Women go beyond cricket’s boundaries, but are still behind in the bank 

“We’ve got a batting specialist! A bowling coach! Someone who does the fielding! A media person at hand!” – Mignon du Preez gets excited about things male cricketers take for granted.

IMG_4763

STARSTRUCK – The author gets up close and personal with Anya Shrubsole, “cricket’s finest bowler, bar none”.

Sunday Times – Insight

TELFORD VICE in London

CRICKET yelled loud and lurid from a television in a buzzing Pakistani-run barbershop on busy Bethnal Green Road in London’s East End last week.

Live from Karachi in urgent Urdu, Express News’ lead sport story revealed all about movements up and down the International Cricket Council’s (ICC) rankings. The tale unfolded in slick scrolling stills of star players augmented by gaudy graphics and graphs. A woman’s voice bounced brightly, explaining it all, over hard-driven pop rock.

And in other news … Dull, soundless training footage appeared of the Pakistan team shuttling up and down a nondescript outfield. Cut to a short soundbite featuring one of them, uncaptioned. There were no graphics or graphs and no music, and the script was read off the teleprompter by the male news anchor — confirmation that the item wasn’t considered important enough to be, as television types say, “packaged” into a standalone piece. 

The first story was about male cricketers, the second about the Women’s World T20 (WWT20), which is underway in the Caribbean.

That a woman should be used to embellish — excellently, it sounded — the rankings piece and a man assigned what he clearly considered the chore of prattling passionlessly through the WWT20 story was lost in the electronic ether.

A good three minutes was devoted to the men. For the women, there was no wham, there was no bam, and it was thank you, ma’am, in maybe a minute-and-a-half.

The only men’s international on the go at the time was the second test between minnows Bangladesh and Zimbabwe in Dhaka. In the preceding hours of the same day in the WWT20, England and South Africa had beaten Bangladesh and Sri Lanka. Three matches had been played the day before, another was washed out, and two more would follow the next day.

Yet the nonsense of who was where in the rankings — no serious cricket person pays much heed to that gumph, which exists only to lure sponsors and help reporters out of a hole when they have nothing relevant to write about — was deemed worth telling before and better than what was happening at a world event.

Note the qualification in that event’s title. How come no-one talks, writes or broadcasts about the Men’s World T20, the Men’s World Cup, or men’s Test matches?  

Express News hadn’t made an error of editorial judgement. Instead, they had given their viewers what they wanted and expected. Indeed, changing what is taken for granted as the natural order of things would likely spark outrage among the game’s core audience: people who think cricket worth watching is played by men only. 

These people aren’t only men and they’re not only found in societies where women are born second-class citizens.

Mignon du Preez recalls bracing for “what was supposed to be a press conference” before leaving for a previous edition of the WWT20 as South Africa’s captain.

“But there was nobody there, just me and Sipokazi [Sokanyile, the team’s media officer]”, Du Preez said.

The problem isn’t confined to places where men make fire and women make salad, as former England medium pacer Isa Guha explained in the Daily Telegraph in March last year: “I remember getting on the team bus to Lord’s on the day of the [2009] WWT20 final, just two months after [England won] the World Cup, when the men had already been knocked out and we were the only hope of lifting a trophy on home soil.

“Despite our recent success, it appeared that the general public were unaware our competition was even taking place. On the way to the match, I saw a pub promoting the men’s game between Pakistan and Sri Lanka. We hadn’t even managed to garner a mention, even as the host nation.”

Eight years later, Lord’s was sold out for the women’s World Cup final. In the Long Room, Marylebone Cricket Club members in their bacon-and-egg ties saw a rousing contest in which England beat India by nine runs. Whether their eyes were good enough to know they were watching women went unasked, perhaps to save the ancient spike-pocked floorboards from being spattered by spluttered pink gin.

Hours afterwards, with founder Thomas Lord himself glowering dark and stormy from a painting on a wall in a vast room named in his honour and England’s celebration in full, bubbly flow, this reporter posed for his one and only starstruck selfie with cricket’s finest bowler, bar none: the magnificent Anya Shrubsole, bender of time, space and the paths of cricket balls, who had taken 6/46.

England had put South Africa out of the running in a heart-stopping semi-final in Bristol, which ended with another wonderful bowler, Marizanne Kapp, on her haunches in the middle of a suddenly desolate field; unable and unwilling to accept the awful truth of defeat and unimpeachable in her right not to do so.

