Jump to content

Recommended Posts

1 minute ago, m0e said:

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.

Why not? Men commentate on women's tennis and vice versa, and athletics, and gymnastics, and many other sports. 

Share this post


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

Why not? Men commentate on women's tennis and vice versa, and athletics, and gymnastics, and many other sports. 

And that matters here because?...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, m0e said:

And that matters here because?...

Because it's a sport like any other and women are legitimate participants irrespective of the gender on the pitch/court/mat/track.

So, why not?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Moo said:

Because it's a sport like any other and women are legitimate participants irrespective of the gender on the pitch/court/mat/track.

So, why not?

But aren't those sports mixed tournaments? Football isn't. I don't think there is an objective argument against women commenting on football. But, Emma Hayes is being criticised for her commenting not for being a woman. I like Karen Carney to be fair, and Eni Aluko is excellent. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Jockey said:

But aren't those sports mixed tournaments? Football isn't. I don't think there is an objective argument against women commenting on football. But, Emma Hayes is being criticised for her commenting not for being a woman. I like Karen Carney to be fair, and Eni Aluko is excellent. 

I don't see the relevance but they can be mixed tournaments, and they can be non-mixed tournaments.  There are other sports too which do not have mixed tournaments and also have female commentators and contributers, such as cricket and golf.

Agree on Emma Hayes, she was a dull as dishwater but there's arguments on here and elsewhere that women shouldn't commentate on men's football because they are not men, and are being held to a higher standard as if you're going to be a woman commentator then you should be "better than the men".  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, Moo said:

I don't see the relevance but they can be mixed tournaments, and they can be non-mixed tournaments.  There are other sports too which do not have mixed tournaments and also have female commentators and contributers, such as cricket and golf.

Agree on Emma Hayes, she was a dull as dishwater but there's arguments on here and elsewhere that women shouldn't commentate on men's football because they are not men, and are being held to a higher standard as if you're going to be a woman commentator then you should be "better than the men".  

2 things here.

 

Firstly, "why not" is not the question. "Why" is the question? And if the answer is because they have it in other sports, then that's complete and utter bollocks, I'm afraid.

 

Secondly, I didn't talk about being better than the men, I talked about being better than the men they're replacing.

 

Why should a man lose his job or lose an opportunity for a job to someone inferior?

 

Where does it happen the other way round? What delusion are we living in, that says women need this opportunity in order to survive or thrive?

 

So, why would a woman be chosen if she wasn't better?

 

And how does the woman get the role on the first place, if she isn't better? What's the criteria? To be just as good? How's that even measured?

 

Explain the selection process to me, if you can.

 

Because from where I sit, it's "get some women in" to fulfil some sort of agenda that sits completely separate from quality football analysis.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, m0e said:

2 things here.

 

Firstly, "why not" is not the question. "Why" is the question? And if the answer is because they have it in other sports, then that's complete and utter bollocks, I'm afraid.

 

Secondly, I didn't talk about being better than the men, I talked about being better than the men they're replacing.

 

Why should a man lose his job or lose an opportunity for a job to someone inferior?

 

Why would a woman be chosen if she wasn't better?

 

And how does the woman get the role on the first place, if she isn't better? What's the criteria? To be just as good? How's that even measured?

 

Explain the selection process to me, if you can.

 

Because from where I sit, it's "get some women in" to fulfil some sort of agenda that sits completely separate from quality football analysis.

Why is "because they have it in other sports" bollocks?  Aside from that, as mentioned, women are legitimate participants in football, as players, as managers, and not least as supporters of men's football, why shouldn't they be represented? 

"Why not" may not have been your question but it's mine.  So, why not?

 

As for the rest of your post, apply every single question you've asked to men replacing other men in these roles. It happens all the time, inferior (or younger, or whatever criteria you want to apply) men replace other men in these roles very often.  Why is Lee Henry or Tim Sherwood, as examples, better than Phil Thompson and Charlie Nicholas?  The "better than" criteria shouldn't only apply to women.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Maya Jama commentating with one of them little boxes in the corner so you can see the game while the rest of the screen is focused on her tits. 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A lot of male pundits are banal gobshites with fuck all to add to the proceedings. But I do recognise a lot of them from their playing careers. Because I don’t watch women’s football and have no real interest in it I genuinely have no fucking idea who any of these people are. Does that make me sexist? Maybe? I don’t really care if it does. I suppose if they are taking opportunities away from ubiquitous cunts like Micah Richards and Jermaine Jenas then it can’t be all bad.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, m0e said:

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.

 

The current batch of pundits, commentators and co commentators would suggest it is not possible.

 

I'd say only McCoist is reasonably entertaining as he clearly just loves the game. Beyond that, I genuinely can't think of any decent ones. They are all shite and all at the very least played in the top flight in England.

 

The average English footballer has significantly lower intelligence than most people do. Expecting them to go on TV and not sound like morons is an exercise in futility. Let's face it, if they couldn't kick a ball the majority of them would barely manage to be a useful employee in McDonalds.

 

With the female commentators I've heard I'd say all they are doing is showing they are absolutely capable of matching the male ones in being absolutely fucking shite at the job. I don't know who the ones I've heard are, one seemed to be the main commentator and was fucking horrendous and the other was a co-commentator who was also absolutely shite and a match for anything that Alan Smith etc. can serve up. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Bjornebye said:

Maya Jama commentating with one of them little boxes in the corner so you can see the game while the rest of the screen is focused on her tits. 

