BLOKENISM

Is Luke Darcy ever called the "token bloke" when he commentates netball? I ask only because Kelli Underwood was certainly called the "token chick" when she commentated footy on Ten. True gender equality will only be reached when there is equal tokenism.

Personally, I have no issue with the gender of the commentator. If s/he is good enough, s/he should commentate.

What upsets me about a commentator is not the gender, but the reasons given by blokes as to why chicks should not commentate. Back when Underwood was on Ten, Mick McGuane (on RSN, which was then 927 Sports where Nadia Horne must feel rather lonely, unless Deane Lester is also a woman) was asked what he thought about Underwood's work. McGuane replied that he did not like her because she could not predict the play. His on-air colleagues failed to follow up with the obvious question: which blokes can predict the play? Out of the 1,295 (yes, I checked the Census) commentators commentating AFL footy in 2013 hardly any predict the play or even convey a sense of where the ball might go. Despite commentators regularly patting their on-air colleagues on the back and telling each other how brilliant they are ("best in the business" gets a hammering), there are staggeringly few good commentators, and even fewer who predict the play. It is hard to believe a bloke criticising a chick is less about style and more about disputed turf. McGuane used to commentate footy on Seven, but got the elbow when Seven realised there was not enough airtime in the universe to accommodate a McGuane sentence. I would have had more time for Mick's opinion if he had said he did not like Underwood's bogan accent, but if he had done that he would have opened up a whole can of Pandoras vis-a-vis blokes and bogan accents.

Angela Pippos, who used to host the breakfast show on 927 until she got the flick, and who does not have a bogan accent, yesterday turned her attention to female commentators and cricket:

Nine’s boys club is stifling cricket

It’s shameful a country that worships sport treats women who love cricket so shabbily. Are you seriously telling me there isn’t one woman in this country capable of occupying a spot on the Channel Nine commentary team?

Questions.

Do women aspire to be like Tubby, Heals, Slatts and Warnie? And if so, why? Or has Pippos deployed a cheeky tongue?

Did Stephanie Brantz cop the cold shoulder from just the players? The way I heard it, she copped the cold everything from most of the Nine commentators too. The Big Bash players on Foxtel seem more than happy being interviewed by women. Not that Brantz appears to have too many objections; publically, anyway.

Did Brad McNamara tell Pippos she should flip burgers. "And if you can't stand the heat, get over to the drive-through window." 

Was Kate Fitzpatrick a tokenistic appointment, or was she there to provide a woman's perspective? No doubt many would suggest a tokenistic appointment and women's perspective tautologous, but with so many women watching cricket surely a tokenistic perspective, I mean, women's perspective would be a welcome adornment, sorry, addition to the commentary. On the other hand, with so many women watching cricket, Nine doubtless thinks it has the right mix of identical commentators.

Comments

[Tony Tea]

And yes, I am aware Luke Darcy is called a lot of other things.

[M. Patard]

Having not gotten beyond the second paragraph, at this time of writing, what I take issue with immediately is the usage of the word gender when the word sex is required.

I am well aware that we live in an age of idiocy, where ideology thinks it has trumped biology, yet, still, no person of either sex is able to change their sex. Yes, to be sure, the paraphernalia may be changed via invasive surgery followed with a lifetime of hormone treatment leading to increased risk of premature death at worse, increased risk of physical decline through drug side effects at best, however, the fact remains that sex is immutable.

In short: gender is a literary term, sex is a biological fact.

No feminist Sci-Fi-Fantasy novel where raiding warrior women kick men's ass, then bed down an alien wolverine alpha can overcome this biological reality. It may be repetitively asserted ad infinitum, and or inculcated through the oppressive Gulag education system, even to the point of being hammered into children's brains, soon to be at the moment of conception played to the unborn along with Mozart for the prenatal, yet, again, the biological reality remains the same; and will always remain the same.

Until at some point in the future where Tubby, or his like, gives birth after being impregnated by Kelli Underwood, or her like, then the above facts remain.

Yours in appreciation of future correction. Now, back to the rest of the post.

[Antonia Tea]

Thank you, Germaine.

[M. Patard]

On the other hand, with so many women watching cricket, Nine doubtless thinks it has the right mix of identical commentators.

Questions:

1) What are the stats to back up the assertion "with so many women watching cricket"?

2) If the assertion that "with so many women watching cricket" is true, combined with the fact that the commentary is dominated by people of the male sex, then what is the problem?

Associated query:

Given the assertion that sex is malleable, hence the usage of the term gender, please explain the following assertion:

So what would a woman bring to the commentary team? Exactly what Donna Symmonds, Anjum Chopra and Natalie Germanos have offered other cricket-loving countries – a breath of fresh air, a different perspective on all areas of the game. A different sensibility.

I will assess and score with an ATAR index your answers.

[M. Patard]

In essence, the so called "problem" can be thusly described:

1) Men's cricket is a very popular summer sport in Australia attracting more and more viewers.

2) Men's cricket is commentated in the great part by men.

3) More and more women are watching men's cricket

4) Therefore women should be commentators.

