Women's Internationals: Australia v New Zealand - Sep/Oct 2020

[The Victorian]

They made mention in the telecast yesterday that in 2022 there will be a T20 World Cup. ODI World Cup, Comm Games and the Ashes. I think the Ashes tournament will be held in Australia in late 2021, early 2022.

It’s gonna be massive!
I reckon this’ll be the fixture.

January: Ashes in Australia
February/March: World Cup in NZ
April/May: Overseas tour somewhere
July/August: Comm Games in Birmingham, England
September/Early Oct: T20 WC in South Africa (Mens World Cup in Australia October – 13 November 2022)
During Men’s T20WC: WNCL matches
Mid November to Early/Mid December: WBBL
January: Women’s Internationals in Aus

 

[DEVO]

It’s gonna be massive!
I reckon this’ll be the fixture.

January: Ashes in Australia
February/March: World Cup in NZ
April/May: Overseas tour somewhere
July/August: Comm Games in Birmingham, England
September/Early Oct: T20 WC in South Africa (Mens World Cup in Australia October – 13 November 2022)
During Men’s T20WC: WNCL matches
Mid November to Early/Mid December: WBBL
January: Women’s Internationals in Aus

Pretty similiar to what I thought. And before that you'll the WBBL, WNCL and some internationals in late 2021. It will be a hectic 18 months for the Aussie woman and there is every chance that about 20-25 players will be required, so building depth in the squad now can only be a good thing.

 

[The Victorian]

Pretty similiar to what I thought. And before that you'll the WBBL, WNCL and some internationals in late 2021. It will be a hectic 18 months for the Aussie woman and there is every chance that about 20-25 players will be required, so building depth in the squad now can only be a good thing.

Yep, there is a chance that the new U19 Girls World Cup and U19 Girls T20 World Cup that were meant to be played in 2021 could be postponed to 2022 as well. It is going to be a hectic year for women's cricket!!

With CA wanting to further develop the WBBL I cannot see them having the tournament running while the Men's T20 World Cup is held which is why it might go longer into December. WNCL matches will need to be played and sadly they don't get much attention anyway so they can play during the Men's WC to get those matches underway. Interestingly, on the WNCL- Apparently Channel 10 were offering to broadcast WNCL matches when they bidded for the current broadcast rights but of course CA knocked them back for the CASH from Channel Seven...

 

[Teen Wolf]

Interestingly, on the WNCL- Apparently Channel 10 were offering to broadcast WNCL matches when they bidded for the current broadcast rights but of course CA knocked them back for the CASH from Channel Seven...

Now that really is an urban legend. Ten were showing twelve WBBL games in their last year. Suddenly they became so interested in women's domestic cricket, they were going to air (and be able to pay the production costs for) 88 matches per season?

The Guardian article perpetuating that myth, which is an insult to everybody's intelligence, also tries to marginalise the extra $230m that CA got for the last broadcast rights. Well, let's see: $230m divided by five seasons... that's an extra $46m per season. Just so happens to be the same amount which total female player payments increased by since the new 2017/18 TV deal.

At the start of that 2017/18 season, the Aus women's team scrapped out a drawn Ashes series on home soil, had recently been bundled out of a World Cup semi-final, and lost a World T20 final to the West Indies the year before. Since that pay increase, the Aus women's team has managed 21-straight ODI wins, won back-to-back World T20 championships and dominated an Ashes series on English soil. Not to mention the huge increase in the quality of the WBBL in that time.

CA knocking back Ten for extra CASH is the best thing that has ever happened to women's cricket in this country (closely followed by Ellyse Perry and AFLW).

 

[Scratchy05]

Annabel Sutherland, while young and promising is clearly not in our best 11 or 12. The thing is, we are just so good that we can afford to develop players.

 

[Teen Wolf]

Annabel Sutherland, while young and promising is clearly not in our best 11 or 12. The thing is, we are just so good that we can afford to develop players.

Or, is that an ingredient for sustained success? I think it's more a case of teams can't afford to not develop young talent this way.

As I mentioned earlier in the thread:

Here is the debut age of active Aus players (2020-21 contracts in bold, debutantes from the last 5 years in green):

16: Perry
17: Ferling, Cheatle
18: Sutherland, Lanning, Kimmince
19: Jonassen, Wareham, Vakarewa, Wellington, Duffin, Osborne, Villani, Coyte, Gardner, Healy, Schutt, Vlaeminck
20: Molineux
21: McGrath, Stalenberg, Harris
22: Mooney, Haynes
23: Graham
24: Strano, Carey
25: Bolton
-----------------------
31: Burns
33: Aley

 

[Scratchy05]

Or, is that an ingredient for sustained success? I think it's more a case of teams can't afford to not develop young talent this way.

As I mentioned earlier in the thread:

Fair enough as it is great experience but I can't help but feel we have better options. McGrath was one but good to see she is playing.

On another note, what has happened to Ferling. She used to be like actual lightning (Her and Vlaeminck would've been great) but seems to have dropped off completely. I feel injury had something to do with it but she seems a shell of her former self. She is still only 24 however.

 

[Scratchy05]

Now that really is an urban legend. Ten were showing twelve WBBL games in their last year. Suddenly they became so interested in women's domestic cricket, they were going to air (and be able to pay the production costs for) 88 matches per season?

The Guardian article perpetuating that myth, which is an insult to everybody's intelligence, also tries to marginalise the extra $230m that CA got for the last broadcast rights. Well, let's see: $230m divided by five seasons... that's an extra $46m per season. Just so happens to be the same amount which total female player payments increased by since the new 2017/18 TV deal.

