|
Post by Westy on Sept 9, 2019 17:03:43 GMT
But why do you hate it? How is it at the expense of lower league football? We are still getting the exact same amount of coverage, but now the woman's game just gets more. Other than being moved down one space on The BBC Sport list, as has the Championship, how are getting less coverage? What did we have before, that was so much better? Btw, the reason it's been riding a (rightful) high, is straight after the World Cup. Chewbacca rightly posted the viewing figures to back it up. Have you seen that England Vs Germany women has already sold over 60,000 at Wembley? Clearly there is a need for it & people want to read it. Regarding deflection, I'm actually not. It's a valid point as to explaining why something that brings large crowds evidently gets media coverage. These things are pretty basic, not just in sport. Please tell me what is the social agenda? And why is it so bad? The 2 games being mentioned are outliers not the normal. As has been said the average attendance of WSL was under 900 last season. The world cup game is being compared to 3 events which took place at the same time so is a poor comparison to make. And a women's international semi final match is different and something I would expect to get a little more coverage anyway. I even watched that match but don't watch any other women's football!! There are 2 reasons it is being pushed IMO. 1) is because of the recent debate about genders being treated differently in the same job/sport and making it look like they are being fair to all genders/races etc which usually means that you end up going too far which I currently feel the BBC are doing. 2) is because of the potential money to be made from promoting the sport and capitalising on the tv revenue as a result. It is still a growing market and has potential to be bigger than it is. Hence it getting pushed and pushed in our faces. I don't see much distinction there from Men's football
|
|
|
Post by Big Jock on Sept 9, 2019 17:08:53 GMT
This place is becoming political as fucck!
Take yer fucckin soapbox somewhere else ya roasters.
|
|
|
Post by Midsomer Murderer on Sept 9, 2019 17:40:07 GMT
I'm going to come out and say it. I wonder if there's been any female supporters of the Gas Girl's drop in to the forum, and read some of these comments, and turned around feeling rather unwelcome. This thread seems a bit 1970's blokey. "Women should be in the kitchen and not on the turf". Come on guys Drop into the forum ? they've got more sense than to read all the old guff churned out on here
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 9, 2019 19:31:03 GMT
So a man thats been in TV broadcasting for years,has won the league title and old european cup with Liverpool shouldn't be on tv instead of a decent looking bird with only experience in the female game.Makes sense..😒😞😳 GGMI has made the point well. Pundits should be appointed on their talent as a pundit not entirely on what they've achieved in the game. Dare I mention Micheal Owen.... I don’t care what sex a presenter is but imo opinion a pundit is there to provide expert insight and therefore has to have experienced that particular sport at that level. With Alex Scott as an example she may have been a decent player in the ladies game but the level of football she will have experienced, the physicality, size of crowds, pressure etc...doesn’t give much credibility when talking about top premier league, champions league or World Cup matches. Its the same in the cricket where both Sky and BBC Test Match Special have female ‘experts’ but how can they talk about the batsman’s technique facing 90+ mph deliveries when they will have never had any experience of anything close to that. You could pluck someone from the Western League Prem cricket league who would be better qualified to provide analysis but that obviously wouldn’t help the equality agenda. I’m all for promoting women’s sport and increasing activity as we as a nation are too unhealthy. However, for me it loses some credibility when it’s being falsely promoted in an attempt to meet modern equality expectations. It should be allowed to grow organically.
|
|
|
Post by chewbacca on Sept 9, 2019 19:55:58 GMT
GGMI has made the point well. Pundits should be appointed on their talent as a pundit not entirely on what they've achieved in the game. Dare I mention Micheal Owen.... I don’t care what sex a presenter is but imo opinion a pundit is there to provide expert insight and therefore has to have experienced that particular sport at that level. With Alex Scott as an example she may have been a decent player in the ladies game but the level of football she will have experienced, the physicality, size of crowds, pressure etc...doesn’t give much credibility when talking about top premier league, champions league or World Cup matches. Its the same in the cricket where both Sky and BBC Test Match Special have female ‘experts’ but how can they talk about the batsman’s technique facing 90+ mph deliveries when they will have never had any experience of anything close to that. You could pluck someone from the Western League Prem cricket league who would be better qualified to provide analysis but that obviously wouldn’t help the equality agenda. I’m all for promoting women’s sport and increasing activity as we as a nation are too unhealthy. However, for me it loses some credibility when it’s being falsely promoted in an attempt to meet modern equality expectations. It should be allowed to grow organically. Well, TMS use Dan Norcross who I know had only ever played Village Cricket, so this is a load of tosh.
