I may be completely wrong Jarrod, but you don't mention the reason that I'd always assume spin bowling is more frequent in (elite) women's cricket - the simple fact that once you remove absolute pace from the women's game, a key reason for the strength of pace bowling in the men's game disappears.
Consider:
1. Men and women still face the bowler from 22 yards away
2. Men and women have identical reaction times scientifically, so women should in theory be able to "react" to face face bowling equally well (I accept that this is diminished somewhat that women don't actually play raw pace as well simply by never actually facing it, but the theory of the nervous system and reactions are identical).
3. Women's spin bowling pace does not drop off compared to the men, in the same proportions that it does for pace, as such the relative "value" of pace bowling in the pure sense that it forces batting decisions in a reduced amount of time is reduced.
It's a similar thought experiment that if every man who could bowl quicker than 130kmph (and every spinner who typically bowl quicker than 90kmph for balance) disappeared from earth overnight. Of course some new pace bowlers would be selected, but undoubtedly the proportion of spin used in men's cricket would also increase should these cricketers disappear.
This identical "absolute dimensions" can also be seen in in tennis, where the fact that men and women play on the same sized court results in slightly different biases toward height/mobility (if we assume it to be on a continuum). The average male pro tennis player is "only" four inches taller than the average man, but the average professional women's tennis player is about six inches taller than the average women - suggesting that there's somewhat of a "sweet spot" in terms of height/mobility equal across both genders due to identical dimensions of the court for both players.
I may be completely wrong Jarrod, but you don't mention the reason that I'd always assume spin bowling is more frequent in (elite) women's cricket - the simple fact that once you remove absolute pace from the women's game, a key reason for the strength of pace bowling in the men's game disappears.
Consider:
1. Men and women still face the bowler from 22 yards away
2. Men and women have identical reaction times scientifically, so women should in theory be able to "react" to face face bowling equally well (I accept that this is diminished somewhat that women don't actually play raw pace as well simply by never actually facing it, but the theory of the nervous system and reactions are identical).
3. Women's spin bowling pace does not drop off compared to the men, in the same proportions that it does for pace, as such the relative "value" of pace bowling in the pure sense that it forces batting decisions in a reduced amount of time is reduced.
It's a similar thought experiment that if every man who could bowl quicker than 130kmph (and every spinner who typically bowl quicker than 90kmph for balance) disappeared from earth overnight. Of course some new pace bowlers would be selected, but undoubtedly the proportion of spin used in men's cricket would also increase should these cricketers disappear.
This identical "absolute dimensions" can also be seen in in tennis, where the fact that men and women play on the same sized court results in slightly different biases toward height/mobility (if we assume it to be on a continuum). The average male pro tennis player is "only" four inches taller than the average man, but the average professional women's tennis player is about six inches taller than the average women - suggesting that there's somewhat of a "sweet spot" in terms of height/mobility equal across both genders due to identical dimensions of the court for both players.
Except I did mention it.