The CRICKETher Weekly – Episode 191

This week:

  • WBBL: The path to qualification for Sixers & Hurricanes
  • Why Scorchers & Strikers are topping the table this season
  • Is Annabel Sutherland in line for the Australia captaincy?
  • A 3-day break between Tests for India – what were the BCCI thinking?!

FEATURE: Tracing the History of the Women’s Cricket Association of India

The current breed of talented girls owes it to the Women’s Cricket Association of India (WCAI) and the people behind it. That is where the saga of women’s cricket started to unfold, around five decades ago.

By Medha Godbole

As Harmanpreet Kaur, Smriti Mandhana and the rest of the players proudly displayed their well-deserved Asian Games Gold medal for cricket, one cannot help but thinking how far women’s cricket in India has come. Although it is still just in its teens and there is still a lot to be cheered about. But it is safe to say that the current breed of talented girls owes it all to the Women’s Cricket Association of India and the people behind it. That is where the saga of women’s cricket started taking shape, around five decades ago.

Circa 1973 – The Women’s Cricket Association of India (WCAI) was registered by Mahendra Kumar Sharma, the founder secretary in Lucknow, India, under the Indian Societies Act. Even though since early 1970’s, women had been playing cricket, there was no organisational set up for the game before WCAI. Girls who played hockey and softball were the obvious choices to be picked to play cricket. The first president of the WCAI was the late Begum Hamida Habibullah. She was the face of women empowerment in post-independence India.

The same year, in 1973, WCAI became a member of the International Women’s Cricket Council. This probably doesn’t seem to be of too much consequence now. Although at that time, it was huge, and the matches garnered a decent number of spectators. Under the leadership of Habibullah, initially, for the first few years, there was considerable hustle and bustle. They were playing for almost nine months in a year. Three teams participated in the the first women’s inter-state nationals – Uttar Pradesh, Maharashtra and Mumbai held in 1973.

From three teams in the first inter-state tournament to more than ten in the third, held at the then Kolkata (earlier Calcutta), it was a big leap for the association as well as involvement of women in the sport. The first ever international test match was held at Pune between India and Australia in 1975. It is another story that the match was considered to be an unofficial affair. This was followed by India’s matches with New Zealand, England, and West Indies, both at home and overseas. Interestingly and ironically enough, despite the lack of awareness and general apathy towards women’s cricket, the touring teams were surprised to see a large number of spectators. This was something they had never experienced at home. Perhaps one of the reasons could be that in India, the matches were held at regular cricket stadiums whereas abroad they were played on club cricket grounds. The WCAI functioned efficiently under Anuradha Dutta, 1991 onwards. The trend continued, 2002 onwards with Shubhangi Kulkarni as the secretary.

Of course, the WCAI was responsible for pumping in the money via its stake holders. According to one of the former India players, who has seen the working of the WCAI closely, the volunteers and officials often pumped in their own finances to make sure that the girls got to play. In fact, the WCAI hosted the 1997 Women’s World Cup in India with the financial backing of local businesses.

Much was achieved by the WCAI for women’s cricket and there was a lot of activity in the first decade or so after its establishment. However, around the early 1980s, things took a downturn. Shantha Rangaswamy, a former allrounder and Indian captain and an Arjuna Awardee (1976-1991) and Shubhangi Kulkarni (former India Captain, and Arjuna Awardee) both look upon the period of 1986 to 1991 as that of lull. There was barely any cricket played. Rangaswamy and several other doyens of sport like Diana Eduljee, Ujjwala Nikam had to endure this tumultuous time. It was tough because all these immensely talented players had to twiddle their thumbs in their prime, without any action on the ground. Upon a bit of digging, it was known that there were issues between the then WCAI secretary and the concerned minister of sports.

But one wonders, considering that, women’s cricket in general seemed to be in a better position in India in the 1970s and 1980s, why did it take almost eighty odd years for it to merge with BCCI? The BCCI, we have to note here, was formed in the late 1920s. One aspect of the answer seems to be obvious. Popularity and money were not the adjectives which were associated with women’s cricket. Lucrative was not something women’s cricket was believed to be. However, the WCAI became a member of the International Women’s Cricket Council (IWCC) in 1973 and received the government’s recognition in 1978. After the BCCI started administering the sport, at the beginning of 2000, things were looking up. Although, the WCAI was left to its own devices for a while. Lack of resources was a major issue while those who played or represented BCCI as players got better opportunities and treatment.

The amalgamation or the merger of WCAI into BCCI happened in the year 2006. By that time, the International Cricket Council, which had already taken the IWCC (International Women’s Cricket Council) under its aegis. Kulkarni surmises that it was probably because for cricket to be included as a part of the Olympics or Commonwealth Games, there had to be a single governing body for the sport. This brought about a sea change in the playing conditions for the players. Things like match fees, hotel accommodation and proper train reservations came into the picture.