One of the streams I used to watch years ago used to break from the football at half time to show hardcore lesbian porn. I think that's a fair solution all round- we don't get ignored by screeching harpies chatting shit about our game, and the ladeez still get jobs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Mudface said:

One of the streams I used to watch years ago used to break from the football at half time to show hardcore lesbian porn. I think that's a fair solution all round- we don't get ignored by screeching harpies chatting shit about our game, and the ladeez still get jobs.

Was it Mumsnet ?

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Moo said:

Why is "because they have it in other sports" bollocks?  Aside from that, as mentioned, women are legitimate participants in football, as players, as managers, and not least as supporters of men's football, why shouldn't they be represented? 

"Why not" may not have been your question but it's mine.  So, why not?

 

As for the rest of your post, apply every single question you've asked to men replacing other men in these roles. It happens all the time, inferior (or younger, or whatever criteria you want to apply) men replace other men in these roles very often.  Why is Lee Henry or Tim Sherwood, as examples, better than Phil Thompson and Charlie Nicholas?  The "better than" criteria shouldn't only apply to women.

Women are NOT legitimate participants in men's football.

 

Why should they be represented? We're not talking about voting rights here.

 

You've once again avoided answering the main question. How do these women get the gig? Explain the process as you believe it to be.

 

As for your final question, I know who Tim Sherwood is and I am definitely interested in hearing what he has to say.

 

He played the men's game, he contributed to the men's game, and he has some level of authority on the men's game.

 

If a woman is brought in to replace him, and doesn't offer more, what's the fucking point?!

 

Explain that to me, instead of acting like some sort of feminist social justice champion.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Chairman Meow said:

The current batch of pundits, commentators and co commentators would suggest it is not possible.

 

I'd say only McCoist is reasonably entertaining as he clearly just loves the game. Beyond that, I genuinely can't think of any decent ones. They are all shite and all at the very least played in the top flight in England.

 

The average English footballer has significantly lower intelligence than most people do. Expecting them to go on TV and not sound like morons is an exercise in futility. Let's face it, if they couldn't kick a ball the majority of them would barely manage to be a useful employee in McDonalds.

 

With the female commentators I've heard I'd say all they are doing is showing they are absolutely capable of matching the male ones in being absolutely fucking shite at the job. I don't know who the ones I've heard are, one seemed to be the main commentator and was fucking horrendous and the other was a co-commentator who was also absolutely shite and a match for anything that Alan Smith etc. can serve up. 

So, of they're all shite, why go with women we haven't heard of instead of men who we have?

 

There's an agenda here that has fuck all to do with football.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, m0e said:

Women are NOT legitimate participants in men's football.

 

Why should they be represented? We're not talking about voting rights here.

 

You've once again avoided answering the main question. How do these women get the gig? Explain the process as you believe it to be.

 

As for your final question, I know who Tim Sherwood is and I am definitely interested in hearing what he has to say.

 

He played the men's game, he contributed to the men's game, and he has some level of authority on the men's game.

 

If a woman is brought in to replace him, and doesn't offer more, what's the fucking point?!

 

Explain that to me, instead of acting like some sort of feminist social justice champion.

Haha your last paragraph sounds a tad hysterical.

 

Women aren't legitimate participants in men's football?  So, supporters aren't legitimate participants in football? Okay, well you better explain that to some legendary managers and players we've had including the current.

 

"If a woman is brought in to replace him, and doesn't offer more, what's the fucking point?!"  Representation, have you heard of it? Women are interested in the men's game and contribute to it emotionally and financially, maybe those watching on TV and paying their licence fee, Sky and BT subs enjoy female commentary.

 

What's the point in replacing a shit man with another shit man?  It happens all the time in football commentary and most of us moan about it but it's not because they're men, it's because they're shit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I’ve no problem whatsoever with female pundits even though I’ve no idea who most of them are. I’ve not seen any of the BBC’s Euro 2020 coverage, but Alan Shearer and  Danny Murphy bore me. I don’t mind listening to Roy Keane, Gary Neville and Patrick Vieira talk about footy, and I’ve always liked Ian Wright.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Josef Svejk said:

There's no female on the planet who'd make as bad a co-commentator as Steve McManaman. Fortunately he isn't involved in the Euros... 

There are worse than him mate. On the planet that is, for annoyance value anyway.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hayes is a bit of a know-it-all. Seems to enjoy telling us how she spotted things that were going to happen, nothing is a surprise to her, she doesn't really celebrate anything happening. But to be honest I prefer a know-it-all to a know-nothing who revels in their own ignorance, and seems to actively despite football, eg. Danny Murphy.

 

I always have the commentary on mute for Liverpool games. We either have Tyler and Smith sounding like they need an intervention whenever we score or we have Steve McManaman telling us if we score more goals than the opposition we'll win the match. Unless McCoist is on I've applied this to the Euros now as well.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, rubble-rouser said:

There are plenty of good female pundits in this tournament - EH isn’t one of them 

Have to disagree with you mate like the vast majority of their male counterparts they are fucking useless.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
53 minutes ago, joe_fishfish said:

Hayes is a bit of a know-it-all. Seems to enjoy telling us how she spotted things that were going to happen, nothing is a surprise to her, she doesn't really celebrate anything happening. But to be honest I prefer a know-it-all to a know-nothing who revels in their own ignorance, and seems to actively despite football, eg. Danny Murphy.

 

I always have the commentary on mute for Liverpool games. We either have Tyler and Smith sounding like they need an intervention whenever we score or we have Steve McManaman telling us if we score more goals than the opposition we'll win the match. Unless McCoist is on I've applied this to the Euros now as well.

 

 

She cannot pronounce simple names. Modric was ick and itch all game. Don’t get me started on Van Der Dijk. Expert my arse.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×