Joey Barton

[Fallen Angel]

10 hours ago, razor said:

 

People fear change.

 

It's the reason for sexism, racism, ablism, and every kind of bigotry you can think of.

 

Young people are more open to change, older people less so.  It's why "we" all move more to the right as we get older.

 

"The way things were" is always better.

 

This "football is for men" bollocks doesn't wash any more.

 

*By the way, Mook - when you say "people", you mean of course, "men".

Speak for yourself … 

[Kepler-186]

“Coming up next on TalkShite TV Sport 3, the Joey B and Matt Le Tiss show interview Rickie Lambert about lizards in government, talk about why Charles Hughes should be posthummusly (sic.) knighted, and why woke parenting is stopping Ingerland from winning the World Cup. And it’s live!”

[Section_31]

The female pundits thing isn't about equality it's about expertise. You can't conflate it with race etc as it's purely and simply about it being a completely different sporting level.

 

I find women jarring talking about a Liverpool vs Milan match the way I would a former Tranmere player.

[Barrington Womble]

18 hours ago, Rushies tash said:

Repped for the last part especially Baz - I quite like Sue Smith. Always thought that Alex Scott presented better than alot of her male counterparts as well.

 

Yeah, I like Scott too. She was smart enough to realise she had some presenting skills and move quickly across from being a pundit. I have no issue at all with female presenters, some of the best sports presenters are women. My only issue is when they're there for their "expert opinion" as pundits. And they have none. As I say, for me it's not really different for if sky hired @Code to replace one of them and get @3 Stacksas his young apprentice. 

[Trumo]

2 minutes ago, Barrington Womble said:

... it's not really different for if sky hired @Code...

 

He'd be more omnipresent than Micah Richards.

[Barrington Womble]

16 hours ago, TheSire said:

I just turn off or mute before the game, half time and after if I'm watching on telly. If not it's just a guarantee that I'll want to throw the telly.

Why should I have to do that? The subscription for sports TV is astronomical. The least I can expect is for a professional product for my money. 

[Gnasher]

Joey's started early this morning.

 

 

 

 

 

[House of Dirk]

Barton needs a good shoeing.

[Pidge]

4 minutes ago, Gnasher said:

Joey's started early this morning.

 

 

 

 

 

He's not in that industry.

[cloggypop]

41 minutes ago, Gnasher said:

Joey's started early this morning.

 

 

 

 

 

 

I don’t want a war. I never have. That also doesn’t mean, I will walk away if you start one. I never taken a backward step in my life.

 

 

 

JB is PST. 

[TheSire]

59 minutes ago, Barrington Womble said:

Why should I have to do that? The subscription for sports TV is astronomical. The least I can expect is for a professional product for my money. 

Because its SHITE

[Barrington Womble]

1 minute ago, TheSire said:

Because its SHITE

And it wasn't shite when Neville and carragher were first doing it. Sack them, sack the random women and get people in who know what they're talking about. Even fellas like Ian Graham who are no longer at clubs could maybe bring some value, they've made their living out of analysing top flight football, so they'd be great on things like MNF. Get fresh points of view from ex-pros and ones who've finished their career recently. 

 

It's shite now because sky are lowering the bar, partly because Neville and carragher have large social media following and partly because these women are awful, just about every last one of them and they're there for no other reason than tokenism. Back to my point, that is being lost when Barton says it, because he's a fucking tit. But he's right on this. It's the only reason these women have these jobs. 

[Jack the Sipper]

I've got no problem with female pundits in football as a principle. Some are decent and knowledgeable, like Alex Scott, whilst some male pundits and commentators are so thick, so ill-informed, so biased, that you know the only reason they're there is because of their name. Is there anyone out there that doesn't throw  shit at the screen when Danny Murphy's monotoning his way through a game? I think reducing the debate about quality/token pundits to a male/female one is missing the point.

 

That said, there's that one female commentator, don't know her name, who screeches her way through a match, with the most banal comments shouted through a rolled-up newspaper, that I really can't be doing with.

[Code]

1 hour ago, Barrington Womble said:

 

Yeah, I like Scott too. She was smart enough to realise she had some presenting skills and move quickly across from being a pundit. I have no issue at all with female presenters, some of the best sports presenters are women. My only issue is when they're there for their "expert opinion" as pundits. And they have none. As I say, for me it's not really different for if sky hired @Code to replace one of them and get @3 Stacksas his young apprentice. 

I think a lot of pundits talk a lot of shite, and the way most of them are talked about on here it seems most people agree.

 

Its all a question about what you want to get from a pundit I guess and who they are actually talking too. 
 

For our generation its obviously nyersting to listen to the likes of Souness etc, but for the generation growing up now, most will hardly know who he was. 
 

There are more and more women following football, the TV companies obviously want someone hey can relate to as well.

