Group F: Turkey, Georgia, Portugal, Czech Republic

[Super_horns]

Will Martinez be viewed as getting the subs right or just lucky it worked out?

 

Another cracking goal from the Czechs but a shame their defending let them down. 

 

Allegedly  someone had 3-1 Portugal which could have won them 2 million pound based on various predicitons.

 

Ouch!

Edited 18 June 2024 by Super_horns

[RumbleFox]

7 hours ago, Parafox said:

FFS. 

 

No point. You're just baiting. 

 

I really am not. I’m trying to engage. I don’t understand. A female commentator makes it an agenda? 

[Guest Col city fan]

7 hours ago, Super_horns said:

Will Martinez be viewed as getting the subs right or just lucky it worked out?

 

Another cracking goal from the Czechs but a shame their defending let them down. 

 

Allegedly  someone had 3-1 Portugal which could have won them 2 million pound based on various predicitons.

 

Ouch!

I was moaning cos VAR had lost me another 16 quid!

She must REALLY hate it!

The width of a pubic hair cost the woman 2 million sovs! 🤦‍♀️

[Nalis]

9 hours ago, Super_horns said:

Will Martinez be viewed as getting the subs right or just lucky it worked out?

 

Another cracking goal from the Czechs but a shame their defending let them down. 

 

Allegedly  someone had 3-1 Portugal which could have won them 2 million pound based on various predicitons.

 

Ouch!

 

9 hours ago, Super_horns said:

Will Martinez be viewed as getting the subs right or just lucky it worked out?

 

Another cracking goal from the Czechs but a shame their defending let them down. 

 

Allegedly  someone had 3-1 Portugal which could have won them 2 million pound based on various predicitons.

 

Ouch!

 

1 hour ago, Col city fan said:

I was moaning cos VAR had lost me another 16 quid!

She must REALLY hate it!

The width of a pubic hair cost the woman 2 million sovs! 🤦‍♀️

Chances are if Jota's goal wasn't disallowed Portugal probably wouldn't have hunted for a third anyway.

[Mrfox452]

16 hours ago, Muzzy_no7 said:

HOW MANY TIMES IS SHE BEHIND PLAY?!?! 
 

Absolutely awful commentary. 

Normally I put on the coverage via BBC iplayer via my firestick, you then have the option to watch the game with 5Live commentary rather than the one broadcasted on TV. Much better IMO.

[bovril]

On 19/06/2024 at 06:57, RumbleFox said:

I really am not. I’m trying to engage. I don’t understand. A female commentator makes it an agenda? 

The BBC has obviously in the last decade or so promoted commentators and analysts from groups previously underrepresented in the field at the expense of others who perhaps have as much if not more knowledge on the subject. That is pretty much the textbook definition of "agenda". I think there are arguments for and against it personally but ultimately don't really care. But it's weird to imply as many people do that this is some kind of perfectly organic change and isn't a deliberate decision driven by ideology. 

[Finnegan]

30 minutes ago, bovril said:

The BBC has obviously in the last decade or so promoted commentators and analysts from groups previously underrepresented in the field at the expense of others who perhaps have as much if not more knowledge on the subject. That is pretty much the textbook definition of "agenda". I think there are arguments for and against it personally but ultimately don't really care. But it's weird to imply as many people do that this is some kind of perfectly organic change and isn't a deliberate decision driven by ideology. 

 

I can't speak for @RumbleFox but part of the problem for me is that when people use terms like "agenda" in this context, what they're usually doing is dog whistling and looking to imply something sinister (ohmygosh the woke feminist oppressors!)

 

It's quite telling that instead of just having the maturity to say "The BBC has obviously in the last decade or so promoted commentators and analysts from groups previously underrepresented in the field", these people tend to awkwardly reply with "you know what I mean wink wink" responses like they're going to get in trouble if they just say "The BBC has obviously in the last decade or so promoted commentators and analysts from groups previously underrepresented in the field."

 

That attitude is what gets to me. But then again, referring to simply trying to promote better inclusion and representation as "an ideology" seems a bit of a stretch to me. 