It was cricket at its most watchable and visceral human drama, and the increasing focus on it is “worlds apart” from what Du Preez experienced earlier in her career.

“This time, at the farewell at CSA’s [Cricket South Africa] head office [in Johannesburg on October 23], the amount of media who were there, we were blown away.

“It was really special to see all the people who were there for us. Everybody wants a bit of the something special that we have. We need to say thank you.

“We need the media to help build our brand. That’s what happening and we’re really fortunate. I want to say thank you to everybody for all the support.”

Some of this will sound insipid. But try to imagine Kevin Petersen or David Warner thanking the press for doing their jobs. Or being grateful for support staff.

“It’s amazing to have all the hands on deck,” Du Preez said, and ticked them off like a kid listing what they got for Christmas: “We’ve got a batting specialist! A bowling coach! Someone who does the fielding! A media person at hand! It definitely helps because we can concentrate on specifics, and it’s always good to get a different point of view. We’re very fortunate that CSA have invested in us and given us the resources.”

It’s a shiny new reality for South Africa’s women players, who until three years ago weren’t on CSA’s payroll. That they now are is thanks in no small part to the South African Cricketers’ Association (SACA), the players’ trade union.

Even so, women’s retainers with CSA are worth, on average, a quarter of what men are paid. That must hurt?

“I don’t think we’re bothered that much,” Du Preez said. “The amount of work that CSA and SACA have done to ensure that we get parity benefit has been amazing.

“We’re travelling business class. We’ve got single rooms. We’ve got a provident fund. We’ve got medical aid. All that is the same as the men. When we travel our meal allowance and cellphone allowance are on par.

“We need to be realistic — there’s a lot more men playing the sport and they are bringing in the revenue.”

And it shows, what with women’s cricket routinely piggybacked onto the men’s game in sponsorship deals, and as curtainraisers in front of stands that will fill up only hours later. Indeed, the current WWT20 is the first to be staged as a standalone tournament.

But, according to the Federation of International Cricketers’ Association’s “Women’s Global Employment Report and Survey”, released on October 24, only 120 women worldwide call cricket their profession — or almost three times fewer than the 317 registered professionals, regardless of gender, in South Africa alone.

Matters are improving. Australia’s top women players earned a minimum of Aus$40 000 (just shy of R415 000) at the beginning of the year. Prolonged, at times bitter negotiations saw that leap to Aus$72 076.

But even giants of women’s sport are less equal than men. The 2017 Australian Open women’s tennis final and the women’s and men’s Big Bash League finals coincided. The television audience in Australia for the cricket peaked at 959 000, while 1.2-million tuned in to watch Serena Williams beat her sister Venus.

Advantage women? Maybe not. The cover of the current issue of the US edition of GQ magazine features Serena Williams. If you didn’t know what she does for a living, you wouldn’t have guessed from her long-sleeved leotard, which bared her legs to the hip, neatly framing her crotch, and allowed her cleavage to pop through a peephole.

As if that wasn’t enough to make Williams all about gender and nothing about what she has given the world, GQ billed her as their “Woman” of the Year.

That’s right. In quotes. Says it all.

Gayle’s unacceptable presence aside, CSA tick T20 boxes

CSA’s description of Chris Gayle as a ‘T20 living legend’ chimes with the tone-deaf clumsiness that has fuelled the #MeToo movement.

TMG Digital

TELFORD VICE in London

THERE has been plenty of reason to doubt Cricket South Africa’s (CSA) ability to deliver the T20 tournament they have promised the country’s cricketminded public this summer.

But even the hardest-hearted cynic would have to admit their plan seems to be coming together.

As recently as lunchtime on Thursday neither the competition’s name, its franchises, its venues nor any of the likely players’ names were known.

By that afternoon the grounds were announced, followed just more than 24 hours later by the event’s title — the Mzansi Super League (MSL).

On Monday afternoon we knew that the MSL would involve the Cape Town Blitz, the Durban Heat, the Jozi Stars, the Nelson Mandela Bay Giants, the Paarl Rocks and the Tshwane Spartans.

We also knew the names of the marquee South Africa players — Faf du Plessis, AB de Villiers, Hashim Amla, JP Duminy, Kagiso Rabada and Imran Tahir — and that they would be in the colours of Paarl, Tshwane, Durban, Cape Town, Jozi and Nelson Mandela Bay respectively.

