Waqar Younis suggests a 30-over Cricket World Cup for women, feels 50 overs are 'a few too many'

[Abdullah719]

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en"><p lang="en" dir="ltr"><a href="https://twitter.com/ICC">@ICC</a> What abt having 30 overs Cricket World Cup 4 Women???Like Tennis 3 sets rather then 5 <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/Suggestion?src=hash">#Suggestion</a> I feel 50 overs r few 2many <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/WWCUP17?src=hash">#WWCUP17</a></p>— waqar younis (@waqyounis99) <a href="https://twitter.com/waqyounis99/status/880537190354173952">June 29, 2017</a></blockquote>
<script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

Thoughts?

 

[Arham_PakFan]

This WC has generally been good with high scores,although in the past you could have made a case for there being fewer overs.

 

[Rayyman]

I agree. Good suggestion.

 

[Slog]

40 overs sound good

 

[Last Monetarist]

Reckon 40 overs would be about the right number. Will make the games more competitive, and thus more interesting for the casual patrons.

 

[MenInG]

But then would it be fair to the teams that are doing well in 50 overs?

 

[ExpressPacer]

I like the format and the game just how it is. 50 over ODI's and 5 day test matches are perfect.

 

[English August]

It right the way it is. No need to change. Aus, Eng and Ind are doing well. The rest need to catch up. But the answer is not to reduce it.

 

[troodon]

Even for Men, 40 overs should be implemented.

In a 50 over match, Overs 25-40 are a huge borefest.

 

[Bilal7]

Women's cricket lacks the same intensity of the men's game, with all due respect. In light of that, reducing the OD games to 40 overs will do it good. Eventually the same can be done with the men's game but not until the 2019 WC.

 

[AnOrdinaryPakistani]

I think for men & women both we should reduce the length of the game not only by terms of overs but also in wickets.
We should rather have 5 wickets match. Where every team will select its 5 batsmen to bat with. And after when they are done. They will then have 6 bowlers to bowl with. Each can bowl like 5 overs max. And supported by conventional 11 fielders.

Or we can introduce indoor cricket more of like tennis, ice hockey.

 

[Mamoon]

It is not something for men to decide. It is women's cricket, and let women make the call.

I don't watch much of it, but I have been impressed with the standards of teams like Australia, England, NZ etc. The Asian sides need to raise their game and will eventually catch up.

 

[AnOrdinaryPakistani]

Even for Men, 40 overs should be implemented.
In a 50 over match, Overs 25-40 are a huge borefest.

With too many overs in hand the game usually becomes quite boring for both men & women.
But if we reduce the overs then we may more or less get the T20 type of cricket, which is also kind of boring because batsmen only wacks the bowl out of the stadium. And it becomes batsmen game.
If only we can get the wickets reduced then i believe we can keep the balance between bowlers & batsmen while also getting overs reduced.

 

[thelandofthebravepeople]

I think for men let's make it exciting. Before the match Captain that win the toss take out a number of box containing numbers from 25-50 and the number that comes out decides how many overs game will be played.

 

[kingusama92]

These guys pay no attention to women's cricket and then come out of their hole when a WC is around.

Let the women decide what's best for them.

 

[Stewie]

I think the men's ODI cricket should also be reduced to 35 overs.

 

[GLORY OF '92]

Probably 10 overs.

Complete borefest.

Pakistan needs to stop wasting precious resources.

 

[GoUgandaCranes]

It is not something for men to decide. It is women's cricket, and let women make the call.

I don't watch much of it, but I have been impressed with the standards of teams like Australia, England, NZ etc. The Asian sides need to raise their game and will eventually catch up.

wrong argument if you want to go that way.

it's for the viewers to decide. right now it seems as if the product is being forced down the throat of people and no one is really interested in watching it. if it makes money, it should be continued.

if it doesn't, then a proper evaluation should be carried out to see where the failure is.

indian team is good though, it beat the highly anticipated english team in the tour opener.

 

[aloo paratha]

It is not something for men to decide. It is women's cricket, and let women make the call.

I don't watch much of it, but I have been impressed with the standards of teams like Australia, England, NZ etc. The Asian sides need to raise their game and will eventually catch up.

Off topic but I never understood why people find logic in this.

If my mom is having a heart attack, I can't call 911 unless she tells me to? Just because I'm a guy? This logic makes no sense It should be the right decision that is being made, doesn't matter whether it's man, women or an alien making it.

