Cricket Witness No 4 - Women at the WIcket

74 Chapter Five Workplace and Working-Class Women’s Cricket Cricket was considered the quintessential expression of Englishness, of fair play, honesty and virtue, but it was also a public theatre that reflected the class divisions in society. Men’s first-class cricket was certainly not a community of equals, but then it never pretended to be. Social distinctions were etched into its make-up through the amateur-professional model which ensured working-class players were visibly subservient to their wealthier peers. Professionals had separate and shabbier hotels and changing rooms, and entered the field of play from a different gate. Meanwhile, county captaincy was solely granted to amateurs, regardless of ability, and professionals were expected to address their colleagues as ‘Sir’ or ‘Mister’. This class divide was also apparent in the different caps and blazers worn by professionals, who also had to perform menial tasks assigned to them or risk a reduction in their earnings. The indignity was heightened as amateurs were often paid the same, if not more, as counties awarded them generous ‘expenses’ or highly-paid administrative positions. The social hierarchy on the field of play mirrored divisions off it, but in exhibiting them so openly the game did not attract the criticism it might have expected. 1 In fact, the relationship between players was generally harmonious and cooperative. Despite these inherent inequalities, most professionals were happy with their separate categorisation as they preferred to socialise with their equals and leave the decision-making to amateurs. Where the latter were lauded for a more aesthetically pleasing, exciting and cavalier style of play, professionals were considered more utilitarian, effective and dependable. There was little appetite for change until after the Second World War. Questioning the amateur-professional distinction was labelled ‘Communist, if not Bolshevist’ by one supporter, but was a generally accepted viewpoint. Gentlemen and players usually treated each other with goodwill and respect, and no serious attempt was made by cricketers or any political party to reverse the institutional unfairness. 2 This model of social harmony pervaded the grassroots too. The socially- mixed nature of most local teams meant cricket was able to reduce class antagonism within communities, as players bonded vertically rather than horizontally. The game helped promote an ideology of moral virtue which emphasised the importance of historic ‘traditions’ which underpinned the status quo. Obedience and servility to a wealthy elite was simply part of the game. It would be easy to interpret women’s cricket as just a petty imitation