And that the major foreign players in Wednesday’s draft in Johannesburg will be Eoin Morgan, Jason Roy, Dawid Malan, Chris Gayle, Dwayne Bravo and Rashid Khan.

Not bad for a tournament that’s giving its broadcast rights to the SABC for no fee and, Times Media Digital understands, has tried but failed to secure Chinese electronics giant Huawei as a title sponsor.

Other obstacles remain, not least that all six foreigners named on Monday — along with the bulk of the world’s more notable T20 player fodder — are on the books of franchises in the T10 tournament set to be played in Sharjah from November 23 to December 2.

Then there’s the significant but apparently ignored truth that Gayle is an unrepentant misogynist whose crassly cringeworthy attempt, live on air in January 2016, to ask a television interviewer out on a date has made him unemployable in Australia’s Big Bash League.

So the wrongheaded description of the Jamaican as a “T20 living legend” on CSA’s Twitter feed on Monday chimed with the kind of tone-deaf clumsiness that has fuelled the #MeToo movement.

But CSA chief executive Thabang Moroe’s positivity shone out from a CSA release on Monday.

“We have received applications from over 200 top international players who expressed interest in playing in this inaugural tournament and will have their names in the hat ahead of the player draft process on Wednesday,” Moroe was quoted as saying.

“There were expected challenges in the process, of course, with some players available for a particular period because of other cricket commitment clashes elsewhere, including our Proteas, who also have to fulfill our tour to Australia for a one-day international series [which ends on November 17].”

A lot remains to be done for CSA to make good on their ambition to bring the big top T20 circus to a ground near you, or at least within a day’s driving.

But a lot has been done; more, probably, than was thought possible, nevermind probable.  

Ronaldo, rape and the root of all evil

To sponsors, Cristiano Ronaldo is just another platform carrying their logo. As long as he does so profitably they won’t care what he gets up to behind closed doors.

Times Select

TELFORD VICE in London

YOU had to be in Praça do Comércio as the sun was teasing towards the Tejo on June 15 this year to feel the power of Cristiano Ronaldo.

There, on Lisboa’s most storied public square, which had been crudely astroturfed and giant screened and surrounded by expensive plywood bars selling truly junk food and beer that tasted almost as bad as the plastic cups that held the stuff, all in the name of the World Cup, you had to be dead to not feel it.

Ronaldo had made a fourth-minute penalty look like as simple as cracking a smile on a sunny day. In the 44th he had smuggled a flaccid non-pass, non-cross, non-shot into the net.

Here he stood in the 88th, his eyes alight with ambition, his brow brilliant with sweat, the ball inert at his feet, his path to goal surely too short for him to get the ball up and over the wall with a potent enough magic spell to again beat the goalkeeper.

And with his team a goal down. To Spain — the opponents who will forever be the reddest of rags to the smaller but fiercer Portuguese bull.

As the veins in Ronaldo’s eyeballs twitched and the beads of sweat on his face wobbled in exponentially larger living colour, live from Sochi, some 5 000 and more kilometres away, an already standing spectator in the square turned to face that part of the multitude that had dared to remain seated.

He was floppy-haired, bespectacled, runtish, studentish, no doubt a fair way from sober, and through the greasy haze cast by the cooking of all those burgers and the smoke of thousands of cigarettes and a fair few hundred joints, he flung his arms towards the sky.

“Get up! Stand up!”

We did. Not least because, when the energy generated by the runt’s command reached the people three or so deep in front of us and they stood, we could no longer see the screen. But also because everyone present knew, somewhere in the bubbles of the beer sloshing biliously in their bellies, what would happen next.

Ronaldo fired a free kick that swerved and swooped and sank and soared like a rudely deflating balloon at a children’s party. It made David de Gea look like one of those kids after too much sugar-fuelled jumping on the trampoline. In a word, silly.

The ball flew past De Gea but not past his goal, where the net billowed like a new flag flying over a freshly liberated country.

The Praça do Comércio shuddered under the suddenly celebrating horde, who yawped and yowled with primal joy and couldn’t stop themselves from jumping and jumping and jumping like they were sperm cells all over again.

It would be crass to compare the movement beneath our also jumping feet with the feeling of the earthquake that struck the city at 9.40am on November 1, 1755, All Saints’ Day if you’re Catholic, and — with the help of the resultant fire and tidal wave — killed somewhere between 60 000 and 100 000 of Lisboa’s population of 275 000. But it was hard not to.

