Women's sport

I've been following a discussion on Twitter about women's sport and particularly cricket. One journalist who thinks that its "dull" and shouldn't get any support, funding or exposure, and others calling him out for being outdated, sexist etc etc. I wanted to get involved, but to me, its a long complicated issue, not suited to the limitations of Twitter. Hence, this blog, as I attempt to form my random thoughts into something vaguely coherent.

I find myself jumping about a bit on this issue. On one side, I strongly believe that women's sport has its place in the world of sports and entertainment. On the other, I find it difficult to argue with the complete equality demands of some sports ( such as Tennis), where the insistence that both sides take home the same prize money, is at odds with the level of interest, and to an extent the quality of the fare on offer. 

The conflict to me comes with the crossover between sport and entertainment, and why it is that people watch sport. I think watchers fall into 2 categories... I'll call one the tribalists. These are the people that watch sport for the personalities involved. I'm an Ipswich Town fan. I'll pay to watch them, even though I accept that they don't produce the best examples of football available to me. On the other side, are the technical fans - who watch a sport because they like to see it played, and played well - I will go and watch top class squash, regardless of who is playing, as I love to see masters at work. 

So when it comes to the division of men's and women's sport, here is the issue. Given that there is a limitation of what I can watch, I will usually go for the highest quality example of what I can see, this doesn't necessarily make one or the other less interesting - just different. Case study: Last weekend was the British National Squash Championships. Men and women, competing in the same place. You buy your ticket, and you see both sexes compete. The issue is, that top level men's squash is a phenomenon. Its completely different to the sort of game you see in your local club. Whereas top level women's squash is about on a level with the top of men's club level squash. It's still exciting. The women's final over 5 sets and almost 80 minutes was actually a much better match in terms of tension and excitement, than a somewhat one sided men's final was. However, if you forced me to choose between going to watch a women's match or a men's one, I would choose the men's one every time, because I want to see the best quality squash that I can.

So what does this mean? If we accept that for the majority of sports, the physiological differences will always mean that men's sport is harder, faster, stronger, higher, do we give up on women's sport, or do we think, actually, the reasons that the gaps are so big in some sports is due to the lack of funding available for so much of it. The small pools of players mean that you are less likely to find those that have the x-factor. The lack of money available to attract the best coaches leads to lower quality, which makes it less attractive... etc etc.  Do we say that only the best is good enough - or do we accept that watching women, at the top of their game is still an exciting, fascinating way to spend our time. Who can seriously argue that  Jessica Ennis wasn't brilliant to watch at the Olympics, who can say that they weren't blown away by the guts and determination shown by Laura Trott in the elimination race of the world championships. Watching the women's rowers kick start the British gold rush - was that tribalism, or can we add a third category to why we watch sport? That of seeing people push themselves to the limit, physically, mentally, emotionally. The human side of sport is the same whatever sex you are. 

As I write this, I find more thoughts crowding in - its interesting that the sports I've highlighted in the olympics, are of the pure faster/higher/stronger types, the ones where women could never compete on a level playing field. As we look at something like cricket though, we are already seeing the gaps close between men's and women's levels. More women than ever are playing, and they are getting coaching and funding to make it a proper career. This leads to better skills  - we're starting to see the opportunity for the best to start to compete with the men, perhaps only at 2nd XI level, but the difference even to only a few years ago is phenomenal. Yes, you could argue that the viewing figures are low - but then large amounts of men's cricket is too. How many of the people that go and watch international cricket are real connoisseurs of top quality cricket - and how many just go for a day on the lash with their mates? Is the demand for top quality cricket, or is it just tribalism. Maybe the answer is to get tribalism on side - do what the rugby have been doing and put women's matches into double bills with the men? Raise exposure of women's sport, and the people will realise that the human side is the same. The tensions of a close game are the same whether the skills are high or not. Again, some of the worst quality sports matches are the best in terms of tension - errors are made, tension rises. The human side takes over. 

I started writing this to try and get my thoughts in order, the conclusion I've come to as I've spent the time thinking it through, is that ok, maybe some of the skill levels in women's sport aren't as high as the men, but we can always make them better. At the end of the day, part of why we play and watch sport is about seeing how hard the human can push itself, and that is the same whatever the sex. I don't pretend to be able to answer questions about how to raise exposure, participation levels and funding for women's sport, but I find myself firmly in the camp that thinks its good to try.

The good, the bad, and the late.

So, by way of introduction, I've been blogging intermittently for years, having started another blog, Musings of an exile, whilst working away in Scandinavia. It was basically a diary of what I was doing, with a few book reviews thrown in. Since I got back, I have blogged about theatre that I have seen, and any observational things that got me going. Decided that I could do with a more regular outlet, and this blog is it... why Pennine Invader? Well, I live in Sale, Cheshire, but I arrived in Manchester 8 years ago, as a graduate from York, so I really have invaded from the 'wrong side'. I'm orininally a southerner as well, so basically have few redeeming features!

Last night, I visited Pizza Express in Didsbury.. I'm a regular visitor to this chain... but a few weeks ago, I took my friends out for a meal to the Didsbury branch, where we had a less than satisfactory meal.. poor service, mains brought before starters... a general lack of care. So I complained to the manager, Ben, and he kindly invited me and the good lady back for a complimentary meal. So, last night, headed down there, and was very well fed and looked after... had a great pizza, a lovely bottle of Pinot Grigio, and, for once, a very well made latte. All good - confidence in Pizza Express restored.

What of the late though, I hear you ask... well, in order to get to Didsbury, I made the mistake of trying to use public transport... now, I'm never a big fan of buses, but as it happens, there is a direct route from almost outside my house, to West Didsbury, so it should have been straightforward. I left the house about 5 minutes before the bus was due, and stood at the bus stop, in the rain ( it was that fine rain, the stuff that Peter Kay describes as "getting you really wet" ). For 35 minutes. In that time, according to the timetable, 3 buses should have come past, but none did. not impressed.