UWI senior economics lecturer and PNM senator Lester Henry explains why the West Indies’ 2016 Twenty20 World Cup success was a triumph of hard work and professionalism over happy-go-lucky cricket; and not the other way around:
There is a saying, made popular by Malcolm Gladwell’s “Outliers”, that if you spend 10,000 hours doing anything, you are bound to become a genius at it.
This forms part of the debate over hard work and practice versus natural talent.
I have never been confused by the erroneous time waster that natural talent superseded hard work and practice. The motto of my old school in Brooklyn said it all: “Nil Magno Labore”—that is, nothing without hard work!
What we just saw from the West Indies cricket team at the recently concluded World Twenty20 Championship in India was again a testimony to this simple logic.
The West Indies team did well mainly because they are mostly hard-core seasoned professionals, especially at the T20 game.
The likes of Chris Gaye, Lendl Simmons, Dwayne Bravo, Andre Russell, Samuel Badree and captain Darren Sammy have played in just about every professional T20 tournament across the globe over the past few years, including the Pakistan Super League just prior to the World Cup.
Marlon Samuels and Denesh Ramdin, are not known as T20 specialists but have played at the highest level for over 15 and 10 years respectively. In other words, this is no bunch of amateurs!
The failure of the West Indies system over the past 20 years has been the inability to transform so called “natural talent” into professional standards. So, pay close attention to what will happen to our Under-19 world champions in the years ahead.
This is the main reason why our cricket fell apart after the Englishmen booted us out of county cricket. All those who then felt that our “natural talent” would ensure we kept on winning were made to eat their misguided words. And some continue to engage in this folly even today.
The last West Indies tour of Australia highlighted the gap between a motley crew of regional amateurs and the professionalism of the host nation.
Many across the cricketing world are still trying to figure why West Indies won the Twenty20 Final.
CricInfo’s Kartikeya Date, for example, wrote an article titled: “West Indies: perfectly built for T20”, in which he attributed the West Indies’ win to the fact that “Of all the teams in the tournament, they had the deepest, most lethal six-hitting capacity.”
Even if this is true, who picked the team? How do we know this? Obviously some intelligent and experienced West Indian figured it out!
Date noted in his article that the West Indies’ combined T20 team experience was 1,703 games compared to England’s 1,136 and that a knowledgeable BBC commentator whispered to him during the tournament that “the West Indies seem to know exactly what they are doing.”
Yet, he still went on to conclude that the win was a result of simple, brute force hitting.
In my opinion, the lack of avenues for professional development of young West Indies cricketers in the region and abroad remain the major obstacle to restoring our competitiveness in the longer formats of the game.
For over 20 years, we have fielded what are essentially amateur teams against hard-core professionals from the main Test playing nations, and the results are there for everyone to see.
This group of West Indian players took the opportunity afforded by the proliferation of T20 tournaments all of the world to fine tune their skills and become almost 100 percent professional, and the results are also there to be seen.
One intriguing question that now arises is: What will we do if India throw West Indies players out of the IPL? Or Australia do the same with the Big Bash?
We will wait and see.
In the meantime: Congratulations to the West Indies team for a job well done.
Warning: Undefined variable $userid in /www/wired868_759/public/wp-content/plugins/user-photo/user-photo.php on line 114
That sounds like Man who never played Cricket in his Life ..
I was on another thread and the issues are so deep rooted it starts from the regional boards and the way they select their teams also. Take Sheldon Cotterel for example. Blasts onto the scene for two seasons… now?.. when last da man rep Jamaica?
Lester Henry can take a flying leap into a pile of human excrement and stay there
Ye man Shawn Charles there is enough smart fans out there to realize WICB talking BS forever – the WICB feel them alone understand world cricket dynamics in Caribbean smh
Colin Benjamin Buh dis man echoing my sentiments in the 1st article!!! Lol… Ray Charles cud see what Windies need to do.. buh WICB like dey stuck in PC safe mode!.. only thing is it aint safe there!
http://www.espncricinfo.com/magazine/content/story/955499.html Shawn Charles
http://www.espncricinfo.com/blogs/content/story/821911.html Shawn Charles
Have to agree with Chabeth. The men are a great T20 team with many players capable of winning a game on their own.
The ladies have been very reliant on two players captain Taylor and Dottin.
