|
|
Post by Northy on Oct 6, 2023 9:31:28 GMT
Ah well, a different type of story to what I thought the title was leading to ...
|
|
|
|
Post by a on Oct 6, 2023 9:40:29 GMT
Kevin Keegan says he doesn't like 'lady footballers' talking about England men's team"I don't like to listen to ladies talking about the England men's team at the match because I don't think it's the same experience. "I have a problem with that. "The presenters we have now, some of the girls are so good, they are better than the guys. It's a great time for the ladies. "But if I see an England lady footballer saying about England against Scotland at Wembley and she's saying, 'If I would have been in that position I would have done this,' I don't think it's quite the same. I don't think it crosses over that much." Is he right? The men’s and women’s game shouldn’t be used as a comparison. A league 2 men’s team would beat the best women’s team by a cricket score. Leave them separate. It’s great that women’s football is getting on but to compare the two is ridiculous. Therefore let women pundits have their own space to commentate on their game and likewise the men’s. |
|
|
|
Post by a on Oct 6, 2023 9:41:37 GMT
He's not right or wrong it's his opinion. You could extend what he's saying to ex-male footballers as well though I guess. "What does Steve Bruce know about playing international football he was never capped?" "What does George Best know about playing in a World Cup tournament?" etc etc. Ex international manager Steve Bruce? |
|
|
|
Post by The Toxic Avenger on Oct 6, 2023 9:46:39 GMT
He's not right or wrong it's his opinion. You could extend what he's saying to ex-male footballers as well though I guess. "What does Steve Bruce know about playing international football he was never capped?" "What does George Best know about playing in a World Cup tournament?" etc etc. Ex international manager Steve Bruce? Remind me which country he managed? What we seem to be saying is that only people who've played the game can be pundits, which is absolute nonsense. |
|
|
|
Post by a on Oct 6, 2023 9:49:44 GMT
Ex international manager Steve Bruce? Remind me which country he managed? What we seem to be saying is that only people who've played the game can be pundits, which is absolute nonsense. I’ve not said that. I did massively misread Bruce as McLaren though 😂 sorry that is a big fuck up 😆 |
|
|
|
Post by prestwichpotter on Oct 6, 2023 9:52:32 GMT
Remind me which country he managed? What we seem to be saying is that only people who've played the game can be pundits, which is absolute nonsense. I’ve not said that. I did massively misread Bruce as McLaren though 😂 sorry that is a big fuck up 😆 You're forgiven  |
|
|
|
Post by skip on Oct 6, 2023 9:53:17 GMT
Pretty much rules us all out of having an opinion doesn't it Kev? Football punditry in general is dog shit regardless of gender. Alan Shearer gets paid thousands of licence fee payers money to point out that Johnny Tugshirt lost his marker at a corner or that Micky Springheels should have curved his run to stay onside. We can see that Alan. Very good. You've earned your wedge this week son. Worse, Gary Lineker gets paid millions to prompt people like Alan to spout this super insightful shite that One Eyed Boozy Barry from down The Dog and Duck could have pointed out for free. Football needs to learn from Cricket where the segments between the actual sporting action are infinitely more interesting. Or look at some of the YouTube channels knocking about. I'd sooner listen to hours of something like Under the Cosh than listen to Alan and Gary's beige, inoffensive and witless nonsense. Women on the gantry is not the issue. It's the bland as fuck punditry that is served up week after week after mind numbing week. We have a winner. Close the thread. |
|
|
|
Post by a on Oct 6, 2023 9:53:48 GMT
I’ve not said that. I did massively misread Bruce as McLaren though 😂 sorry that is a big fuck up 😆 You're forgiven Cheers mate. I’ll own up to my mistakes and that one was quite funny (to me at least)! |
|
|
|
Post by prestwichpotter on Oct 6, 2023 9:54:25 GMT
Kevin Keegan says he doesn't like 'lady footballers' talking about England men's team"I don't like to listen to ladies talking about the England men's team at the match because I don't think it's the same experience. "I have a problem with that. "The presenters we have now, some of the girls are so good, they are better than the guys. It's a great time for the ladies. "But if I see an England lady footballer saying about England against Scotland at Wembley and she's saying, 'If I would have been in that position I would have done this,' I don't think it's quite the same. I don't think it crosses over that much." Is he right? The men’s and women’s game shouldn’t be used as a comparison. A league 2 men’s team would beat the best women’s team by a cricket score. Leave them separate. It’s great that women’s football is getting on but to compare the two is ridiculous. Therefore let women pundits have their own space to commentate on their game and likewise the men’s. A man ranked 500th in the world would have beaten Martina Navratilova, or Serena Williams. Are you saying they would have no insight if they were commentating/analysing a mens game? |
|
|
|
Post by mickmillslovechild on Oct 6, 2023 9:59:05 GMT
This is a non story, and reflects a Keegan opinion. He even acknowledges that some female commentators are at least as good, or perhaps better than their male counterparts. But their presence in some games affects his experience of the match. I agree with Kevin, and I generally dislike female commentators, especially on radio broadcasts, because as the tempo of the match increases the women tend to scream and screech as they get overexcited. So with me it's a noise prejudice thing.