But all this would not have been possible if it were not for late MK Sharma’s resilience and his support for women’s cricket. A chance sighting of girls from a softball team playing cricket on a railway platform in India spurred the formation of WCAI. Talking about the setting up of WCAI, Kulkarni mentioned that MK Sharma was a visionary when it came to women’s cricket. A coach himself, then, he was pivotal in getting an organized set up for this sport with reference to women in the country. Before that, it was pretty much scattered. He did not falter from his objective no matter what anyone said. Men like him were made fun of and girls too were ridiculed and cast away. In a predominantly orthodox society, like India, girls wielding bats was blasphemy. They were supposed to get married, have children and take care of the household, not go around running behind a leather ball in shorts or skirts in front of people.

The similarities between what Women’s Cricket Monthly magazine by Marjorie Pollard did for the cause of women’s cricket in the United Kingdom and by cascading effect across the globe and the WCAI for women’s cricket is uncanny. The WCAI nurtured some of the best women cricketers over the years. The solid foundation laid by the association ensured that generations of girls would be able to build their careers on it. For that, innumerable cricket connoisseurs and future Mithali Rajs or Shantha Rangaswamys in India will always be indebted to.

The CRICKETher Weekly – Episode 187

This week:

  • Broken things – Alyssa Healy’s hand and Grace Harris’s bat
  • Should WBBL be reduced to 10 games?
  • Cath Dalton & Alex Hartley break down coaching barriers in men’s cricket
  • Men’s & women’s PCA reps clash about the future of The Hundred

Cricket at the Olympics – The Game Changer?

So after much wrangling, cricket is set to be included at the 2028 Olympic Games in Los Angeles. This has been widely celebrated among the cricket fan community but there remain a number of reasons to be sceptical.

In a piece written a few months ago for Inside The Games, ICC chair Greg Barclay argued that this was a “win-win-win”.

“For cricket, the benefits of inclusion into LA28 are clear. Being part of the greatest event in the world will enable us to showcase cricket to new audiences, to attract new players and fans of all ages, and open new commercial opportunities, all while giving our star players the ultimate platform to shine.”

“The United States in particular is a key pillar of our Global Growth Strategy, making this iteration of the Olympics – in LA – especially exciting for us.”

Perhaps the most bizarre part of this quote is the literal head of the International Cricket Council admitting that their own World Cup is not the “ultimate platform” for the sport. (Can you imagine Gianni Infantino saying that the FIFA World Cup wasn’t the “ultimate platform” for football?)

It is also a little optimistic to imagine that cricket’s inclusion in a multi-sports event where it will, at the very best, play third-fiddle behind Track & Field and Gymnastics (the blue-riband Olympic events) will do very much for its profile. If you think that just being an Olympic sport increases your profile, then I challenge you to tell me everything you know about handball, which has been an Olympic event for nearly 50 years, with no noticeable increase in profile outside its heartlands.

Barclay also argues that because the US is seen by the ICC as a key growth market, that LA is a good place for cricket to start (or technically, re-start, as it was played in 1900) its Olympic journey. But is it? There are some good reasons to think it might actually not be.

First, LA is 12½ hours time difference to Mumbai – it is going to be impossible to schedule the games in a way that will please Indian broadcasters, meaning any revenue projections from TV income are likely well wide of the mark.

Second, the games take place in August, in the heart of the English season, meaning they will rain all over The Hundred (or whatever has replaced it by 2028). This is a massive problem for the ECB, who will need to make some very hard choices.

Third, specialist press (of whom there are next-to-none locally) won’t be able to cover the games in-person. LA is one of the most expensive cities in the world, even when there isn’t an Olympics going on – there is no way the specialist media will be able to afford to be there; and specialist broadcasters such as TMS may face similar issues. (Will the BBC be able to afford to send the TMS team to cover the matches? And if so, what will they cut to find the six-figure sum it would cost?)

Finally, an argument Barclay doesn’t make, but which we’ve seen from fans, is that this will help cricket in the “Associate” countries by giving them access to Olympic funding. But… will it? So-called “Olympic funding” actually comes from governments, who are under no obligation to fund one sport over another, and are much more likely to divert money to sports their country actually has a chance to at least qualify in.

There is zero chance of any associate country qualifying for a 6-team Olympic event, even if we pretend that the qualification will really be genuinely meritocratic. Which… it won’t be! (Does anyone really believe that if (somehow) India slipped into 7th place behind the Netherlands in the T20 rankings that the ICC (who after all control the rankings through a conveniently unpublished algorithm) wouldn’t just… change the algorithm? Of course they would!) So why would the Netherlands Olympic funding committee prioritise cricket over all the other sports that are clutching at their purse-strings?

None of this means that cricket at LA ’28 won’t potentially be a fun ride for anyone lucky enough to be involved. But if the ICC is really relying on this to be the “game changer”… they are going to be sorely disappointed.