|
|
|
Post by cagastrophy on Sept 9, 2019 20:50:57 GMT
So did they win?
|
|
|
Post by faggotygas on Sept 9, 2019 21:06:44 GMT
Anyway, about the actual game. Well done to the women for the win, and a good scoreline, especially for their first game. Abbeymead aren't the best team in the League though, and often start the season slowly for some reason, so greater challenges are to come. Abbeymead also have by far the worst pitch in the division. When Rovers come to my wife's team's home ground (Bristol & West) later in the season, it'll be on a 4g artificial pitch that's only a couple of years old. Whether that'll be an advantage or a disadvantage, we'll see.. Ooooh who will you be supporting?! Officially neutral as I'll be running the line! Unofficially, well I know what's good for me
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 10, 2019 7:26:46 GMT
I don’t care what sex a presenter is but imo opinion a pundit is there to provide expert insight and therefore has to have experienced that particular sport at that level. With Alex Scott as an example she may have been a decent player in the ladies game but the level of football she will have experienced, the physicality, size of crowds, pressure etc...doesn’t give much credibility when talking about top premier league, champions league or World Cup matches. Its the same in the cricket where both Sky and BBC Test Match Special have female ‘experts’ but how can they talk about the batsman’s technique facing 90+ mph deliveries when they will have never had any experience of anything close to that. You could pluck someone from the Western League Prem cricket league who would be better qualified to provide analysis but that obviously wouldn’t help the equality agenda. I’m all for promoting women’s sport and increasing activity as we as a nation are too unhealthy. However, for me it loses some credibility when it’s being falsely promoted in an attempt to meet modern equality expectations. It should be allowed to grow organically. Well, TMS use Dan Norcross who I know had only ever played Village Cricket, so this is a load of tosh. As a commentator describing action it’s similar to someone like John Motson who has not played to that level, however, you still need someone alongside (the pundit) to provide the qualified insight. If Norcross describes what is happening for the listener and Aggers, Swan, Vaughan, Boycott etc add comment on the detail and technicality fine. However, if he tries to talk about how to play a 90mph delivery from Jofra Archer then he has the same lack of credibility as the female ‘expert pundit’. When you watch the post match analysis of the test match on Sky and you see David Gower putting questions to Sir Ian Botham, Michael Holding and the female pundit can you honestly say her experiences make her as credible an expert at her male counterparts?
|
|
|
Post by chewbacca on Sept 10, 2019 8:09:58 GMT
Well, TMS use Dan Norcross who I know had only ever played Village Cricket, so this is a load of tosh. As a commentator describing action it’s similar to someone like John Motson who has not played to that level, however, you still need someone alongside (the pundit) to provide the qualified insight. If Norcross describes what is happening for the listener and Aggers, Swan, Vaughan, Boycott etc add comment on the detail and technicality fine. However, if he tries to talk about how to play a 90mph delivery from Jofra Archer then he has the same lack of credibility as the female ‘expert pundit’. When you watch the post match analysis of the test match on Sky and you see David Gower putting questions to Sir Ian Botham, Michael Holding and the female pundit can you honestly say her experiences make her as credible an expert at her male counterparts? So what's your opinion on Sports Journalists? In fact, do you allow yourself to have an opinion on sport or just leave it to those who've played it at the level you're watching? It's nonsense.
