First Blood in The Women's Ashes... To The Progressives

 The first battle in this summer's Women's Ashes has taken place, not between England and Australia, but between the Traditionalists and the Progressives - members of which were passionately represented on either side, debating the question: One Series Or Three?

The announcement this week that the series would be defined across all 3 formats - Test, ODIs and T20s - represents a victory for the Progressives; who argued that the value of the 'A' word in marketing the ODIs and T20s outweighed the Traditionalists' contention that The Ashes means Test Cricket, and should not be sullied by association with the shorter formats.

The Traditionalists did win a minor concession, with the points system heavily weighted in favour of the Test - a decision which I think Martin Davies is right to question; leaving open the possibility as it does that the series could be all over with a whopping four games still to play, which is a lot of dead-rubber if that's the way it pans-out.

Overall, though, I think this is a good decision. The reality is that women's Test cricket is simply not commercially viable - the match at teeny-tiny Wormsley is apparently nothing like sold-out at time of writing - and it therefore makes sense to add additional impetus to the short-format games by bringing them under the Ashes banner.

Now... bring on the Aussies and let the real battle commence. (We've got our tickets for Day One! Have you? If not... the link is here!)

Brunt & Prior: The Hardest Working Cricketers in Un-Showy-Business

There is something very appropriate about Katherine Brunt picking up the England Cricketer of the Year award alongside Matt Prior.

Neither are natural athletes; but both are the epitome of unfussy cricketers who have supplemented a dram of talent with a bottle of bloody-minded hard work to reach the top of their games and (just as importantly) stay there!

Katherine in particular has battled her demons along the way - leading to her being told early in her career that she would never make it. But she has come out the other side to be the spearhead of the team for EIGHT years now - playing for England more than 100 times, taking over 150 wickets along the way.

Together with Anya Shrubsole, Charlotte Edwards and Holly Colvin, she held England together during the recent World Cup campaign - which I think Cricinfo was a little unfair to term "disastrous", by the way!

Off the field, Brunt (again like Prior) is a bit more of a private person. In fact, I realised last night that she is one of the few mainstay members of the team whose voice I can't recall. I think the only time I've heard her say anything at all was during a match against the West Indies when she was hit for six by Diandra Dottin - one word was clearly audible from the boundary! (But as this is a family blog... I'll leave it to your imagination what it was!)

Sri Lankans Paid Peanuts

When I looked recently at the remunerations paid to England's leading women cricketers by Chance To Shine, the organization which employes them as cricketers/ ambassadors/ coaches, I commented that the salaries, whilst not huge, were "not peanuts".

Interestingly enough, "peanuts" is exactly what the Sri Lanka cricket board are accused of paying their leading women by the Sunday Island:

Sri Lanka Cricket has awarded country’s women cricketers’ annual contracts, but their remuneration is peanuts compared to their millionaire male counterparts.

Here are the details:

The leading (Category A) women are to be paid R50,000 (R = Sri Lanka Rupees) per month - that's about £250. Of course, Sri Lanka is a third world country, so a direct comparison with UK wages is clearly unfair; but nevertheless, R50,000 is still some way short of the average monthly salary in Sri Lanka of about R60,000; and that's the leading women don't forget - the more junior members of the team are on less than half that!

So... peanuts? Yes - I think in this case the Sunday Island might have a point!

Who Wouldn't Want A Chance To Shine?

Following on from the announcement of the NZ "central contracts", it has emerged that at least two of the NZ team were offered these contracts but turned them down.

People have been quick to ask why; but I think the answer is pretty obvious: it's a tough gig, for not-a-lot of money.

I don't have any details on the Ts&Cs offered to the NZ girls, but I do know a little bit about the English equivalent: Chance To Shine.

Chance To Shine is the charity⁽¹⁾ which employs several of the leading England players, including captain Lottie Edwards. Their role requires them to deliver coaching sessions at schools and clubs all around the country; and in return they get the flexibility to train as semi-professional sportsmen.

