for an ad-free Fetcheveryone experience!

Cricket Thread

1 lurker | 108 watchers

57.5 Degrees of Pain 26 Jan 1:53pm, 26 Jan 2025 26,655 posts	0 57.5 Degrees of Pain We all know from running that high levels of physical fitness are a great deal easier for some of us to maintain than others. The depth of talent in the women's game means you still need to select everyone with elite cricketing skills, with fitness a secondary consideration. So some of the team may be working hard on fitness with less obvious results. The mens game hasn't long moved on from the Phil Tufnells of this world .
phal 26 Jan 2:07pm, 26 Jan 2025 5,058 posts	0 phal Dave W wrote:You can compare if you want. But I think it’s an unfair comparison.Once the women’s game has been professional for a few more years and the players have all been brought through in the professional era then the comparison would be more valid. Completely agree @Dave W Just because the women are now a professional side does not make it equal. Should they be judged on their outcomes as they are professionals - yes. But they are still years behind the men’s set up and there isn’t a parallel. There’s only been central contracts for women since 2020… the match fees were only made equal in 2023… Also agree with @57.5 Degrees of Pain and there are some fabulous talents within the squad.
paulcook 26 Jan 2:58pm, 26 Jan 2025 7,310 posts	0 paulcook 57.5 Degrees of Pain wrote:The mens game hasn't long moved on from the Phil Tufnells of this world . Yes. I find it remarkable that a good deal of those players so short a time ago would struggle to get into teams at various formats for fielding, batting skills, speed of scoring. But the technical expertise, application, training has come on so much. So as much as Tuffers, Devon Malcolm, Sid Lawrence might get nowhere near the current sides so would there training and approach in the first place. With more money and professionalism, I expect the women’s girl will similarly catch up.
rf_fozzy 26 Jan 3:24pm, 26 Jan 2025 23,518 posts	0 rf_fozzy See, that is a false comparison - the coaching in women's cricket does not exist in a vacuum - it is based on the same knowledge as the men's game. And for that matter what is know and applied by the Australian women's team. So the women's game isn't where the men's game was in the 90s. Jon Lewis is a modern coach who has coached in the men's game. He understands what needs to go into the coaching and it isn't evident that they are doing that to me. Do I think England would have won this series if they'd tried to fix some stuff between the world cup and the ashes. No. Australia are better and more talented. But that's not why I think the coach and captain have probably run their course - my issue is that they had a disappointing world cup exit (where one of the glaring errors was fitness and fielding skills) and they haven't tried to fix it. And it seems, from their reaction to the probably fair criticism from the media who report on England women's cricket, that they are actually in denial about part of it. That's nothing to do with talent and number of players available. That's all down to the ethos and discipline in the way the team is run - i.e. the captain and the coach.
rf_fozzy 26 Jan 3:30pm, 26 Jan 2025 23,519 posts	0 rf_fozzy I look at the comparison between the England women's football team and the cricket team. It's not a perfect one, but for me it's useful. Both became a professional programme around the same time, and have developing domestic structures, with a smaller talent pool than the comparative men's game. And both have had success early on in their professional set ups. But the football set up seems to be always striving to improve. And I don't see the same from the England women's cricket team at the moment.
phal 26 Jan 3:55pm, 26 Jan 2025 5,059 posts	0 phal I’m not sure you can compare women’s football and women’s cricket. I think football is streets ahead for the women. It’s a more mainstream sport. The big clubs have FAR more funding to put into their women’s sides then the county sides do at a domestic level for cricket. I know very little about women’s football but IMHO it’s far above what cricket has available for women. The parameters for this discussion keep changing depending on what folk are putting forward as points of view and it’s really morphed from where it started.
phal 26 Jan 3:57pm, 26 Jan 2025 5,060 posts	0 phal I was in the middle of editing that last paragraph and managed to post it 🤪 Hey ho. Can’t remember what I was going to edit it to say now 🤷‍♀️
rf_fozzy 26 Jan 4:18pm, 26 Jan 2025 23,520 posts	0 rf_fozzy You keep talking about resources in the game. And yes, whilst there is some truth to that, it's not relevant to the criticisms I'm raising. Namely that the ethos around the team set and their desire to want to improve to compete better doesn't seem to be there. And that's why it falls on the captain and coach. (Nb: I am not saying they don't have the desire to win games and am not saying they didn't want to beat Australia - they do, but they want they don't want to do, it seems to me, is the hard work - that the Australian women's side do do - to improve fitness and skills that would make them more competitive). It doesn't require the ECB to stick another £10m into the women's game to have an increased focus on fitness and improving fielding skills. What is does require is the coaching and playing staff (i.e. the team) to want to do it. Hence issues with the captain and coaching set up.
rf_fozzy 26 Jan 4:19pm, 26 Jan 2025 23,521 posts	0 rf_fozzy Some interesting sentence structures from me there. I think it makes sense....
Ocelot Spleens 26 Jan 4:39pm, 26 Jan 2025 40,320 posts	0 Ocelot Spleens The comparison to make is with the Australian women's team, not women's football, not men's cricket. The Australians are better in every facet of the game, including their fitness, intensity in the game and their decision making, and I think that was what Hartley was getting at.