Seeing Britiny Cooper delivering in the semi final, and Hayley Matthews in the final against the odds speaks volumes of the magnitude of the success.
Of course, Stefannie and Deandra were great throughout the tournament and also in the final.
Their success came against greater odds than the men in my view. Take nothing away from the men though.
Total respect and congrats to both teams and their support staff.
You made Caribbean supporters very happy. You all have every right to celebrate to the max.
I would say that the men’s victory doesn’t diminish the women’s victory and vice versa.
The women competing in the inaugural Women’s Big Bash league gave them that confidence as well. Competing and winning in Australia gave them the belief and inside knowledge against Australia. – Taylor, Hayley, Dottin, Stacey ann king.
Yea Shawn Charles check these two articles. WICB isn’t the only board whose has had to deal with ICCs failures to deal with the rise of T20 leagues – which has made IPL and other such tournaments gobble up their players for big fees.
New Zealand have & they took a very logical and pragmatic approach towards their players – while the WICB took the idiotic, spiteful and intransigent approach.
“Date noted in his article that the West Indies’ combined T20 team experience was 1,703 games compared to England’s 1,136 and that a knowledgeable BBC commentator whispered to him during the tournament that ‘the West Indies seem to know exactly what they are doing.’
Yet, he still went on to conclude that the win was a result of simple, brute force hitting.”
Because Heaven forfend that our victory be attributed to intelligence (looking at you, Mark Nicholas ) or strength of will against the most daunting of odds. Steups.
Give WICB credit for the women’s and u 19s success yes – but not the men at all
The men went into World Cup ranked # 1 and yet the board sent them to the tournament playing the least t20 internationals among the top 8 nations since the 2014 tournaments
The men honed their skills overseas
And if the board had its way all those players would have had to miss the ram slam South Africa, Bangladesh premier, big bash and Pakistan league to play in the domestic tournament just b4 World Cup
The author shouldnt be so sensitive about the Indian journalist’s observation about the depth of WI six-hitting capacity. It’s true. Carlos Brathwaite proved it. And he was a No. 8. In addition, the author he refers to never equated six hitting with brute force. That is in Lester Henry’s mind, and a function of the chip on his shoulder.
One more thing. The much maligned WICB gets to get some credit here. However vexed Sammy was, his success and that of the women and the boys, did not occur in a vacuum.
The IPL is about making money via entertaining cricket. West Indian players provide the entertainment and talent required to bring in crowds. The IPL is not going to kick out West Indians, it doesn’t make business sense.
As for the Big Bash in Australia, there is a greater need to stir the crowd there than in India where there is more passion. The Big Bash needs the entertainment provided by West Indians. However, the culture of Australia is to get rid of the outsiders, so they will seek 6 hitters until they can produce enough of their own.
Leagues are developing quickly, and soon there will be more leagues than players. The leagues need the Chris Gayles more than Chris Gayle the leagues. Let us see if Australia will invite Gayle back. Their pride may get in the way.
Note: Narine was cleared AFTER the T20 Championship. Sport politics is brutal.
Shawn, New Zealand understands that it is counter-productive to stop their players from earning a living and competing with the best in those leagues. So they adjusted. Colin Benjamin can say more on that.
We have to consider what is best for us. Often the WICB just uses that rule about having to play locally to be spiteful.
More like Kerry Packer
Tbh… I’ve been in two minds about IPL and the likes when it comes to clashes with Test series in the caribbean. IPL takes place in the height of our dry season when historically that is our cricket season. I think tours have been restructured to suit T20 leagues around the world. However, those various leagues actually help those who ply their trade to become more professional in their approach to the game. This is not a bad thing, for all the money they are making there they MUST perform, some people think it’s a holiday men gone to take in India! So that was my conundrum. IPL ét al come like the English leagues that players of old plied their trade and as the article said, WI cricket quality fell sharply after the 1998 ban ➡ Hence end of an era in 1999.
Lasana what of the Kolpak deal and Caribbean players?
If the IPL throw out our players and keep the Aussies and S/Africans it will be quite intriguing. I highly doubt tho.
India seems to be quite fascinated with Narine and will stop at nothing to have him. One even bought the T&T’s franchise and got him on the team!
Because the IPL runs on economic principles and wants the best players.
England county cricket cut off its nose to spite its face.
