THE CORDON HOME

BLOGS ARCHIVES
SELECT BLOG
August 29, 2014

Why wasn't England v India a multi-format points series?

Raf Nicholson
Had there been a points system for the tour, India would have started the ODIs with a psychological advantage as well  © Getty Images
Enlarge

This time last year, I was writing a piece for the Cordon about the massive success of the multi-format women's Ashes series. I wish I could now be writing the same piece about the series against India.

I can't.

England Women's schedule against India Women this summer has consisted of one Test and three ODIs. But the Test was standalone, and the three ODIs were a series in themselves. England will now go on and play three T20s next week - but against South Africa, not India.

Why are India not staying on to play those three T20s instead? Why can we not celebrate another multi-format-points summer of international cricket? It all makes very little sense.

Assuming that England, who after all invented this points system in the first place, were in favour of another multi-format series, let's look at things from the BCCI's perspective.

Firstly, it seems bizarre that they do not want their players to participate in one of women's cricket's key formats. India's performance in the last two World T20s has been under par to say the least (in 2012, they won none of their group matches; on both occasions, they landed in the Qualification Playoff matches). Surely the BCCI want their team to be successful in a format everyone sees as key to the future of the women's game? And surely, the way to achieve success is for India to gain vital match experience against top sides before they host the next World T20, in 2016?

Secondly, it's pretty clear that most cricket boards are (understandably) in the business of maximising revenue. In women's cricket, as with its male counterpart, this means eyes on screens and bums on seats. This, of course, was one of the key success stories of last summer: a record-breaking crowd of over 3000 on the first day of the Wormsley Test match, a sell-out at the Chelmsford T20, Sky sending cameras, at the last minute, to the third ODI, in Hove. As was apparent from social media, last summer's women's Ashes had the most public interest of possibly any bilateral women's international series ever. This surely had a lot to do with the multi-format points system, which kept the interest alive through the summer.

Importantly, too, the series caught the attention of the media, who embraced the new format and the interest it created. Coverage in the national newspapers was unprecedented. The women's game at the Southampton double-header was the top sports story on the BBC's 10 o'clock news, and it made the front page of the Times the next day. Why? Because the men's game was just another T20; the women's game, thanks to the points-based system, was the match that decided the Ashes.

It is not that the Test and ODIs this year have not received good coverage in the press. But there does not seem to have been the same buzz around these matches as there was last summer. Audience figures for the Test match this month were not particularly impressive. As for television coverage, it is the three T20s against South Africa next week that are being broadcast live on Sky; sadly, none of the India matches enjoyed the same privilege. That much is not, of course, the BCCI's fault. But had India been playing in those three T20s, it would have been they who got the vital visual exposure that will now be afforded to South Africa.

Isn't exposure, and the excitement among the public that it generates, what all cricket boards want for their women cricketers? And if so, why not buy into a format that achieves these things?

In fact, there has been a tendency in the media to present the Test and the three ODIs as a "series", when in actuality the Test had no official bearing at all on the ODIs. (Otherwise Jenny Gunn, not Charlotte Edwards, would surely have been Player of the Series.) This is natural in the women's game, where, unlike in men's cricket, the squads for Tests, ODIs and T20s are almost always identical; and where, unlike in the men's schedule, there is often only a small gap to transition between two different formats - five days between the end of the Test and the first ODI, in this case. The point is that as journalists we are tasked with creating coherent stories, a narrative of the summer. That is much easier to do when all formats count towards the same trophy, and when all formats are being played against one opponent. That type of narrative also makes the battle that we are still fighting every day - getting the public to buy into women's cricket.

A case in point for all this might be the second ODI, at Scarborough, which came right down to the wire: England triumphed, in the end, by just 13 runs. Set 215 to win, we watched as India inched closer to the target, with wickets falling sporadically throughout. Might they get the runs required? It was one of those games that, even as a "neutral" member of the press, is incredibly tense to sit through.

But one reason why the public buys into a multi-format points series is that they recognise the crucial point: this type of series is a truer test of the players' strengths

Ultimately England bowled India out in the penultimate over of the game, to go 2-0 up in the ODI series. But I reflected afterwards on what might have been. Had this been a points-based series, this could have been the deciding game. How much tenser might it have been, how many more eyes might have been on the ECB's live stream, had this been a match in which India, or England, required victory, or even a tie, to take the series?

There is one final point to make: India won that one-off Test match. India, ranked seventh in the world in the ODI format, bowled out one of the world's top sides for 92. Eight of their players may have been Test debutants; they did not play like it. What we were witnessing was the performance of a team whose natural format appears to be Test match cricket.

The disappointment for the Indians is that this victory counted little when the series moved on to the 50-over format. Had it counted, had India been carrying, say, four points into the ODIs, it would have given them not only a points advantage but a huge psychological advantage. They could easily have been the champions this summer, surely?