And all because of one man. Ronaldo hadn’t beaten the hated Spaniards all on his own. He had done the next best thing, which for the permanently put-upon Portuguese was even better: he had stopped them from winning and so pissed them off. He had kissed the best looking sister anyone will ever have. Can’t touch that.

But you can. Almost four months on the bright sky above Ronaldo is dark with the evil of serious crimes he is alleged to have committed.

Der Spiegel reported two years ago that Ronaldo had raped a woman in a Las Vegas hotel room on June 13, 2009 after she had rebuffed his advances. On October 28 this year the magazine revealed that the woman, Kathryn Mayorga, had been motivated by the #MeToo movement to sue Ronaldo.

Seven days later Ronaldo appeared in a full page advertisement in La Gazzetta dello Sport. To apologise? To tell his side of the story? To protest his innocence?

None of the above. There he stood in the carefully styled photograph, his hair immaculate, his face hard and expressionless, his hands firm on his hips, his bare torso contoured with more muscles than mortals knew existed.

All he wore was his CR7 branded underwear, the fabric snapped impossibly snug over the peaks and valleys of his nether regions.

You might have thought someone at Juventus or CR7 or La Gazzetta dello Sport or among Ronaldo’s advisers or the man himself would have realised, during the days between Der Spiegel’s bombshell and the ad’s scheduled publication, how horrible that would have looked and pulled it.

But no. Besides, by then his club had stood by their man: “Ronaldo has shown in recent months his great professionalism and dedication, which is appreciated by everyone at Juventus. The events allegedly dating back to almost 10 years ago do not change this opinion, which is shared by anyone who has come into contact with this great champion.”

The president of the Portuguese Football Federation, Fernando Gomes, pledged his “total solidarity” while Ronaldo’s “good name and reputation are being questioned”.

These are people, mind, who weren’t anywhere near that Vegas hotel room on June 13, 2009. How the hell do they know what did and didn’t happen? 

At least Ronaldo was: “What they said today, fake — fake news. They want to promote by my name. It’s normal. They want to be famous — to say my name. Yeah but it’s part of the job. I’m [a] happy man and all, all good.”

That was, it seems, before the spin doctors got to him to polish his views to a bland matte nothingness: “I firmly deny the accusations being issued against me. Rape is an abominable crime that goes against everything that I am and believe in. Keen as I may be to clear my name, I refuse to feed the media spectacle created by people seeking to promote themselves at my expense.

“My clear conscious will thereby allow me to await with tranquillity the results of any and all investigations.”

Ronaldo’s sponsors weren’t so sure. “We are deeply concerned by the disturbing allegations and will continue to closely monitor the situation,” Nike said. 

Here’s EA Sports: “We have seen the concerning report that details allegations against Cristiano Ronaldo. We are closely monitoring the situation, as we expect cover athletes and ambassadors to conduct themselves in a manner that is consistent with EA’s values.” 

Note the utter absence in all those inadequate bits of corporate speak of emotion or empathy or even an acknowledgement that a vicious crime may have been committed.

Sadly, that is not at all surprising. To Nike and EA Sports, Ronaldo is just another platform carrying their logo. As long as he does so profitably they won’t care what he gets up to behind closed doors.

Companies like these are dehumanised and they dehumanise Ronaldo in much the same way as rape dehumanises its perpetrators and victims.

What matters to them and their ilk is money. The value of Juventus’ shares, which had leapt 100% since they signed Ronaldo for £99.3-million in July, crashed by 10% in the wake of Der Spiegel’s story.

Thing is, in the 24 hours after Juventus announced Ronaldo’s acquisition they sold 520 000 of his replica shirts. At £91 a pop, that’s £47.32-million of what they spent on him recouped. Almost half. In one day.

Ronaldo will be defended by capitalists as long as he remains a cash cow. Yes, the gender joke is intended.

The case for the converse is Harvey Weinstein, who hadn’t made a well-received film for years before he was outed as, too many women say for them not to be taken seriously, a sex criminal. Weinstein was no longer useful to Hollywood, so Hollywood was happy to hang him out to dry.

Similarly, nothing had been heard from Bill Cosby for years before he was accused and, happily, convicted of sexual assault and jailed.

Donald Trump has a slew of similar allegations hanging over his head. But his backers and supporters know he is useful to their cause. Until that changes, he ain’t going anywhere, folks.

For the same reason, neither is Ronaldo.

Congrats, Ms and Ms Van NieKapp. But how will team dynamics be affected?

