Short Jabs Cricket Podcast: Episode 3 (Download)
Guests: Nicole Sobotker, SidVee, Matthew Wood
[Click on the links to jump to the segments right away]
Welcome to Short Jabs. In this episode, Nicole Sobotker talks about the Women’s world cup and where it is headed, SidVee reminisces about some of the high points of the India-Australia Tests from his time as a reporter, and Matthew Wood vents his displeasure at Steven O’Keefe not being picked in the Aussie squad for the India series.
—
—
Subash Jayaraman– Welcome to Short Jabs, Nicole.
Nicole Sobotker– Thank you, Subash.
SJ– Let’s talk about the women’s game. In the overall sense, will you say the women’s game has improved in terms of the quality of the game, the visibility etc even from a decade or so ago?
NS– I think the question doesn’t have one straight answer. You have a group of 4 top teams who have progressed exponentially even in the last decade. Those are- Australia, New Zealand, England and to a lesser extent, India, where you have seen the most growth and probably the closest that we have seen to professional set-up in women’s cricket arena. Then, on the other hand, you have everything below that- the 4 other teams that took part in the Women’s World Cup- Sri Lanka, West Indies, Pakistan and South Africa, and any other women’s team that exists. They haven’t shown any progress.
The reasons for that are very obvious. If you take a look at the women’s equivalent of the FTP, it shows a very unequal number of games played by the top 4 teams, particularly the top 3 teams and the teams below that. It doesn’t give exposure to different conditions, it doesn’t allow women to hone their skill, or perfect them in match situations. You can train, and set up the most sophisticated training programme that you have but ultimately, you need to have afull schedule and regular match practice to really define yourself as a professional team. It is amazing to see how well and how much England, Australia and New Zealand in particular have come forward, and it is easy to see why.
SJ– You mentioned about the top-3 teams being so far ahead, they seemed to have dominated the game for as long as we can remember. But, in this World Cup itself, you have seen Sri Lanka pull off an absolute thriller against England and West Indies have shown promise. For lack of a better word, the lesser teams are catching up to the top dogs?
NS– I think it is a bit analogous to the associate teams in the men’s game. for example, you have the stunning Ireland win over England in the World Cup game in 2011 where Kevin O’Brien had one of the best batting performances in a World Cup game ever. But, you saw that Ireland were not able to maintain or replicate that form over the tournament. It is the same here. You have women who are equal in talent to their English and Australian counterpart. Of course they are, they have the same strength and the same skills, but not on the same level of competition consistency enough. For example, you have Stephanie Taylor who made that brilliant 171 when West Indies made that massive score against the Sri Lankans. That just goes to show how much talent is there in all of these teams. But, it is not something that can make you say that they are catching up, not in a substantial level in any way because they haven’t been prepped or put in a position to maintain that level of competition consistently.
SJ– Two aspects to it- one that the game should be more visible and accessible in terms of viewers watching in the stadium or on TV. And two, the boards should be investing a lot more in it.
NS– I absolutely agree with you on it. Just as a kind of a very shallow example- If you take cricinfo as the front page of cricket, so to speak. I did a few searches on it, for the number of times a certain women have been covered. I used Mithali Raj as an example. She is one of the all time greats of cricket. She features in 220 stories on cricinfo. That might be a good number over a reasonably long career. But compare that to Mahendra Singh Dhoni who features in 8981 (stories). It is just an anecdotal example, but that shows just how unequal the women’s and men’s game is from the media perspective, commercial perspective and boards’ perspective.
It is clear to me that men’s cricket is almost seen as an industry and women’ cricket is like a cause. That has to come from all sides, to bring a change in the way the game is covered. I have had people say to me that women don’t bring in as much money, so you cant invest as much many in them. But, that, to me is complete rubbish. What you had with the ICC taking over women’s cricket, they are representative of all cricket. It can’t be seen as allocating money completely to men, and (to) women on some commission kind of basis based on the funds that they bring in or their game brings in. I think it is a kind of lazy excuse. What you would see is that it feeds in a vicious circle – the game doesn’t get money from it, so it doesn’t get watched, so it doesn’t get promoted, so it doesn’t get watched. That has to be changed. It needs to be promoted more from all levels, people need to made more aware of it. There must be more programs to make more girls to play and get more people to watch women’s cricket, in general.
SJ– In addition, if the boards make these players into professional cricketers, rather than mothers and sisters and what-not, having life outside of cricket, where cricket becomes a side show rather than their lifestyle. For example, in the England set-up, which doesn’t surprise me because they are the best team in the world now- they have the “Chance to Shine” contracts, the players work at the universities, they are part of the MCC young cricketers’ program – which allows them to play and train for most of the year. it looks like that is the kind of a model that every country could adopt.