I give you the biggest screamers and screeechers in punditry and commentary around......Jonathan Pearce, Martin Tyler, Motty, Savage, Mcmanaman, Micah Richards.
Funny how you don't mention any of them who are all FAR worse than any female pundit for screaming and screeching.
|
|
|
|
Post by a on Oct 6, 2023 10:03:01 GMT
The men’s and women’s game shouldn’t be used as a comparison. A league 2 men’s team would beat the best women’s team by a cricket score. Leave them separate. It’s great that women’s football is getting on but to compare the two is ridiculous. Therefore let women pundits have their own space to commentate on their game and likewise the men’s. A man ranked 500th in the world would have beaten Martina Navratilova, or Serena Williams. Are you saying they would have no insight if they were commentating/analysing a mens game? No not at all. I’m saying that women’s sport should be championed by women. That’s obvious I know. Also there’s nothing wrong in expecting men to champion their game. Let’s be honest here, many women who commentate on the men’s side of the sport are doing so on the premise that it is good for the women’s side of that sport. Why should that be necessary? The answer in my humble opinion is that the women’s sport isn’t gaining traction on its own because many women aren’t that bothered. Which if that’s the case means they’ve exercised their free will and that’s also fine. This forcing of the issue is desperate. What’s wrong with letting it develop organically and letting those who want to watch/participate do that and those that don’t get on with their lives? Genuinely have no issue with women’s sport by the way, good luck to them, but having women commenting on the men’s game shouldn’t be needed. There are many ex-professionals out there probably desperate for that gig that possibly get overlooked because they don’t fit the so-called demographic. |
|
|
|
Post by tommycarlsberg on Oct 6, 2023 10:06:32 GMT
End of the day they’ve played professional football and are football enthusiasts, they have every right to talk about the men’s games.
|
|
|
|
Post by Foster on Oct 6, 2023 10:15:34 GMT
It's not about having an opinion that Keegan takes issue with. It's when female ex-footballers (of an inferior level) make a direct comparison between the mens game and themselves.
"But if I see an England lady footballer saying about England against Scotland at Wembley and she's saying, 'If I would have been in that position I would have done this,' I don't think it's quite the same. I don't think it crosses over that much."
It's not like women to think they always know best. Typical 'Womansplaining'.
|
|
|
|
Post by chad on Oct 6, 2023 10:25:09 GMT
KKs spot on. I’ve stopped watching nearly all the footie programs because of inane rambling of women. And don’t get me started on women commentators I just turn the sound off All because the BBC have this all inclusive agenda at all costs You're fine with the inane rambling of men though? I agree some of them are bad. It’s just I can’t take women pundits seriously. It’s a joke and I’d wager 90% of footie fans would prefer to see women ditched from footie tv |
|
|
|
Post by The Toxic Avenger on Oct 6, 2023 10:37:35 GMT
You're fine with the inane rambling of men though? I agree some of them are bad. It’s just I can’t take women pundits seriously. It’s a joke and I’d wager 90% of footie fans would prefer to see women ditched from footie tv Are you including female fans in that 90%? Each to their own, I honestly don't care what someone's gender is, where they're from or whether they've played professionally or not, provided they're capable of speaking insightfully/eloquently about the game and enhancing the coverage. |
|
|
|
Post by mickmillslovechild on Oct 6, 2023 10:44:34 GMT
A man ranked 500th in the world would have beaten Martina Navratilova, or Serena Williams. Are you saying they would have no insight if they were commentating/analysing a mens game? No not at all. I’m saying that women’s sport should be championed by women. That’s obvious I know. Also there’s nothing wrong in expecting men to champion their game. Let’s be honest here, many women who commentate on the men’s side of the sport are doing so on the premise that it is good for the women’s side of that sport. Why should that be necessary? The answer in my humble opinion is that the women’s sport isn’t gaining traction on its own because many women aren’t that bothered. Which if that’s the case means they’ve exercised their free will and that’s also fine. This forcing of the issue is desperate. What’s wrong with letting it develop organically and letting those who want to watch/participate do that and those that don’t get on with their lives? Genuinely have no issue with women’s sport by the way, good luck to them, but having women commenting on the men’s game shouldn’t be needed. There are many ex-professionals out there probably desperate for that gig that possibly get overlooked because they don’t fit the so-called demographic.
If that's true and they're just doing it to further the women's game (and i don't see how a faceless Emma Hayes as co-commentator talking about two men's teams furthers women's football in any way myself, i dont tnink she even mentions women's football when co-commentating on men's matches) then it makes NO sense whatsoever to have female pundits on a MOTD or a Champs league game in the first place. That can't be the reason. How exactly would it further the women's game, if women have already exercised their free will and decided they're not interested in football anyway? If that's what they've decided then they're not watching MOTD or Champs league games in the first place anyway to see those female pundits, so it wouldn't have any chance to further anything.