Problems:

Should we accept points 1 through 3, especially 3 given points 1 and 2, then men's cricket dominated by male commentators has attracted more and more female viewers. The correlation between the facts of male dominance and increasing female viewers would indicate, contrary to point 4, that it is the very maleness of the sport and commentary that has attracted the female viewers.

Contrast with the allure of women's cricket.

I rest my case. Thank you.

[M. Patard]

Somewhat related:

"Bella doesn't really identify with gender stereotypes and that's been a really conscious thing from me and my husband," Ms Rodwell said. "She owns dresses and likes to wear them out to dinner or when she goes to the theatre.

"But when she runs around in the playground she doesn't want to wear a dress and I think that's really reasonable because when I go running around or go off to yoga I don't wear a dress either."

Key words and phrases:

"doesn't really identify with gender stereotypes"

"ms"

"theatre"

"yoga"

Humorous note:

Bella \b(el)-la\ as a girl's name is pronounced BELL-ah. It is of Italian and Latin origin, and the meaning of Bella is "beautiful".

[Big Ramifications]

Luke Darcy is a very personable chap who can generally string a sentence together without sounding like a complete goose. Plus, he hasn't gone to pasture post-retirement – he's a strapping specimen of bronzed Teutonic manhood, very easy on the eye.

But in terms of adding anything to a discussion, I rate him no higher than a Ken [Kenny!] Sutcliffe or a 1980s Darrell Eastlake. He's borderline himbo.

Remember a few months back when Herr Demetriou got hauled over the coals for having a giggling fit at the "mad Monday / dwarf set on fire" incident? I totally blame Darcy for it.

Darcy asks Demetriou for his opinion on the episode, but not before he gives us a rambling, long winded summary [where he was also chuckling away], finishing with an unintentionally hilarious "Fair to say, that's not what you want to see on a M.. on ahh.. on a Monday, but.. are you used to this sort of thing?"

Towards the end of Darcy's garbled oratory I got the distinct feeling Demetriou is thinking "Christ, Luke, you are dribbling sh!t." The final question of Darcy's just tipped him over the edge.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QwzEMjIdrwU

ps: Herr Demetriou's official excuse is complete garbage. "I didn't know about the incident. I thought it was a joke. I was put on the spot. I couldn't believe it when I found out it was true" [I paraphrase].

pps: It's not what you want to see on a Monday?! Probably not a Tuesday or Wednesday, either. But we all know Luke would give it a pass for the other days of the week.

ppps: If I was boss of Channel 9 I would have BONED Stephanie Brantz long ago .

[Professor Rosseforp]

M. Patard. I think gender is not a simple biological reality. Most people have exclusively external male or female sex characteristics. Some people have both, some have neither. Some women have great moustaches, some men have great breasts, and wide child-bearing hips. I'm not a biologist, but at a chromosomal level, it's not always easy to determine sex, and there are more non male/female people walking around than is popularly imagined. I know of a couple, and I don't know huge numbers of people. At the hormonal level, things become more confused, and they change at different points of life. How many old couples do you see around, where the physical expression of their sex is in their clothes, and only in their clothes? The women are balding, with a paunch, and whiskers. The men are "typical" old women who are wearing track dacks. They have the same gait, and the men's voices are high in pitch, the women's are low.

[Professor Rosseforp]

Debbie Spillane is the anchor-person for sport on the wireless. She does a reasonable job of co-ordinating interviews and playing sound bites. But I won't listen to her boganesque pronunciations and pronouncements -- just as I don't listen to men of the same ilk. The couldabeens fall into that sort of matey ockerism.
Rebecca Wilson strikes me as similar, and she always seems out of her depth when editorialising, interviewing or commentating. Maybe she has a lot of knowledge of sports, but she is unable to communicate it, and always looks like she's caught in the headlights.
I wouldn't mind hearing Shane Gould doing some sports commentating -- she has a good voice and a good mind.
Francesca Cumani may be the woman who did the equestrian commentary in the Olympics, and I enjoyed her horsey comments. She knew her stuff and was able to communicate it.

[Dan]

I'm not against women commentators in cricket per se - I just have never heard any who know what they're talking about*.

But it's not about cricket, or the standard of commentary.

I suspect (certainly over here, and I think you lot are following us down the same slope) it's much more about the imposition of bullshit on those who like cricket by those who don't like cricket - and the masochistic/opportunist acceptance of the bullshit, Danegeld-style, by the people in charge.

It's analogous to the gobby feminist atheists who are demanding that the Church of England appoint female bishops; or the leftist pacifist metrosexuals who are delighted that women are being allowed to join the US Marines.

*The same goes for lots of the blokes, too, obviously, especially on the telly. Few of them seem to have heard Richie Benaud's story about joining the BBC and being told to let the pictures speak for themselves. I remember watching the cricket with Richie and Jim Laker, and you could go an over with nothing but the ambient sounds - and there wasn't any Barmy Army shit, either.

[Tony Tea]

As always with these things it is the bleedin' obvious which eludes the punters. Male? Female? Shrug. For every crap female commentator I'll give you ten crap male commentators. (Flawed maths, of course, since I know next to no female cricket and footy commentators.)

