Boys v England women

[Guest MattP]

1 minute ago, Finnegan said:

I've said elsewhere, I don't see how it's any different to BT trying to pretend formula E is massive. 

 

There's not a lot of football on at the moment, so they're pushing the world cup. It's not like you can't get any news on men's football during the season because they're always covering the women's game instead. 

It's not really comparable though to anything on BT Sport.

 

You don't put the Breakfast news on that and have to see them treating this like it's a huge occasion and the whole World is watching.

 

It's almost like they they are demanding we play ball with this, they even blamed FIFA this morning for poor ticket sales - no one seemed to want to mention that maybe the public can't actually be arsed to go and pay to watch it.

[Guest MattP]

7 minutes ago, Trav Le Bleu said:

Compare it to tennis. I reckon women in the top ten rankings could beat mean down in the hundreds, maybe even higher, whereas I watching women's football, and I'm thinking non-league teams would comfortably win. My only guess as to why is because it hasn't been given similar profile to something like tennis.

No chance; the speed of the men's game is so much quicker it's frightening when you watch from courtside. 

 

I think it was Kaarsten Brach who was ranked miles outside the top 100 and he beat arguably the two greatest female players ever in the Williams sisters comfortably and he was pissing around half the time. 

[Guest MattP]

It was Braach.

 

He was ranked 203 in the World, had a couple of shandies before he played and beat Serena 6-1 and Venus 6-2.

 

https://www.theguardian.com/observer/osm/story/0,,543962,00.html

[Voll Blau 9,414]

I've had a chat with a couple of people who, unprompted, have asked me if I've been watching it and told me they're enjoying it - so I guess all this media promotion/browbeating (whichever side of the fence you're on) is getting people more interested. Fair play. If you want to enjoy it, then do. If you don't, then there are a million other things you can do instead.

 

Just wish the same promotion was being put into the Cricket World Cup while it's actually being played here. There's been such shortsightedness regarding TV rights (for once, not totally the fault of the broadcasters and ECB) and the weather hasn't helped, but I do think the tournament could have been covered and promoted better in general. There's no better advert for 21st century Britain than the people making up the matchgoing crowds!

[Finnegan 26,888]

37 minutes ago, MattP said:

It's not really comparable though to anything on BT Sport.

 

You don't put the Breakfast news on that and have to see them treating this like it's a huge occasion and the whole World is watching.

 

It's almost like they they are demanding we play ball with this, they even blamed FIFA this morning for poor ticket sales - no one seemed to want to mention that maybe the public can't actually be arsed to go and pay to watch it.

 

See, it's language like this that makes me stop taking people seriously. "Demanding", "forced", "pushed", I've found it incredibly easy to avoid the women's world cup since it started. I've not seen a single highlight of a single goal. 

 

It doesn't interest me in the slightest so I've just swerved it. I use the BBC website daily, I've seen the headlines but I'll just go to the boxing or the cricket or whatever I want to look up. 

 

I grant you I don't watch much terrestrial TV but even if I'm channel hopping and its on when something I'd rather watch is on, I'll just shrug like it's Wimbledon or Ascot or something else I don't care about. 

 

People get so defensive and act like their TV is oppressing them when the women's football is on and then have the nerve to complain that "snowflakes" are "sensitive."

 

I've said before, I'm 100% with you that while Sky, BT and the BBC want to maintain a policy of having ex-pros instead of journalists as pundits on the Prem / International (men's) broadcast then Alex Scott and Eniola Aluka shouldn't be within fifty feet of a microphone (and especially not with some awful "scored 100 goals for Chelsea or whatever under their name, sat next to Lampard) and their inclusion is ridiculously tacky tokenism. 

 

Not because I don't value their opinion (if I didn't, I wouldn't value my own and I'm arrogant enough to think I'm infinitely more insightful than Jermaine ****ing Jenas) but because they AREN'T ex Premier League pros and every other pannel member clearly has to be. 

 

But literally nobody is putting a gun to your head telling you you have to watch and enjoy Women's football and if that really is your reaction to the BBC pushing it, I'd say you've probably got some stuff to square away with yourself otherwise you're going to have a miserable relationship with your TV for the rest of your life. 

Edited 12 June 2019 by Finnegan

[Guest MattP]

5 minutes ago, Finnegan said:

 

See, it's language like this that makes me stop taking people seriously. "Demanding", "forced", "pushed", I've found it incredibly easy to avoid the women's world cup since it started. I've not seen a single highlight of a single goal. 