 

[kingusama92]

Off topic but I never understood why people find logic in this.

If my mom is having a heart attack, I can't call 911 unless she tells me to? Just because I'm a guy? This logic makes no sense It should be the right decision that is being made, doesn't matter whether it's man, women or an alien making it.

Women's cricket is having a heart attack?

Seems to be at its highest point right now and trending in the right direction.

Yes, PAK's team is performing poorly but that has more to do with their quality than the format/regulations. Thus, Waqar's suggestion holds minimal merit and it's best to let the women (or their administrators) decide what's best for that version of the sport.

 

[The cricket enthusiast]

It is not something for men to decide. It is women's cricket, and let women make the call.

I don't watch much of it, but I have been impressed with the standards of teams like Australia, England, NZ etc. The Asian sides need to raise their game and will eventually catch up.

you make no sense.
just saying..
decisions are taken by board authorities not based on gender.

 

[QalandarFan]

Even for Men, 40 overs should be implemented.

In a 50 over match, Overs 25-40 are a huge borefest.

There is a format called T20I for a reason if ODI's are too boring and we shorten ODI's to 40 overs what would be the difference between the two, just slog, slog, slog. 50 Overs is perfect it tests batsman's temprement and ability to adjust 40 overs would kill the fun, it will more or less become a longer version of T20's.

 

[aloo paratha]

Women's cricket is having a heart attack?

Seems to be at its highest point right now and trending in the right direction.

Yes, PAK's team is performing poorly but that has more to do with their quality than the format/regulations. Thus, Waqar's suggestion holds minimal merit and it's best to let the women (or their administrators) decide what's best for that version of the sport.

No, that is why it's called an example.

The bolded part is who should be making that decision, whether they're men, women, aliens or cyborgs.

 

[Pakistanian]

Kinda sexist but he has point, women's tennis players only play 3 sets in grand slams as opposed to the 5 sets men play.

 

[kingusama92]

No, that is why it's called an example.

The bolded part is who should be making that decision, whether they're men, women, aliens or cyborgs.

You're taking "women should make the decision" too literally.

The premise is it should be people who are aware of what's going on in women's cricket. Not Waqar Younis or anyone else who will forget about women's cricket by tomorrow.

Clare Connor is the chair of ICC women's committee along with Holly Colvin (committee secretary). These are the people who should be making the decisions (i.e. women).

 

[MenInG]

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">Lesser overs mean faster pace,, more audience,,competitive Cricket,,no discrimination or prejudice toward Women <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/AlwaysRespectWomen?src=hash">#AlwaysRespectWomen</a> <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/WWCUP17?src=hash">#WWCUP17</a> <a href="https://t.co/LHeSmK1k26">https://t.co/LHeSmK1k26</a></p>— waqar younis (@waqyounis99) <a href="https://twitter.com/waqyounis99/status/880916712861728768">June 30, 2017</a></blockquote>
<script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

 

[Bewal Express]

Let the womens game pay its own way and they would then have to find a commercially viable product.

 

[Major]

It is not something for men to decide. It is women's cricket, and let women make the call.

I don't watch much of it, but I have been impressed with the standards of teams like Australia, England, NZ etc. The Asian sides need to raise their game and will eventually catch up.

Waqar is a legend, so his views are to be taken more seriously.

No one watches 8 hours of women cricket, thus no broadcasters, less sponsers.

No broadcasters would want to sacrifice their 8 hour slot for womens cricket that no one watches

 

[TahirFan]

I agree with Waqar

 

[kingusama92]

Waqar is a legend, so his views are to be taken more seriously.

No one watches 8 hours of women cricket, thus no broadcasters, less sponsers.

No broadcasters would want to sacrifice their 8 hour slot for womens cricket that no one watches

Sounds like you're describing test cricket.

 

[Shafi]

Another idiotic comment by Waqar. Just because we can't compete with top 5 teams who score easily 270-320+ against us where we can barely score 170+.
ICC world Cup should have 2 groups with 6 teams. Top 6 will play in group 1 and rest will play in group 2. Then 4 should qualify from group 1 and 2 should qualify from group 2. Then top 4 among best of 6 will play in semis.