[M. Patard]

Dear Prof Prof, re.

Most people have exclusively external male or female sex characteristics. Some people have both, some have neither.

Incredible as it may seem, yes I am familiar with the lady boys of Thailand, that is I know of them. One of my dogs is, in point of fact, an hermaphrodite so I have first hand knowledge of what it takes to be one.

Such things have been known since the time of the ancient Greeks, at the least, from whence the term derives. However, the exception doesn't dispel the rule and suddenly throw the basis of evolutionary theory into doubt.

Since your take on the subject borders on aspergers, do you have the statistics of the occurrence of hermaphrodites (or other "intersex" types) in the human population? A quick Google search tells me 0.033% to 0.05%. Hardly something that warrants a mass epidemic of confusion as to what sex we are, is it.

I care not for the popular imagination, especially in this case where the popular imagination is that one's sex is malleable. As to the rest of your verbiage masquerading as a rejoinder, old men in tracky dacks or mustachioed women past the age of menopause do not suddenly become unsexed and turn into extras from The Island of Doctor Moreau.

One has a sex. What one chooses to do with one's sex is another matter. However, should you wish to pass on your genes then may I humbly submit that you choose to insert tab A into socket B (tab A being a penis, and socket B a vagina, for those who need this amazing insight).

[Professor Rosseforp]

Thank you M. Patard -- sorry about Aspergerism -- which I reject as a category as either Asperger or non-Asperger .... although there are times when I tend strongly towards the Asperger end of the spectrum. Well picked.
The wikipedia article on intersex mentions many of the conditions I was thinking about (not ladyboys, though, I suspect). Definitions are not rigid, but something bewtween 0.2 and 2% of births are intersex/indeterminate/ambiguous sex for one reason or another. I suspect* that it is towards the higher end since lots of people don't realise their "condition". 2% of 7 billion -- or 25 million -- is a not inconsiderable number of people.
I am, however, happy to acknowledge that in this area there is enough academic twaddle to send a bullshitometer well and truly into the red zone.
* "suspect" = have no real idea, but want to support my argument without reference to data outside my own head

[M. Patard]

Thanks you for your reply. Sorry for any harsh sarcastic tone. I was interrupted by one of my progeny at the time with regard a demonstration of several not well worked magic tricks and lost my bearings a few times.

[Professor Rosseforp]

Harsh sarcastic tones welcome where deserved -- my own progeny also providing distractions this evening.

[Tony Tea]

Speaking of sex characteristics.

[Big Ramifications]

"How many old couples do you see around, where the physical expression of their sex is in their clothes, and only in their clothes?"

What in blazes are you on about, Prof?! Sounds like you accidentally swallowed a Wimmin's Studies text book.

Although.... on the other hand.... http://menwholooklikeoldlesbians.blogspot.com.au/

[Big Ramifications]

"1) What are the stats to back up the assertion "with so many women watching cricket"?"

This is an extremely salient question of Pat's. Let's back it up a bit. Why is this a given? It BEGS the question, non?

I know quite a few lady cricket fans. In fact, when it comes to female friends I gravitate to that sort of personally. And even then, 95% of them have limited attention span when compared to the fellas. One session in front of the teev is normally enough. Then, if they're your flatmate / patner, the pottering-around and nagging begins. And with uncanny frequency, the pottering-around involves pressing housework that JUST HAPPENS to be in a 2m radius of the TV. Never ever out of nagging range.

Am I right fellas? M'rite? M'rite?

Dare I say, a big chunk of their fandom is due to the social aspect of a day at the cricket, feeding off the hijinx provided by the fellas.

[lou]

Women commentate on women's international cricket on Sky and do a pretty good job but then they don't have some sort of imagined character to maintain that's been built up over years of bullshitting in front of long-suffering fans. Hence, they stick to the game at hand.

I can't imagine any I've heard being of any use to nein. The Sky male commentators are fine alongside the women. Never heard any women commentating on men's cricket in the UK.

Apart from some Indian commentators who sound unhinged in their love of hyperbole, I've never heard anything as bad as some of the nein commentators. Surely anything would be an improvement?

[Carrot]

I don't think we'll get women commentating on the cricket until the networks can get past the idea that ex-players are what's needed to do the job. It's not just about sex I think - a professional male broadcaster who didn't play the game will stick out too if he's surrounded by a bunch of guys who played a hundred Tests each. A woman in that position would probably find it even more difficult, and really would look like a token inclusion. I've long thought that cricket, particularly with its cultural and literary history, should have much better standards of coverage anyway. There's no good reason why we can't have actual broadcasters covering it rather than Slatts and Heals and Warney being ..... embarrassingly awful on air. If we could move towards a more professional model of commentator, as opposed to employing people on a jobs for the boys basis, then I'm sure it wouldn't be a particularly big step to include women at all. James Brayshaw is a step in the right direction I think, in that he's been in the media longer than he was a player, and he was hardly a household name.

One of my flatmates in my last place in The Hague was a post-op tranny. She was ...... really freakin' weird.

