Change to age-old cricketing term is just batty!

I’VE mentioned many news stories over the years that convinced me the world couldn’t get any crazier – and every time I did so, a few weeks later another news item caught my eye that proved me wrong.

Guess what?

It’s happened again…

So that the game of cricket can be seen to be more inclusive, the Marylebone Cricket Club has, with immediate effect, (those chaps in blazers, grey flannels with knife-edge creases and MCC ties at Lords don’t mess around) replaced the age-old term ‘batsman’ with the gender neutral ‘batter’.

Yes . . . ‘batter’. You’d think they’d have bigger fish to fry.

If the term had been used 30-odd years ago we might have heard postmatch conversations like “Don’t be a bitter bowler Botham. Just try to be a better batter, Beefy!”

Look. I’m all for more inclusiveness. In 2021, women should never feel side-lined or unrepresented in any sphere, be it in the world of work, or sport or general life.

But women’s cricket has been played for years and up until now the word ‘batsman’ was accepted as a generic term that covers men and women, just like the word ‘actor’ has in recent times referred to both sexes.

However, the MCC say that the move to ‘batter’ is a natural progression, aligning with ‘bowlers’ and ‘fielders’ and represents the changing landscape of the game in modern times.

So, let me explain what I believe the MCC, an organisation which (along with the term ‘batsman’) has existed since 1787, has failed to state clearly.

It’s the second syllable of ‘batsman’ that led to the change.

Let’s follow the (il)logical path this could lead to.

I suppose Robin The Boy Wonder’s partner could be referred to as Batperson at a pinch, but what’ll happen to Superman, Spider Man, Aqua Man, Iron Man and all their super male mates?

Given time, even the second syllable of ‘woman’ may be consigned to history because it… well... just wait and someone will come up with a reason.

As for bowling a maiden over… forget it.