Assuming that the BCCI are amenable to more women's Test cricket - and I so, so hope that is the case - perhaps in future they might pause for thought, and recognise that it is in their team's own interest that how they perform in their natural format should count towards the rest of the summer's cricket.

Other cricket boards need to pay attention to the lessons of this summer too. I realise that commercial realities are a factor when it comes to women's Test cricket. But one reason why the public buys into a multi-format points series is that they recognise the crucial point: this type of series is a truer test of the players' strengths. Test cricket is not just about reviving a dying format for the purists. Test matches are a different challenge; they are favoured by the players partly for that reason, as Mithali Raj made clear after her side beat England in the Test: "As a cricketer you would want to play more, as it will challenge all your endurance levels, and the mental aspect of your game," she said. Speak to any international female cricketer, anywhere in the world. They will say the same.

Test cricket, as part of an international series, makes that series more meaningful to the journalists and, more importantly, the fans. That cannot be a bad thing. Cricket boards everywhere, not just the BCCI, should take one look at this English summer, compared with the last - and recognise that multi-format points-based series are the way forward for women's cricket.

Raf Nicholson is a PhD student, an England supporter, a feminist, and fanatical about women's cricket. She tweets here

RSS Feeds: Raf Nicholson

Keywords: Women's cricket

© ESPN Sports Media Ltd.

Posted by   on (September 4, 2014, 2:50 GMT)

But what is the solution?

1. Women should develop games that suit their body type of flexibility & curvaceousness and improve the combativeness in that sport, those sports will become popular among all genders & should invite men to play game with them. It's like ostrich vs fox story.

2. Similarly women should be allowed to play in men's cricket with same earning structure as men, but there should not be any quota for women they should compete on merit

Can women compete on merit with men?? WHY NOT.......Bcz cricket too has room for purely flexibility & technique eg murali's extra spin was due to extra flexibility in his wrists. Similarly a weak De Silva or a small Tendulkar have been the greatest batsmen of History, Don the greatest test batsman was not a monster. So in batting force & height gives u only marginal adv. I have seen table tennis mixed doubles , there is hardly any adv that man has. Even if it is open table tennis girls will compete with men.

Posted by   on (September 4, 2014, 2:33 GMT)

To be fair, accepted that women have gained full freedom from patriarchal system only 50 years ago. Patriarchal system is not an unfair system in itself but the problem is that it was thrusted on women, it should have been optional. Hence the women could not develop competitive sports that challenge their own body type. Cricket, primarily bowling is a sports that challenges man's body type and manly attitude. Hence Women cricket is never gonna be interesting no matter what changes we introduce. Women test cricket cricket on bowling quality it is analogous to a test match b/w zim & ban.

The length of pitch, crease distance, boundaries dimensions, weight of ball, material of ball; have all been standardized over 100's of years of trial and testing to be most appropriate for a normal man. eg max bounce of the ball on a normal pitch is only that much that when a good male fast bowler balls, ball rises only upto man's head high which tests batsman's range of strokes over his entire body.

Posted by   on (September 3, 2014, 7:27 GMT)

"What we were witnessing was the performance of a team whose natural format appears to be Test match cricket."

Eh, bit tenuous to claim that. When Mithali Raj has a whopping 9 Tests under her belt in 15 years of international experience, then it's more apt to say that India delivered in a one-off curiosity game and rather exposed the English. When a game has that many of LBW dismissals, questions have to be raised about the batting.

If greater exposure is wanted, stop playing at Wormsley for one thing. Play somewhere with a railway station within walking distance that is modern and not based on some Golden Age fantasy.

Posted by dcglynn on (August 31, 2014, 6:58 GMT)

I too would love to know why the BCCI didn't want the series to be played under the points system, and why they didn't want their team to play any T20's. Have the BCCI actually given any rationale for these bizarre decisions?

Posted by Batmanian on (August 29, 2014, 17:26 GMT)

It's a decent point of difference to develop. I can't see men's teams where Test history is paramount ever considering it, although it may also make sense there at associate level (if only to get the first class format taken more seriously!). From a spectating perspective, women's cricket is a lot more enjoyable, and with more complementary skills to men's (ie crafty use of slower bowling and smaller hitting, all tailored to varying pitch, weather and field conditions) than other sports, such as elite women's football (which just seems slow and based on the exploitation of errors).

Comments have now been closed for this article

ABOUT THE AUTHOR

Raf Nicholson
Raf Nicholson is a PhD student who spends her days (and nights) researching the history of women's cricket. Her thesis may or may not end up being titled "Cricket without the balls". She is an England supporter, a feminist, and fanatical about women's cricket, but will admit that Michael Clarke is hot stuff. She has been known to bowl entire overs of wides and to bat like Phil Tufnell, but isn't always quite this good. @RafNicholson

All articles by this writer