[Carrot]

BTW, I can't stand the expression "couldn't give a flying toss" in print media or otherwise. It's clearly a flying fuck for the alliteration. You only put "toss" next to "flying" when you want to say fuck but can't, because apparently the image of a mid-air wank is more wholesome than a mid-air shag. Surely you achieve exactly the same ends by saying "couldn't care less", and you look less like a try-hard idiot in the process?

[M. Patard]

This is an extremely salient question of Pat's. Let's back it up a bit. Why is this a given? It BEGS the question, non?

And the beauty is that if it's true that more and more women are watching men's cricket then this stands as testimony of the attraction of men's cricket, dominated by male commenters, for women. Why would a commercial station change a winning formula?

I think you have it: Dare I say, a big chunk of their fandom is due to the social aspect of a day at the cricket, feeding off the hijinx provided by the fellas.

Contrary to "gender stereotyping" man-woman hyrbids, the prevailing predilection of sexes throughout history, including prehistory, is that sexual attraction is the driving force of reproduction. Were it not so we would not be here.

Relatedly, it is interesting to note, in the constant imbroglio over re-orienting of sexual attraction vis-à-vis the homosexualist outrage that homosexuals could be redirected down reproductive routes, that both icons of 70's gayness in David Bowie and Lou Reed, both ended up in long term relationships with members of the opposite...sex.

On the topic what attracts women in men I present this short educational video.

[Carrot]

Wow. Pat. The video. Never has my plight been explained so well!

[Vindicate]

I've had the displeasure to hear one lass commentating during last years Big Bash season. The problem was she had obviously been taking lessons from the lads who commentate same, so you got the guys bullshit lines in a shrill voice when things got exciting in the middle.
As things in BBL are apparently never far from 'exciting' or not so much that there isn't an excuse to hype the crap out of whatever happens to be taking place in the middle right at that exact second, she got painful real fast.
Don't remember her name, or what game it was, typically I steer clear of that tripe.

[Russ]

What Lou said. The commentary on the cricket now is so terrible that I doubt they even have sufficient knowledge of what might make it better. In fact, given their recent hires, I am sure they don't. Male/female, who cares? Anyone they hire is going to be useless hyped-up time-filler; the only difference is a woman won't be able to fall back on stupid anecdotes, and will be undermined by said stupid colleagues.

Going to comment on this though:

Dare I say, a big chunk of their fandom is due to the social aspect of a day at the cricket, feeding off the hijinx provided by the fellas.

You are drifting into fake geek girl territory here Biggy. The vast vast majority of men don't sit and watch for long period, the vats majority of people - men or women - at Boxing Day are there for the social aspect (ie. drinking). There are sweet fuck-all people of either gender who are genuinely interested in just the cricket. But there is a large contingent of men who'd like to tell people they know the right way, and hold women to a higher standard, by incessantly quizzing them on history, belittling and harping on any errors, and being generally (often extremely) obnoxious. Some of the shit knowledgable sports writers (not only but including cricket) get on twitter is a genuine disgrace.

Frankly, if I was a woman, I wouldn't want to work on the cricket commentary. The level of abuse it would bring just wouldn't be worth it.

As an aside, the chess world championship had a male-female commentary team throughout and they were very informative (at least to me, perhaps if I was better at chess I'd be bored). The FIDE press officer, Anastasiya Karlovich was also good value; absolutely slapped down a journo after game 9 (scroll to 7:40). That's what we'd need in the commentary box; someone willing to call them on their bullshit.

[Russ]

One other comment. The level of research by cricket commentators everywhere is truly pathetic. You don't notice it if they are playing fairly well known players because they've seen the before. But if someone is on debut, or from a smaller nation, or heaven help us, an associate team, they have no fucking idea. It is straight-away apparent they haven't even bothered to check their cricinfo profile, let alone find some footage, check their stats and background, and so forth.

Most here would have missed it, but Robert Croft was on Sky the other night doing studio intros for the WT20 qualifiers, and he'd not even kept abreast of the tournament they had been playing the past week (which was streamed, at least in part) and a bit, let alone done some research. It would be nice to see a female in the commentary box, at least partly because women in sports media tend to work hard to prove themselves.

I realise this has drifted into an associate cricket rant now, but when the presenter of the f*ing man of the match can't get the name of the captain and star player of Nepal right when he's been looking at his back and the scorecard for three hours, how bloody bad to you have to be to not get employment in that industry?

[Big Ramifications]

"You are drifting into fake geek girl territory here Biggy. The vast vast majority of men don't sit and watch for long period."

OK whatever, but you've missed the point. Rephrased:

if the average male cricket fan watches a match for X minutes

then the average female cricket fan will watch for X – Y minutes
[where 0 < Y < X].

Furthermore:

if A = the % of male cricket fans compared to the overall male population

then the % of female cricket fans compared to the overall female population = A / FARK TON
[where FARK TON = an awfully big number]

If you disagree with any of those two awesome mathematical formulas then I'll have to bid you good day, and wish you well for your next "We Need More Women In The Military!" meeting.

ps: For this discussion, I'm leaving out the formula for % of males / females DISGUISED as cricket fans. I know plenty of people of both sexes who fit into that category. You already know that my formula would be awesome so I'll just leave it at that.