Wha England know bout cricket?
such a shame that our players have to hone their craft abroad as there are zero opportunities to develop professionally at home
Yeah. In part it is understandable in terms of the financial aspect.
But then the regional competition in the longer version of the game has been plagued by some of the same issues for years with little change.
I suppose the regional T20 cricket competition was supposed to be a step in the right direction though.
and you realize that barring 3 years, the time i believe the Caribbean T20 existed, the regional T20 competition was run by foreigners?
And I’m not sure that the regional T20 competition is sustainable anyway because it seems to rely on milking governments.
“What we just saw from the West Indies cricket team at the recently concluded World Twenty20 Championship in India…”
Why do people keep talking like there was only one West Indies team in the tournament?
Can we not forget about the women? That they won the tournament for the first time? That they beat Australia for the first time? And that it took a record breaking amount of runs for them to do so? History set on three different counts.
All this talk about the men’s team in such umbrella terminology as if the women’s team doesn’t exist.
Even when women are achieving incredible feats in sport, they are still ignored.
And don’t tell me anything about the treatment of the men by the WICB because we really don’t know how the women are treated since the media seems to ignore that as well.
And I don’t care who says what about me and gender politics. Lol. ?
Giving greater recognition to the women doesn’t take anything away from the men. We can multitask!
It isn’t this writer’s duty though. He might just be more knowledgable about the men’s team.
In football, there are as many as seven national teams in both sexes combined.
I should be able to write a commentary on one without being compelled to also speak on the other six.
I understand your point about the women’s triumph. All I’m saying is the fact that he didn’t speak on it is not necessarily an indictment on the author.
In fact, you can write one on the women’s team yourself if you chose to. 😉
Right. And what I’m saying is… How can you refer to “THE West Indies team” as if there is only one team? There are multiple, so specify which one you are referencing. Why should it be that “West Indies team” is equated to the men’s team? Honestly when I saw the headline about West Indies professionalism and winning the tournament, I thought the article was going to address both teams. Needless to say I was disappointed. Lol.
And you don’t want me writing for Wired868… You can’t imagine the amount of editing and censoring of me you would have to do. Lol.
But hey… Good attempt to bring balance. After the fact. ??
The reasons why the women’s team won are different to the men in any case
The Trinidad and Tobago, Argentina, Brazil and Germany National Senior Team always refers to the men eh. Then there are the respective Women’s National Senior Teams.
That might just be tradition because they were first. I don’t see it as a big deal.
There is one Football Association in the world known merely as the “FA.” That is England.
FIFA tried to get them to change and they stuck to their guns. They were there first.
Meaning the women’s professionalism had nothing to do with it Colin? ?
You don’t see it as a big deal because you are part of the majority. But if there was a white Trinidad and Tobago team that we referred to as the Trinidad and Tobago team and all the folks of colour were on another team referred to as the coloured folks Trinidad and Tobago team, it might be a bigger deal then eh…
But it’s only Monday…
they do it so easy and feign ignorance smh
Not at all Chabeth Haynes – their is no IPL for women and massive T20 women’s league worldwide either. We only have the AUS big bash league which i believe Stephanie Taylor, Hayley Matthews and DeanDottin played (not sure if any others did).
Thats essentially what the author is trying to say along with others, which is just like how the great teams of the past dominated test cricket by honing their skills in english country and australia shield cricket – this team became the best T20 team by playing in all those leagues.
The women won if I were to attempt a reason (openly admit I don’t follow them attentively) due a simply peaking at the right time and a little help from playing in Big Bash League. I can’t say for sure if this means windies women are now the best “T20 women’s team in the world”
However I do acknowledge that enough is not being said about the women’s accomplishment.
I do plan to interview Hayley Matthews soon for either cricinfo or cricbuzz – so look out for that
Ok. Will look out for the interview. But if the women have less opportunity to hone their skills, that would make their accomplishment even greater, no? And yet still so much less is being written on them.
But that wasn’t even my point. Two teams took part in a tournament, both teams won, and you say “THE West Indies team” as if there was only one team. That’s my point. There were two teams. Both won.
Which team is performing at the higher level Chabeth? And which has the greatest support base?
Those are the main considerations for media coverage and not necessarily in that order.
With limited resources, you consider which has most demand.