 

[Major]

Sounds like you're describing test cricket.

na, 50 overs (100 overs total)cricket extends to 8-9 hours

 

[Waseem]

Waqar should be allowed to express his views: PCB women’s chief

The general manager of Women’s cricket in the PCB has come out in support of former Pakistan paceman, captain and coach Waqar Younis, saying he has the right to express his professional opinion and give suggestion for the betterment of cricket. Speaking to Pakistan Today, the former national captain and current women’s cricket boss, Shamsa Hashmi, said that what Waqar said was his “personal point of view” and that dialogue is necessary for improvement in sport – Waqar was only trying to get the ball rolling.

Waqar had recently come under fire for ‘being sexist’ after he tweeted a suggestion where he said that the women’s ODI world cups should be restricted to 30 overs rather than 50.

In response the Bhurewala express had been engulfed in a social media storm as people came out to criticise his words. The allegations being leveled against him were that the advice he gave to the ICC was inherently sexist. The incident was quickly picked up by other social media outlets which were quick to jump onto the bandwagon and criticise Waqar Younis for what was an innocent piece of advice from an experienced campaigner in the world of cricket.

What these critics seemed to forget however was that the most basic reality of the gender divisions in sport is that there are inherent differences between the way men play the game and the way women do. They also seem to be forgetting that in women’s cricket itself, the boundaries are shorter and the game balls are lighter than they are in the male version. And while the comments made by Younis were perhaps not ideal, denunciation of his tweets is ignorance of realities – plain and simple.

Shamsa Hashmi agreed with this assessment. Speaking to PT, she said that the advice could have been better framed as women already play 20-over cricket and introducing a new 30-over format would not have the same effect. She also added that women also play test cricket and that there could possibly be reforms in the longest format of the women’s sport. The PCB women’s cricket GM did acknowledge that women’s cricket was a different ball game than the game the men played and that while not these, but some different measures could possibly be taken to enhance women’s cricket and make it more exciting after discussion with the major ICC stakeholders and members.

She was however appreciative of Waqar Younis for trying to initiate a discussion and for taking an interest in the women’s sport, something that has been lacking in well-known proponents of the sport in recent times. She also stressed the importance of respecting and paying heed to the legends of the game.

It is obviously necessary, especially in an environment such as Pakistan’s, to make sure that women’s rights and equality issues are not only picked up and highlighted, but even given a little more importance, coverage and attention than may in all fairness be due. This does not, however justify criticism for advice that was sincerely and innocently met. Moreover it is not becoming or smart to ignore realities rather than taking them into account. It is undoubtedly true that women’s cricket is not of the same league as men’s cricket. It has, after all, been played not nearly as long. But it is not necessary that the women’s game follow the same path as the men’s, and it would be much wiser to let it carve out its own identity. And that can only be done when someone gets the ball rolling on talking about it – which is exactly what Waqar Younis did.

https://www.pakistantoday.com.pk/20...llowed-to-express-his-views-pcb-womens-chief/

 

[Mamoon]

you make no sense.
just saying..
decisions are taken by board authorities not based on gender.

So why is the head of Women's cricket a "woman"?

wrong argument if you want to go that way.

it's for the viewers to decide. right now it seems as if the product is being forced down the throat of people and no one is really interested in watching it. if it makes money, it should be continued.

if it doesn't, then a proper evaluation should be carried out to see where the failure is.

indian team is good though, it beat the highly anticipated english team in the tour opener.

[MENTION=135038]Major[/MENTION]

Women's cricket is not aimed at men. Those who don't watch women's cricket now will not watch if the overs are reduced. The aim of women's cricket is to encourage girls to take up the sport. My problem is with the people who are pretending that they will start taking interest in women's cricket if the number of overs are reduced.

The best women teams are still playing quality cricket. The rest need to raise their game instead of hoping that the game gets devalued so that they can compete better. Eventually, they will get there. For example, Pakistan itself has come a long way from the time where our women were playing in shalwar kameez and dupatta. In 10-15 years time, they will compete better.

I have no issues with Waqar or anyone presenting their opinions; my only problem - which I have stated already - is with folks who think they will watch the game if the overs are reduced. Those who don't have an interest in women's cricket will not watch even if the overs are reduced to 10. Cricket is a physical sport and women will never be able to bowl as fast or hit as big as men, and thus, it will always fail to captivate the general public.

If the broadcasters and the authorities feel that reducing overs will improve women's cricket then it will happen, but since nothing has been done on that front, it seems that they understand that the number of overs is not the problem.

 

[Mamoon]

Off topic but I never understood why people find logic in this.

If my mom is having a heart attack, I can't call 911 unless she tells me to? Just because I'm a guy? This logic makes no sense It should be the right decision that is being made, doesn't matter whether it's man, women or an alien making it.