 

It's just a policy and one you'll find everywhere in the media at the moment. What tickles me a bit is that it's usually more conservative leaning people that will complain about it with accusations of "woke", yet it's typically done for capitalist reasons more than liberal ethical ones - companies want broader appeal to attract the widest market share possible and they've cottoned on to the fact that better representation brings that these days. 

 

Edited 20 June 2024 by Finnegan

[bovril]

1 hour ago, Finnegan said:

 

I can't speak for @RumbleFox but part of the problem for me is that when people use terms like "agenda" in this context, what they're usually doing is dog whistling and looking to imply something sinister (ohmygosh the woke feminist oppressors!)

 

It's quite telling that instead of just having the maturity to say "The BBC has obviously in the last decade or so promoted commentators and analysts from groups previously underrepresented in the field", these people tend to awkwardly reply with "you know what I mean wink wink" responses like they're going to get in trouble if they just say "The BBC has obviously in the last decade or so promoted commentators and analysts from groups previously underrepresented in the field."

 

That attitude is what gets to me. But then again, referring to simply trying to promote better inclusion and representation as "an ideology" seems a bit of a stretch to me. 

 

It's just a policy and one you'll find everywhere in the media at the moment. What tickles me a bit is that it's usually more conservative leaning people that will complain about it with accusations of "woke", yet it's typically done for capitalist reasons more than liberal ethical ones - companies want broader appeal to attract the widest market share possible and they've cottoned on to the fact that better representation brings that these days. 

 

I find it more sinister when people feign confusion like "I literally have no idea what agenda you're talking about" or, like with immigration increasing, pretend something is not happening or that it's always happened. Rather than at least acknowledge there are cultural and like you say economic factors at play. Like ten years ago there were literally no women on broadcasts of men's matches.

 

And as a nod to Slovenia playing today, everything is ideology.

 

Anyway, derailing the thread...

[Finnegan]

18 minutes ago, bovril said:

I find it more sinister when people feign confusion like "I literally have no idea what agenda you're talking about" or, like with immigration increasing, pretend something is not happening or that it's always happened. Rather than at least acknowledge there are cultural and like you say economic factors at play. Like ten years ago there were literally no women on broadcasts of men's matches.

 

And as a nod to Slovenia playing today, everything is ideology.

 

Anyway, derailing the thread...

 

I don't really think that extremely unsubtly pushing people to spell their bigotry out loud is even vaguely sinister to be honest. 

 

Rumble just turned his own game back around at him which is fine by me. 

 

[RumbleFox]

4 hours ago, bovril said:

The BBC has obviously in the last decade or so promoted commentators and analysts from groups previously underrepresented in the field at the expense of others who perhaps have as much if not more knowledge on the subject. That is pretty much the textbook definition of "agenda". I think there are arguments for and against it personally but ultimately don't really care. But it's weird to imply as many people do that this is some kind of perfectly organic change and isn't a deliberate decision driven by ideology. 

But it’s levelling the playing field isn’t it? On the match on question, and the reason I was questioning the original poster, there were 6 onscreen presenters/commentators. Out if the six, five were men and one was a woman. One female presenter didn’t warrant “an agenda” to me. 

[RumbleFox]

3 hours ago, Finnegan said:

 

I can't speak for @RumbleFox but part of the problem for me is that when people use terms like "agenda" in this context, what they're usually doing is dog whistling and looking to imply something sinister (ohmygosh the woke feminist oppressors!)

 

It's quite telling that instead of just having the maturity to say "The BBC has obviously in the last decade or so promoted commentators and analysts from groups previously underrepresented in the field", these people tend to awkwardly reply with "you know what I mean wink wink" responses like they're going to get in trouble if they just say "The BBC has obviously in the last decade or so promoted commentators and analysts from groups previously underrepresented in the field."

 

That attitude is what gets to me. But then again, referring to simply trying to promote better inclusion and representation as "an ideology" seems a bit of a stretch to me. 

 

It's just a policy and one you'll find everywhere in the media at the moment. What tickles me a bit is that it's usually more conservative leaning people that will complain about it with accusations of "woke", yet it's typically done for capitalist reasons more than liberal ethical ones - companies want broader appeal to attract the widest market share possible and they've cottoned on to the fact that better representation brings that these days. 

 

What he said. 

