Why does women’s international cricket need a review?

Women’s international cricket doesn’t get the attention it deserves in the best of times. What chances is it of getting its share of the spotlight in the worst of times? That is, when men crowd space.

This month in Antigua, South Africa split the series with three T20Is against the West Indies and won them 4-1 in ODI matches. But half of those eight games were played on the same day as the men’s team hosted Sri Lanka Colombossa. So the media left a lot to be desired about the women’s series. Something had to be given.

Why could these priorities not be reversed? Because the cricket battle between the sexes is played out fairly, whatever lip service is paid for, men’s play remains a priority: interest in their matches brings revenue to both governments and media rooms. It is about money for both governments and media houses. Until women’s cricket earns significant sums, don’t expect the pecking order to change.

But how will it change if cricket played by women is much more out of sight and thus in mind compared to what men play? Broadcasters are not going to pay the boards more rights fees for a product they know advertisers consider secondary because it doesn’t garner as much coverage as another product. It doesn’t matter if women are more skilled than men or if their matches are more exciting. Most importantly, more people are interested in men’s cricket.

It’s cynical and unfair, and as a gentle consumer of the game, it’s your fault. If you pay more attention to women’s cricket – by offering your eyeballs and clicking on their games more often – it wouldn’t be. The money would shift, and with it, the economic focus of cricket to a more even position.

Or is it the fault of the government and the media? You can’t watch or read about what you can’t find, and women’s matches fall so down the stairs of market and coverage that they are just invisible except during tournament time. So much for all lip service. The market should not get what the market demands just because the market demands it.

What did Lizelle Lee think about her having to compete with men in this discriminatory way? Not much. “If we’re on tour, we have to do it and make sure we do it,” he said at an online press conference on Tuesday. “It’s great that men play and they get all the visibility, and we support them all the time. But that’s the last thing we think about.”

Maybe Lee is easy to say. He is a star artist on a team that has won six of the last seven sets of white balls and exactly one second. When you’re part of creating a strongly positive truth, who cares if enough people don’t know it? It is their loss.

But how the ODI series ended in Antigua illustrated the difference between men’s and women’s cricket. Mignon du Preez tried to equalize the match and the ball was left of the match as he tried to break up a single Deandra Dottin. With a short midwife, Shakera Selman dived and threw the ball to Dottin, who broke the flush.

Although Joel Wilson was ill at about a 45-degree angle to the wrinkle and had a tight speech in his hand, his fingers rose almost before the mirrors were removed. Cue first super over women’s ODI and only third in all cricket, where Windies won. Why was the final solution not mentioned? Better question: for whom?

“It’s the kind of thing that gets you sometimes because there is no third judge,” Lee said. “A few players thought ‘Minks’ might be inside, but you can’t sit on the sidelines and think it’s in or out. It’s just something you have to deal with.”

Not if you’re a man playing on a big international team. In this world, DRS is urged to structure, often carefully, the difference between bats, wrinkles and, when exactly, stump parts company. It follows that men’s cricket is more important than what women play, and therefore it is worth spending more to ensure the right decisions are made.

If the relative smallness of women’s play is upside down, players are more open to expressing their opinions. When millions watch and a lot is sponsored, there is too little humility and a step diplomatically.

Certainly Lee’s encouragement to the concept of super over is refreshing and one that is quite rare in men’s cricket: “It’s definitely something that shouldn’t be in ODI. Six balls can’t be decided in ODI. I totally disagree with that. that it should have happened Anything can happen in the T20I – if you play a bad game, you lose, if you play well, you win ODIs are more about skills, you have to adapt to the conditions, and there are longer punches and bowls, but it happened and that’s what it is. ”

Wouldn’t Kane Williamson or some new Zealander be itching to say exactly after England broke into the 2019 World Cup final super-oh? No doubt. But Williamson plays on another team: win, lose, equalize or equalize, it’s always the best time.