Our system detected that your browser is blocking advertisements on our site. Please help support FoxesTalk by disabling any kind of ad blocker while browsing this site. Thank you.
Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted (edited)
16 minutes ago, ParkerPen said:

I'm only guessing of course and happy to admit that. Youd have to have access to the page view stats to know. 

 

Before anyone thinks I am sid the sexist it's clearly only a good thing if the womens game grows. 

I think it's true that the traditional football fan who has followed the mens game for decades on the whole have little interest in the women's game. However it has a strong following in it's own right, especially with a new generation of young women. I think it's only a positive thing that national media are taking note as it will only increase the popularity and diversity of the game. 

Edited by peach0000
  • Like 1
Posted
1 minute ago, Blue Fox 72 said:

I did laugh last week when the Chelsea women's manager turned down the Wimbledon men's manager job saying it wasn't a step up.

 

Each to their own I suppose and it was her right to do so.

If Phil Neville can walk into an MLS job then Emma Hayes has to be aiming for higher. 

Posted
26 minutes ago, Golden Fox said:

OK - I'm probably going to be lambasted for this viewpoint, but after watching the game tonight, I've gone on the BBC website to have a quick read of thier report:

image.png.22e470a6892eb02056a36bd61da088f6.png

But the report isn't one of the top stories you need to navigate down to the football page:

image.png.e9012a1c656dbdaf589d7c45a93e22bd.png

The BBC's algorithms are now prioritising Chelsea Women over Leicester getting as far in the FA Cup as they have since 1982.

 

I appreciate the push for equality and this will only happen with more exposure, but in terms of importance and number of fans interested in the result, this feels like there is a mismatch, and there is a real agenda behind this - I don't know if it because of women's football or because it is 2 of the "Rich 6" playing each other, but am I out of line in thinking this is going too far?

 

 

 

I agree with this, to a certain extent.

 

There's been occasions that I've been on the BBC Sport website to catch up with what's going on in some really big Premier League games that are in play, but their lead, at the top of the page is "Watch Everton v Chelsea in the WSL".

 

No thanks.

 

I'm amazed that they put it as main headlines.

 

This isn't anything to do with sexism and looking down on women's football, it's to do with what's newsworthy and what people are interested in.

 

The vast majority of people visiting that website have little interest in that lead.

 

I have a first class Sports Journalism degree, so I know a little bit about it.

  • Like 1
Posted
9 minutes ago, ParkerPen said:

Before anyone thinks I am sid the sexist it's clearly only a good thing if the womens game grows. 

Your posts seem to differ... 

Posted

I'm quite a supporter of women's football and I don't really mind them getting coverage. 

 

What frustrates me is when they try and compare it to men's football, because I don't think the comparisons are helpful. Women's football is absolutely miles behind.

 

The men's game has evolved over more than 200 years to where it is now. It will take the women's game time to evolve so we should just appreciate it for what it is. Emma Hayes saying that women's football isn't a "step down" from the men's game is ridiculous. 

  • Like 1
Posted
2 minutes ago, tom27111 said:

This isn't anything to do with sexism and looking down on women's football, it's to do with what's newsworthy and what people are interested in.

 

The vast majority of people visiting that website have little interest in that lead.

 

I have a first class Sports Journalism degree, so I know a little bit about it.

Perhaps it's because the "vast majority of people" who would otherwise be interested know it's usually not there.

It's a insularly circular thinking that attracting only the people that one has chosen to cater to is justification for catering only those persons.

Posted
1 minute ago, Jobyfox said:

I'm quite a supporter of women's football and I don't really mind them getting coverage. 

 

What frustrates me is when they try and compare it to men's football, because I don't think the comparisons are helpful. Women's football is absolutely miles behind.

 

The men's game has evolved over more than 200 years to where it is now. It will take the women's game time to evolve so we should just appreciate it for what it is. Emma Hayes saying that women's football isn't a "step down" from the men's game is ridiculous. 

I don't think there is a "men's game" if a woman was good enough she could play in the Premier League. Hence women's football is second rate like almost every other sport women only compete against each other in.

Posted
4 minutes ago, Jobyfox said:

I'm quite a supporter of women's football and I don't really mind them getting coverage. 

 

What frustrates me is when they try and compare it to men's football, because I don't think the comparisons are helpful. Women's football is absolutely miles behind.

 

The men's game has evolved over more than 200 years to where it is now. It will take the women's game time to evolve so we should just appreciate it for what it is. Emma Hayes saying that women's football isn't a "step down" from the men's game is ridiculous. 

It's not "miles behind" because it's not in direct competition with the men's game.

It's no different from tennis, basketball or even athletics. Each has its own peculiarities - and audience.