NS– Yes, it is a good stepping stone. For example, Lisa Sthalekar also works at Cricket Australia. That is her full time job. I know she has other projects as well, but that (CA) is what she is technically contracted to, as a full time job, which does allow her to stay with a cricketing environment all the time. It is a good stepping stone to have the women within the cricket around all the time, which sets up well, where their life is cricket and the job is cricket. At the same time, there also needs to be a faster way for the women to be treated as how the men are. They have a fuller schedule and given the same kind of facilities and their job is cricket in terms of training for cricket, promoting cricket, teaching cricket, or whatever that is. I agree that it is a stepping stone, but I think there could be more improvement, to not just taking it to the semi-professional level, but to the full-professional level where the women are playing cricket in the same way as the men are.
SJ– Let’s talk a bit about the team closer to your home- South Africa. The South African sports team seem to be good at pretty much whatever sport they play. But, that doesn’t equate to the South African women’s cricket team.
NS– It is actually interesting when after the 2003 World Cup, the South African cricket team’s coach said after being eliminated from the competition that he thinks South African cricket should decide if the women are playing for the love of the game or as a serious pursuit. I think that it is not a question that has been seen through by Cricket South Africa. I think the women are serious. We have some incredibly talented cricketers, some very experienced ones. People like Trisha Chetty , some very exciting new talent coming through. I don’t think that Cricket South Africa promotes or sees women’s cricket as a professional set-up. I am kind of happy at where it is going. It is improving, from a very low base. You have Anjum Chopra –the Indan great – who is the currently helping us in the set up. There is a great investment, and it has grown a lot in the last few years, particularly since the World Cup that South Africa hosted. But, I will temper that by saying that I still don’t think that Cricket South Africa’s approach is at all serious or what it should or could be.
SJ– Fantastic. Thanks a lot for coming on the show, Nicole.
NS– Thank you for having me, Subash.
SJ– Pleasure!
—
—
SJ:Welcome back Sid.
SV: Hey Subash, it’s good to be back.
SJ:With the India-Australia Test series almost upon us, let’s talk about the history of the Border-Gavaskar trophy, especially the ones that you had the opportunity to cover a reporter for Cricinfo.
SV: Sure. I started with Cricinfo in 2003. India’s tour to Australia at the end of 2003 was one of the first series I witnessed as a reporter. Of course, I was not in Australia but I was watching it on TV, getting up early, trying to do the reporting from India, doing the scoring for Cricinfo and things like that. Yes, the 2003 series in Australia as well as the one in 2008, and even the one in 2004 which Australia won In India, were very charged contests, there was a lot at stake, there were a lot of great performances. In 2008, I was in Australia and it was quite intense to be in the midst of “Monkey-Gate” and also some of the great innings that were played – Laxman and Tendulkar in Sydney, there was Gilchrist retiring in Adelaide, Hayden played some great innings. So yeah, India-Australia during those 5 years was memorable in more ways than one.
SJ: At that time, looking around the world of cricket, this was the hotly contested series considering Ashes didn’t pick up till 2005, Australia-West Indies wasn’t what it used to be, neither was England-West Indies and India & Pakistan just didn’t play enough.
SV: Towards the late 80’s and throughout the 90’s, India and Australia didn’t play all that much. There was that tied Test in ’86-’87, and India went to Australia in 1991-92, and didn’t go to Australia till 1999. Australia didn’t come to India between 1987 and 1996, and even in ’96, it was just a one Test series. In 1998, they played a 3 Test series. So, there was a lull in the India-Australia series in the 80’s and through the 90’s but then the 2001 series – one of the greatest Test series of all time happened, but it was just a 3 Test series. One can only wonder how great it would have been if it were a 5 match series. That sort of kickstarted this whole decade of memorable India-Australia contests. Now, it’s probably at a stage where the curve is on its downswing with all these great players retiring – Ponting, Gilchrist, Dravid, Laxman. It remains to be seen how these contest go.
SJ:What were some the most outstanding performances and moments that stick out for you, beyond your cricket reporting period?
