Co-ed national cricket teams

http://www.theage.com.au/opinion/society-and-culture/sex-is-a-barrier-to-best-team-20121231-2c2kx.html

some boffin from The Age reckons it's a good idea.

Read that. That moron obviously hasn't watched the difference between men's and women's international T20s. Also this idea would actually disadvantage women because the likes of Serena Williams will no longer be earning more than the majority of men who are actually better than her if you take the principle to its logical extension.

Will give new meaning to "traditional Australian hug, or a kiss, or a lick, a grope on the arse, or a bit of a dry root".

I thought it was 1 April rather than 1 January.

If a woman is good enough to be selected in a top grade sports team so be it. I say that with the absolute confidence that that eventuality will never eventuate.

Sorry ladies, you can't beat evolution.

That said I think there should be a hell of a lot more money put into women's sport at all levels. If only for health reasons. Plus whilst she's off playing park cricket you can play golf guilt free.

Homer: Lisa, if the Bible has taught us nothing else -- and it hasn't -- it's that girls should stick to girls' sports, such as hot-oil wrestling, foxy boxing, and such-and-such.

Ultimate surrender.

The author's writing an article without knowing the women's team national captain. None else to be said. Tis Jody Fields.

Remember Zoe (can't her surname) who bowled the prince back in the mid 90s. I still have wet dreams.

Nath wrote:Homer: Lisa, if the Bible has taught us nothing else -- and it hasn't -- it's that girls should stick to girls' sports, such as hot-oil wrestling, foxy boxing, and such-and-such.

Right up there amongst my favourite Homer quotes, along with...

Goss. And she was gay wasn't she?

ZG...



And yes, I believe she's a ruggy, not that there's anything wrong with that.

Let's hope Monkey doesn't get on this thread, the ardent sexist.

Seriously though, people might pay to watch the likes of Colvin and Bell make sweet music together.

Not that seriously though.

Red wrote:Goss. And she was gay wasn't she?

Aren't all Female Cricketers at a national level??

not Alyssa Healy, she's Starc's gf. Wouldn't you hate having Ian Healy as an in-law?

Blackadder wrote:

Red wrote:Goss. And she was gay wasn't she?

Aren't all Female Cricketers at a national level??

Some years ago, most, if not all were rug munchers. I remember there was a real stink kicked up when one player (can't remember her name) went to the media & claimed she was being kept out of the side because she was straight.

"Frontline" parodied it.

Producer's assistant: "I thought we didn't do women's sports stories."

Producer: "We don't. This isn't a women's sports story, it's a lezzo story.

Meg Lanning> the gcs and moo

Big Dog wrote:

Blackadder wrote:

Red wrote:Goss. And she was gay wasn't she?

Aren't all Female Cricketers at a national level??

Some years ago, most, if not all were rug munchers. I remember there was a real stink kicked up when one player (can't remember her name) went to the media & claimed she was being kept out of the side because she was straight.

... either Denise Emerson, or Terry Alderman's sister, IIRC

Anyway, hasn't the Australian team always been selected on merit since 1877, barring 1977-79, 1985, and Bruce Francis?

TBF, Warner seems to have got a solid gig.

There have been a few bum selections at Test level nevertheless.

Tait, Cullen, Casson, Cam White, McDonald, North, McGain (and arguably a couple of other panic-selection spinners), McKay, George?, Quiney ..... being a few of the most recent

On merit, or on whim?


Or did I commit another 'NSR'?

Was more on about the fact that (despite the hysterical story, lamenting the exclusion of deserving women) all the Australian teams so far HAVE been co-ed ... every woman who could ever have made the National team has already been selected. Even in 1978-9, 1985, and the Era Of Bruce.

Ah, getcha. (I think.)

I think Australian sport has a proud tradition of belief in meritocracy.

England came to this late (starting perhaps with Hutton).

The problem is still then twofold: the meritorious might still not be good enough on the international stage.

And second, one can't really then - on merit grounds - moan if those born (and in some cases raised) in other countries, and having proved themselves at county level and properly qualified through family links or even residence, get selected ahead of marginally less worthy born-and-dyed-in-the-UK candidates such as Richard Hutton, Tim Curtis, Alan Igglesden or for that matter Ed Smith, Ravi Bopara or Luke Wright.


You also need wide enough cricket breeding grounds, expert coaching (that is not excessively invasive), fostering, promotion and encouragement (of a not too touchy-feely type), then consistency of selection, clear planning and well-worked strategies, etc etc

Co-Ed eh? Well, yeehaw... let's use some Yank term, because we can't make our own up.

Brass Monkey wrote:Co-Ed eh? Well, yeehaw... let's use some Yank term, because we can't make our own up.

You have a few centuries head-start on the Seppos, it's your fault if they can come up with a word to describe 'co-ed' before you lot.

I thought unisex would do.