That’s economics not sexism.
In any case, I’d gladly use a commentary on women’s team if one is offered to Wired868.
Chabeth Haynes making sense.
Lasana, which team gets greater investment in terms of development and marketing? Because that’s what goes into performance output and spectator interest, no?
That’s not anything but common sense and reality. And if we’re talking specifically about the t20 World Cup which both the men and women won, how can we talk about one team performing at a higher level than the other and therefore be more deserving of commentary?
And while all that stuff you said may not equate to sexism, referring to the men’s team as “THE” team when a women’s team exists, is sexism. It’s really just so tedious for a writer to include the word “men’s” when talking about the men’s team?
And my original comment wasn’t an attack on you or Wired868. It wasn’t an attack on anybody quite frankly. So it shouldn’t be taken personally.
Why should we have to gender qualify women’s teams by saying “the West Indies women” for example, but not do the same for men?
who determines ‘higher level’? is it the amount of money women are paid? the speed at which they bowl? the number of runs they score? stop comparing the men’s and women’s game!
Higher level is which team is superior or playing at a more challenging level.
An example would be between SSFL and Pro League Youth League. Or Super League and Pro League.
As I said, it isn’t necessarily first priority because SSFL coverage exceeds Pro League although the Pro League teams are better.
I don’t always agree with it. But I understand it.
If the women’s game sold out stadia, there would be more coverage. That isn’t sexism. It would be the same for the male Pro League competition.
So long as you don’t understand what the issue is Natasha, you will never be able to remedy it. You think it is because people are sexist and don’t like women.
When the women’s national senior team was on the verge of a World Cup place, there was wall to wall coverage and a near sold out stadium though.
And the women’s team cannot beat the men’s team. So what does that say?
But the women’s team is at a higher level than the men’s team based on your definition of “higher level”, no?
Or are we going to dissect “higher level” now and say that the men are superior because the women can’t beat them while ignoring the fact that the women play at a more challenging level based on the concacaf competitors?
And so somehow the men are still at the “higher level.” Lol ?
But all this tangential talk, Lasana, like we on a treasure hunt with no map.
My initial point was about the gender qualification of women’s teams and not men’s teams, and I missed where you addressed the sexism in that beyond hinting at it being tradition in football.
You just revealed the problem in your response Lasana. :-/
Chabeth Haynes it’s obvious this conversation is pointless here. men scared of any supposed threat to their dominance in sport. we have to keep on pulling them up when they are wrong (frequently) and hope they can somehow imagine a world where there is equality in sport, and ergo in life.
Then why were the Women Soca Warriors the darling of the media, just over a year ago?
If anything, the women’s T20 competition would have benefitted more from a schedule that was separate to the men’s competition.
A middleweight title fight of any stature would never be an undercard to a heavyweight title fight.
But once the belief is that this is a fight down because men secretly hate giving props to women, then we won’t get anywhere.
True in football as we all know the women’s world cup is not played alongside men’s tournament.
ICC does this with cricket because for that dynamics of the sport in getting revenue for whatever reasons & whoever’s fault – they don’t think a women’s world cup in cricket can stand on its on and get proper global interest
Even the Australia women who won 3 T20 world cup in a row – weren’t hyped in AUS media like men’s team who won 50 over cups 3 in a row from 99-2007
Being sexist has nothing to do with not liking women Lasana. I have to say that you are on shaky ground here.
This was an argument in another thread about pay equality. I pointed out that for the US Open tennis finals, the women’s final always had comparable viewership but yet the women had less prize money until recently.
Currently the women’s final has a bigger television audience than the men. Bet you won’t see the women paid more because of higher tv revenue anytime soon.
One person commented that people watched the women while waiting for the men to play. He didn’t understand how sexist and demeaning the assumption was.
Lasana, I don’t know if you know what you’re saying. Lol.
Women’s sports are the middleweight and men’s are the heavyweight? Really? Lol. Regardless of any other factors? Gender is what determines who’s the heavyweight and who’s the middleweight?
By your own definition of “higher level”, the women’s football team is at a higher level than the men. Yet still they get less EVERYTHING. Why? Because the men would beat them anyway?
Even when the women are separate, they still get less.
We all know marketing and media coverage influences what ppl watch.