So there's the first rub, right there: the role involves constant travel, living out of hotels, away from friends, family and loved-ones.

Of course, England's men do this all the time; but here's the difference: the men are earning in the order of hundreds of thousands of pounds per year.

I don't know exactly what Lottie & Co. earn; but the Cricket Foundation's accounts are a matter of public record. The charity employs 22 people, only two of whom earn in excess of the reporting threshold of £60k (probably the Chief Exec and the Ops Director); and a back-of-the-envelope calculation⁽²⁾ suggests an average salary for everyone else of around £36k - not peanuts, by any means; and it offers the girls a chance to "live and breathe" cricket in a way which they couldn't if they had a "proper" job.

But a king's ransom, it ain't; and you can see why some would say 'thanks, but no thanks'.

-------------------------
(1) Actually... technically... the charity is called The Cricket Foundation, and it runs a program called Chance To Shine.
(2) Pre-NI salaries of about £800k, divided by 20 remaining employees

NZ Girls Get THEIR Chance To Shine... But These Are NOT Central Contracts

Cricinfo reports that four New Zealand players, including captain Suzie Bates, have been awarded "central contracts" by their board.

This is obviously fantastic news for the girls involved... but... let's not get carried away here - these are not "central contracts" in the sense that they are awarded to the likes of Ali Cook and Brendon McCullum in the men's game.

The NZ girls are expected to "work closely with a major association to help promote grassroots women's cricket, increasing awareness and interest in the game at various school and club levels."

In this sense, these contracts sound very-much like the 'Chance To Shine' initiative in England.

While technically Chance To Shine is an independent charity, promoting sport in state schools and deprived areas; in practice it acts as a vehicle for employing several of the leading England women in a cricket-related context.

The England players employed by Chance To Shine (including Lottie Edwards) are clearly better-off than they would be without the scheme - they have a full-time cricket-related job, with an employer who is naturally sympathetic to the demands of playing and touring with England.

But let's not kid ourselves that these are really "central contracts" in they way in which they are generally understood within the game of cricket.

Lottie's Line In The Sand

England captain Lottie Edwards, speaking to the Daily Mail, has drawn a clear line in the sand - slapping down the ambitions of certain members of her squad to play men's cricket.

Arguing that men's and women's cricket are "slightly different games" she tells her girls that she wants them "training for women's cricket." (My emphasis.)

Perhaps the most interesting thing about the interview is that Lottie makes no attempt to hide the fact that her comments are clearly aimed at one person in particular: Sarah Taylor.

Of course, as I have said before, this is probably all academic for the time being. Sarah Taylor isn't going to play First Class cricket this year, any more than I am! (Unless it is as some kind of one-off promotional gimmick, or Sussex suffer a ridiculous number of injuries.)

But nonetheless, it is good to hear someone sticking-up for the women's game. I want to see the top women playing women's cricket; not acting as token extras in the men's game. Lottie clearly does too.

England vs. Pakistan: Warm-Ups In All But Name

In addition to the Ashes series this summer, England have announced four matches against Pakistan at the beginning of June.

Although Pakistan are a 'proper' (fully centrally contracted) team, they are comfortably the lowest-ranked side of the eight primary women's nations.

All four games are scheduled on work-days in the space of one week - one at tiny Louth CC in Linconshire; and the others over at the national performance center at Loughborough University.

The opponents, venues and scheduling, all suggest that these are primarily warm-ups for the bigger tests (but sadly not Tests - there is only one long-form game) to come; and although England's men have recently been criticized for under-estimating NZ, it would be a major upset if England came out of this with anything less than a whitewash. (Or possibly an entirely rain-affected nil-nil draw!)

England vs. Pakistan
1 June - ODI @ Louth CC
3 June - ODI @ Loughborough University
5 June - 2x T20 @ Loughborough University

(No links for tickets - my guess (going on what happened at the smaller venues last year) is that these will be "cash-on-the-door" jobs.)