Jump to content
  • Sign up for free and receive a month's subscription

    You are viewing this page as a guest. That means you are either a member who has not logged in, or you have not yet registered with us. Signing up for an account only takes a minute and it means you will no longer see this annoying box! It will also allow you to get involved with our friendly(ish!) community and take part in the discussions on our forums. And because we're feeling generous, if you sign up for a free account we will give you a month's free trial access to our subscriber only content with no obligation to commit. Register an account and then send a private message to @dave u and he'll hook you up with a subscription.

Recommended Posts

53 minutes ago, m0e said:

I don't understand why we're being subjected to this.

 

If women are to 'break into' into the men's game, they have to be better than what the men are producing.

 

Like Sian Massey, for example.

 

Gabi Yorath and our Kelly Cates are very good presenters.

 

The "pundits" and commentators are shite. Get rid and stop passing this off as some sort of progression.

 

And while I'm at it, what's with mixing all the online footy news together now!?

 

Are they trying to force us to become interested in women's footy? Like we can't make our own minds up about it!?

 

If I wanted to read about it, I'd fucking Google it. Like anything else.

 

Fucking shite.

Why are you saying they have to be better to "break in"? Competent though, yeah, of course. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, 3 Stacks said:

Why are you saying they have to be better to "break in"? Competent though, yeah, of course. 

I have no issue with women dominating, in its entirety, the women's coverage. But why bring them in to the men's game if they're not offering better than what we have?

 

My criteria for good punditary is to know how to do the job properly. If you can't do that, then I'd want one or more of the following:

 

a) a player I grew up watching; or

b) someone who had a major impact on the men's game; or

c) someone who brings new AND interesting perspectives

 

None of the women I've seen, aside form the ones I mentioned in my initial post, tick any of these boxes.

  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, Aventus said:

No idea who it is but there's another female commentator who does my head in. She doesn't use her own normal voice, she does an impression of a male commentator.

Sounds like Vicki Sparks you’re describing, brings worst aspects of both genders commentating styles to the table, very clever.

 

Whenever I hear her voice I feel like driving to the nearest motorway bridge, she is absolute wank.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, m0e said:

I have no issue with women dominating, in its entirety, the women's coverage. But why bring them in to the men's game if they're not offering better than what we have?

 

My criteria for good punditary is to know how to do the job properly. If you can't do that, then I'd want one or more of the following:

 

a) a player I grew up watching; or

b) someone who had a major impact on the men's game; or

c) someone who brings new AND interesting perspectives

 

None of the women I've seen, aside form the ones I mentioned in my initial post, tick any of these boxes.

OK, that's fine after you explained what you want in a pundit.

 

I usually just settle for wanting someone who can speak intelligently about the game and leave it at that, regardless of gender or if they were a former player or not, and I think that's a high enough bar given the terrible current offering of pundits. But ok, if that's what you're looking for.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Halcyon Days said:

Sounds like Vicki Sparks you’re describing, brings worst aspects of both genders commentating styles to the table, very clever.

 

Whenever I hear her voice I feel like driving to the nearest motorway bridge, she is absolute wank.

I can see why David Moyes wanted to slap her

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Bobby Hundreds said:

I've no problem with what she says it's just all very Michael Owen, boring. I know loads of women will be going overboard about how insightful she is but honestly there's nothing new just a boring voice.


Agreed.

 

Just been looking through comments on her on Twitter. Probably 33% say she’s great, 66% says she’s annoying. 
 

Her voice is like nails down a chalkboard. She can’t pronounce the letter “T”.

 

She might give some good tactical analysis, but it’s delivered with such little enthusiasm, I just tune out. 
 

Worst of all, she never shuts up. Alright Emma, you are successful in your field and I’m sure you’ve got a FIFA Pro License or whatever, we don’t need to hear you drone on over and over and over, ruining the match. 
 

She’s the complete opposite to McCoist. He doesn't give hardly any tactical insight but you can tell he’s genuinely enjoying what he’s watching and the enthusiasm in his voice.
 

If ITV insist on having her, get her off match commentary and into the studio on a tactics board explaining things. It’s just annoying, moribund and tedious otherwise. 

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Frank Dacey said:

I think her voice is very boring but her delivery is so didactic; 'look at what I know that you don't' all delivered with no sense of wit or humour.


Agreed. “I have FIFA License and I’m gonna show you all how much cleverer I am than you”. 

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

These days I thank fuck when a commentator doesn't annoy the fuck out of me but EH is just abysmal and detracts massively from the enjoyment of watching the game . I also find the content of what shes says puerile never mind her voice.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

If they're good they're good, if they're shit they're shit, if they're annoying they're annoying, if they're entertaining they're entertaining, if they're boring they're boring.  That applies whether you're a male or female commentator, and there's plenty of shit or annoying or boring male commentators out there too. Why should women be held to a higher standard?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

56 minutes ago, 3 Stacks said:

OK, that's fine after you explained what you want in a pundit.

 

I usually just settle for wanting someone who can speak intelligently about the game and leave it at that, regardless of gender or if they were a former player or not, and I think that's a high enough bar given the terrible current offering of pundits. But ok, if that's what you're looking for.

So, here's the question.

 

If you needed 3 pundits, and had to choose from 9 people, who all spoke equally intelligently about the game.