Based all on the stories about Thema that you did, Lasana, you don’t think that if she does make it to Rio, she will be one of the athletes that we will be most keenly watching?
I understand fully the limitations news media entities face but let’s not pretend that if women’s sports were given more coverage and more respect, more people wouldn’t watch.
And you’re still not addressing the initial issue of gender qualifying women’s teams and not men’s.
That wasn’t my argument though Kendall. I’m saying two things alone.
One: The author is free to write on the West Indies men without having to feel guilty. Just as he can write story on male or female NBA without being accused of bias against the other.
Two: The media tends to pay more attention to things that they feel has more public interest or is a higher level of sport. In this case, the differentiating factor would be higher level of interest and NOT higher level.
I can discuss those points. I don’t know about that other conversation because I didn’t follow it.
When I said higher level, I was speaking in general Chabeth and I gave example of Super League and Pro League Those are both male competitions. Everything isn’t about sex.
In this case, it is about public support. Or which one would get greater interest on the back page.
But the point wasn’t that Lester couldn’t write about whom he wanted. It was that in neither the author’s or editor’s mind did it occur to them that a clarification that the article was about the men’s team was needed.
And my initial comment had nothing to do with anybody feeling guilty for writing about the men’s team and not the women’s. It had to do with referring to the men’s team as “THE” West Indies team as if the women’s team doesn’t exist and a headline that says yadda yadda yadda West Indies professionalism led them to World Cup title as if only one team won.
Both of those things completely ignore the women’s team. I mean just completely ignores the women. Like they don’t even exist.
There is a photograph that goes with story Kendall Tull. It didn’t say cricket either. And most of the stories don’t say football. Because you can visually see it.
But everyone is welcome to take what they want from a story. That’s the beauty of it. Some people will see one talking point. Others will see another.
Millennia of gender bias and discrimination won’t disappear in a century but we should at least recognise our blindspot.
It didn’t say cricket? Now you’re being silly Lasana. It said West Indies. How many sports have West Indies teams?
Who was in the eye catching photo next to the word West Indies, Chabeth?
And why would the media put the men on the back page and not the women? When both events happened on the same day?
Did you not see Bruce’s comments lower down about the women’s victory? Not to take away from the men, but how is the women’s victory not a more impressive one? And if the media continues to highlight the men over the women even when the women do at minimum, just as well, how is interest in the women supposed to grow?
To be completely honest, I missed the intricacies of the picture on first read. I just saw confetti. After I read the story, I went back and looked at the picture.
And Kendall, I point out on the economic rationale for highlighting one over the other.
I’m not going to defend centuries of discrimination. All I can talk about is what I feel qualified to talk about.
I answered that question higher up Chabeth. But if you are thinking of how to make support in women’s cricket grow, you are heading in the right direction.
I see what you are saying Chabeth Haynes – when people hear the West Indies team in general or even in context of T20 win they will automatically think of the men.
Could the author have been more specific and clarify he was speaking of the men? Sure
But I don’t think he was trying to be disrespectful to the women’s existence/performance at world cup – because lets not pretend that the storyline behind the men’s and women’s team wins are comparable.
Sarcasm, Lasana? But if you think media coverage has nothing to do with interest in women’s sports, well ok…
Colin, I’m not saying anybody was trying to be disrespectful. I’d argue that the disrespect is so engrained to the point of a total lack of awareness when it is happening.
So we have the “Soca Warriors” and the “Women Soca Warriors”. Does that mean you will not support the “Soca Warriors” until they become “Men Soca Warriors” Chabeth?
Feel free to take up that cause if you like. 😉
I wasn’t being sarcastic. The first comments were that men don’t like to give women their props. So if you are thinking about how to raise support, I’d say that thinking is more likely to lead somewhere.
And think again to what happened with the women’s football team.
Steups. Lasana, you really being silly now. I go to flipping pro league matches, but I won’t support the soca warriors? I went to st Vincent for their match. I was one of the most outspoken in support of kenwyne and the team when they had their payment dispute last December. It’s not their fault ppl refer to them as the soca warriors. That’s on the marketing people and the media. But why do the women have to be an addendum of the men anyway? Why does it have to be women soca warriors? Why couldn’t they get their own identity?
The women chose their own name. Before they were referred to as Soca Princesses and the team captain specifically told Wired868 that they want to be known as the Women Soca Warriors.