If the #MeToo movement is ever taken seriously in South Africa, a third of men would be in prison and another third rendered unemployable and shunned. The remaining third would be those clever enough to hide their sexism. 

Times Select

TELFORD VICE in Cape Town

UNTIL Sunday, Marizanne Kapp’s Wikipedia page made no reference to Dané van Niekerk, whose entry on the same platform did indeed feature her partnership with Kapp.

But only to say she shared a stand of “128 runs with Marizanne Kapp [against Pakistan in a 2013 World Cup match in Cuttack], the highest South African partnership for the sixth wicket”.

A contemporary report on that performance begins: “Marizanne Kapp and Dané van Niekerk have a lot in common. They both are allrounders. They made their international debut during the 2009 Women’s World Cup. And they are ‘best friends’ in the South Africa dressing room. They are also room-mates whenever the team goes on tour.”

On Saturday, the pair removed all the nudges and winks by doing something that, in a better world, would go unreported in a proper publication except, perhaps, on the social pages.

They married each other.

Cue, on Sunday, the addition of a “personal life” section on those Wikipedia pages: “In July 2018, she married her teammate Marizanne Kapp” and “In July 2018, she married her teammate Dané van Niekerk.”

Congratulations, Ms and Ms Van NieKapp.

Last week a Cricket South Africa official spoke, politely but firmly, of an imminent “very private and very small ceremony” — code for, no, you cannot have an interview or send a photographer, or anything else.

“They are strictly anti inviting the media into their personal relationship,” the official said. “There won’t even be social media posts of the wedding. It’s not a secret but they prefer to keep their life together private.”

Damn straight, although there were social media posts: Kapp put three uncaptioned photographs of the wedding on her Instagram account. The brides wore white.

By Monday afternoon the pictures had elicited 2 911 likes and 132 comments — 128 of them giddily offered congratulations. What of the four exceptions?

“WTF,” someone said. Another wanted to know if “this is possible”. Someone else asked “where is the bridegrooms”.

A post in Hindi translated to: “I’m having to see a woman as hot as [Van] Niekerk marrying a woman. My life is over.”

Even though they are public figures, and thus, according to a particular take on these things, not entitled to private lives, exceptions must be made for Kapp and Van Niekerk.

Not because they may want it that way, but because too often sport is a rock that hides terrified creatures that, it seems, have never been held up to the light.

Most of them are straight and male and, intolerably, tolerated in societies that should not be considered civilised for that reason.

This abhorrence thrives in deeply misogynist South Africa. We live in a country we dare to call a democracy, where everyday sexism is dismissed as “our culture” and the evil of corrective rape by men of women who dare to proclaim their independence from the straight and narrow goes unpunished unforgivably often.

If the #MeToo movement is ever taken seriously in South Africa, a third of men would be in prison and another third rendered unemployable and shunned. The remaining third would be those clever enough to hide their sexism. As a South African man, I’m eminently qualified to make that assertion.

But it’s not only the straights who are upset with Kapp and Van Niekerk. A section of the queer community will rail against what they consider two of their own seeking the establishment’s endorsement of their relationship.

They can’t win, can they?

Even objective cricket fans will have questions. Kapp and Van Niekerk aren’t the first members of the same cricket team to be married —  in March last year New Zealand’s Amy Satterthwaite and Lea Tahuhu tied the knot — but it would seem to be the first time one of the brides has been that team’s captain.

Does that mean Kapp will get preferential treatment from the skipper, Van Niekerk? What might their conversation over dinner be like if Kapp feels her captain didn’t bowl her in the right match situations? Will team meetings freeze over if Kapp disagrees markedly with Van Niekerk’s proposed tactics, or vice versa? Or doesn’t voice her disagreement? What’s the dressingroom going to be like if one drops a catch off the other?

Will the crockery fly at home if one runs the other out?

All of those questions — except the last one — have been answered: in their nine years as international players Kapp and Van Niekerk have been integral to South Africa’s success.

That includes reaching last year’s World Cup semi-final, where South Africa went down with the kind of fight rarely shown by the men’s team under similar pressure.

They have clearly performed more than well enough to prove that their relationship, which has endured for much of the last nine years, doesn’t have a negative impact on team dynamics.

As for runouts, Van Niekerk and Kapp have between them been dismissed in that fashion 32 times at international level. And not once were they batting together at the time. 

The plates, then, are safe. For now …