At the start of that 2017/18 season, the Aus women's team scrapped out a drawn Ashes series on home soil, had recently been bundled out of a World Cup semi-final, and lost a World T20 final to the West Indies the year before. Since that pay increase, the Aus women's team has managed 21-straight ODI wins, won back-to-back World T20 championships and dominated an Ashes series on English soil. Not to mention the huge increase in the quality of the WBBL in that time.

CA knocking back Ten for extra CASH is the best thing that has ever happened to women's cricket in this country (closely followed by Ellyse Perry and AFLW).

I think this is fair but this deal has hurt the game in the long run. The men's big bash pulls in shocking rating because no one knows if it is going to be on free to air or now. When Channel 10 had the rights to the game, it was on roughly the same time every night but now with Channel 7/Fox, the scheduling is much more inconsistent. Channel 10 also offered to broadcast more women's and Shield matches. I think the gain in 46 Million doesn't off-set the actual exposure to the game as Channel 7 & Fox have cooked the Golden Egg which is the Big Bash which hurts the popularity of cricket in the long run.

I will say this that the rise in how popular the Women's National Team is may offset this loss slightly as the Women's world cup was incredibly popular but regardless, more exposure for cricket in the long-run is a good thing.

 

[Teen Wolf]

Fair enough as it is great experience but I can't help but feel we have better options. McGrath was one but good to see she is playing.

On another note, what has happened to Ferling. She used to be like actual lightning (Her and Vlaeminck would've been great) but seems to have dropped off completely. I feel injury had something to do with it but she seems a shell of her former self. She is still only 24 however.

If the selection of Sutherland is based on picking the best young all-rounder under the age of 21, there isn't a better option at the moment. McGrath is six years older than her, so it seems like they're not really competing for the same spot.

Injury had everything to do with Ferling's drop-off, though I wouldn't say speed has ever been her strength. If anything she is back on track to bowling very well and staying fit, having been carefully managed last season. For example, she had a 3/28 POTM in the WNCL back in January, then sat out the following day before returning for the last game and taking 2/28. Was relatively tidy in most of the WBBL games she played too (10 of 14), keeping her head above water on a sinking Stars ship.

I think this is fair but this deal has hurt the game in the long run. The men's big bash pulls in shocking rating because no one knows if it is going to be on free to air or now. When Channel 10 had the rights to the game, it was on roughly the same time every night but now with Channel 7/Fox, the scheduling is much more inconsistent. Channel 10 also offered to broadcast more women's and Shield matches. I think the gain in 46 Million doesn't off-set the actual exposure to the game as Channel 7 & Fox have cooked the Golden Egg which is the Big Bash which hurts the popularity of cricket in the long run.

I will say this that the rise in how popular the Women's National Team is may offset this loss slightly as the Women's world cup was incredibly popular but regardless, more exposure for cricket in the long-run is a good thing.

The BBL pulls in anything but shocking ratings, even with the recent decline which is largely attributable to more games in more non-prime timeslots. Scheduling could certainly be improved to maximise its potential imo, I have plenty of ideas about that, but CA's plans to bloat the competition were going to happen if they stayed with Ten for less money anyway.

Free-to-air television coverage of the WBBL has doubled since it moved to Ch7. If Ten were actually interested in showing more than a dozen games per season, why didn't they? Why aren't they still? As we saw with certain announcements last week, it's not too late for networks to buy* the rights to unsold women's and Shield matches. *almost certainly free of charge, minus production costs

 

[Scratchy05]

The BBL pulls in anything but shocking ratings, even with the recent decline which is largely attributable to more games in more non-prime timeslots. Scheduling could certainly be improved to maximise its potential imo, I have plenty of ideas about that, but CA's plans to bloat the competition were going to happen if they stayed with Ten for less money anyway.

Free-to-air television coverage of the WBBL has doubled since it moved to Ch7. If Ten were actually interested in showing more than a dozen games per season, why didn't they? Why aren't they still? As we saw with certain announcements last week, it's not too late for networks to buy* the rights to unsold women's and Shield matches. *almost certainly free of charge, minus production costs

You do raise some solid points here. Channel 10 are an actual basket case (which is a shame because I like their content the best) and make many wrong decisions so that is fully fair but I would like to see cricket return. Well, just no cricket on Foxtel.

Also I'm curious to hear your ideas, how would you improve the BBL. Personally, I would drop the schedule back to 8 games only starting at the very start of December and hosting a grand final on Australia Day but I haven't given it heaps of thought yet.

 

[Teen Wolf]

You do raise some solid points here. Channel 10 are an actual basket case (which is a shame because I like their content the best) and make many wrong decisions so that is fully fair but I would like to see cricket return. Well, just no cricket on Foxtel.

Also I'm curious to hear your ideas, how would you improve the BBL. Personally, I would drop the schedule back to 8 games only starting at the very start of December and hosting a grand final on Australia Day but I haven't given it heaps of thought yet.

For the BBL, I'm in favour of greatly decreasing the dead-rubber H&A games and balancing that out by increasing the number of high-stake matches between top teams (who are also typically the most popular teams in any given year). So yeah something like an 8-round regular season but also with best-of-three series in an extended finals, while keeping the tournament as close to a month-"long" as possible. I'm planning to get into real specifics in another thread at another time, complete with eye-popping infographics and everything, perhaps when/if the current broadcast dispute blows over.

But, I should especially add in this thread, part of my ideal summer structure would also include a concerted effort to improve the self-sustainability of the women's game, thereby reducing the need to milk every last penny out of the men's game. Much more can be done on this front. You just have to look at the World Cup earlier in the year (consider the difference between the 3pm school day fixtures vs the desirable night timeslot at a marquee venue) to see the impact that scheduling and promotion can have on viewership/attendance numbers!