 

For the expertice stuff, a woman can just as well know what a player is supposed to do, where to run, where to not run, when to pick the pass, when to bring the ball through the lines, how to press, when to fall back etc, etc. 

 

woman football is slower and its weaker, but its the same game, with the same rules, with the same will to win. The theory is the same, thats why I dont have any problem with female pundits, they are not supposed to enter the pitch and do what they preach. 

[Gnasher]

36 minutes ago, cloggypop said:

 

I don’t want a war. I never have. That also doesn’t mean, I will walk away if you start one. I never taken a backward step in my life.

 

 

 

JB is PST. 

 

Oh fuck you've done it now. He'll be here for the match after, and I don't mean Joey Barton.

[lifetime fan]

19 minutes ago, Barrington Womble said:

And it wasn't shite when Neville and carragher were first doing it. Sack them, sack the random women and get people in who know what they're talking about. Even fellas like Ian Graham who are no longer at clubs could maybe bring some value, they've made their living out of analysing top flight football, so they'd be great on things like MNF. Get fresh points of view from ex-pros and ones who've finished their career recently. 

 

It's shite now because sky are lowering the bar, partly because Neville and carragher have large social media following and partly because these women are awful, just about every last one of them and they're there for no other reason than tokenism. Back to my point, that is being lost when Barton says it, because he's a fucking tit. But he's right on this. It's the only reason these women have these jobs. 

Italian football coverage used to have Arrigo Sacchi covering the tactical aspects of games. 
 

At the apparent high point of sky, we had Carra who’s never even coached and that manc rat who only got a gig as a manager through a mate with dodgy financial dealings and was sacked within months by said mate. 
 

 

[Barrington Womble]

16 minutes ago, Code said:

I think a lot of pundits talk a lot of shite, and the way most of them are talked about on here it seems most people agree.

 

Its all a question about what you want to get from a pundit I guess and who they are actually talking too. 
 

For our generation its obviously nyersting to listen to the likes of Souness etc, but for the generation growing up now, most will hardly know who he was. 
 

There are more and more women following football, the TV companies obviously want someone hey can relate to as well.

 

For the expertice stuff, a woman can just as well know what a player is supposed to do, where to run, where to not run, when to pick the pass, when to bring the ball through the lines, how to press, when to fall back etc, etc. 

 

woman football is slower and its weaker, but its the same game, with the same rules, with the same will to win. The theory is the same, thats why I dont have any problem with female pundits, they are not supposed to enter the pitch and do what they preach. 

 

For me it's really simple. They're there for expert opinion. I might think Murphy is shite. Or Leon Osman. But they're experienced premier league footballers. They've sat in dressing rooms with the tension that comes from elite level football and what it takes to get there in the first place. So mightn't like what they say or find them boring (yes michael owen) or hate how some speak (yes mcmanaman), but they have real world experience in the sport we are watching and can bring an angle I could never otherwise know. 

 

Women's football is completely different. Most of the women on TV today, were amateurs and played in front of 10s and at most 100s of people most of their careers. Their opinion is no different to anyone who's played some football. So if our aim is that, we take expert opinion from people who've just kicked a ball, sound, let's go and get someone walking into the ground and ask them do they fancy sitting in the TV studio today. Even today's WSL, as much improved as it might be, is not the environment the premier league is. Not even close. In fact in my opinion having been to both, WSL is less tense and hostile than watching marine or AFC Liverpool. 

 

I don't dispute many male pundits are not great. That's not the point. They are at least initially hired because they bring expertise. Perhaps if we had true competition, so there's 2 or 3 stations showing the same game and you could watch on the one that suited your tastes, then I would imagine the quality would instantly improve. And maybe in that context, someone may choose a path where fans and female pundits are part of the discussion because that's what people want. But as I say, I just see the hiring of these ex-female footballers as a token to show they're doing something, not because they bring something of value to the discussion. 

 

Anyway, I'm bored of this now. 

[Gnasher]

I always judge a pundit on whether they agree with me or not. Gender's irrelevant. If they agree they're knowledgeable students of the game. If they don't then they are no nothing cunts who are stealing a living. 

 

 

 

These two fellas knew their onions.

 

 

 

 

[Mook]

31 minutes ago, Code said:

I think a lot of pundits talk a lot of shite, and the way most of them are talked about on here it seems most people agree.

 

Its all a question about what you want to get from a pundit I guess and who they are actually talking too. 
 

For our generation its obviously nyersting to listen to the likes of Souness etc, but for the generation growing up now, most will hardly know who he was. 
 

There are more and more women following football, the TV companies obviously want someone hey can relate to as well.

 

For the expertice stuff, a woman can just as well know what a player is supposed to do, where to run, where to not run, when to pick the pass, when to bring the ball through the lines, how to press, when to fall back etc, etc. 

 

woman football is slower and its weaker, but its the same game, with the same rules, with the same will to win. The theory is the same, thats why I dont have any problem with female pundits, they are not supposed to enter the pitch and do what they preach. 