 

It doesn't interest me in the slightest so I've just swerved it. I use the BBC website daily, I've seen the headlines but I'll just go to the boxing or the cricket or whatever I want to look up. 

 

I grant you I don't watch much terrestrial TV but even if I'm channel hopping and its on when something I'd rather watch is on, I'll just shrug like it's Wimbledon or Ascot or something else I don't care about. 

 

People get so defensive and act like their TV is oppressing them when the women's football is on and then have the nerve to complain that "snowflakes" are "sensitive."

 

I've said before, I'm 100% with you that while Sky, BT and the BBC want to maintain a policy of having ex-pros instead of journalists as pundits on the Prem / International (men's) broadcast then Alex Scott and Eniola Aluka shouldn't be within fifty feet of a microphone (and especially not with some awful "scored 100 goals for Chelsea or whatever under their name, sat next to Lampard) and their inclusion is ridiculously tacky tokenism. 

 

Not because I don't value their opinion (if I didn't, I wouldn't value my own and I'm arrogant enough to think I'm infinitely more insightful than Jermaine ****ing Jenas) but because they AREN'T ex Premier League pros and every other pannel member clearly has to be. 

 

But literally nobody is putting a gun to your head telling you you have to watch and enjoy Women's football and if that really is your reaction to the BBC pushing it, I'd say you've probably got some stuff to square away with yourself otherwise you're going to have a miserable relationship with your TV for the rest of your life. 

I said "it's almost like they are demanding" and I didn't use the words forced or pushed.

 

Don't worry about me, I'm not upset about it, I just find it a tad ridiculous and if anything I have a chuckle at the people who are swallowing it.

 

Stop with the hyperbole, no one on here is suggesting we have guns to our head etc - it's just a bit much when the state broadcaster overreacts to something purely for political/social reasons.

[Line-X 2,917]

8 minutes ago, Finnegan said:

 

See, it's language like this that makes me stop taking people seriously. "Demanding", "forced", "pushed", I've found it incredibly easy to avoid the women's world cup since it started. I've not seen a single highlight of a single goal. 

 

It doesn't interest me in the slightest so I've just swerved it. I use the BBC website daily, I've seen the headlines but I'll just go to the boxing or the cricket or whatever I want to look up. 

 

I grant you I don't watch much terrestrial TV but even if I'm channel hopping and its on when something I'd rather watch is on, I'll just shrug like it's Wimbledon or Ascot or something else I don't care about. 

 

People get so defensive and act like their TV is oppressing them when the women's football is on and then have the nerve to complain that "snowflakes" are "sensitive."

 

I've said before, I'm 100% with you that while Sky, BT and the BBC want to maintain a policy of having ex-pros instead of journalists as pundits on the Prem / International (men's) broadcast then Alex Scott and Eniola Aluka shouldn't be within fifty feet of a microphone (and especially not with some awful "scored 100 goals for Chelsea or whatever under their name, sat next to Lampard) and their inclusion is ridiculously tacky tokenism. 

 

Not because I don't value their opinion (if I didn't, I wouldn't value my own and I'm arrogant enough to think I'm infinitely more insightful than Jermaine ****ing Jenas) but because they AREN'T ex Premier League pros and every other pannel member clearly has to be. 

 

But literally nobody is putting a gun to your head telling you you have to watch and enjoy Women's football and if that really is your reaction to the BBC pushing it, I'd say you've probably got some stuff to square away with yourself otherwise you're going to have a miserable relationship with your TV for the rest of your life. 

Excellent post.

[Finnegan 26,888]

4 minutes ago, MattP said:

I said "it's almost like they are demanding" and I didn't use the words forced or pushed.

 

Don't worry about me, I'm not upset about it, I just find it a tad ridiculous and if anything I have a chuckle at the people who are swallowing it.

 

Stop with the hyperbole, no one on here is suggesting we have guns to our head etc - it's just a bit much when the state broadcaster overreacts to something purely for political/social reasons.

 

I'm sorry if it felt like I was targeting you specifically, Matt, it was more a response to the numerous people who have replied to me in this thread who - between them - have used all of those words and phrases to make a similar point about how they feel the WWC is being forced on them. 

 

I opted to quote yours just as it was the most recent. 

[The Horse's Mouth 2,811]

 

 

[Corky 13,649]

He'll change his mind when it turns out they eat Greggs vegan sausage rolls.