THE GREAT DEBATE: Women’s Tests – The Case Against

By Richard Clark

With the Kia Super League done and dusted, all eyes are now turning to this winter’s Women’s Ashes in Australia, and the prospects of Mark Robinson’s squad regaining the trophy Australia took on these shores in 2015 to sit nicely on the mantelpiece alongside the World Cup.

As with the last three Ashes battles, the series will be decided over a multi-format campaign, involving three One-Day Internationals, followed by a four-day Test Match, and ending with three T20 games.

It’s a format that may be considered “tried and tested” to a point, albeit with some tweaks along the way – the Test Match has been moved from the beginning to the middle of the programme since it was first introduced in 2013, and has also been “downgraded” from six points to four to decrease the emphasis on one match.

The question that occurs to me, however, is “Why?”

Why is there a Test Match?

England’s women cricketers play nothing other than “short form cricket” – be it for their clubs, counties or internationally – other than during the Ashes (barring the one-off Test against India in 2014). Likewise the Australians, as far as I am aware. Whilst Tests are still considered (rightly) to be the pinnacle of the men’s game, they are virtually alien to the women’s version.

For any player making her debut in this winter’s Test – and there will be a few on both sides – this will almost certainly be their first experience of coming back the next day (and the next, and the next) to continue a match. It will be the first time they field all day, or attempt to play a “long” innings. And that’s before we throw in the floodlit aspect, too!

That won’t necessarily make for a poor match, of course. The 2013/14 Test – played in Perth – was a captivating tussle. Lowish scoring, perhaps, but fiercely contested, and in doubt until the final morning. It ebbed and flowed as Test Match cricket should, and there were key performances from Kate Cross and Nat Sciver that “announced” their arrivals.

The Test at Canterbury in 2015, however, was (and I’m a fan of women’s cricket, remember) fairly awful to watch, and to describe it as a poor advertisement for the game would be a kindness. It seemed clear that England in particular looked rudderless in their approach the game. Whilst some of the blame for that could be laid at the coach’s door, that only tells part of the story. Sheer inexperience paid a huge part.

So why play Tests? I can think of only two reasons. Firstly, because it’s what we’ve always done – the Women’s Ashes were exclusively Test-based until 2011, and a Test has been part of the three series since. Secondly, the multi-format series is the “USP” – it’s what marks the Women’s Ashes out from ANY other cricket contest, men’s or women’s (yes, I know the men have used it but it was largely ignored as a concept by all and sundry).

Are either of those arguments enough? I can’t think of another sport that uses such an alien format in one of its highest profile contests – apart, perhaps, from the foursomes segment of Golf’s Ryder Cup. Nobody would expect footballers to turn up every four years and play five-a-side for the World Cup!

It would undoubtedly be a huge shame not to see a Test Match on the calendar, but if we really want the players to produce a contest befitting the Trophy then surely they should be playing what they know best, and that is limited overs cricket.

(Tomorrow Raf Nicholson will present The Case In Favour).

7 thoughts on “THE GREAT DEBATE: Women’s Tests – The Case Against

  1. Will wait for the opposing case before making any further comment. However, when you say “any player making her debut in this winter’s Test – and there will be a few on both sides – this will almost certainly be their first experience of coming back the next day (and the next, and the next) to continue a match.”, I’m sure it’s the case that England play inter-squad matches on a multi-day basis. I think the Aussies also played a multi-day match against the Academy on their last tour of England? On a related point, does anyone have the dates & oppositons of the warm-up matches to be played on this Ashes tour – struggling to find them.


  2. No mention of the Perth Test being played on a fantastic surface = good cricket, and the Canterbury Test on an absolute disgrace of a surface, purely because it was central for TV purposes but had been used all summer = dire cricket. Same for Wormsley.

    Put good players of either gender on good surfaces and watch good things happen. Over 20 overs, 50 or four days.


  3. This should provoke some good debate and hopefully it will be more informed than the the usual overly-negative tosh we see most other places. My initial thoughts are there are some arguments against women’s tests, one which was not mentioned being that it’s currently “exclusive” between England and Australia. This seems to only be benefiting who are already two of the top sides. Maybe if no other sides can take part, we’d be better off with no Tests at all. If it’s not going to be realistic to increase the amount of women’s Test cricket, what advantage is to be gained by holding onto a dead (or maimed!) format? Could resources be better used increasing the number of other overseas tour matches instead?


  4. Pingback: THE GREAT DEBATE: Women’s Tests – The Case In Favour | CRICKETher

  5. Definitely in favour of keeping the Tests. The best players need to be tested in all formats. I realise there is no multi-day domestic cricket in the English women’s game, and no prospect of anything in the immediate future. However, there is the opportunity for contracted professionals to play some warm-up games prior to Tests. I agree that the last Test in England wasn’t always stunningly good entertainment, but a lot of that might be put down to England not playing very well rather than any issues with the format per se. The scoring rate in a women’s Test is always likely to be fairly slow, but I don’t see that as a reason for not playing the matches, perhaps the real question needs to be whether TV companies want to cover the Tests, and for now at least I’d understand if they said they didn’t. Anyway, if we agree to suspend Tests for a period, one thing you can be sure of is that they would never be re-instated.


Comments are closed.