That's an illogical analogy because women's cricket is not a matter of emergency or life and death. However, it makes sense to have a women administer the affairs of women's cricket, and that is what is happening.

 

[English August]

Waqar trying to "mansplain" his views on women's cricket. Keeps digging the hole deeper. Hilarious.

 

[Bilal7]

So why is the head of Women's cricket a "woman"?



[MENTION=135038]Major[/MENTION]

Women's cricket is not aimed at men. Those who don't watch women's cricket now will not watch if the overs are reduced. The aim of women's cricket is to encourage girls to take up the sport. My problem is with the people who are pretending that they will start taking interest in women's cricket if the number of overs are reduced.

The best women teams are still playing quality cricket. The rest need to raise their game instead of hoping that the game gets devalued so that they can compete better. Eventually, they will get there. For example, Pakistan itself has come a long way from the time where our women were playing in shalwar kameez and dupatta. In 10-15 years time, they will compete better.

I have no issues with Waqar or anyone presenting their opinions; my only problem - which I have stated already - is with folks who think they will watch the game if the overs are reduced. Those who don't have an interest in women's cricket will not watch even if the overs are reduced to 10. Cricket is a physical sport and women will never be able to bowl as fast or hit as big as men, and thus, it will always fail to captivate the general public.

If the broadcasters and the authorities feel that reducing overs will improve women's cricket then it will happen, but since nothing has been done on that front, it seems that they understand that the number of overs is not the problem.

Since you're an avid watcher of women's cricket, which one is it?

In my opinion, your latter assessment is the truer one which is why women's cricket needs to bring about changes that will distinguish it from the men's game. Why would one watch a bowler bowling at 125 kph and a batsman hitting the ball 65 meters instead of watching a bowler bowl at 145 kph and a batsman hitting it 85 meters? People will tune in if it is a different game however. A 40 over game, with each team getting two innings of ten overs each would definitely increase interest and viewership.

 

[Bilal7]

Waqar trying to "mansplain" his views on women's cricket. Keeps digging the hole deeper. Hilarious.

Waqar is more qualified to speak on cricketing issues than 99% of people in this world. Keep your feminist nonsense to yourself. He's raised some valid points and you should stop being sexist and making his gender a point of contention.

 

[English August]

Waqar is more qualified to speak on cricketing issues than 99% of people in this world. Keep your feminist nonsense to yourself. He's raised some valid points and you should stop being sexist and making his gender a point of contention.

Really? Did you (or Waqar) watch the recent Ind-Eng ODI in WWC? After watching that, would you still say reduce the number of overs? Just because some teams (you know who!) are minnows doesn't mean the better teams need to compromise. Eng, Aus, NZ and India are doing just fine with 50 overs, thank you.

 

[Bilal7]

Really? Did you (or Waqar) watch the recent Ind-Eng ODI in WWC? After watching that, would you still say reduce the number of overs? Just because some teams (you know who!) are minnows doesn't mean the better teams need to compromise. Eng, Aus, NZ and India are doing just fine with 50 overs, thank you.

I didn't and whether I did or not doesn't matter but Waqar clearly knows what he's talking about. He's Waqar freakin' Younis for crying out loud!

 

[ShahKhan007]

Seems like the feminist flag bearers have finally invaded pakpassion. According to them a former male international cricketer should not voice his opinion about the womens game. Laughable argument.

 

[Executioner]

Waqar used to be a cricketer, he has coached cricket teams and he is also an analyst.

If not Waqar then whom? He has right to speak up.

And it's not sexist. He has a valid point. Women's cricket hasn't even taken off much and no one really watches the games. It would be great if changes are made to improve the game.

 

[PennOne]

Waqar trying to "mansplain" his views on women's cricket. Keeps digging the hole deeper. Hilarious.

Get these feminazi folks out of here
You didn't even apply the right use of mansplaining
As a cricketer he knows his views more than you
Are you as angry because women's tennis has a best of 2 sets while men's tennis has best of 3. You do know the reason for that don't you. Its the same reasoning Waqar is using

 

[Rafay Shafiq]

Intolerance in society. Even someone couldn't express his honest opinion. Shame.

 

[Specialisttailender]

I agree with Waqar and Australian women are overpaid.

