We must rethink the way we judge women’s sporting milestones – Alice Soper

Kiwi Ferns captain Georgia Hale (centre) has played just 20 tests over a decade of international service. Photo / Photosport

It wasn’t the result that the Kiwi Ferns would have wanted, falling to the Jillaroos in the final of the Pacific Championships. But there was still plenty to celebrate as their captain, Georgia Hale, ran out in her landmark 20th test. It has taken Hale a decade of perseverance to reach this milestone. The number itself, though, is perhaps another example of what we are still missing from the women’s game.

Hale’s test record is just the latest illustration of the way in which men’s statistical benchmarks are failing women. It’s men’s sport that has long championed the number of games as the ultimate marker for celebration. Despite attempts, this doesn’t translate to women’s sport, given our notoriously short seasons. It means our achievements always look paltry in comparison – when in truth, they are stories of holding yourself to the highest of standards, regardless of the number of playing opportunities on offer.

On its surface, 20 games doesn’t seem like many. That’s only because we are putting emphasis on the wrong numbers. Since Hale debuted in 2014, the Kiwi Ferns have played 26 tests. Which means Hale has featured in just shy of 77% of the games the team played during this decade. A solid B+ in participation. Had she instead had access to the Kiwis’ playing schedule, Hale would have just run out in her 31st test.

The low value of these numbers first caught my eye while watching the NRLW this year. The graphic popped up in the corner of the screen, telling me that commentator Tarsha Gale played 15 tests for the Jillaroos between 1995-2000. Because I am who I am, I immediately googled how many tests her team played in that period. The answer? 16. So in five seasons, Gale missed just one test match. How many Kangaroos players could boast the same?

This is a women’s sports issue though, not a rugby league one. And it carries all the way down to the grassroots. Many local clubs have honours systems set up for players based on numbers of games played. You don’t get your name on the board or the blazer on your back until you hit a milestone determined by traditions. Tradition in sport is just another word for men. So you have inequity in celebration as men can hit these numbers at higher rates, as they generally play longer seasons, while I have known women to toil away for over a decade before they finally get their moment in the spotlight.

That’s if they are fortunate enough to have records kept of their matches. Our history of sanctioned participation is also relatively short. These self-made origins mean that players are often denied the fullness of their achievements. It wasn’t until the lead-up to the last women’s Rugby World Cup that the results of the 1994 edition were officially recognised by World Rugby, so England’s first champions were finally acknowledged.

We need to get these milestones right because the good news is that women’s sports are rapidly growing. The Black Ferns’ first first five-eighths, Jacqui Apiata, retired after six seasons during which she played five recorded tests. Our latest first five, Hannah King, has played seven test matches in her debut season. If playing totals are our key metric, we are going to quickly erase the achievements of our pioneers.

In sports, numbers are just stand-ins for stories. They are a shorthand to describe positions, results and achievement. By focusing on the wrong numbers, we are telling the wrong stories. Forget the total number of matches played and instead value the length of service. Time passes at the same rate for all of us. If we want to benchmark anything, let it be the passing of seasons, not the politics of a playing schedule.