Jump to content
Cardiff_Fox

The "do they mean us?" thread pt 2

Recommended Posts

3 hours ago, shade said:

The real question is, should a woman be commenting on men's football when you're literally putting her in front of dozens, if not hundreds of ex professional footballers that are male, purely to appease modern societal demands.

She is an informed, experienced international footballer.

 

Obviously, some of her comments reveal a certain bellendery-.she is a pundit.  She is at least as good as many amab pundits. 

 

Women's football historically was  destroyed by a sexist FA.  There is a social demand for balance.  Good.

 

A few years ago, Andy Gray was sacked for his comments about Sian Massey.  She is still officiating at a high level.  Gender does not affect her ability to understand the game.  Perhaps Gray should have been guided rather than fired- to an extent , he was spouting  a popular view.  He was misguided.  

 

Alex Scott will at times be clichéd and annoying.   There are many other pundits who are worse.

 

How she looks should be irrelevant.  She looks different to when she played.  Perhaps when playing top level football, she spent less time in hair and make-up.  It is likely that she is trying to present herself confidently rather than being desirous of being eye candy to some viewers.  Micah Richards looms well groomed- his facial hair appears to be more than accidental but fewer people would comment.  All of the pundits present a groomed version of themselves probably to appease modern societal demands.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, Aus Fox said:

Bring back fanzone - get rid of all pundits, especially the ones who were critical of us this week. 
Can we just have Matt Piper and Steve Walsh doing everything, maybe Heskey and The Birch doing analysis.

Let’s face it, anyone who agrees with your opinion is great, anyone who disagrees is crap and doesn’t know what they’re talking about.

I don’t care who they are, where they’re, what they did as long as they didn’t play for Spurs - Crooks, Murphy, Jenas...

Gary Lineker?

Link to post
Share on other sites

So far the focus has been on punditry but as well as looking like a lot of fun i'd rather listen to Michelle Owen & Bianca Westwood's commentary of a game than a hell of a lot of their male counterparts

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think there are distinct issues that need separating. It goes without saying that it is absolutely possible for a female pundit to be knowledgeable about football, do the research, and deliver insightful analysis of the game. I happen to think Alex Scott does talk in clichés and can talk for a long time without actually saying anything. Nothing to do with her being a woman, I just don't think she's a decent pundit. Jermaine Jenas is the same for me, as is Danny Murphy. They use more or less the same handful of stock phrases and don't seem able to deviate from the script.

 

However, if we're being asked to take her seriously because of her professional football career then I'm sorry but that's ludicrous. There is simply no comparison with the men's game. As much as I don't rate them as pundits, if Jenas and Murphy were able to improvise beyond their cliché-filled script, they would be able to talk about playing with and against some of the most iconic players in sporting history, world-renowned football rivalries they experienced firsthand, moments of tactical brilliance or abject failure on the part of players or managers etc. If Alex Scott didn't speak in clichés she would have virtually nothing to say. In no way is this a criticism of the women's game, it's much newer and less established than the men's game, not to mention the money isn't there yet, but the fact is that on football experience the female pundits simply can't hold a candle to the men. Doesn't mean they can't be pundits, nor does it mean the male ex-pros are inherently good pundits (a lot of them aren't), it just means that they have to get there based on their ability to speak in an interesting, insightful, and engaging way about football rather than relying on having had a professional career.

Edited by MarshallForEngland
  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

Given that the game now is so much about tactics and formations I'm not sure why women can't have that in-depth knowledge of football tactics, formations and individual skills. Sure an ex-pro male footballer will know certain things about the game, which incidentally has changed massively over the last few years but generally they would know more about the aspects of the game they were involved in such as defence etc. 

 

There's plenty of fans on here, male and female that have never played the game at a serious level but have a great knowledge of  tactics, formations and individual skills. As has often been said some of the most skilful and respected players in history have been some the worst managers in history.