 

[anikrc1]

Get these feminazi folks out of here
You didn't even apply the right use of mansplaining
As a cricketer he knows his views more than you
Are you as angry because women's tennis has a best of 2 sets while men's tennis has best of 3. You do know the reason for that don't you. Its the same reasoning Waqar is using

given that you have no idea that a "best of 2 sets match" is not possible you shouldn't worry about other's wrong or right use of words

 

[idrizzy]

For those saying reducing overs won't increase interest - what was T20 introduced for? That was a marketing ploy to increase interest and due to it, cricket wouldn't be as popular without it (debatable, but I'm fairly certain this is true).

On top of this, the same argument stands for other sports in reduced time - like Tennis.

Think it should be 40 overs.

 

[Leeon1994]

Women's cricket is not aimed at men. Those who don't watch women's cricket now will not watch if the overs are reduced. The aim of women's cricket is to encourage girls to take up the sport. My problem is with the people who are pretending that they will start taking interest in women's cricket if the number of overs are reduced.

I disagree. I think Women's cricket is for both genders to watch just like Men's cricket. Women all around the world watch Men cricket with good interest so why can't we have it the other way around if the matches are always interesting.

Besides, If both genders are really equal then why is the boundary shortened for the women cricket

 

[A.A.Z]

Australian women's cricket team label Waqar Younis tweet offensive and misguided

Australia's female cricketers have hit back at Waqar Younis's suggestion that 50-over matches are too long for the women's game, with all-rounder Jess Jonassen labelling the remarks "offensive" and "misguided".

Younis last week tweeted the ICC, proposing women's ODI games be reduced to 30 overs apiece, likening his alternative format to a tennis grand slam where women only play a best of three sets as opposed to the five played by their male counterparts.

Wicketkeeper Alyssa Healy was quick to rebut the retired Pakistan paceman, and replied "So what you're saying is that 530 runs in a 50-over game isn't entertaining?! With two of the best innings anyone has seen....."

Healy was referring to Australia's win over Sri Lanka in Bristol where Chamari Atapattu crunched an unbeaten 178 only for Meg Lanning to produce 152 not out as her side chased down 9-257.

Younis, 45, has since clarified his original comments, saying "Lesser overs mean faster pace, more audience, competitive cricket, no discrimination or prejudice toward women."

"It is a little bit offensive, what's T20 cricket for," Jonassen said.

"It's quite interesting that he said it the day after our match against Sri Lanka that was one of the highest scoring games of the World Cup so far. Five hundred odd runs scored and two of the best innings of the women's game ever.

"I think [it's] maybe a little bit misguided.

"The interest level [in women's cricket] grown immensely over the last 12 to 18 months especially.

"A lot of the Indian men are following it quite closely as well, a lot of the Aussie boys as well back home they've sent through messages of support.

"That's something that's really special, and also to be able to increase the profile of women's cricket globally."

The war of words is set to add extra spice to Wednesday's clash between Australia and Pakistan in Leicester, where Jonassen and Healy hope to help steer their side to a fourth-straight win to start the tournament.

Jonassen shook off the minor hamstring strain that kept her out of the Sri Lanka game to star against New Zealand, claiming three wickets on Sunday including the prized scalp of Kiwi captain Suzie Bates.

Healy has had a quieter World Cup and is yet to face a single ball. The closest she came was when Ellyse Perry holed out late against the Kiwis with one run still required for victory, and Healy was required to stand at the non-striker's end as Alex Blackwell struck the winning runs.

Pakistan has lost all three World Cup games so far, and were bowled out for just 74 against India on Sunday, scoring at less than two runs per over.

Australia played them in a warm-up match before the tournament began, dismissing Pakistan for 156 before effortlessly chasing the runs down in less than 24 overs with the loss of just one wicket. Such was the ease of the victory, opener Beth Mooney retired on 63 allowing Rachael Haynes some time at the crease.

A much stiffer test against England on Sunday awaits Australia, but Jonassen said that match wouldn't be discussed until Pakistan was ticked off the fixture list.

"We haven't really played them a lot, In the practice match we seemed to do pretty well against them, they tend to hit to different areas than what we're used to," Jonassen said.

"For us it's just a matter of staying patient. We know our plans and if we stick to that the result takes care of itself.

"We can't really control what they do at the end of the day. As long as we're doing what we can do, the rest is up to them."

http://www.smh.com.au/sport/cricket...-offensive-and-misguided-20170703-gx3yei.html

 

[The Googly]

As I said in another thread - women's cricket should be considered a different sport.

