Rohit Mahajan

Tribune News Service

Chandigarh, June 15

Women are not equal to men, everyone at the Indian cricket board (BCCI) knows — that’s why, after a high of playing the final of the Twenty20 World Cup before 86,174 spectators at the Melbourne Cricket Ground in March 2020, Indian women got no playing time for one full year. Despite the Covid-19 pandemic, BCCI organised series and tours for the men’s team, but not a single match for the women for one year. It all boils down to money — women’s cricket brings in minuscule revenue compared to men’s cricket.

BCCI’s indifference is not new — soon after it took women’s cricket under its wing in 2006, the women’s team was without an international match from March 2007 to May 2008, ie 424 days.

Women’s Tests have been low-priority for BCCI. Only two Test matches have been organised for the women’s team after BCCI took over in November 2006 — India won the two Tests, both played in 2014. Yet they haven’t played a Test since then, a gap of 2,401 days. In the 2010s, India played only two Tests — the lowest in a decade, the previous worst being eight a few times in the past.

Anjum Chopra, who played 12 Tests for India from 1995 to 2006, led in three of them, of which India won one — against South Africa at Paarl in 2002. Two current players, captain Mithali Raj and Jhulan Goswami, made their debut under Chopra in 2002. In over 19 years, Mithali and Jhulan have played only 10 Tests each.

Not lucrative

One thing is clear — women’s cricket is not lucrative enough for BCCI, and among the three formats, women’s Tests are lowest on the pecking order. Sadly, that’s also the state of women’s Tests across the world — South Africa last played a Test in 2014, New Zealand, Pakistan and West Indies in 2004, while Sri Lanka’s only Test was played in 1998. England and Australia play most Tests, yet they too have played only three each in the last six years.

“Even before the ICC took women’s cricket in 2005, Test matches were less in numbers because everyone had to fend for themselves... I think it was not easy to organise sponsors to take care of the costs,” says Anjum.

Skill-sets

Anjum makes the crucial point that not all women’s teams had, or have, the skills to play Test cricket. “Apart from the top three-four teams, a lot of the teams were developing,” she says. “The other teams didn’t have the skill level to last for four days. So why test their skills when their skills were still developing? Rather, you test the skills of the players in the longest format when their skills are highly developed.”

Of the top three teams, New Zealand made the decision to focus primarily on white-ball cricket even before ICC took charge.

Then came Twenty20 cricket, and it quickly edged out the other formats in popularity and marketability. The first women’s Twenty20 match was played in 2004, and this has become the primary format of the sport — 909 T20Is have been played since then, against 731 ODIs and only 18 Tests.

Not ready?

More teams are playing more limited-overs cricket, but are some of them ready for Test cricket? “Time will tell,” says Anjum. “If this match (India-England) goes to the wire for four days and then a result comes which is very exciting, then this will be a topic of discussion.”

Anjum also feels that it would be unfair to judge women cricketers’ skill levels for Tests on the basis of one match. “Men can win a Test match in two days, they can win it in four days,” she says. “This kind of question mark (over competitiveness) is never put on them. So, to use this Test as a benchmark to decide whether more Test matches should be played would be unfair.”

She’s right: In the Indian squad, only eight women have played a Test — it would be unfair to judge the team on the basis of this one match. But a lot hangs on this one game — a thriller that catches the imagination of the fans may convince cricket boards and broadcasters that this format has a future, too.