap is the perfect example. Apparently what happened was this: following a match victory, Clarke wanted to leave the after-party in reasonable time in order to spend the evening with his girlfriend. Katich felt this was unreasonable, so to try and prevent him leaving he GRABBED HIM BY THE THROAT, and the whole thing escalated from there. Does this sound like reasonable behaviour on behalf of Katich? No. But in almost every media outlet "Katto" was portrayed as "the ultimate bloke's bloke", defending the team against the guy who wanted to betray them all by leaving the party a little early. No doubt the term "under the thumb" was bandied around too. Then, when Clarke became captain and Katich was dropped, Katto was again the mistreated hero of the hour.

This is important because we're talking about a nation where the cricket captaincy is, more than most, historically associated with masculinity. Greg Chappell. Allan Border. Steve Waugh. "Hard-nosed warriors that would rather hammer a slab in the dressing sheds than go anywhere near a cocktail party", as this article from the Sydney Morning Herald in November last year suggests. Clarke just doesn't match up to that traditional idea of what it means to be Australian cricket captain. He dates models. He takes his shirt off for TV ads. For goodness' sake, this is a guy who CRIED in a press conference after Ponting retired. (This is presumably why a lot of Aussies didn't want him as captain in the first place.)

Clarke has consistently defied the critics since he took over as captain - taking Australia from fifth place in the Test rankings to third, and scoring a mammoth 1595 runs, including four double-centuries, in a calendar year. But an incident like this one, in the midst of a disastrous and humiliating tour, seems to have brought to the surface some of those old doubts about his fitness to lead his country. Doubts that some within the Australian cricket team seem to me, in refusing to complete Clarke and Arthur's assignment, to share.


Homeworkgate is therefore, at its heart, about Clarke struggling to assert his authority over his team. Unfortunately, he has chosen to do this through his insistence on the importance of "thinking" to one's place in the team:

"We were asked to do one thing from the head coach. It was giving information back to the head coach about not only improving your game - what you've learnt from the first two Test matches - but also how can you help this team turn things around and have success...It was a very simple task. Yes, it took a lot of thinking because you had to look at your game and where you thought you could improve, what you had learnt and what you could do to help this team level this series."

Why unfortunately? Because as has become obvious, most fans and commentators disagree with Clarke here: the general feeling is that players should be concentrating on training, playing and physicality more generally - the very antithesis of the intellectual exercise which has given this whole incident its name, "homeworkgate". Or to put it another way: the Aussies are in India to play cricket, not to fill out bloody forms.

This incident has therefore had the unintended effect of serving to detract from Clarke's so-called "masculine" credentials even further. Why? Because intellectuality and traditional conceptions of manliness just do not mix. Clarke is seen as siding with the intellectuals, and Pattinson as the guy who has bowled his heart out for his country and been dropped for not doing the paperwork.

This is of course a ridiculous dichotomy. Cricket is a game where self-analysis is fundamental to improving your performance. Ducking Beamers said it better than I could in his blog on the subject:

"Mickey Arthur...wanted his cricketers to reflect and think about their game. It's a very common exercise in coaching - 'Tell me what you think you did wrong' - as it forces you to get out of habit and to see your flaws...this wasn't really that ridiculous an assignment at all - if you want a bunch of players who can analyze their strengths and weaknesses and express them clearly enough, then this makes perfect sense to me."

In this respect, the best cricketers are often NOT the most "manly" ones. They are the ones with the best cricket brains. But Clarke is still, it seems to me, facing the challenge yet again of having his masculinity, and thus the respect of the players, called into question.

If this all sounds a bit far-fetched, just look at what Osman Samiuddin said about the incident on twitter:

"I want views of Chappell, DK Lillee and Rod Marsh on punishments for not doing homework. This feels like a seminal moment in Aus manliness."

Cricinfo later included this in their article with the comment: "Osman Samiuddin says aloud what everyone else is thinking".

Sadly, I think they're right.

Where is Australian cricket going wrong? It's nothing to do with the captain and coach now being a laughing stock the world over, and everything to do with the fact that some key players do not have the respect for their captain that they should, seemingly for the most stupid of reasons. Did Australia's Southern Stars win the World Cup because Jodie Fields was the blokeist captain? Errr, no. They won because they played the best cricket. Clarke is a damn good cricketer and the other members of the team, the cricket media, and the fans, need to have a bit more respect for that. Stop questioning his manliness, stop questioning his authority, and start trying to win some cricket matches.

But then, I'm a feminist. So that's what I would say, isn't it?

5 pioneer women cricketers (in honour of International Women's Day)

1. Molly Hide 

One of the best women's cricketers the world has ever seen - and she played the game at a time when women were starved of the best coaching and resources. She played in 15 Tests, including the first ever women's Test match between England and Australia at Brisbane in 1934, and captained England from 1937 to 1954, when she retired.

Her batting was both graceful and powerful. She made two centuries in her career, at a time when this was a rare feat in women's cricket - the first against New Zealand at Christchurch in 1935 (when she also put on 235 with Betty Snowball, in a match which New Zealand lost by an innings and 337 runs), and the second against Australia at the SCG in 1949, in which she finished on 124*, and in the wake of which her portrait was hung in the SCG's pavilion. She also hit five international 50s.

She retired with an average of 36.33 and remained involved with women's cricket, becoming President of the Women's Cricket Association in 1973.

Neville Cardus witnessed her 124* against Australia in 1949, and later wrote: " I was completely astonished. The stroke-play seemed authentic; in fact, there was a grace and freedom in Molly Hide's batting that rather improved on the congested utilitarianism of many a county professional."

Probably my favourite ever female cricketer.