I am not sexist and do not want to say anything derogatory about women's cricket.

However, I do feel that I should be able to say what I feel about what I see and not cover it up with fake positivity.

Women's cricket is simply not very good entertainment. And the quality is appalling if you compare it to men's cricket. Therefore - the only fair thing is to classify it as a different sport. It's not cricket. It should be called "Lady Cricket".

Lady Cricket is not for me. Everyone to their own.

 

[GoUgandaCranes]

i watched highlights of one of the matches and few observations

1. the boundaries are shortened by a big margin. i don't see members of australian women team saying that the boundaries should be as big as the ones that men have.

2. how are they putting the stumps. like how. like how how. a spinner bowling not more than low 40's at best is hitting the stumps and they are flying as if shoaib akhtar was bowling at his pomp. why can't men's cricket have such wickets.

3. even the highlights felt labored. there is an extreme lack of power hitting in women game.

to become a proper marketable product, this cricket needs a lot of time. they should do proper evaluation rather than throwing the argument that women get paid less for equal amount of work. this isn't equal amount of work at all.

 

[waleed88]

It was a suggestion jeeez, but the fact that its opened a debate points to the fact that there are some problems with the women brand of cricket..

 

[Gilly]

Womens cricket gets a lot of support from the mens teams and is a growing sport, if the sport is to grow as a whole then this is the perfect opportunity for cricket to encompass a greater part of the community. Women have a huge role in the sport at junior level mostly behind the scenes. Waqar's suggestion is a bit antiquated.

 

[C.E.S]

Womens cricket gets a lot of support from the mens teams and is a growing sport, if the sport is to grow as a whole then this is the perfect opportunity for cricket to encompass a greater part of the community. Women have a huge role in the sport at junior level mostly behind the scenes. Waqar's suggestion although not unexpected is a bit antiquated.

Support from men's teams, encompassing a greater part of the community, and women's role in administration - entirely irrelevant to Waqar's (justified) suggestion. And, if anything, making the sport more marketable will help it grow.

Given your history of irrelevant comments, though, such a comment is "not unexpected."

 

[Joseph Gomes]

Feminists are on full force trying to humiliate a guy who was honestly expressing his views and showing that he actually cared about women's cricket. Women themselves don't give two cents about women's cricket. Waqar is making suggestions for improvement.

I appreciate feminism for women in misogynist nations like Pakistan/India, but third wave feminism from the West is absolute cancer. It's a censorship of free speech

 

[kingusama92]

It's a nonsensical suggestion and even dumber it came from a former player.

What he should have said is the women's team needs to improve its fitness levels to play the 50 over game. PAK's team is simply not at the standard ENG and AUS are.

When the men's team shows poor fitness, do former players say "let's shorten the format"? No, because it doesn't make a lick of sense and is utterly stupid when other people of the same gender are performing brilliantly.

 

[ahsan17]

It is not something for men to decide. It is women's cricket, and let women make the call.

I don't watch much of it, but I have been impressed with the standards of teams like Australia, England, NZ etc. The Asian sides need to raise their game and will eventually catch up.

That is actually a nonsense response. I'd be interested in knowing how women's sports gets funded. Women's cricket is probably largely funded by revenue generated by men's cricket. Women's sports usually (with the exception of a few sports) is a loss making venture and has to be subsidised by men's sports.

 

[Titan24]

I am not sexist but I have never seen a complete match of women cricket, wasnt able to involve me enough but, thats just me.

I am a cricket fan since my childhood and follow every match every tournument of almost every team but in its current state women cricket is not for me.

Coming to the comments of Waqar Younis, I think we all would agree that women cricket hasnt been able to generate a lot of money nor it has a huge fan base. Even women dont watch it if I am right.

So him saying to shorten it was just based upon increasing the entertainment value rather than what people and especially women thought that it was something related to geneder discrimination.

 

[Titan24]

And for all saying its for women to decide, ok fine.

Than they should not be using the revenue generated by men to fund their tournuments rather should be generating enough from their cricket.

 

[Mamoon]

So men should decide how women's cricket should be run because men's cricket makes more money which is used to fund women's cricket.

However, the same logic is not extended to men's cricket, because the BCCI are routinely criticized for demanding a bigger percentage of revenue because they make more money for the ICC than all other boards combined.

Anyhow, nonsense comments by Waqar. He has been exposed.

 

[khanz141]

A man makes a suggestion for betterment of Women cricket... oh he is sexist.