Also left out of this discussion is the % of male / female cricket fans who would watch games alone, or who would watch games without a member of the opposite sex being present.

[Russ]

No sure your formulas are in dispute Biggy.
Not sure they bear any relationship to your point about not watching but socialising either.

[lou]

Russ, it drives me nuts about the lack of research by the supposed top commentators on Sky (that's mostly who I get to see). It's only people like Gus Fraser on TMS who is involved in a county set-up already that appear to have any idea of anyone who isn't already part of the England set-up.

Boycs knows a fair bit even about new players and even at times Associate players but then he's a complete nerd about cricket.

Ian Botham and Bob Willis embarrass themselves every time they open their mouths. Not only do they never know about new players from the touring teams, they know bugger all about their own players from the county circuit, PLUS they seem to think that's a virtue. Bothamm is given to saying 'Never heard of them' in scathing tones as though that actually means anything. He doesn't even keep up with Somerset anymore.

The nein idiots, apart from Mike Hussey, are worse in some ways as they only know about NSW players and are completely blank about every one else.

I don't understand how they keep getting paid with the utter lack of professionalism displayed continually.

[Dan]

Maybe it's because most viewers don't care, Lou (because they're even bigger dickheads)?

In evidence I offer the average test crowd in England - pissheads in fancy dress half of them (often blokes dressed as women, not to go all Big Ramifications).

And they're the ones who pay ninety quid to go and watch!

For most of the rest of the alleged cricket loving population it's wallpaper.

(Of course, if they're dickheads maybe we're [those of us interested in the new lad batting three for Warwickshire / Western Australia] weirdos?)

[lou]

You may be right, Dan, you probably are. What exactly are they there for though? Half the blokes on nein appear to paid to dribble into a spittoon LIVE ON TELLY! YAY!

I'm being a bit of a fusspot. I like the state and county cricket radio commentaries for the reason that at least the people doing care about domestic cricket.

[Russ]

Lou, yes! That habit of making a virtue of ignorance pisses me off so much.

Croft gave us the triple crown of ignorance:
- "I don't know what to expect"
- "Who knew these nations played cricket"
- "Minnows" - which technically isn't so much ignorance as demeaning, but there are 80 lower ranked teams than those generally termed minnows, so really...

Gus Fraser was on one evening. Was much better informed. Helps that he has all the Irish players at Middlesex, and tried to sign Hamid Hassan, so you get the sense they are watching that level to try and find talent.

[Dan]

I suppose TV cricket people aren't really in the cricket business, they're in the TV business.

[Tony Tea]

The commentators are usually okay when they first join the team and talk the odd morsel of sense. But they are soon made aware of their stupidity, or rather, their obligation to stupidity.

[Big Ramifications]

All this being said, why are we pining for a sex quota in the comm box again? Has the average sheila ever played 2-3 seasons of cricket? Could she really describe spot a nuance and describe it better than a bloke?

Remember, most of you clowns have something against ex-players in the comm box. So, a FEMALE that has never played top level cricket.... I shudder to think what crap she's gonna serve up.

[Big Ramifications]

Does Angela Pippos, the main protagonist of this post, take her own employer to task with respect to female cricket journalists? Did she take her ex employer, the ABC, to task with respect to females in the radio comm box?

Hmmmm. Let me just check....

Also this, from her article.

23 years later they tried sports presenter Stephanie Brantz on the boundary interviewing players during the 2006-07 Ashes series. That failed because the Australian players flatly refused to be interviewed by a woman.

That jumped straight out at me as reeking of BS. It was only 4th comment down before someone demanded proof. Patard, in these comments, has also noted similar unfounded statements in her article.

Interesting subject. Terrible journalism.

[Tony Tea]

Speaking of describe, spot, nuance. The post is not about whether women commentators are any good - clearly there are rock all good women commentators. The post is about the reasons given by bloke commentators why women should not commentate (even though most of the bloke commentators are rubbish too).

[Tony Tea]

Brantz herself is quoted in the link up top.

[Big Ramifications]

The post is about the reasons given by bloke commentators why women should not commentate

Woops. That went over my head at jumbo jet level altitude.

re: The Brantz quote. Sorry, I need more than someone kicking the dust, lamenting their fate, going "aww, it's just not fair." The players blackballed her and ran her out of town because they were sexist pigs?! Why wasn't this the sports news story of the summer?

[Big Ramifications]

OK. She didn't say "aww, it's not fair." In, fact she took it on the chin. And that's EXACTLY the type of lady I'd like in the comm box.

[Tony Tea]

It's all in the nuance.

[m0nty]

It's her refusal to take it on the chin that got her in trouble. Ooh nurse.

[Carrot]

Come on, this is bullshit. There's nothing by definition of a woman being a woman that should preclude her from being a decent commentator. There's nothing about cricket by definition that should mean it's more suited to male commentary either. If women commentate on other sports they can commentate on the cricket. The current set-up IS embarrassingly awful for the most part, particularly in Australia, and I see no reason why a well-informed professional broadcaster who does her research (unlike every other idiot on air at the moment) couldn't do a very good job - just the same as the equivalent man would. Ex-players should not be the automatic choice.

