When the Australian fast bowler Cathryn Fitzpatrick retired in 2007, having enjoyed a successful 16 years of international cricket, she was asked where she sees the women’s game in 10 years. “On TV,” was her reply.
It was the type of no-nonsense response you would expect from someone who took 180 ODI wickets with the sort of pace that still strikes fear in those playing the game. But not even in Fitzpatrick’s wildest dreams could she have envisaged that 2017 would bring the first Women’s World Cup in which all matches will be broadcast. “I was just looking to give a sharp answer,” says Fitzpatrick. “But it was the next step we had to make as a sport.”
Of the 31 games played in the World Cup’s 11th edition, 10 will be televised, with the other 21 live-streamed. Women’s cricket has never been more visible.
The ECB has worked tirelessly to harness the momentum of women’s sport in the UK. Last year, London Underground commuters were greeted by a striking, brightly coloured poster of Stafanie Taylor (West Indies), Dane van Niekerk (South Africa), Ellyse Perry (Australia) and Suzie Bates (New Zealand) being led by England’s steely-eyed captain Heather Knight, seemingly into battle. The intended message was clear: the organisers do not want this to be a World Cup that goes quietly.
It will be a far cry from the last time England hosted the tournament in 1993. A format featuring eight nations and lasting 13 days was inexplicably played at 25 different venues. Teams were put up in schools and university halls across the country, yet still had to wake up early and sit on a bus for hours before playing. Communal areas such as kitchens and laundry facilities were shared with opposing sides. Any missing clothes would invariably be found later pinned up on hallway notice boards.
England, with a squad of 14 amateurs made up of teachers, clerks, a couple of van drivers and a police officer, led by the indomitable Karen Smithies, who managed a bookmakers to pay her bills, won the whole thing, beating New Zealand by 67 runs in a Lord’s final broadcast live on BBC Grandstand. This time, there will be no live free-to-air broadcast, though women will be allowed to watch from the Lord’s pavilion after 212 years of male exclusivity was ended in 1999 – disappointingly backwards and shockingly overdue forward steps, respectively.
The most striking changes for the 2017 World Cup emanate from the greater finances available. England and Australia’s teams are full time, while the rest receive some regular income from their boards. Make no mistake – there is still progress to be made.
In 1993, a late grant of £90,000 from the Foundation of Sport and the Arts helped ensure running costs were met amid talk of cancelling the tournament as a whole. That sum is dwarfed by this year’s prize money of $2m (£1.56m) – 10 times more than the $200,000 on offer at the 2013 World Cup. Extra cash also means DRS will be made available for the first time in women’s cricket.
With only five grounds – Bristol, Derby, Taunton and Leicester, with the final at Lord’s – first-class training facilities are in play for all sides. Teams have planned accordingly, some arriving in the UK more than a month ago to acclimatise and make use of willing opposition to aid their preparation. New Zealand even had the pleasure of flying business class – a point worth highlighting considering England, with the financial might of the ECB behind them, sat in economy for their 14-hour trip to last year’s World T20 in India.
Something about this World Cup feels stronger. Women’s cricket is more sure of its footing and the growing awkwardness with the men’s game indicates as much. Chris Gayle, whose interactions with women have brought him more headlines than his bat in recent times, was panned for his platitudes on the West Indies’ chances in the competition. Even a speech from the great Sachin Tendulkar at Lord’s – he is an ICC ambassador for the Women’s World Cup – felt a little stale, not least because he was unsure as to which teams were playing and insisted on referring to daughters as “girl children”.
In a week, it will be time to walk the talk. With so many cameras and even more eyes on a Women’s World Cup than ever before, the players take on the responsibility of a sport that, while not as thrash-a-minute as men’s limited-overs cricket, is evolving at a thrilling rate.
The onus on Twenty20 skills has seen six-hitting progress, but it is fast bowling where the stocks have never been so blessed. Katherine Brunt (England), Lea Tahuhu (New Zealand) and Shabnim Ismail (South Africa) top the charts, with Perry, India’s Jhulan Goswami, the West Indies’ Shamilia Connell and England’s Anya Shrubsole operating at lower speeds but bringing as much to the party.
Australia start as favourites – six-times winners, defending champions and led by Meg Lanning, who bats like all your favourites rolled into one. But England’s progression, particularly their belief and fitness, coupled with home conditions, should push them close. So too, an experienced New Zealand side. World T20 champions West Indies, as temperamental as the English weather, could peak at the right time, while India are looking to move on from their conservative ways. South Africa, perhaps the biggest developers in recent years, take ownership of the “dark horses” tag.
It has never been harder to pick a winner – and there can be no clearer indication that women’s cricket is moving in the right direction.