TBH, not even women watch the women cricket, forget men. They rather watch men play the sport. It's the same way i wouldn't watch a Nepal VS papua new guinea Men's cricket match. The quality is just not there for an international sport to have my interest.

 

[Pakistanian]

Womens cricket gets a lot of support from the mens teams and is a growing sport, if the sport is to grow as a whole then this is the perfect opportunity for cricket to encompass a greater part of the community. Women have a huge role in the sport at junior level mostly behind the scenes. Waqar's suggestion is a bit antiquated.

So is women playing 3 sets in tennis grand slams antiquated? Or WNBA players playing 40 minutes instead of the usual 48 minutes the men play? I think he's being reasonable.

 

[ahsan17]

So men should decide how women's cricket should be run because men's cricket makes more money which is used to fund women's cricket.

However, the same logic is not extended to men's cricket, because the BCCI are routinely criticized for demanding a bigger percentage of revenue because they make more money for the ICC than all other boards combined.

Anyhow, nonsense comments by Waqar. He has been exposed.

Not really a valid analogy. BCCI making their revenue is dependent on playing other teams to make their revenue. If they didn't play other teams, they would be making no money. Other teams can reasonably demand a bigger share of BCCI revenue. The same cannot be said about women's cricket of course - men's cricket does not have a similar dependency on women's cricket.

 

[Mamoon]

Not really a valid analogy. BCCI making their revenue is dependent on playing other teams to make their revenue. If they didn't play other teams, they would be making no money. Other teams can reasonably demand a bigger share of BCCI revenue. The same cannot be said about women's cricket of course - men's cricket does not have a similar dependency on women's cricket.

BCCI can survive on IPL alone, and if push comes to shove, majority of international cricketers would give up their national contracts for IPL contracts.

 

[Bilal7]

BCCI can survive on IPL alone, and if push comes to shove, majority of international cricketers would give up their national contracts for IPL contracts.

Assumptions. The BCCI would have done this long ago if it had even a slight chance of succeeding. Funny how you mention the IPL but then neglect to mention its biggest selling point: the foreign superstars who line up alongside the domestic players.

No cricket board is free from relying on the other cricket boards.

 

[ahsan17]

Really? Did you (or Waqar) watch the recent Ind-Eng ODI in WWC? After watching that, would you still say reduce the number of overs? Just because some teams (you know who!) are minnows doesn't mean the better teams need to compromise. Eng, Aus, NZ and India are doing just fine with 50 overs, thank you.

You need to set the standards at which more teams are competitive. Currently only a handful of teams are competitive in women's cricket. What Waqar is saying is in some way has already been implemented - the fact that there are shorter boundaries. Having 30 or 40 overs would just mean more teams that are competitive. If Eng, Aus, NZ and India are better then they still should have no problems beating other teams, but the games might be closer.

 

[Mamoon]

Assumptions. The BCCI would have done this long ago if it had even a slight chance of succeeding. Funny how you mention the IPL but then neglect to mention its biggest selling point: the foreign superstars who line up alongside the domestic players.

No cricket board is free from relying on the other cricket boards.

The BCCI will obviously not take this route willingly because they would obviously not want to disband the Indian cricket team which will never happen of course. However, theoretically, the IPL makes more than enough money to make BCCI self-sufficient, and few players will value their national contracts over IPL money.

I haven't neglected the foreign superstars if you care to reread my post. It is delusional to think that most foreign players will turn down IPL contracts for national colours. Maybe a select few Australian and English players, but that's about it. Secondly, IPL is an established brand now and is not as dependent on foreign stars as the PSL. Even if a few main stars miss out, it will be still be a big deal in India.

Similarly as years pass by, the PSL will become less dependent on foreigns which is not the case at the moment.

 

[ahsan17]

The BCCI will obviously not take this route willingly because they would obviously not want to disband the Indian cricket team which will never happen of course. However, theoretically, the IPL makes more than enough money to make BCCI self-sufficient, and few players will value their national contracts over IPL money.

I haven't neglected the foreign superstars if you care to reread my post. It is delusional to think that most foreign players will turn down IPL contracts for national colours. Maybe a select few Australian and English players, but that's about it. Secondly, IPL is an established brand now and is not as dependent on foreign stars as the PSL. Even if a few main stars miss out, it will be still be a big deal in India.

Similarly as years pass by, the PSL will become less dependent on foreigns which is not the case at the moment.