[Tony Tea]

As rule I take "personally, I have no issue with the gender of the commentator. If s/he is good enough, s/he should commentate" to mean "Personally, I have no issue with the gender of the commentator. If s/he is good enough, s/he should commentate".

[Cameron]

I'm trying to remember a woman ever saying anything original or interesting regarding sports, perhaps my memory fails me.

[Carrot]

Sure. It's not you I'm disagreeing with, Tones.

By the by, if actual commentary is a step too far (for now), I don't see why Australia couldn't adopt the sort of model that's being used in the UK with women like Clare Balding and Gabby Logan presenting rather than commentating. I've always thought that they've done an excellent job. If it's not too jarring for them to be involved in the rugby and the football (surely two examples of the blokiest of blokey sports) then I can't see why the cricket couldn't follow suit.

[Big Ramififcations]

So give them a lesser role? Top work.

[Carrot]

As opposed to nothing at all? Please see also my parenthesis: for now.

It's worth noting that I'm not an advocate of affirmative action per se. I'd just rather see a more professional model of pundit and commentator. If we lean more towards professional broadcasters and journalists with actual media training as opposed to ex-players who might as well have just taken their pads off and got handed a microphone, surely overall standards will improve. By that token, if networks are genuinely interested in improving their coverage (which it would seem they are not), then there's no good reason why the search for better candidates should be limited by sex.

[M. Patard]

Carrot, do you think the commentary box is bereft of cisgender and the addition of the intersex would add valuable constructs?

[Unreconstructed Cisgender Stereotype]

I'm more than happy for Clare to comment so long as she has a balding cunt. Like the Nude News, it's acceptable news reading.

Not sure about Miss Logan though, she sounds a bit gabby. Don;t like that in a woman, unless they're like Clare and her balding. Good to hear Miss Balding presents.

[Ms Balding]

http://i.telegraph.co.uk/multimedia/archive/01747/Clare-Balding_1747976c.jpg

How daRE YOU use me as yoUR gender sTEREOTYPE, SO caL;DDE CARROT!

[Ms Gabby]

I find your carrot unacceptable.

[Carrot]

Jaysus. I'm not playing a shot at either of those, Pat - if indeed they're both from you.

[Naturally]

Whenever I hear the word "nuance" I think "Cisgender".

[M. Patard]

You won't play a shot at the cisgender or intersex? Why not? Are you cisphobic?

[M. Patard]

There's nothing by definition of a woman being a woman that should preclude her from being a decent commentator. There's nothing about cricket by definition that should mean it's more suited to male commentary either. If women commentate on other sports they can commentate on the cricket.

Unpacking this:

1) agree
2) agree
3) agree

But we are talking about men's cricket, commented in the main by men, and the fact that* more and more women are watching the same.

To suggest that women need to be commenters on men's cricket, given the facts, belies the facts. It's illogical, in other words.

What say you on this point, Carrot?

*Which we accept as fact, though yet backed up with any stats, for the sake of the post's argument, irregardless of nuance.

[M. Patard]

Just ignore the other commenters. They're more than likely Cameron.

[M. Patard]

The current set-up IS embarrassingly awful for the most part, particularly in Australia, and I see no reason why a well-informed professional broadcaster who does her research (unlike every other idiot on air at the moment) couldn't do a very good job - just the same as the equivalent man would. Ex-players should not be the automatic choice.

Beside the point. Tony linked to an article, which was the genesis of his post, on the fact that more and more women are watching men's cricket being commented by men, and the article's author asserted that this means women should be commenters.

Whether or not you think women would be excellent broadcaster, or whether you think the current crop is sub-par, is beside the point. The facts remain, until the facts are contested, that more and more women are watching men's cricket and that cricket cricket is being commented by men. What's your problem with this successful formula, Carrot?

[Russ]

Genuinely serious question(s):

What is the point of commentators? What are they trying to achieve?

[Carrot]

My problem with this "successful formula" is that as it stands the broadcasting standards are dropping. The technical side of the coverage is getting better and better, but the commentary is shocking - ill- and mis-informed, unintelligent, inane, wilfully ignorant, low-brow.... It's shit, basically, as we have all remarked on many times before. Sky is a little better than Nein, but that's really not saying much.

As I've said above, I'm not interested in the inclusion of women into the coverage for the sake of equality per se, but more from the perspective of what it would mean and what would come with it. It would be a pretty tough gig for a woman to be involved in cricket coverage as we've all suggested, for all sorts of reasons that may or may not reflect well on the game or those that watch it. The spotlight would be on her and she'd probably have to be really good to keep her spot by consequence - until such time as it became more common. If that was to occur, everyone would win, though. We'd have good commentary, the gender bias would be being seen to be balancing itself, and the coverage would improve. I think Gabby Logan is a good example of exactly what I'm talking about. She is on the ball, knows the facts and figures, understands sport and those in it, has the respect of the viewers and those around her, and is in short a very good pundit.

As I have said before, I am not in favour of parachuting a woman into the Channel 9 commentary box merely because she is a woman. What I am in favour of is better coverage. There is a recent precedent in the UK of women being involved in the broadcast of male-dominated sports that has achieved exactly that in my view, and on that basis I agree with the article Tony linked to. Is there no single female journalist/commentator in Australia who is good enough to cover the cricket? Surely there must be.