2. Diana Edulji

Aside from Mithali Raj, India's best ever female cricketer, in my view. If Hide pioneered the game in England, Edulji did so in India. She began her cricket in the 1970s, at a time when the game was widely ridiculed in Indian society, and her name is probably still synonymous with women's cricket in India.

Her international career spanned the years 1976 to 1993. A left-arm spinner, she played in 20 Tests and 34 ODIs. In Tests, she took 63 wickets at an average of 25.77; in ODIs 46 wickets at an average of 16.84. In 1993, she took 4-12 in a World Cup match against England - her best ever bowling performance in ODIs, and it came against the side playing in home conditions, who went on to win the World Cup.

Her best ever performance in Tests came against Australia, the best team in the world at the time, in Delhi in 1984 - only India's fifth Test. She took 6-64, and in the process broke the record for most wickets in women's internationals. She is still the third highest ever wicket taker in women's Test matches.

In an interview in 1987 she was asked about her future, and her marriage prospects. "I am married to cricket", she replied. She has gone on to be an administrator in women's cricket, and more recently partake in one of my favourite activities - criticism of the BCCI's treatment of female cricketers.

At the height of her career, she bowled to visiting men's teams from England and the West Indies, and both Clive Lloyd and Ian Botham are on record as saying that they did not believe that a woman could bowl so well until they faced Edulji.

A true great of women's cricket.


3. Myrtle Maclagan

The first true all-rounder in women's internationals. She played in 14 Tests, including the first ever Test match in 1934 alongside Molly Hide, making a total of 1007 runs and averaging 41.95, as well as taking 60 wickets at an average of 15.58. In the first ever women's Test she took 7-10, which remained a career-best, and was instrumental in England's victory.

Her batting was truly special. She hit the first ever women's century in the second women's Test at Sydney in 1935, and hit another in the Blackpool Test against the Australians when they toured England in 1937. She also made six international 50s.

Her career can be aptly summed up by the Morning Post's assessment, published in 1935, following England's loss in the men's Ashes:

What matter that we lost, mere nervy men
Since England's women now play England's game,
Wherefore Immortal Wisden, take your pen
And write MACLAGAN on the scroll of fame.


4. Betty Wilson

Arguably the greatest Australian female cricketer of all time and certainly the leading woman cricketer of her day. She played in 11 Tests between 1948 and 1958. Her debut against New Zealand in 1948 was spectacular: she scored 90 and took 4 for 27 and 6 for 28. During the 1949 Adelaide Test against England, she made 111 and took 9 wickets.

Her best performance, though, was against England in the 1958 Melbourne Test. During this game, she became the first cricketer, male or female, to take 10 wickets and make 100 runs in the same match. This included the first ever hat-trick by a woman in a Test.

She finished her career with 862 runs at an average of 57.46, and a total of 68 wickets at an average of 11.80.

Beyond all this, though, my favourite fact about Betty Wilson is probably the fact that she refused a marriage proposal to play in Australia's tour of New Zealand in 1948. When asked why, she responded: "Why would anyone get married in preference to playing cricket for Australia?"

The Australian Under-19 Championship is named the Betty Wilson Shield in her honour and in 2005 she was awarded an honorary baggy green.

She deserved it.


5. Grace Gooder

Little is known about Grace Gooder. She only played one Test for New Zealand, against England at Auckland in 1949. (This was at a time when New Zealand were the minnows of the women's game, participating in only four Tests in the course of 20 years between 1934 and 1954.)

But in that one Test, her sole shot at international stardom, as it turned out, Gooder took 6 wickets for 42 runs in 23.2 overs. Her wickets included three of England's most dangerous batsmen - Cecilia Robinson, Mary Duggan, and Grace Morgan.

It remains the third best bowling performance by a New Zealander in women's Test matches ever - and all at  a time when New Zealand could barely draw a Test. They went on to lose this one by 185 runs.

Gooder should have played more Tests, but she never got that opportunity. I think of her as symbolic of a whole generation of women for whom that was true.


Cricket is a game where many fans have an above average knowledge of its history. Unfortunately the early internationals of the women's game are largely forgotten. Today of all days, we should take a moment to remember Hide, Edulji, Maclagan, Wilson, Gooder, and those like them - the pioneers.

10 ways to identify a Cricket Misogynist

A week on from "PoshTelGate", here are 10 ways to spot that (hopefully) dying breed, the Cricket Misogynist.


1. They use the term "batswoman".

2. They rave about how hot Ellyse Perry is. Then, when you ask them how many international wickets she's taken, they have absolutely no idea, and don't really give a damn either.

3. They persistently refer to women's cricket as "ladies' cricket", then when you reciprocate by talking about "gentleman's cricket" they look at you like you're insane. (I mean, really. When was the last time you heard Charlotte Edwards or Suzie Bates refer to themselves as a "lady cricketer"?)

4. They find it hilarious to make puns about "fine legs", "slips", and "maidens" (not realising these jokes were already old 50 years ago). They also find it hilarious that you DON'T find it hilarious.

5. They refuse to criticise any female players, because "gosh, I didn't realise women could actually DO that. We need to celebrate this fabulous achievement."

6. They ask if women's cricket is played with a tennis ball. (The correct answer is, "no, and if it wasn't for female cricketers, Jimmy Anderson would currently be attempting to bowl reverse swing underarm." Another correct answer is to punch them, but the former is possibly more effective in the long-run.)

7. They offer to move the boundary rope in for the players before a women's match.

8. They agree to umpire in a women's game, then spend most of the match offering the players coaching tips and "encouragement" in between deliveries (such as patting them on the head when they score 4 runs).

9. When a female clean bowls them, they smile and saunter back to the pavilion like they intended it to happen. They are, after all, a "gentleman".

10. "I could play for England Women", they tell you, as they struggle to stand up from the sofa, pie in hand.