Cricket Witness No 4 - Women at the WIcket

68 ‘Too much emphasis on personal comfort’ often used in support of their ban, and cricketers were understandably concerned that their playing attire did not appear masculine. 26 The issue was discussed at length in the first WCA meeting in 1926, and by 1928 guidelines were agreed that ‘teams must play in white or cream. Hats and knickers must be white. Dresses or tunics must not be shorter than touching the ground when kneeling. Sleeveless dresses and transparent stockings are not permitted.’ The difference in the clothing worn by football and cricket players was striking. It would have been hard to distinguish between the Dick, Kerr’s girls and male footballers from the stands. Where they wore shorts, loose shirts and wool hats, the WCA accentuated sexual differences. Although the skirt length was eventually shortened to ‘not three inches from the ground when kneeling’ in 1930, calls to relax the rules, for example by allowing sleeveless dresses or removing stockings, were almost unanimously defeated. The WCA did not allow members to play without stockings until 1938, and this was only in the relaxed, holiday environment of Cricket Week. 27 Trousers and shorts were strictly disallowed as they were considered too masculine, despite their increasing adoption in other physical recreations, including hiking, riding and cycling. The English Women’s Cricket Federation was more flexible on the issue of dress, acknowledging that buying a purpose-made dress was unaffordable for most working- class girls. The committee believed trousers also allowed cricketers more freedom, meaning more athletic, higher standards of play. This belief was shared by players south of Sheffield too. ‘I prefer to play in flannels because they are more comfortable and afford more protection than a skirt’, one player in Folkestone told The Sunday Dispatch . ‘A knee-length frock is liable to be a nuisance on a windy day, both to the batsman and the wicket-keeper, whose view is often obscured.’ Nonetheless, the Federation distanced itself from football, describing it as a ‘scandal’ and hockey as ‘dangerous.’ Cricket, on the other hand, was ‘a grand British game and a suitable game for women.’ 28 Marjorie Pollard’s editorials in Women’s Cricket heavily underlined the need to maintain sartorial standards, warning players they risked the future of women’s cricket. The WCA feared that appearing too masculine or slovenly would lead to the removal of male support, and therefore the grounds they required to play on. As one committee member put, ‘too much emphasis has been placed on personal comfort – members should be willing to give up their personal wishes for the good of the whole.’ England cricketers equally made public statements condemning the use of trousers, dirty clothes and mixed-sex games. These concerns were very much born from a middle-class understanding of respectability. For mill workers in Lancashire and shop girls in Brixton, the ability to play in in new dresses and with no financial aid was beyond most of them. Some wealthier clubs, such as Gunnersbury in West London, enforced even stricter rules on dress than the WCA guidelines by insisting on longer dresses. 29 Other controversial women’s sports had equally stringent dress codes.