[Carrot]

To provide expert opinion, analyse and reflect on the game, entertain, and offer the viewer/listener information and perspective that they would not have had access to on their own. To make the game more interesting to the viewer.

I guess.

[M. Patard]

Wouldn't it have been best to promote the argument for wymins commentating roles in men's cricket by asserting that *less and less* women are watching men's cricket? And that the dominance of men in the commentary box may be a decisive factor?

But, we have the other situation being argued; completely contrary to the conclusion.

I am but a humble tech, but I know a shit saleslady when I hear one.

[Pat Hannagan]

Is there no single female journalist/commentator in Australia who is good enough to cover the cricket? Surely there must be.

You are arguing that a woman's biology makes her different to men. This is contrary to the gender stereotyping the argument denounces, and I drew attention to, above.

By asserting that women bring a "fresh perspective" you are arguing that women are biologically different to men and thus are different. I am sorry to say, Carrot, that yet again you have transgressed the boundaries of the argument that Tony has introduced.

Women and men are interchangeable. They are malleable. Please do not bring your gender stereotypes to this party.

[Cameron]

That seems to be the sum of Carrot and Tony (low)T's argument Pat. "bbbut they can't be any worse then da menz".

[Carrot]

What? That's balls. The argument, and the premise of the question raised in the article, is exactly the opposite. The writer is suggesting that women should be able to bring exactly the same skills to the table, not different ones.

The same goes with my argument. It's not what makes a woman biologically different that might offer a fresh perspective. It's the fact that they would have to work hard to justify their inclusion in the face of what would be no small amount of prejudice, and the assumption that she only got the job because she was a woman. Carts and horses.

[Russ]

Carrot, that's the perspective of someone who assumes we have to have a commentator. I mean what would be the point of them if they didn't exist? Would we have to invent one? And for what purpose?

By which I mean two things:
1) Nein lost its way largely when they stopped explaining why things happen and became a boys club. The purpose of a commentator is to help build the market for the product they are commentating on, which means explaining the game to an audience who might be unfamiliar with it. And per the comments above, that audience is mostly women and kids (cos' us blokes already know everything about cricket, amiright?) Nein used to do so a bucket of advertising (and instruction guides) in their women's magazines for that very reason. Whether that role would be helped with a woman present, I am not sure. Nein would certainly improve if they started commentating as if it was for women though.

And 2) We aren't the audience for the commentary. Sucks, but that's why AGB exists (or at least that's why we are all here writing bollocks). In this multi-channel broadcasting age we ought to be able to get multiple audio streams, one of which is devoted to technical and tactical discursions but in the meantime, mute the f*ckers and read twitter instead; the commentators are there for the entertainment of morons.

[Pat Hannagan]

Carrot says:

The argument, and the premise of the question raised in the article, is exactly the opposite.

Angela Pippos says:

So what would a woman bring to the commentary team? Exactly what Donna Symmonds, Anjum Chopra and Natalie Germanos have offered other cricket-loving countries – a breath of fresh air, a different perspective on all areas of the game. A different sensibility.

Carrot, I ask you, does this not smack of gender stereotyping?

How will Donna Symmonds, Anjum Chopra and Natalie Germanos bring all the good things they have to bring if they don't have a vagina? This is what the authoress is asserting, is she not?

Carrot, out of interest, since you are wedded to gender stereotypes, what do men bring to the commentary box by way of their penis coinciding with testosterone fueled balls?

[White Knight Annihilator Appreciator]

"Carrot, I ask you, does this not smack of gender stereotyping?

How will Donna Symmonds, Anjum Chopra and Natalie Germanos bring all the good things they have to bring if they don't have a vagina? This is what the authoress is asserting, is she not?"

We've gotat white knight down, we've gotta white knight down.

[Alan Jones]

So plaintive - so much sorrow etched into his voice - hauntingly beautiful.

[Carrot]

*Sigh*. Oh well, fuck it. I read the article when Tony posted it several days ago and didn't read it again. I will concede that point.

I disagree with her. I don't think that cricket coverage needs feminising, I think it just needs betterising. If it comes through the presence of women then that's all well and good, though. A good woman in the comm box is better than a bad man - and I'm sure there must be good women around.

Russ, you're right of course that we're not the intended audience for the commentary. I'd watch the cricket no matter who commentated on it, and I'm sure that the commentary IS there for morons. The notion of accessibility is something that I come across often in my work, where people always assume that to appeal to a broader audience you have to dilute its quality. Which is bullshit. I can't see how Nein's boys' club broadens its appeal to women and kids anyway - who other than the yobbes and dickheads are drawn to Slatts and Heals' Strine sound-bites?

[Aled Jones]

*Sigh*. Oh well, fuck it. I read the article when Tony posted it several days ago and didn't read it again. I will concede that point.

Carrot, you're a better man than I am.

[M. Patard]

Carrot, I just wish we could discuss the meaning of "man" as opposed to male.

