Australia and England played the first ever women’s Test in 1934 and have contested 75 percent of the 144 women’s Tests played since 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. For the latest updates, follow us on Twitter @ArabNewsSport 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 five days. Three things were noticeable. First, the number of men and women in the crowd seemed to be evenly balanced. Second, it was encouraging to see fathers accompanying their young daughters. Third, the cheering and chirruping of groups of young schoolchildren almost matched that of the teams on the pitch, with the Australian spectators sounding the most intense. This is not uncommon. They are the dominant force in women’s cricket. In the 50-over one-day format, Australia have won seven World Cups out of 12 — to England’s four — and triumphed in six T20 World Cups out of eight. In their 77 Test matches, Australia have secured 21 victories, lost 10 and drawn 46. The high draw factor is replicated across the history of women’s Tests, with almost two-thirds ending in draws, providing a sound basis to argue that the matches should be five days long rather than four. If the Trent Bridge game had been four days long, it may also have ended in a draw, given that Australia wrapped it up on the final day. Though that does not take account of the differing tactics that may have been adopted in a four-day match, with the possibility of declarations being made to try and force a result. As it was, five days allowed both teams to bat to the end of their respective innings. It also provided a platform for record breaking. In their first innings, Australia were 238 for six, but eventually scored 473, owing to Annabel Sutherland’s unbeaten 137, batting at No. 8. England’s response was fueled by a double century from Tammy Beaumont, the eighth time this has been achieved in a women’s Test. She batted for over eight hours and faced 317 deliveries. In so doing, she overtook the highest ever score, 189, by an Englishwoman in a Test, set in 1935 by Betty Snowball against a makeshift New Zealand team. Beaumont’s achievement was against a highly professional, well drilled, determined Australian team, whose batting and bowling were impressive, as was the fielding, until put under pressure by Beaumont, when some sloppiness crept in and the “chirrupometer” was dialed down. England came within 10 runs of Australia’s first innings score. But this parity was then thrown away. In the evening session on day three, England needed to take wickets. Instead, the quicker bowlers were wasteful, Australia swelling a lead of 92, without loss. Despite a riposte by England the following morning, Australia were able to reach 257, setting England 268 to win. Another disastrous evening session saw England fall to 117 for five and on the following morning their resistance crumbled against the bowling of Ash Gardner, who claimed eight wickets for 66 runs. It is difficult to see how the Australian juggernaut can be stopped. England have edged closer but there is the feeling that Australia will win the crucial moments of a match, as happened at Trent Bridge. England had a big chance to win their previous Test against Australia in Canberra in February 2022. Needing 40 runs to win from 10 overs, with seven wickets remaining, they lost six wickets for 29 and managed only a draw. The senior players in these matches began their careers when international cricket for women was an amateur pursuit, as it had been since the first women’s Test in 1934. It is the past decade that has heralded professionalism into the game. The cricket boards of both England and Australia awarded professional contracts for the first time to its women cricketers in 2013/14. Since then, franchise tournaments, especially the Women’s Premier League in India, have created the opportunities for women to earn sums of money of which their pioneering predecessors could barely have dreamed. Yet, there is much more to be achieved. The Independent Commission for Equity in Cricket released its long-awaited report this week, as reported by Arab News. Its findings and recommendations relate specifically to cricket in England and Wales, and they are chilling. Cricket was found to harbor widespread racism, sexism and elitism. When coupled with a separate review and report in Scotland, which concluded in July that institutional racism was prevalent there, the whole of cricket in Great Britain is tarnished. It is mainly men who have created and presided over this imbroglio. The ICEC said that “the women’s game lacks proper representation among the highest level of decision-makers.” Indeed, it was scathing about the way that women and women’s cricket have been treated down the years. Its evidence found that “women continue to be treated as subordinate to men within, and at all levels, of cricket. They are not even nearly on an equal footing with men within the sport today.” Recommendation 15 is for a fundamental overhaul of the pay structure in professional women’s cricket, with details of expected outcomes provided. These include equal pay achieved at domestic level by 2029 and at international level by 2030. Match fees between England’s men and women should be equalized with immediate effect. Those who witnessed the performances at Trent Bridge are likely to applaud that recommendation.