A coffee and a chat with dual-code international turned player agent Craig Innes; and a quick look at NZC's historic agreement for pay parity for women.
Postie was a real loss for NZR; followed his playing career with interest after he left but competition between him, Frank and Walter would have interesting to watch, although he could have fitted in on the wing. Interesting comments on positions in demand; I note SA forward players are very plentiful in the pro NH clubs; suspect that that’s where we are missing out - competition with them (SA) at club/franchise level, especially in our forward play (and exposing our players to that style of play/competition). Will never know the commercial imperative that led the decision makers at NZR to split but from a competitor/sport point of view, in my opinion, a strategic mistake.
Hi Dylan - the NZC pay agreement interests me. Is there devil in the detail with it only applying to “match fees” (i.e. obscures the fact that retainers and more game time will still see men’s players paid much more)? You note that only 5% of NZC revenue is fetched by the women’s game, that’s interesting too - I knew it wouldn’t be much but that’s gobsmacking. On those numbers it must be a hugely loss making venture. How much of this can be attributed to “underinvestment” versus the natural market? It would be worth looking into this, because commercially just proceeding on the feel good factor would be very unwise unless the coffers are overflowing. My own perception of the women’s game is that it’s an average product, especially in NZ. Some of the Aussie girls are very handy, but they’re maybe 5% of the show on offer at best. Im all for promoting and building the female game - I used to coach it - but I would judge the standard of the women’s international game for instance at about 3rd grade Auckland men. It has improved and will continue to with the money being poured it, but it’s off a very low base. Compared to say women’s tennis, athletics, netball etc it’s just not a great product.
Hi Andy, one thing I'll always remember a former colleague at the Herald telling me was "you can't make people like what they don't like", so I'll never try to convince you otherwise, but from my own experience, I really started to enjoy women's cricket only after I stopped comparing it with the men's game. It was difficult at first but I started appreciating it for its own rhythms and nuances. I still think it's got a massive way to go in terms of its dynamism and I'd like to see them trial some innovations to increase the speed of the bowling (slightly lighter ball or shorter pitch, perhaps?), but that Australian team is terrific to watch and hopefully there'll come a day when the standards across the board will reach theirs.
Postie was a real loss for NZR; followed his playing career with interest after he left but competition between him, Frank and Walter would have interesting to watch, although he could have fitted in on the wing. Interesting comments on positions in demand; I note SA forward players are very plentiful in the pro NH clubs; suspect that that’s where we are missing out - competition with them (SA) at club/franchise level, especially in our forward play (and exposing our players to that style of play/competition). Will never know the commercial imperative that led the decision makers at NZR to split but from a competitor/sport point of view, in my opinion, a strategic mistake.
Hi Dylan - the NZC pay agreement interests me. Is there devil in the detail with it only applying to “match fees” (i.e. obscures the fact that retainers and more game time will still see men’s players paid much more)? You note that only 5% of NZC revenue is fetched by the women’s game, that’s interesting too - I knew it wouldn’t be much but that’s gobsmacking. On those numbers it must be a hugely loss making venture. How much of this can be attributed to “underinvestment” versus the natural market? It would be worth looking into this, because commercially just proceeding on the feel good factor would be very unwise unless the coffers are overflowing. My own perception of the women’s game is that it’s an average product, especially in NZ. Some of the Aussie girls are very handy, but they’re maybe 5% of the show on offer at best. Im all for promoting and building the female game - I used to coach it - but I would judge the standard of the women’s international game for instance at about 3rd grade Auckland men. It has improved and will continue to with the money being poured it, but it’s off a very low base. Compared to say women’s tennis, athletics, netball etc it’s just not a great product.
Hi Andy, one thing I'll always remember a former colleague at the Herald telling me was "you can't make people like what they don't like", so I'll never try to convince you otherwise, but from my own experience, I really started to enjoy women's cricket only after I stopped comparing it with the men's game. It was difficult at first but I started appreciating it for its own rhythms and nuances. I still think it's got a massive way to go in terms of its dynamism and I'd like to see them trial some innovations to increase the speed of the bowling (slightly lighter ball or shorter pitch, perhaps?), but that Australian team is terrific to watch and hopefully there'll come a day when the standards across the board will reach theirs.