I didn’t mean you didn’t care for the T&T football team Chabeth. I just wondered if you would protest their nickname.
Well that is on them. If that’s what they want to be, so be it. But I thought soca princesses was horrible and childish. Not grown woman at all.
We going round and round Lasana. The point is referring to a men’s team as THE whatever team, complete negates the existence of a women’s team and silences the women and their accomplishments. That’s my point.
And I disagree totally. Are the women’s football team negated because the men are Soca Warriors and they are Women Soca Warriors?
I didn’t see that at all in any way including at the turnstiles and in coverage of their games.
Sigh… Nicknames don’t carry the same weight Lasana.
The Trinidad and Tobago senior football team negates the existence of a women’s senior team. The West Indies cricket team negates the existence of a women’s cricket team. Especially when referring to a tournament where the two teams participated and ended up with the same accomplishment.
You say “the West Indies t20 team” and I’m supposed to know you’re talking about the men as if the women don’t have a West Indies t20 team?
There are two senior football teams. On the basis of what logic do you have to gender qualify one and not the other? I don’t understand.
You might have realised there is a FIFA World Cup and a FIFA Women’s World Cup. One was here first. The other came after. The original kept its name.
How is the Women’s World Cup negated?
Because in dialogue if you say FIFA World Cup, the assumption is the men as if there is only ONE World Cup and there isn’t. As if the women don’t exist. THE FIFA World Cup.
What is the problem with saying FIFA Men’s World Cup?
Why gender qualify one and not the other? That is my question.
That is your perception Chabeth. One tournament was first and kept its name. All the others had to be qualified as a result.
You only choose to argue about the sexist side. But it is the same for the youth tournaments. The Under-19 team can say they are a national team too and protest about being qualified or negated.
In any case, the first person to create a name keeps it if he or she thinks the name works. Everyone else adjusts. That is normal business practice.
The under 19 qualification etc exists because there is an actual age qualification that is necessary for participating in the tournament. So I don’t think that comparison works at all.
If you want to say that the “women” is necessary because gender is a qualification for participation, then the same would hold true for men, no?
But if you want to use your business practice train of thought, then how many things came for women before they came for men? You’re saying women always have to adjust for men and not the other way around? You don’t find that viewpoint to be sexist? That’s rather disheartening.
It’s really a big deal to just add “men’s” to show that you really believe in equality?
“You’re saying women always have to adjust for men and not the other way around?”
Chabeth, please find me the excerpt where I said that.
Lasana and Chabeth ‘s tete a tete is quite informative…..I’d think that the only sport that gets anything close to equal rating regardless of gender is tennis…women’s football/cricket or whatever else simply doesn’t carry the same weight or interest as the men…and I don’t think it has anything to do with sexism…
Lasana, you said whoever has the name first, gets to keep it and everyone else has to adjust. Which was a comment in response to the FIFA World Cup and the FIFA women’s World Cup.
I am saying tell me how often women got anything first, in sport or otherwise, and how often men are adjusting the name of their anything to be an addendum of the women’s. If we’re saying whoever gets it first gets to keep it, the women will always be the one adjusting to men, no?
Carlon… Sigh. This did not start as a discussion about viewership or anything like that. It was about referring to the West Indies men’s team as the West Indies team at a tournament where the women’s team participated and left the tournament with the same result as the men. If somebody knows that the two teams took part in the same tournament and a headline reads West Indies professionalism etc etc, the automatic conclusion should be that the article is only going to discuss the men?
In any case… Again… If people want to go about believing that media coverage does not influence viewership and public participation then ok. You all are telling me that coverage of football as a sport doesn’t influence its global popularity. I’d be curious to know what would get more viewers in this country… U-17 football World Cup or hockey world championships. How many u-17 footballers can ppl in this country name vs how many hockey players or boxers. Media coverage sparks interests which in turn affects viewership and attendance. If the media doesn’t want to cover women’s sports with the same ferocity as they do men’s sports and day it’s poor attendance then ok. I don’t know when generating awareness stopped being part of the media’s role.
But none of this was what my initial comment was about in the first place. Lol.
Carlon, you don’t think women’s gymnastics, or figure skating, or diving, just to name a few, have viewership in the same range for men and women? You think attendance is dramatically lower for the women’s competitions in those sports than they are for the men?