I am not really sure too many people would want to see an IPL where each team has maybe 2-3 international players, all of them Indians. Most of these foreign "superstars" won't be noticed by IPL without playing bilateral and ICC tournaments. Maybe what you're envisaging might happen in 30-40 years but it's not happening anytime soon.

 

[Bilal7]

The BCCI will obviously not take this route willingly because they would obviously not want to disband the Indian cricket team which will never happen of course. However, theoretically, the IPL makes more than enough money to make BCCI self-sufficient, and few players will value their national contracts over IPL money.

I haven't neglected the foreign superstars if you care to reread my post. It is delusional to think that most foreign players will turn down IPL contracts for national colours. Maybe a select few Australian and English players, but that's about it. Secondly, IPL is an established brand now and is not as dependent on foreign stars as the PSL. Even if a few main stars miss out, it will be still be a big deal in India.

Similarly as years pass by, the PSL will become less dependent on foreigns which is not the case at the moment.

They won't take this route because they can't. It's a mixture of reasons why but at the end of the day, they won't so it's a moot point.

Yes, I misinterpreted your post a little. You're not arguing that the IPL is heavily dependent on the foreign stars, you're arguing that most of them will forsake their nations and play the IPL.

You're wrong. Apart from the West Indies and players who are either past it or just not good enough to nail down a starting spot in their teams, I cannot see the true star players forgoing international cricket for the IPL. The shame alone of turning down your country for an IPL gig is a very strong deterrent. Not to mention that more and more teams are tying players down to longer contracts and there are ample opportunities for players to get T20 gigs, due to the prevalence of T20 leagues.

The PSL will never thrive on Pakistani players alone. Compare the following of the Faysal Bank T20 to the PSL and you'll see why. Same goes for the IPL, they might keep it going for a few years but eventually people will get bored of seeing trundlers bowl at hacks and will switch to watching duels like Starc vs Root or Amir vs Kane. The franchises won't be willing to play millions to a group of players not good enough to sustain the current levels of the IPL's popularity and eventually, the Indian players will be the ones moving to greener pastures.

 

[Watsupdoc]

He's probably tired of commentating on these and wants to end the torture sooner

 

[Gilly]

And for all saying its for women to decide, ok fine.

Than they should not be using the revenue generated by men to fund their tournuments rather should be generating enough from their cricket.

A rather head in the sand attitude to take, revenue generated by mens cricket also rely's on women. A simple $5mil investment from CA into womens cricket will pay for itself over and over again. People may not want to watch Womens cricket but women will play and develop an interest in cricket leading to more people watching which in turn increases TV rights and gate takings. Getting women interested in cricket and being part of cricket will increase overall revenue. Its a wise investment and the boards that have already taken steps to invest in womens cricket are already benefiting.

Afridi highlighted what some men expect from women.

 

[leatherface58]

Seems like the feminist flag bearers have finally invaded pakpassion. According to them a former male international cricketer should not voice his opinion about the womens game. Laughable argument.

Waqar should voice his views on improving test cricket first which is unable to draw 5 pigeons in UAE these days.

 

[sl-fan-of-pak]

lol nobody cares about women's cricket. Not even women. Just a few feminazis here and there, that's all. Way to go Wiki bhai. You got support from SL.

 

[hadi123]

So NZ Women just set the record for highest ODI score scoring 490/4. There are some good women cricketers out there.

 

[hadi123]

So today Amelia Kerr, just 17 years old, scored 232* and took 5-17 in a 50 over match! Waqar Younis was a great bowler but this view is just wrong. Women deserve 50 over cricket.

 

[ExplicitAI]

Women are killing it in cricket, what a dominant display by NZ, really happy to see that women are doing very well in sport.

 

[Adijazz1706]

So NZ Women just set the record for highest ODI score scoring 490/4. There are some good women cricketers out there.

Pit them against the Irish u-19 men's team and watch them get whooped

 

[Mamoon]

Pit them against the Irish u-19 men's team and watch them get whooped

So what? Women’s cricket is not competing with men’s cricket.

 

[El Generico]

Pit them against the Irish u-19 men's team and watch them get whooped

Why is that relevant?

 

[Fast Bowler]

Fast forward 1 year and I still don't see anything wrong with Waqar's suggestion.

All this hoo-haa is similar to what people seem to be saying about Nadal's statement that 'male and female tennis players should be paid in relation to the audience they bring in'.

Again, nothing wrong with either of the statements.