|
|
Marshy
Proper Gas
Posts: 13,979
|
Post by Marshy on Sept 10, 2019 8:12:55 GMT
Well, TMS use Dan Norcross who I know had only ever played Village Cricket, so this is a load of tosh. As a commentator describing action it’s similar to someone like John Motson who has not played to that level, however, you still need someone alongside (the pundit) to provide the qualified insight. If Norcross describes what is happening for the listener and Aggers, Swan, Vaughan, Boycott etc add comment on the detail and technicality fine. However, if he tries to talk about how to play a 90mph delivery from Jofra Archer then he has the same lack of credibility as the female ‘expert pundit’. When you watch the post match analysis of the test match on Sky and you see David Gower putting questions to Sir Ian Botham, Michael Holding and the female pundit can you honestly say her experiences make her as credible an expert at her male counterparts? Eric I can’t believe you’ve brought up the cricket, that’s a very sore point at the moment! 😂
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 10, 2019 10:38:53 GMT
As a commentator describing action it’s similar to someone like John Motson who has not played to that level, however, you still need someone alongside (the pundit) to provide the qualified insight. If Norcross describes what is happening for the listener and Aggers, Swan, Vaughan, Boycott etc add comment on the detail and technicality fine. However, if he tries to talk about how to play a 90mph delivery from Jofra Archer then he has the same lack of credibility as the female ‘expert pundit’. When you watch the post match analysis of the test match on Sky and you see David Gower putting questions to Sir Ian Botham, Michael Holding and the female pundit can you honestly say her experiences make her as credible an expert at her male counterparts? So what's your opinion on Sports Journalists? In fact, do you allow yourself to have an opinion on sport or just leave it to those who've played it at the level you're watching? It's nonsense. Males and females can report facts. Males and females can have an opinion on sport. Males and females can be ‘expert pundits’ PROVIDED they have the relevant experience at the level on which they are commenting - that is the key point and it is not sexist. The very obvious recent trend of the media to have a female on every sports programme is probably doing more harm than good in promoting women in sport. As I’ve said before it’s not about a persons gender but about their experience and ability to be seen as a credible expert in that field. Football and cricket are obvious examples at the moment.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 10, 2019 10:41:25 GMT
As a commentator describing action it’s similar to someone like John Motson who has not played to that level, however, you still need someone alongside (the pundit) to provide the qualified insight. If Norcross describes what is happening for the listener and Aggers, Swan, Vaughan, Boycott etc add comment on the detail and technicality fine. However, if he tries to talk about how to play a 90mph delivery from Jofra Archer then he has the same lack of credibility as the female ‘expert pundit’. When you watch the post match analysis of the test match on Sky and you see David Gower putting questions to Sir Ian Botham, Michael Holding and the female pundit can you honestly say her experiences make her as credible an expert at her male counterparts? Eric I can’t believe you’ve brought up the cricket, that’s a very sore point at the moment! 😂 Fair point. You could have a gender neutral alien land in the UK at the moment who could provide a credible critique of Jason Roy’s batting !!!!
|
|
|
Post by Gassy on Sept 10, 2019 10:49:50 GMT
So what's your opinion on Sports Journalists? In fact, do you allow yourself to have an opinion on sport or just leave it to those who've played it at the level you're watching? It's nonsense. Males and females can report facts. Males and females can have an opinion on sport. Males and females can be ‘expert pundits’ PROVIDED they have the relevant experience at the level on which they are commenting - that is the key point and it is not sexist. The very obvious recent trend of the media to have a female on every sports programme is probably doing more harm than good in promoting women in sport. As I’ve said before it’s not about a persons gender but about their experience and ability to be seen as a credible expert in that field. Football and cricket are obvious examples at the moment. How on earth have you come to that conclusion? I'd say it's quite the opposite, actually.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 10, 2019 12:37:15 GMT
Males and females can report facts. Males and females can have an opinion on sport. Males and females can be ‘expert pundits’ PROVIDED they have the relevant experience at the level on which they are commenting - that is the key point and it is not sexist. The very obvious recent trend of the media to have a female on every sports programme is probably doing more harm than good in promoting women in sport. As I’ve said before it’s not about a persons gender but about their experience and ability to be seen as a credible expert in that field. Football and cricket are obvious examples at the moment. How on earth have you come to that conclusion? I'd say it's quite the opposite, actually. Because putting someone unqualified in the role of “expert pundit” cries out positive discrimination and attracts cynicism. I’m not against female pundits across the board but they have to be appointed on their abilities and credibility and not to support an equality crusade. Some sports there will be credibility in females being appointed pundits but in my examples of football and cricket, sorry but those are not credible.