 

I agree with this, the 'expertise' angle is nonsense IMO. We've all read newspaper & fanzine articles about Football down the years, were they written by Pele, or a sports journalist for the Daily Mirror?

 

I don't see why someone has to have played at the top level to be a pundit, they just need to know what they're talking about. The problem is now that the telly companies just want to get the people in who stir up the most fuss, i.e. Roy Keane and a load of annoying women nobody has ever heard of.

[Code]

31 minutes ago, Mook said:

 

I agree with this, the 'expertise' angle is nonsense IMO. We've all read newspaper & fanzine articles about Football down the years, were they written by Pele, or a sports journalist for the Daily Mirror?

 

I don't see why someone has to have played at the top level to be a pundit, they just need to know what they're talking about. The problem is now that the telly companies just want to get the people in who stir up the most fuss, i.e. Roy Keane and a load of annoying women nobody has ever heard of.

Yes exactly this. People read newspapers to see what journalists think about the games, footballers and football in general, and its not because they have been great players. 
 

 

[TheSire]

1 hour ago, Code said:

I think a lot of pundits talk a lot of shite, and the way most of them are talked about on here it seems most people agree.

 

Its all a question about what you want to get from a pundit I guess and who they are actually talking too. 
 

For our generation its obviously nyersting to listen to the likes of Souness etc, but for the generation growing up now, most will hardly know who he was. 
 

There are more and more women following football, the TV companies obviously want someone hey can relate to as well.

 

For the expertice stuff, a woman can just as well know what a player is supposed to do, where to run, where to not run, when to pick the pass, when to bring the ball through the lines, how to press, when to fall back etc, etc. 

 

woman football is slower and its weaker, but its the same game, with the same rules, with the same will to win. The theory is the same, thats why I dont have any problem with female pundits, they are not supposed to enter the pitch and do what they preach. 

Exactly. Based on some logic I've seen you have to be a top player to be a good manager.

[Elite]

Not interested in anything this cunt has to say unless he's slating Gary Neville.

[Gnasher]

 

 

 

[3 Stacks]

3 hours ago, Barrington Womble said:

 

For me it's really simple. They're there for expert opinion. I might think Murphy is shite. Or Leon Osman. But they're experienced premier league footballers. They've sat in dressing rooms with the tension that comes from elite level football and what it takes to get there in the first place. So mightn't like what they say or find them boring (yes michael owen) or hate how some speak (yes mcmanaman), but they have real world experience in the sport we are watching and can bring an angle I could never otherwise know. 

 

Women's football is completely different. Most of the women on TV today, were amateurs and played in front of 10s and at most 100s of people most of their careers. Their opinion is no different to anyone who's played some football. So if our aim is that, we take expert opinion from people who've just kicked a ball, sound, let's go and get someone walking into the ground and ask them do they fancy sitting in the TV studio today. Even today's WSL, as much improved as it might be, is not the environment the premier league is. Not even close. In fact in my opinion having been to both, WSL is less tense and hostile than watching marine or AFC Liverpool. 

 

I don't dispute many male pundits are not great. That's not the point. They are at least initially hired because they bring expertise. Perhaps if we had true competition, so there's 2 or 3 stations showing the same game and you could watch on the one that suited your tastes, then I would imagine the quality would instantly improve. And maybe in that context, someone may choose a path where fans and female pundits are part of the discussion because that's what people want. But as I say, I just see the hiring of these ex-female footballers as a token to show they're doing something, not because they bring something of value to the discussion. 

 

Anyway, I'm bored of this now. 

But thats not expertise. Literally anyone could tell you intangible shite like that big games make players nervous, that managers criticising a player can hurt a dressing room, etc... They may have lived it but its not something people dont know. It adds nothing,  I already know top players have a good mentality, I dont need Danny Murphy to tell me that thats what it takes to get to a high level. Its like a doctor saying its hard to become one and it took a lot of work. Yeah, cool, a doctor didnt need to me that him or herself. Thats the sort of shallow analysis you get in football because ex players are mostly all thick and cant tell you anything deeper than that. 

 

The argument I use all the time is theres loads of managers who never sniffed the top level. Mourinho and Sarri probably the best examples, but loads of managers were rubbish players. So people can think Womens football isnt a high level but that doesnt preclude them from knowing loads about football and more than a high level male pro would. 

 

It is basically just sexism and fear of change when people say they dont want to see women on a football broadcast. Credit to someone like Mook for admitting it because that is obviously what it is. 

 

Your example that Ian Graham could be a pundit is a good shout and an example of someone who likely knows more about football than any ex player and could likely communicate what he knows as well, but punditry is so inherently about being a recognizable figure, and not about expertise, that he isnt somebody TV networks would likely want. And thats why punditry is nonsense. 

[Trumo]

The question that should be asked is: does anyone give a shit about what Joey Barton thinks about anything?