SV:One of the first matches I saw, one of the earliest memories is of that tied Test. It was on TV. I can still see these hazy images of Dean Jones vomiting during his double hundred, Greg Mathews in the final overs, and Maninder Singh LBW – These images keep popping in to my head. That is one match that will stick out in my mind. Of course, you read about all those great matches like Vijay Hazare making 100 in each innings in 1946, Gavaskar and Sandeep Patil playing those great innings. Even though India and Australia didn’t play much, whatever they played such as in 1996 and 1998, you latched on to those memories. The 1991 seires, I listened to the series on radio. That was the first time I heard Harsha Bhogle, Jim Maxwell and others on ABC radio and those sort of memories stick as well. It’s unfortunate that ABC is not even covering the series because they are refusing the pay the fees that BCCI is charging them. So yeah, the memories are pretty strong.
SJ: Coming back to this series on hand, this might be the first time, fans of both sides don’t give their respective sides any chance of winning the series. Considering India’s performances recently, and Australia – with especially Hussey retiring – coming to India with a relatively inexperienced, young, unsettled side. But, how do you see the series shaping up?
SV: This is a great recipe for a fantastic series. You either want two great sides going at each other, or two not-so-good sides going at each other to create a great contest. I think both teams at a phase – India have had a really bad time in the last 18 months, where as Australia are missing some key players. I’m predicting a fantastic contest and 4 tests is a pretty good length for that sort of series.
SJ: You are not going to make an actual prediction?
SV: No, I am not [Laugh]
SJ: Alright, Thanks a lot Sid.
SV: Thanks Subash
—
—
Subash Jayaraman: Welcome to Short Jabs, Matthew.
Matthew Wood: G’day Subash. It’s great to be here.
SJ: Pleasure. So, what’s bothering you now?
MW: Subash, I’m disappointed that Steven O’Keefe hasn’t been selected for the tour to India. I wouldn’t normally be in the front of the queue for the selection of a New South Welshmen to the Australian team. I wouldn’t need to be, partly because they would be in the team because of their talent or because of nepotism anyway. But, O’Keefe has been looked over for a crucial tour again. Pretty plainly, he’s the 2nd best spinning option available [behind Nathan Lyon]. He has been a steady perfoemer since he made his debut, middle of last decade. More poignantly, he bats well, he bowls well and he’s a leader. In India, it’s pretty well accepted that any touring party needs to have a minimum of 2 spinners, even if you don’t really plan to play them. They serve a whole bunch of roles – There’s competition for positions, they serve as relief valves as injury replacements and also in the form of Ashley Giles or Paul Harris, they block up an end, even though the strength of this Australian team is their fast bowling,
The secret of winning is to play to your strong points. Peter Siddle, I’d think is the second person on the team sheet behind Michael Clarke. You look at the number of quality fast bowlers in the squad – Bird, Pattinson, Starc and even – I hate to say this – Mitchell Johnson, who could bowl side out on their own. For a country that couldn’t produce batsmen to save themselves, we somehow are producing good set of fast bowlers and nurturing them. If Australia were to succeed, it’s gonna come on the backs of these flingers but that doesn’t mean you discount the need for a spinner.
SJ: What options did Australia have? They’ve taken Doherty, Steve Smith primarily for his batting and Maxwell, who’s an offspinner that can bat a bit. But looking at the stats from the recent Shield Cricket season, O’Keefe had outbowled the others but still Doherty was preferred.
MW: There are only 3 explanations as far as I can see. 1) They are happy with the devil they know than the devil they don’t. If they’re gonna get beaten, they’d rather it be with a guy they know the characteristics of, they know he might be able to block up an end but would take wickets as often as a three-legged Chihuahua. 2) It’s possible they don’t rate Steve O’Keefe which is curious and finally, 3) This is just thinking optimistically. With Kevin Pietersen’s – probably overstated – failings against left arm spinners, may be they are look at hiding him until the Ashes series.
SJ: Where do you stand on the series?
MW: I think I am one of the few people that might think Australia could do well in the series. Their fast bowling unit is probably the deepest in terms of talent in the world. Australia has a puncher;s chance of doing good here but India, in India, is a test that plenty of better Australian sides than this have struggled at, and failed and especially considering how majority of the Australia batsmen have struggled against slow bowling these days
SJ: Alright, Thanks a lot for coming on the show Matt.
MW: Pleasure to be here Subash
SJ: Cheers.
—
That’s the end of this episode of Short Jabs.
On this week’s blog recommendation is a very important piece of writing that should be read by all and sundry. Benny of the Tracerbullet blog, has a post on why there aren’t any Asian cricketers that have had public disclosure of any depression or mental anxiety related issues similar to Marcus Trescothick or Iain O’Brien and lays out the various possible reasons. If you didn’t hear me the first time, go, read it.
—