|
|
|
Post by Gassy on Sept 10, 2019 13:14:05 GMT
How on earth have you come to that conclusion? I'd say it's quite the opposite, actually. Because putting someone unqualified in the role of “expert pundit” cries out positive discrimination and attracts cynicism. I’m not against female pundits across the board but they have to be appointed on their abilities and credibility and not to support an equality crusade. Some sports there will be credibility in females being appointed pundits but in my examples of football and cricket, sorry but those are not credible. Sorry for the numbers lined out, it always comes across as rude IMO - not meant to be, just easier to list here 1. Who actually calls her an "expert pundit" - please give me proof where it says this. 2. Equality? Most panels she's the only woman there, so its usually 3:1 or 2:1 - hardly seems 'even' to me. 3. It was discussed before, she's won so much & capped more than most men for England - seems like here abilities as a footballer are pretty good. 4. I like her punditry, as do many others, otherwise she wouldn't be there. 5. Why & how does it affect your life so much? 6. I don't believe it does more negative than good for the women's game, all the statistics back up with increase on attendances & viewing figures that actually for the women's game it does a lot more good, than bad. 7. The definition of a pundit is an expert in their field who are invited to give their opinion on that subject. Are you saying that only male ex-footballers can be considered pundits? You can be an expert on football, without having played it at the highest level you know.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 10, 2019 14:07:42 GMT
Because putting someone unqualified in the role of “expert pundit” cries out positive discrimination and attracts cynicism. I’m not against female pundits across the board but they have to be appointed on their abilities and credibility and not to support an equality crusade. Some sports there will be credibility in females being appointed pundits but in my examples of football and cricket, sorry but those are not credible. Sorry for the numbers lined out, it always comes across as rude IMO - not meant to be, just easier to list here 1. Who actually calls her an "expert pundit" - please give me proof where it says this. 2. Equality? Most panels she's the only woman there, so its usually 3:1 or 2:1 - hardly seems 'even' to me. 3. It was discussed before, she's won so much & capped more than most men for England - seems like here abilities as a footballer are pretty good. 4. I like her punditry, as do many others, otherwise she wouldn't be there. 5. Why & how does it affect your life so much? 6. I don't believe it does more negative than good for the women's game, all the statistics back up with increase on attendances & viewing figures that actually for the women's game it does a lot more good, than bad. 7. The definition of a pundit is an expert in their field who are invited to give their opinion on that subject. Are you saying that only male ex-footballers can be considered pundits? You can be an expert on football, without having played it at the highest level you know. I used the term ‘expert pundit’ to differentiate between commentators and those whose role is to dissect matches, explain tactical matters etc. At half time in a top level match I want to hear from those who know the game at that level, it’s why coverage of EFL matches have ex players and managers from that level on those games. Sorry but none of the women working as pundits at the moment have the experience of football at top level - their experience at domestic and international level just doesn’t compare. Similarly, if you plucked someone from the Glos County league to sit alongside Souness, Neville, Carragher etc and then consider his analysis of equal value to them then I don’t think there is much point debating the matter further? Btw it doesn’t affect my life much but diminishes the experience of watching live sport on tv to some degree. I believe it is PC driven and having read through earlier posts I didn’t see the harm in adding my thoughts - isn’t that what a forum is about?