Honestly Chabeth, generating public response has never been part of the media’s role. That is a misperception. The media’s role is to give the public information it wants.
Now, any ethical business while try to positively impact on its customers. Sometimes that means offering readers what they don’t think they want but we think they need.
Helping a fledgling industry get awareness?
We do that from time to time too. But it ent out role or responsibility. They can pay for ads.
You’re parsing words, Lasana. The media’s role is to inform, educate, and entertain. It cannot force anybody to attend any event but it can generate awareness through coverage. And if nobody knows the event is happening, how will they attend. And if people know about the event and see nothing about it on the sports news they think it’s shit. That it’s not important and not worth their time. That’s the reality.
You’re telling me a women’s competition should include in its budget money to pay the media to cover the event?
This discussion has strayed so far from my initial comment. Lol.
But you asked me to address the whole women adjusting to men thing and I did and you have nothing more to say on it? I take it you take my point then?
I don’t have to correct what I didn’t say. What I said is applicable no matter the sex. Take “men who can cook” for example.
As for you telling me the media’s job… If you really think that is what editors or shareholders tell each other at any media house in the world that isn’t State funded…
Well it’s a sweet view.
Really, Lasana? Lol. “Men who can cook?” What’s the female equivalent of that event called that would make the title “men who can cook” an addendum of the title of the women’s event?
But the mere fact that you would raise female dominance over household chores as a counterpoint in a discussion about gender equality lets me know you really don’t understand what I am saying.
If you write an article and say so and so is THE team to beat in the pro league this season, doesn’t that mean that you’re placing that team above the rest? It’s the same thing. If you say THE West Indies team, it means you’re placing the men’s team above the women and why should the men be viewed as superior?
And just to be clear. You’re the one who offered the business analogy about whoever was there first gets to keep their name and everybody else adapts. If we keep to that logic, in a world where men have gotten most if not everything before women, it would mean that women are constantly adapting. Perhaps, you don’t see the end line on that logic, but constant female adaptation to men is exactly what would happen.
As for the media’s role… Because editors or shareholders are telling themselves something differently, it doesn’t change what the media’s role in society is supposed to be.
But this has gone on long enough, no? And gone to all sorts of tangential places! Lol.
If you think gender qualification in the naming of teams should only be limited to women and that the men’s teams should always be THE team, then ok…
Holding out no hope to see “the West Indies men’s cricket team” or “the Trinidad and Tobago men’s senior football team” on wired868 any time soon. ?
The media has a life to live as well with bills to pay we dont owe anybody any coverage or free publicity or free promotion. If the general public and paying clients pay more/are more interested in one over the other; why should the media take a smaller income? Its the way of the world
Covering a female sporting event counts as free publicity or free promotion but covering a male sporting event counts as news? Lasana is the one who talked about the women’s senior team selling out the stadium a year ago so obviously there’s interest in women’s football, no? But how much coverage does the girls’ secondary school football league get compared to the boys’?
If “paying clients pay more”
The news media is taking money to cover specific events now? The news media can be bought into covering certain competitions? By the highest bidder?
And if people can’t understand how media coverage generates interest, ok. Really no point to broadcasting pro league matches then.
In any case, again, all of this is tangential to my original question which was why gender qualify the name of one team and not the other. The only answer I’ve heard is that the men came first and whoever comes first gets to keep their name and everyone else adapt. So ok…
Who said that covering men’s sport is news and women sport is free publicity? I showed several opportunities with two men’s sports and tried to explain why there was a difference in news coverage. I compared SSFL to Pro League youth competition. And Pro League to Super League.
This isn’t going anywhere. So let’s agree to disagree.
If thats what u gather from my comment then there isnt anything else i can say
Steups. Lol. We’re talking about the difference in coverage/commentary between women’s and men’s sporting events and people start saying free coverage and not owing anybody anything in response to my comment about the media raising awareness of women’s sporting events through coverage but it isn’t a reference to covering women’s sporting events? Ok…my bad.
But yes, let’s end this. We can agree on that!
(Love that even though it was pointed out that the senior women can sell out the stadium just like the men, there was no explanation of why the boys SSFL gets more coverage than the girls, btw. ?)
How come Gerard didn’t link this story?
Because Gerard have a real wuk to do and didn’t see it until now. Lol