Bowled over: Women cricketers prove why they deserve better pay, equal rights

It would be a surprise if any of the spectators at Trent Bridge, Nottingham, were not highly impressed by the quality of cricket played by the women chosen to represent England and Australia over five days between June 22 and 26.

Women’s cricket has taken a long time to emerge from the shadows of the men’s game. After this match, any lingering doubts about its quality and appeal have surely been dispelled.

The women of Australia and England, in particular, have long been asking for more opportunities to play Tests and that the duration should be increased to five days from four. Before Nottingham, there had been only one women’s five-day Test, in 1992 at Sydney, when Australia hosted England.

The two countries played the first ever women’s Test in 1934 and have contested 75 percent of the 144 women’s Tests played since. Adding India and New Zealand, means that just four countries have accounted for 90 percent of such matches.

Cold water seemed to be poured on any hopes of an increase in the number of women’s Tests by the chair of the International Cricket Council. In an interview in June last year, he said women’s Test cricket would not be “part of the landscape moving forward to any great extent.”

The context for that assertion was the focus on the shorter forms of cricket, which generate higher attendances and income, while offering the opportunity to fit more matches into the calendar. Anyone who was at Trent Bridge, or watched a live screening of the game, may well be disappointed with the ICC statement.

Before last week, women’s Test matches over the past 30 years had been played at smaller venues. Trent Bridge has a capacity of almost 18,000 and it was reported that close to 20,000 people attended across the