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
44 minutes ago, Aus Fox said:

Whoops I think I was thinking of Barry Davies, not John Motson

Barry Davies was the man. My all time favourite commentator. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, MarshallForEngland said:

I think there are distinct issues that need separating. It goes without saying that it is absolutely possible for a female pundit to be knowledgeable about football, do the research, and deliver insightful analysis of the game. I happen to think Alex Scott does talk in clichés and can talk for a long time without actually saying anything. Nothing to do with her being a woman, I just don't think she's a decent pundit. Jermaine Jenas is the same for me, as is Danny Murphy. They use more or less the same handful of stock phrases and don't seem able to deviate from the script.

 

However, if we're being asked to take her seriously because of her professional football career then I'm sorry but that's ludicrous. There is simply no comparison with the men's game. As much as I don't rate them as pundits, if Jenas and Murphy were able to improvise beyond their cliché-filled script, they would be able to talk about playing with and against some of the most iconic players in sporting history, world-renowned football rivalries they experienced firsthand, moments of tactical brilliance or abject failure on the part of players or managers etc. If Alex Scott didn't speak in clichés she would have virtually nothing to say. In no way is this a criticism of the women's game, it's much newer and less established than the men's game, not to mention the money isn't there yet, but the fact is that on football experience the female pundits simply can't hold a candle to the men. Doesn't mean they can't be pundits, nor does it mean the male ex-pros are inherently good pundits (a lot of them aren't), it just means that they have to get there based on their ability to speak in an interesting, insightful, and engaging way about football rather than relying on having had a professional career.

Well I'm no expert but I seem to recall women's football played with a round ball and two sets of goalposts.

Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, BKLFox said:

So far the focus has been on punditry but as well as looking like a lot of fun i'd rather listen to Michelle Owen & Bianca Westwood's commentary of a game than a hell of a lot of their male counterparts

Michelle or Michael?

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, davieG said:

Given that the game now is so much about tactics and formations I'm not sure why women can't have that in-depth knowledge of football tactics, formations and individual skills. Sure an ex-pro male footballer will know certain things about the game, which incidentally has changed massively over the last few years but generally they would know more about the aspects of the game they were involved in such as defence etc. 

 

There's plenty of fans on here, male and female that have never played the game at a serious level but have a great knowledge of  tactics, formations and individual skills. As has often been said some of the most skilful and respected players in history have been some the worst managers in history.

I’ve played football at a decent level. 
 

Sometime last year, my work team played another schools work team and they had a woman playing for them who plays for Leicester. She was very good. Knew how to read the game unbelievably well and carried the ball so good. She was coaching the whole of their team throughout the game. 
 

Women can have just as much knowledge as men about the game. Alex Scott for me is by far and away the best and better than a lot of men. In her game she’s reached the very top. I don’t get why people hate it so much. 

  • Thanks 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

I'll be perfectly neutral by picking 2 men I do know the name of and one woman I don't. Whenever I hear mcmanaman or worse yet, carragher on Co comms my heart sinks a little, what they say and how they say it makes me angry. And the woman who does the commentary on match of the day who is constantly shouting and talking with an inflection like any tackle or shot is the greatest thing that's ever happened. I have to mute her. 

 

Edit: I think it's vicky sparks now I've racked my brain. 

Edited by Steve_Guppy_Left_Foot
Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, MarshallForEngland said:

I think there are distinct issues that need separating. It goes without saying that it is absolutely possible for a female pundit to be knowledgeable about football, do the research, and deliver insightful analysis of the game. I happen to think Alex Scott does talk in clichés and can talk for a long time without actually saying anything. Nothing to do with her being a woman, I just don't think she's a decent pundit. Jermaine Jenas is the same for me, as is Danny Murphy. They use more or less the same handful of stock phrases and don't seem able to deviate from the script.

