How women’s cricket has become a box-office hit

A sport that was once seen as an inferior imitation of the men’s game is now taking centre stage. The crowds will rival anything that the men can muster and some of the skills are genuinely pioneering. Sarah Taylor pulled off a leg-side stumping in England’s semi-final that any wicketkeeper in the world would have been proud of, while Nat Sciver, the England all-rounder, has become a sensation thanks to her between-the-legs “Natmeg” shot.

The first women’s World Cup was played two years before the first men’s World Cup and was the brainchild of Rachael Heyhoe Flint, the pioneering England captain who died this year, and Sir Jack Hayward. It was only possible because Hayward donated £40,000, which paid for the teams’ travel and hotels.

The tournament was played in a round-robin format between seven teams — England, Australia, New Zealand, Jamaica, Trinidad and Tobago, an International XI and young England. England and Australia were so close on points going into the last match, at Edgbaston, that it became a de facto final.

“Even after we won, there wasn’t a great deal of attention on us,” Thomas remembers. “In fact the day after the final we went off to play a friendly match against a rest of the World XI. Then we went back to work.”

It would be five years before the next edition, which was played in India. It nearly didn’t go ahead because of lack of funds and only four teams took part — Australia, England, New Zealand and India — with Australia winning their first of six titles.

It took England 20 years to lift the trophy again, at Lord’s in 1993 when Karen Smithies’s team beat New Zealand by 67 runs having received special permission from MCC to walk through the Long Room to get on to the pitch. It wasn’t until 1999 that women were admitted into MCC.

“The World Cup nearly didn’t happen,” says Jo Chamberlain, who played for England between 1987 and 1995 and was in the 1993 winning team. “There was no money and it was very close to being cancelled. It was only a very late donation of £90,000 from the Foundation for Sport and Arts that meant it could go ahead.”

Chamberlain was, and still is, a van driver. “Of course there was no pay,” she says. “In fact, it was more like we were paying them. We had to take annual leave from work to play. Some had to take unpaid annual leave because they didn’t have enough holiday.

“We probably had just over 100 people watching at most of the games and they were mostly friends and family. We did have 5,000 at the final at Lord’s which was staggering at the time.” We had Ruth Prideaux as coach and Norma Izard was our manager but, of course, they did it voluntarily. No one got paid for anything. Ruth would go round the grounds selling chocolate bars trying to raise money.

“Money was tight. We shared rooms, our accommodation was basic and we even shared a bus to the final with our opposition [New Zealand]. That would be unheard of in the men’s game.”

Women’s cricket was run separately from men’s cricket by the Women’s Cricket Association, an organisation formed in 1926 and run entirely voluntarily. It was not until 1998 that the WCA merged with the ECB, unlocking some of their resources.

Thomas, right, returns from a successful tour to West Indies in 1971 with Rachael Heyhoe Flint

GEORGE STROUD/GETTY IMAGES

England would not win the World Cup again until 2009, the first version of the tournament to be organised by the International Cricket Council. England beat New Zealand in the final, and the tournament’s leading run- scorer was Sarah Taylor and the leading wicket-taker Laura Marsh, both of whom have been instrumental in England’s success in this tournament.

Although there were no full-time professionals, many of the squad were able to earn something of a living by working for the ECB or Chance to Shine, the charity, undertaking coaching which could fit around training sessions and matches.

But that success quickly drained away. A year ago, England were soundly beaten by Australia in the semi-final of the World Twenty20 and their shortcomings were apparent. The game had moved on and England hadn’t.

After the match, Mark Robinson, the head coach who had not long been in the job, candidly said that the team were not fit enough. The captain, Charlotte Edwards, who had been playing internationally for almost 20 years, was soon sacked.

Robinson, in conjunction with the new captain, Heather Knight, wanted a new era which reflected that they were now full-time professionals. To some it seemed harsh on Edwards but the team needed a radical break with the past.

There were accusations that they were “a bit cliquey”. Perhaps that was understandable. The game was until relatively recently played by a small pool of players. Participation remained admirably steady, given all the barriers to getting into the game and, because they weren’t paid, many were lost to the game. They simply had to go and develop careers. Competition for places wasn’t, perhaps, as tough as it should have been. It was a problem that had been recognised by the ECB.

In 2014, thanks to the unswerving pressure from Clare Connor, a previous England captain and now head of women’s cricket at the ECB, the team were awarded the first fully professional contracts. On top of that, the ECB came up with the idea of a T20 Super League which would allow domestic players, who still aren’t paid, the opportunity to earn some money and to try to bridge the gap between the domestic and international game and concentrate efforts on getting young girls playing the game.

All of this has started to pay off. Participation is increasing and will coninue to do so through the ECB’s All Stars programme. The Kia Super League, which will return for a second edition next month, has the best players in the world playing in it.

There is, though, still a way to go. There’s still a gulf between those in the England team and those playing county cricket. And even those who do get paid aren’t earning vast amounts. England players can make a comfortable living but it’s a long, long way from what men earn. Knight is earning now what Mike Atherton’s first central contract in 2000 was (around £60,000) while the top men are earning something near seven figures for theirs.

Having said that, there are more opportunities than ever for the women, many of whom are close to being household names, to earn more through sponsorship deals, endorsements and media appearances, so much so that the Professional Cricketers Association has just announced the introduction of a new England Partnerships committee to facilitate pay and endorsement negotiations.

But the start of the professional era — still in its infancy — is beginning to pay off. On the pitch, England are playing a high standard of cricket. With the bat, they are hitting the ball harder and further and playing an innovative and entertaining brand. In the field, there’s also been marked progress.

This World Cup has felt like a breakthrough moment for the women’s game. It has been the best covered and most watched and while there are still, inevitably, comments about the standard — there will be if you try to compare it with the men’s game — generally spectators have recognised how far the game has come.

Forty-four years after the pioneering England team led by Heyhoe Flint lifted the first trophy, Knight will lead her team out in front of a sell-out crowd at the home of cricket.

This crop of England women are quick to acknowledge what the players of previous generations did to pave the way for them. Players from the 1973, 1993, and 2009 winning teams have been invited to the MCC president’s box tomorrow to see just how much women’s cricket is now a part of the sporting landscape. And it is here to stay.