|
|
|
Post by Gassy on Sept 10, 2019 14:25:12 GMT
Sorry for the numbers lined out, it always comes across as rude IMO - not meant to be, just easier to list here 1. Who actually calls her an "expert pundit" - please give me proof where it says this. 2. Equality? Most panels she's the only woman there, so its usually 3:1 or 2:1 - hardly seems 'even' to me. 3. It was discussed before, she's won so much & capped more than most men for England - seems like here abilities as a footballer are pretty good. 4. I like her punditry, as do many others, otherwise she wouldn't be there. 5. Why & how does it affect your life so much? 6. I don't believe it does more negative than good for the women's game, all the statistics back up with increase on attendances & viewing figures that actually for the women's game it does a lot more good, than bad. 7. The definition of a pundit is an expert in their field who are invited to give their opinion on that subject. Are you saying that only male ex-footballers can be considered pundits? You can be an expert on football, without having played it at the highest level you know. I used the term ‘expert pundit’ to differentiate between commentators and those whose role is to dissect matches, explain tactical matters etc. At half time in a top level match I want to hear from those who know the game at that level, it’s why coverage of EFL matches have ex players and managers from that level on those games. Sorry but none of the women working as pundits at the moment have the experience of football at top level - their experience at domestic and international level just doesn’t compare. Similarly, if you plucked someone from the Glos County league to sit alongside Souness, Neville, Carragher etc and then consider his analysis of equal value to them then I don’t think there is much point debating the matter further? Btw it doesn’t affect my life much but diminishes the experience of watching live sport on tv to some degree. I believe it is PC driven and having read through earlier posts I didn’t see the harm in adding my thoughts - isn’t that what a forum is about? Yes Eric, of course add your opinion, I'm just discussing it back with you - we're all gasheads here 😁 If you think it diminishes the experience then fair enough, I disagree. For me I don't judge a pundit based on what they've done in the game. I judge a pundit their analysis on the game, which is why I like Alex Scott & why I rate her as a pundit far far ahead of many useless male pundits The BBC has had on over the years. For me, it feels like you respect a pundit based on their playing history in the mens game - which IMO doesn't make them a pundit. If Rooney came on MOTD, is he now a pundit (which is defined as an expert)? No, he's just a famous footballer that people want to see. If Alex Scotts analysis was poor then I would agree with you, but I do believe it's good and the fact that she's on so much would probably suggest the numbers back that up. Michael Owen is considered a pundit, but says things like "that's a great penalty but he'll be gutted it went wide" & "do they deserve to win? no, Liverpool do. which is why a draw is a fair result" - should I consider him a better pundit that Alex Scott, just because he played at the top level in the mens game? If not - then clearly we have to judge a pundit on their ability to read & analyse the game. Mourinho, Roy Hodgson, Villas-Boas, Houllier, Parreira & Sacchi never played football, yet some how became experts in understanding it. It's also worth noting that it's much easier to be a pundit on Premier League football, rather than EFL due to the amount of content, cameras etc. Alex played for Arsenal don't forget so chances are she knows the set up exceptionally well.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 10, 2019 14:41:35 GMT
I used the term ‘expert pundit’ to differentiate between commentators and those whose role is to dissect matches, explain tactical matters etc. At half time in a top level match I want to hear from those who know the game at that level, it’s why coverage of EFL matches have ex players and managers from that level on those games. Sorry but none of the women working as pundits at the moment have the experience of football at top level - their experience at domestic and international level just doesn’t compare. Similarly, if you plucked someone from the Glos County league to sit alongside Souness, Neville, Carragher etc and then consider his analysis of equal value to them then I don’t think there is much point debating the matter further? Btw it doesn’t affect my life much but diminishes the experience of watching live sport on tv to some degree. I believe it is PC driven and having read through earlier posts I didn’t see the harm in adding my thoughts - isn’t that what a forum is about? Yes Eric, of course add your opinion, I'm just discussing it back with you - we're all gasheads here 😁 If you think it diminishes the experience then fair enough, I disagree. For me I don't judge a pundit based on what they've done in the game. I judge a pundit