And, vice versa, the meaning of "woman", as opposed to female.

That's a real cultural and gender specific argument, rather than this jousting.

[Russ]

Carrot, they aren't, that's why I said they lost their way. The old school commentators - Chappelli, Greig, Lawry - took a bit of a beating occasionally for explaining the obvious but they were miles better than the current crop.

[M. Patard]

Carrot, I'm reaching out here brother.

When you said Wow. Pat. The video. Never has my plight been explained so well!, the truth of the matter is, it was the truth of the matter. It was written by a lady too, if that helps.

Women like assholes, it makes their Gina tingle. That's a fact.

Doesn't mean we have to turn into one, but it does mean we have to take their opinions into account.

May I recommend you read Unleash the Beef.

[Carrot]

Hi Pat, sorry, I didn't see this until now!

Wow, Unleash the Beef - there's a whole lotta anger in there! Most of it quite amusing, though. I'm sure if he followed the cricket he would quite like the AGB.

[Tony Tea]

Genuinely serious question(s):

What is the point of commentators? What are they trying to achieve?

~~ Russ

Since I've been married I mostly watch the cricket with the sound off. At first I kept un-muting when something happened, but now I pretty much have the commentary off the whole time and am perfectly comfortable with it. I would not do that if I thought I was missing any pearls of wisdom.

How many other people do the same? If that number increases, then there is definitely no point to commentators. UNLESS, they start giving us value for money.

At the moment it would seem the new commentators are a new coat of paint on a house riddled by termites. To me, anyway.

[Tony Tea]

That seems to be the sum of Carrot and Tony (low)T's argument Pat. "bbbut they can't be any worse then da menz".

~~ Cameroon

You've grasped the wrong end of my nettle. Part of my argument is that if a woman is good enough to commentate she is good enough to commentate. With equally good commentators, not equally bad.

[Tony Tea]

I agree with Pat's point that Pippos's point is dodgy. Since more women are watching cricket, the commentary must be working, not "stifling". Why do we need new commentators?

However, straying into a slightly relevant realm, the Australian cricket team barely changed for ten years, with little or no introduction of new talent.

Pursuant to that, however, is how much do you experiment?

Experiment with a winning formula and you are courting trouble. Don't experiment with a winning formula and you are courting a future shortage of seasoned talent.

[Big Ramifications]

Fuck I'm full of shiat. Why haven't I been banned from this blog? Honestly.

[Carrot]

Hah - Rammers, I thought I was the only sad enough to go over old comment threads!

Hope everyone's enjoying their off-season, btw. Some interesting cricket being played at Chester-le-Street atm.

[Tony Tea]

I've been quietly following the Shrees' collapses.

[Tony Tea]

This seems prescient in light of the Gayle/Mel brouhaha:

"The Big Bash players on Foxtel seem more than happy being interviewed by women."

[Bruce]

Alistair Cook goes past 10000 runs and is their highest all-time run scorer.

There is no way he would be selected in an all-time English XI. He is maybe 5th in line for an opener's position.

[Carrot]

Yeah, it's a funny one, that. Does longevity equal greatness? If it does, then Cook and Anderson are nailed-on ATG's. If it doesn't, though - well, not so much. That said, without longevity, would Tendulkar be lauded as much as he was? Probably not. So it's got to be a factor.

Anderson's bowling is crazy-good at the moment, btw. He seems to be getting better with age. The Sri Lankan bowling line-up actually showed up in the second innings at Durham, Cook used everyone else first on the fourth day, no-one even looked like taking a wicket but as soon as he gave Anderson the ball the game was as good as over. That's the sort of thing that makes a player great if they can do it consistently - guys that can win you matches and series pretty much single-handedly. That's why I always rated Ponting over Tendulkar.

[Carrot]

.... Er, that should have read "Sri Lankan BATTING line-up".

[Big Ramifications]

Nice juxtaposition there Bruce, marrying a BIG STAT with a dose of reality. You ask.... Carrot decides. Anyone got an Aussie equivalent for me? You can pick a bowler if you want, I've got nuttin' at the moment. Binger Lee, perhaps?

While I've got your indivisible attentions. Sport related but not cricket related. Isn't this wonderful? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gQWo7ZogUAE In a "floating plastic bag caught in an eddy from American Beauty" kind of wonderful. But more wonderful.

Then factor in the comedic timing and physicality of it all, peformed in a business suit by a non-thespian non-stuntman pushing 50 years of age.

[Bruce]

I'm not sure Waugh would get into an all time XI for Australia.

Ponting is competing with Bradman for #3. I'd have both in an all time XI.

Border is probably safe too.

[Carrot]

Oh man, you have to pick Tugga! No WAY does he not make the all-time best XI. Asides from his repeated Ashes heroics, this is the guy that won us the Sir Frank Worrell Trophy vitually single-handed in 1995, a series that defined an era and began a cricketing dynasty. He ALWAYS scored important runs, to the point that later in his career he actually suffered by virtue of the team not needing him to carry them as much. Nailed-on selection.

[philsgone]

The Don, Punter, AB, Miller, Gilly, Good Mitch, Warney, Lillee, McGrath. Openers take your pick