 

3 are men, who played the game.

3 are women who played the game.

3 are 'gender neutral' (for arguments sake) who never played the game, and who no one has ever heard of...

 

Which of the 3 pools would your 3 picks be from?

 

Mine would all be from pot 1, and for 1 simple reason, all things being equal...

 

It's men's football.

 

If you're telling me you can't find 3 intelligent men, who contributed to the game, and who would be good enough for the 'entertainment' they're trying to bring you, then fair enough.

 

But at least, if you decide there to go with women, make sure they're better than the men you currently have.

 

(A low bar, I might add.)

 

I'd have less of a problem with that.

 

The men are largely shite, and the women have made things worse.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, m0e said:

So, here's the question.

 

If you needed 3 pundits, and had to choose from 9 people, who all spoke equally intelligently about the game.

 

3 are men, who played the game.

3 are women who played the game.

3 are 'gender neutral' (for arguments sake) who never played the game, and who no one has ever heard of...

 

Which of the 3 pools would your 3 picks be from?

 

Mine would all be from pot 1, and for 1 simple reason, all things being equal...

 

It's men's football.

 

If you're telling me you can't find 3 intelligent men, who contributed to the game, and who would be good enough for the 'entertainment' they're trying to bring you, then fair enough.

 

But at least, if you decide there are better women, make sure they're better than the men you currently have.

 

(A low bar, I might add.)

 

I'd have less of a problem with that.

 

The men are largely shite, and the women have made things worse.

I would pick 3 men who played the game if they had the ability to speak about the game intelligently on tv, but I don't think that even exists. Hence, give me anybody of any background who can talk intelligently about the game.

 

Also, I don't think ability as a pundit is really correlated with having played the game at high level.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, 3 Stacks said:

I would pick 3 men who played the game if they had the ability to speak about the game intelligently on tv, but I don't think that even exists. Hence, give me anybody of any background who can talk intelligently about the game.

 

Also, I don't think ability as a pundit is really correlated with having played the game at high level.

I can get on board with all that.

 

On the bit I highlighted, if you haven't played at the highest level, your credentials as a pundit is exclusively based on your contribution.

 

Who has shown their credentials? I can't name one non-high level footballer, non-male pundit who has achieved this.

 

Some of the female presenters are great, and the diversity definitely brings a nice balance to the energy on the show.

 

At least having played at the highest level, some of these pundits have (somewhat) earned the right to share their viewpoints.

 

They often have inside knowledge, and share anecdotes, as well as stories from the past, which is far more interesting than some continuation of some off-screen banter with Micah Richards.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, m0e said:

So, here's the question.

 

If you needed 3 pundits, and had to choose from 9 people, who all spoke equally intelligently about the game.

 

3 are men, who played the game.

3 are women who played the game.

3 are 'gender neutral' (for arguments sake) who never played the game, and who no one has ever heard of...

 

Which of the 3 pools would your 3 picks be from?

 

Mine would all be from pot 1, and for 1 simple reason, all things being equal...

 

It's men's football.

 

If you're telling me you can't find 3 intelligent men, who contributed to the game, and who would be good enough for the 'entertainment' they're trying to bring you, then fair enough.

 

But at least, if you decide there to go with women, make sure they're better than the men you currently have.

 

(A low bar, I might add.)

 

I'd have less of a problem with that.

 

The men are largely shite, and the women have made things worse.

3 male players always. Ideally 1 current, 1 recently retired and a

manager.

 

Tyledsley &Mccoist are good. Fabregas, De Jong and the 3 welsh lads who were on itv for 1 of the Wales games were brilliant when on. All speak with confidence and put it across in an artulctae way. The English  / Roy Keane are all awful and the women ex players are all worse. 
 

 

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

40 minutes ago, Red74 said:

3 male players always. Ideally 1 current, 1 recently retired and a

manager.

 

Tyledsley &Mccoist are good. Fabregas, De Jong and the 3 welsh lads who were on itv for 1 of the Wales games were brilliant when on. All speak with confidence and put it across in an artulctae way. The English  / Roy Keane are all awful and the women ex players are all worse. 

I like Keane, as long as his unpredictability is balanced by 2 more eloquent pundits.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

26 minutes ago, m0e said:

I like Keane, as long as his unpredictability is balanced by 2 more eloquent pundits.

He’s just the angry pub bore to me now. Considering his experience you’d think he’d be able to offer more than player A’s been a joke and someone needs to slap him 

  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Moo said:

If they're good they're good, if they're shit they're shit, if they're annoying they're annoying, if they're entertaining they're entertaining, if they're boring they're boring.  That applies whether you're a male or female commentator, and there's plenty of shit or annoying or boring male commentators out there too. Why should women be held to a higher standard?

They're not though . People like Tyler and Neville get  shit loads of abuse. Quite rightly imo

  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Moo said:

If they're good they're good, if they're shit they're shit, if they're annoying they're annoying, if they're entertaining they're entertaining, if they're boring they're boring.  That applies whether you're a male or female commentator, and there's plenty of shit or annoying or boring male commentators out there too. Why should women be held to a higher standard?

Its men's football! And they're asked to provide insight on it. Why?

 

Why would the get the opportunity in the first place? What's the point? Unless they're better?

 

Splaaaaaain it to me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share


×
×
  • Create New...