their analysis on the game, which is why I like Alex Scott & why I rate her as a pundit far far ahead of many useless male pundits The BBC has had on over the years. For me, it feels like you respect a pundit based on their playing history in the mens game - which IMO doesn't make them a pundit. If Rooney came on MOTD, is he now a pundit (which is defined as an expert)? No, he's just a famous footballer that people want to see. If Alex Scotts analysis was poor then I would agree with you, but I do believe it's good and the fact that she's on so much would probably suggest the numbers back that up. Michael Owen is considered a pundit, but says things like "that's a great penalty but he'll be gutted it went wide" & "do they deserve to win? no, Liverpool do. which is why a draw is a fair result" - should I consider him a better pundit that Alex Scott, just because he played at the top level in the mens game? If not - then clearly we have to judge a pundit on their ability to read & analyse the game. Mourinho, Roy Hodgson, Villas-Boas, Houllier, Parreira & Sacchi never played football, yet some how became experts in understanding it. It's also worth noting that it's much easier to be a pundit on Premier League football, rather than EFL due to the amount of content, cameras etc. Alex played for Arsenal don't forget so chances are she knows the set up exceptionally well. We could all go on tv and use what sounds great terminology, you just have to stand on our terraces to hear some useful views but when they come from someone who has been there and done it then it must carry more weight? I think your selective phrases from Owen are a bit unfair and I would love to hear Rooney as a pundit someday as he’s done everything in the game and his views would be respected. Those managers mentioned never played top level football but rose through the ranks to the top. If a female coach did the same then I’d fully respect her qualified opinion if invited to be a pundit. Again, it’s about credibility and what qualifies someone to be an expert and not about gender.
|
|
|
Post by Gassy on Sept 10, 2019 15:32:43 GMT
Yes Eric, of course add your opinion, I'm just discussing it back with you - we're all gasheads here 😁 If you think it diminishes the experience then fair enough, I disagree. For me I don't judge a pundit based on what they've done in the game. I judge a pundit their analysis on the game, which is why I like Alex Scott & why I rate her as a pundit far far ahead of many useless male pundits The BBC has had on over the years. For me, it feels like you respect a pundit based on their playing history in the mens game - which IMO doesn't make them a pundit. If Rooney came on MOTD, is he now a pundit (which is defined as an expert)? No, he's just a famous footballer that people want to see. If Alex Scotts analysis was poor then I would agree with you, but I do believe it's good and the fact that she's on so much would probably suggest the numbers back that up. Michael Owen is considered a pundit, but says things like "that's a great penalty but he'll be gutted it went wide" & "do they deserve to win? no, Liverpool do. which is why a draw is a fair result" - should I consider him a better pundit that Alex Scott, just because he played at the top level in the mens game? If not - then clearly we have to judge a pundit on their ability to read & analyse the game. Mourinho, Roy Hodgson, Villas-Boas, Houllier, Parreira & Sacchi never played football, yet some how became experts in understanding it. It's also worth noting that it's much easier to be a pundit on Premier League football, rather than EFL due to the amount of content, cameras etc. Alex played for Arsenal don't forget so chances are she knows the set up exceptionally well. We could all go on tv and use what sounds great terminology, you just have to stand on our terraces to hear some useful views but when they come from someone who has been there and done it then it must carry more weight? I think your selective phrases from Owen are a bit unfair and I would love to hear Rooney as a pundit someday as he’s done everything in the game and his views would be respected. Those managers mentioned never played top level football but rose through the ranks to the top. If a female coach did the same then I’d fully respect her qualified opinion if invited to be a pundit. Again, it’s about credibility and what qualifies someone to be an expert and not about gender. I agree with the last sentence, but you're saying the gendered sport she played in has no credibility... Credibility is sin the eye of the beholder. You don't give her any because she played women football. Thats a fact. I give her credibility because she analyses the game well. Chances are, she has a lot of credibility otherwise she wouldn't be there!
|
|
|
Post by Midsomer Murderer on Sept 10, 2019 16:20:48 GMT
So did they win? The result, alas, does not matter. As long as the itk brigade, overly opionated, weird sector, soap box shouters and curiously strange contingent have a subject bang on about, nothing else matters
|
|