Jack Hobbs was a batsman, as is Joe Root. Not to mention every other male cricketer over the more than 200 years of the great game. If you check an authoritative dictionary you will find that the word “ Batswoman” is there – a gender determined descriptor like (for example) “Spokesman” and “Spokeswoman” and countless others.
The ugly and completely unnecessary “Batter” turns cricket history on its head. Is somebody going to tell Ian Botham that he played great innings as a “batter” – good luck with that.
Cricket terminology may change over time for good reasons. I don’t recall “Reverse Sweep” in my youth but accept that it’s a useful addition to the cricket lexicon. “Batter” most certainly is not. I’ll have my batter on a piece of cod thanks, not on a cricket pitch.
As for the MCC they grow increasingly craven over time. These self-appointed guardians of the “Spirit of Cricket” sold their souls to the devil when they turned Lord’s Ground over to the drunken revelry that was “The Hundred”. When their history of malfeasance over Lord’s redevelopment was revealed in a recent book “The Covers are Off” the club loftily ignored it. As it has loftily ignored the legitimate complaints of members on a variety of issues for a decade or more.
The MCC may think that they own cricket as once they did. Any student of cricket history would shudder at the thought. May the batsmen and batswomen of today utterly reject this nonsensical attempt to rewrite cricket history.
Paddy’s Blogs in a crazy world 
Battered wives bring a whole new meaning. The people running the game of cricket today are cultural vandals.
LikeLike
They are indeed.
LikeLike