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.

The truth and the reality of Serena Williams and the umpire

Serena Williams railing at the umpire sounded like nothing so much as a thoroughly Seffrican madam berating her maid for putting the tea-cups in the wrong cupboard. Again! For God’s sake!

Times Select

TELFORD VICE in London

CARLOS Ramos is a reprehensible chauvinist who seems to believe, and is ready to enforce his views beyond his station, that women must be seen and not heard — not like men are, anyway.

Serena Williams is an arrogant, 36-year-old brat who couldn’t stand losing to an opponent she should have beaten, so she found someone else to blame for what was going wrong.

There. Now that we’ve established the truth of what happened in the US Open final in New York on Sunday we can get into what really happened.

And, no, the truth and what really happened are not the same thing. Not in an age when the truth isn’t what it is but what someone says it is, preferably while they have the eyes and ears — and therefore the hearts and minds — of millions of ready, willing and able believers.

So a relative nobody like Ramos, a mere tennis umpire, abusing his limited authority to punish Williams for the kind of behaviour that is routinely tolerated by officials when they are presiding over a match played by men is just as valid as a nugget of truth as Williams wielding her massive celebrity like a sledgehammer in the just cause of smashing sexism, and exposing herself as a sore, sour, selfish loser.

As much as Williams had a case for calling Ramos a thief for docking her a point for smashing a racquet — an escalation of the drama that had started when Ramos accused her coach, Patrick Mouratoglou, of doing his job from the stands, which is not allowed, and would lead to her having an entire game awarded to her opponent for another bilious, ill-considered outburst — Williams herself was guilty of stealing the spotlight from its rightful place.

That was to shine on Naomi Osaka, who was robbed of the public celebration she had earned by winning easily the biggest match of her 20-year-old life.

For Williams to then say “let’s not boo anymore” to a crowd she had swept into a disapproving frenzy with her outrageous tantrum smacked of Donald Trump at his worst: folks, you know what’s right and wrong (especially after I’ve told you what’s right and wrong).

It’s worth remembering that Williams took a ridiculous amount of umbrage at Ramos’ assertion about Mouratoglou’s actions.

And that Mouratoglou subsequently admitted he was guilty as charged.

And that other coaches who have been nabbed for this offence tend to have their players informally tut-tutted by the umpire, not officially warned.

And that Williams’ reaction to Ramos’ verdict on her coach was ludicrously haughty: “I don’t cheat to win; I’d rather lose.” How dare the man? Didn’t he know who she was?  

And that just days ago Alize Cornet was fined for changing her top in a few seconds during a match, and that no-one blinks when men take as long as they like between games to strip off and put on a fresh shirt. 

And that Ramos is white and male and Williams is black and female and from a country where police apparently kill black people for sport.

And that she is part of a sport that is second only to golf as a foxhole in which white men can and do hide their racism and misogyny. 

And that Ramos has a reputation for being pathetically anal about enforcing the kind of rules that can make tennis seem like a nursing home for the socially inept.

And that he failed miserably in the key responsibility of defusing a ticking bomb.

And that he hasn’t taken the same action against male players who have ticked at him with similarly growing rage.

When Rafael Nadal told Ramos he wouldn’t grace his matches again after he was penalised for a time delay during the 2017 French Open, Ramos turned the other cheek.

When Williams said much the same thing, among other nasty things, on Sunday, she had a game taken from her.

It’s also worth considering the difference between Nadal’s and Williams’ comments on their run-ins with Ramos.

Nadal: “I say it with sadness but he is an umpire who scrutinizes me more and who fixates on me more. He also pressured me about coaching. I have respect for him, and all I ask is for that to be reciprocated.”   

Williams: “For you to attack my character is something that’s wrong. It’s wrong. You’re attacking my character. Yes you are. You owe me an apology. You will never, ever, ever be on a court of mine as long as you live. You are the liar.”

Respect? Maybe Williams isn’t an Aretha Franklin fan.

An apology? How about, “I’m sorry that Ms Williams can, at times, be an insufferable oaf”?

Might “as long as you live” be construed as a death threat, albeit obliquely? As Williams spewed her bile, Ramos would have been forgiven for thinking her thousands-strong mob of supporters weren’t baying for his blood only in the metaphorical sense.

Note the absence hiding in plain sight in much of what has been said and written about this sorry saga.

The cause of what happened, what really happened, wasn’t what Ramos did — which as the umpire he was wholly entitled to do. Blame tennis itself for devising stupid rules and appointing self-important little men to enforce them.

That Ramos operates on a gender-biased double standard is his real sin, and it is serious enough for him to be barred from being in the chair in any match regardless of who might be playing.

The major problem also isn’t Williams’ stream of woke consciousness. Vicious verbal diarrhoea is deplorable but not a crime.

The far more serious issue is that sports stars have been given the idea that they can behave as they like towards officials, that talent, skill and millions in the bank makes it OK to treat others, particularly those who have less talent, skill and money in the bank, as if they’re trash.

When Williams was railing at Ramos she sounded like nothing so much as a thoroughly Seffrican madam berating her maid for putting the tea-cups in the wrong cupboard. Again! For God’s sake!

Worse, many of those springing to Williams’ defence have done so on the grounds that “everybody does this”.

So that makes it OK? The opposite is true, and it should be what really happens. Every tennis player who is coached from the stands should have a point taken off them summarily. Every footballer and rugby player who gets in a referee’s face should be red-carded. Players should be barred from speaking to the ref unless they’re spoken to first. 

Imagine the fuss if officials started telling players how to do their job the same way players do to officials: “What were you thinking taking the lineout instead of the scrum? And your tactical kicking is way below par.”

Golf, for all that’s wrong with the game of the anti-Christ, gets it right: police yourself, and properly or the officials will smack you upside the head — as in disqualify you — for the easily made mistake of signing an incorrect scorecard.

Maybe Williams would have been a better human being had she made a career out of golf.

Maybe Ramos should be in charge of races between schools of clownfish, which change gender but are always led by a female, rather than anything involving human beings.

Maybe everybody should shut the hell up and play and officiate properly.