The dispute that has been rumbling on for a bit has appeared in the Times. Giles Coren apparently (I swerve anything written by him) has complained about the use of ‘batter’ to describe the person on strike in cricket be they a man or woman.
A letter writer (14th August) has now agreed with him.
The welcome rise of women’s cricket does require some minor adjustment to cricketing terms and batter is one. Of course batsman and batswoman could be used. Alternatively you could have Batman and Robin with the Umpire as the Joker.
It might be noted that there is and always has been only one term for bowler. There is no bowlerman. Why? There may be a history to it but a thought is that in the days of Gentleman v Players the bowler was invariably the proletarian Player, while the Batsman was more often than not a Gentleman. In short a matter of class, and now of gender too.
Leave a Reply