 

However, if we're being asked to take her seriously because of her professional football career then I'm sorry but that's ludicrous. There is simply no comparison with the men's game. As much as I don't rate them as pundits, if Jenas and Murphy were able to improvise beyond their cliché-filled script, they would be able to talk about playing with and against some of the most iconic players in sporting history, world-renowned football rivalries they experienced firsthand, moments of tactical brilliance or abject failure on the part of players or managers etc. If Alex Scott didn't speak in clichés she would have virtually nothing to say. In no way is this a criticism of the women's game, it's much newer and less established than the men's game, not to mention the money isn't there yet, but the fact is that on football experience the female pundits simply can't hold a candle to the men. Doesn't mean they can't be pundits, nor does it mean the male ex-pros are inherently good pundits (a lot of them aren't), it just means that they have to get there based on their ability to speak in an interesting, insightful, and engaging way about football rather than relying on having had a professional career.

Alex Scott has won more honours in her professional career than any of the pundits on Sky or BBC currently. The game is played the same, the difference is that the men’s standard is simply a lot higher. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, majaco said:

She is an informed, experienced international footballer.

 

Obviously, some of her comments reveal a certain bellendery-.she is a pundit.  She is at least as good as many amab pundits. 

 

Women's football historically was  destroyed by a sexist FA.  There is a social demand for balance.  Good.

 

A few years ago, Andy Gray was sacked for his comments about Sian Massey.  She is still officiating at a high level.  Gender does not affect her ability to understand the game.  Perhaps Gray should have been guided rather than fired- to an extent , he was spouting  a popular view.  He was misguided.  

 

Alex Scott will at times be clichéd and annoying.   There are many other pundits who are worse.

 

How she looks should be irrelevant.  She looks different to when she played.  Perhaps when playing top level football, she spent less time in hair and make-up.  It is likely that she is trying to present herself confidently rather than being desirous of being eye candy to some viewers.  Micah Richards looms well groomed- his facial hair appears to be more than accidental but fewer people would comment.  All of the pundits present a groomed version of themselves probably to appease modern societal demands.

What a load of pc bollocks.  If she is good looking why is a problem to say it?  Some right prannies on here.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Zaphod Beeblebrox said:

What a load of pc bollocks.  If she is good looking why is a problem to say it?  Some right prannies on here.

Its not, it just shouldn't be the first thing out of your mouth or unless you imagine that is her end game at appearing on television  

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Zaphod Beeblebrox said:

What a load of pc bollocks.  If she is good looking why is a problem to say it?  Some right prannies on here.

I see you have a flair for measured and reasonable debate.

  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, casablancas said:

You’re coming across as a little bit of a knuckle dragger here mate. It’s the 21st century and female footballers .. wait for it ... play a professional game. I’m a nurse ... I save lives. Should I stop administering COVID vaccines and stop CPR? You know, because historically it’s a women’s role, right? The majority of male pundits are crap and have no insight. I’d rather have some insight and nuance rather then listening to ... merson, redknapp, Mills and others of that Ilk. Seriously with all that’s going on in the world right now and the ongoing talks of discrimination you’re saying ex female footballer professionals shouldn’t analyse the male game? Let’s make football more privileged, it’s a Fcuking great idea. 

I wouldn't say I'm a knuckle dragger to be honest and I'm reasonably self aware, I just feel that the vast majority of women involved in mens football, be it presenting, commentating or punditry seem to be inferior to even a low quality male equivalent. It's an opinion, so there's no real objective test we can place on it, I always get the feeling they're there because it's progressive rather than on merit. Sian Massey is there on merit but it's embarrassing how every commentator and pundit has to remark on how good she is literally every time she's on, it's cringingly transparent.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Dahnsouff said:

Its not, it just shouldn't be the first thing out of your mouth or unless you imagine that is her end game at appearing on television  

More bollocks.  Appearance is the first thing you see.  If you find someone attractive then you find them attractive.  Hardly makes you a sex pest.  I don't think anyone on here has said "She is a bird so should be in the kitchen but phwoar I'd give her one."

Link to post
Share on other sites

Just read through these comments about punditry, particularly Alex Scott. It’s like a childish game of tug-o’-war.

 

Here’s a solution. Switch the game on at kick off. Mute the commentary and half-time chat. Switch the game off at the final whistle.

 

(That way you can form your own opinion on what you have watched. Just like you would if you went to the game)

 

Then come on here and talk about it.

 

Edited by Hammo
  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...