[bovril]

30 minutes ago, RumbleFox said:

But it’s levelling the playing field isn’t it? On the match on question, and the reason I was questioning the original poster, there were 6 onscreen presenters/commentators. Out if the six, five were men and one was a woman. One female presenter didn’t warrant “an agenda” to me. 

Semantics maybe. Don't know what you mean by 'levelling the playing field' in this context.

[RumbleFox]

2 minutes ago, bovril said:

Semantics maybe. Don't know what you mean by 'levelling the playing field' in this context.

Semantics? It’s years and years and years of under representation then a few women get given jobs and guys can’t deal with it. I genuinely do like to hear alternate viewpoints and whilst I may sometimes be sarcastic I genuinely like to engage and listen to people when I disagree with them so I try and imagine sometimes the level of insecurity it must take to hear a woman commentate on football and get offended/annoyed by it but I genuinely can’t do it. Like it’s alien to me. Maybe that means I have something wrong with me but I can’t even force myself to be annoyed by it. I have a daughter, surely her hearing some female voices on the television during men’s football can’t be a bad thing. Plenty of men commentate on the women’s game. 

[bovril]

1 minute ago, RumbleFox said:

Semantics? It’s years and years and years of under representation then a few women get given jobs and guys can’t deal with it. I genuinely do like to hear alternate viewpoints and whilst I may sometimes be sarcastic I genuinely like to engage and listen to people when I disagree with them so I try and imagine sometimes the level of insecurity it must take to hear a woman commentate on football and get offended/annoyed by it but I genuinely can’t do it. Like it’s alien to me. Maybe that means I have something wrong with me but I can’t even force myself to be annoyed by it. I have a daughter, surely her hearing some female voices on the television during men’s football can’t be a bad thing. Plenty of men commentate on the women’s game. 

I meant semantics re. 'agenda'. I don't think it implies anything shady.

 

Yeah I agree it's weird, I imagine those people are angry about other things in their life. Anyway, back to being annoyed by England instead...

[RumbleFox]

2 minutes ago, bovril said:

I meant semantics re. 'agenda'. I don't think it implies anything shady.

 

Yeah I agree it's weird, I imagine those people are angry about other things in their life. Anyway, back to being annoyed by England instead...

Haha aye. It’s the hope that kills you. 

[Daggers]

[Naat]

On 18/06/2024 at 21:20, Col city fan said:

English standards are low per se and have been for ages. Worst roads, worst teenage pregnancy, highest rates of self-harm suicide etc.

Whatever the indicator, England generally ranks as one of the lowest in Europe.

It’s sad tbh.

Re football, I agree. The performance against Serbia, although a win, was rubbish really. Typical Southgate.

Imagine if England had played like Turkey have just played. In front of a hugely loud and partisan crowd, going for it right from the off, scoring screamers and seemingly loving every fookin minute of it.

I don’t know what’s happened to ‘the English mentality’, but it’s not the country I grew up in. 

Because you are now drinking more coffe than black tea .

[Super_horns]

VAR has been busy in this game !

[Lionator]

How does Danny Murphy not think that’s a penalty? 

[The Bear]

Just now, Lionator said:

How does Danny Murphy not think that’s a penalty? 

Because he's a Lawro wannabe idiot. 

 

I'm always amazed at how well spoken an English accent Hitzelsperger has! 

[Fear Of The Fox]

It's absolutely shocking how every single team plays with intensity and passion except England. Idk how Southgate is not sacked yet, Walker and the rest should be ashamed for all their post game interviews. 

There's still time to sack Southgate tonight and turn things around. 

[Fear Of The Fox]

2 minutes ago, Lionator said:

How does Danny Murphy not think that’s a penalty? 

Under the new modern football rules it's a penalty. It's another discussion if this should be a penalty. Imo it shouldn't and the handball rule must be like it was in the 80s and 90s.

[Sol thewall Bamba]

Another great game. This tournament has been a reminder of how entertaining football can be when managers aren't obsessed with possession and "control".

[Super_horns]

25 minutes ago, Lionator said:

How does Danny Murphy not think that’s a penalty? 

Obviously was one in todays  game .

 

Schick finish there !

[Tuna]

Oh no what a miss!