Posted (edited)
5 minutes ago, NaijaFox said:

Perhaps it's because the "vast majority of people" who would otherwise be interested know it's usually not there.

It's a insularly circular thinking that attracting only the people that one has chosen to cater to is justification for catering only those persons.

OK, so to take an example to an extreme...you put the news on because there's been a plane crash or a terrorist attack somewhere, but the editor has decided to lead with a man falling over and twisting his ankle.

Edited by tom27111
Posted
41 minutes ago, Golden Fox said:

OK - I'm probably going to be lambasted for this viewpoint, but after watching the game tonight, I've gone on the BBC website to have a quick read of thier report:

But the report isn't one of the top stories you need to navigate down to the football page:

The BBC's algorithms are now prioritising Chelsea Women over Leicester getting as far in the FA Cup as they have since 1982.

What a strange thing to get riled about - and start a thread about!

Oh and we've been in various quarter finals since 1982, that was the last semi final we reached.

This thread will get locked for sure.

 

34 minutes ago, ParkerPen said:

There should be an option on bbc to filter out womens football stories.

Seriously??????? 

 

9 minutes ago, tom27111 said:

There's been occasions that I've been on the BBC Sport website to catch up with what's going on in some really big Premier League games that are in play, but their lead, at the top of the page is "Watch Everton v Chelsea in the WSL".

No thanks.

I'm amazed that they put it as main headlines.

This isn't anything to do with sexism and looking down on women's football, it's to do with what's newsworthy and what people are interested in.

Your post is everything to do with sexism and looking down on women's football.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Posted
2 minutes ago, foxgas said:

I don't think there is a "men's game" if a woman was good enough she could play in the Premier League. Hence women's football is second rate like almost every other sport women only compete against each other in.

It's NOT "second rate".

It's a PARALLEL game.

 

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1
Posted
4 minutes ago, foxgas said:

I don't think there is a "men's game" if a woman was good enough she could play in the Premier League. Hence women's football is second rate like almost every other sport women only compete against each other in.

I mean there are literally rules preventing mixed gendered teams after a certain age

  • Like 1
Posted
2 minutes ago, tom27111 said:

OK, so to take an example to an extreme...you put the news on because there's been a plane crash or a terrorist attack somewhere, but the editor has decided to lead with a man falling over and twisting his ankle.

It's not like it's even the main story! It's two of 11 from what I can make out and the first one is the 6th top story. It's such a weird thing the get worked up about.

  • Like 1
Posted (edited)

I think the bigger question here is why would you go to the BBC website to read their report of one of our games? Why would you assume there would be anything reasonably interesting or insightful. Get a better report on foxestalk. 

Edited by jayfox26
Posted
2 minutes ago, tom27111 said:

OK, so to take an example to an extreme...you put the news on because there's been a plane crash or a terrorist attack somewhere, but the editor has decided to lead with a man falling over and twisting his ankle.

Huh?! How is that an analogy. :huh:

 

Posted

WSL’s Red Button/BBC Online games are expected to move to BBC One/Two next season with the new tv rights deal (Sky mooted to get the pay TV games from BT) so you won’t even have to go to the Beebs website to see em lol

  • Like 2
Posted
1 minute ago, UpTheLeagueFox said:

What a strange thing to get riled about - and start a thread about!

Oh and we've been in various quarter finals since 1982, that was the last semi final we reached.

This thread will get locked for sure.

 

Seriously??????? 

 

Your post is everything to do with sexism and looking down on women's football.

Absolutely not. 

 

Geoff, you work in the media, you know how it works.

 

Newsworthy stories are the highest up on a website and get more airtime.

 

If I'm wrong, why aren't Talksport going live to women's games during the score update show at 3pm on a Saturday?

 

Why aren't H&J, Durham, Brazil, Goldstein etc. having phone-ins about women's football on a regular and consistent basis?

 

Why isn't Jim White getting excited about the Women's transfer deadline day?

 

It isn't a sexist point of view from me at all.

Posted

What's worrying is the amount of people in agreement with OP.

 

It's a small bit of space on your screen that's dedicated to a women's football match which, if we're being honest, is a big game in their league. 

 

All you have to do, is scroll past. A little further. You might even do it on this post. 

 

Ironically, a post about Women's football now goes to the top of the page in this subforum. Giving it more airtime over the game of our own today where we got through to the quarter-final of a major cup competition. 

 

How inconvenient! 

  • Like 4
Posted

I suppose its a chicken and egg situation to some degree, I'm sure we all agree that the women's game can (and should !!) improve in popularity / stature etc 

Does it currently justify the level of exposure (as in the BBC example) - I would say no - will it continue to gain popularity without more exposure though ?

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...