I think it's more likely to simply be the case that football has realised now that, even whether you as a bloke like women's football or not, there are millions of women who do love football full stop (either men or women's football or both) and it therefore isn't just solely a TV show for men that's being aired. Really, nothing more complex than that. If they cater to the WHOLE audience (not just the blokes) then they're likely to get more viewers. But no, everyone just throws out ideas like yours above or says it's "box ticking" because it's lazy and easy, despite the fact that about 10 seconds of thinking about it would make you realise that it makes no kind of actual sense.
|
|
|
|
Post by mickmillslovechild on Oct 6, 2023 10:46:11 GMT
I agree some of them are bad. It’s just I can’t take women pundits seriously. It’s a joke and I’d wager 90% of footie fans would prefer to see women ditched from footie tv Are you including female fans in that 90%? Each to their own, I honestly don't care what someone's gender is, where they're from or whether they've played professionally or not, provided they're capable of speaking insightfully/eloquently about the game and enhancing the coverage.
I was about to say the same, Rob.
What he means is 90% of blokes that he knows, which he's somehow now decided can be extrapolated over the whole population of footie fans, regardless of gender.
|
|
|
|
Post by a on Oct 6, 2023 10:51:40 GMT
No not at all. I’m saying that women’s sport should be championed by women. That’s obvious I know. Also there’s nothing wrong in expecting men to champion their game. Let’s be honest here, many women who commentate on the men’s side of the sport are doing so on the premise that it is good for the women’s side of that sport. Why should that be necessary? The answer in my humble opinion is that the women’s sport isn’t gaining traction on its own because many women aren’t that bothered. Which if that’s the case means they’ve exercised their free will and that’s also fine. This forcing of the issue is desperate. What’s wrong with letting it develop organically and letting those who want to watch/participate do that and those that don’t get on with their lives? Genuinely have no issue with women’s sport by the way, good luck to them, but having women commenting on the men’s game shouldn’t be needed. There are many ex-professionals out there probably desperate for that gig that possibly get overlooked because they don’t fit the so-called demographic.
If that's true and they're just doing it to further the women's game (and i don't see how a faceless Emma Hayes as co-commentator talking about two men's teams furthers women's football in any way myself, i dont tnink she even mentions women's football when co-commentating on men's matches) then it makes NO sense whatsoever to have female pundits on a MOTD or a Champs league game in the first place. That can't be the reason. How exactly would it further the women's game, if women have already exercised their free will and decided they're not interested in football anyway? If that's what they've decided then they're not watching MOTD or Champs league games in the first place anyway to see those female pundits, so it wouldn't have any chance to further anything.
I think it's more likely to simply be the case that football has realised now that, even whether you as a bloke like women's football or not, there are millions of women who do love football full stop (either men or women's football or both) and it therefore isn't just solely a TV show for men that's being aired. Really, nothing more complex than that. If they cater to the WHOLE audience (not just the blokes) then they're likely to get more viewers. But no, everyone just throws out ideas like yours above or says it's "box ticking" because it's lazy and easy, despite the fact that about 10 seconds of thinking about it would make you realise that it makes no kind of actual sense.
If that’s what you believe then that’s fair enough, I disagree but that’s opinions. They must be better placed than their male counterparts and positive discrimination doesn’t happen. |
|
|
|
Post by rowbeartoe on Oct 6, 2023 10:53:32 GMT
He doesn’t ‘analyse’ though does he, he’s there for the bantz?
Is that Micah "Not even going to bother to attempt to give ANY insight or knowledge whatseover, i'm just going to piss around with my mates like an annoying 12 year old on the back of a school bus and laugh for 2 hours whilst saying absolutely sod all of any relevance, even to the sport let alone the game im doing the punditry for" Richards?
The same Micah Richards that many on here keep telling us every week is a great pundit, yet never actually bothers to do any punditry and barely even speaks about the game because he's too busy telling jokes and flirting with any woman on the show he's appearing on?
If that's what people are looking for, then i can see why they don't want women as pundits. It's not an "old boys club", it's very much a "childish, little boys club" nowadays. I'm only surprised Micah and the boys haven't been caught vaping behind the bike sheds. Complete manchild and a massive waste of a salary for a "pundit", yet many on here who apparently just want knowledgable pundits (honestly, that's their only issue with women being pundits...honestly it is!) absolutely love him. Strange!
I'd take Emma Hayes and Alex Scott over that prick any day of the week, regardless of how experienced he is at elite level.
Quite simply, if anyone says they just want the best people for the job and that's the ONLY reason they don't want ANY female pundits, and then says that they like Micah Richards as a pundit, then they're outing themselves as a complete liar about their reasons.
You've elaborated on my point beautifully. If Micah is acceptable so is any woman. |
|
|
|
Post by hoppo96 on Oct 6, 2023 10:54:05 GMT
I don't see how people can have a problem with female pundits. It's just women talking about football. Are people really that paranoid and unhappy about it? Do they get seething anger if they see Karen Carney on the tv?
I think people have a problem with women taking an interest in football more generally, if they get into it they may *shock horror* want to attend games. But going to games is a #bloke thing, a thing for the #lads.
I think ex players and managers know that every woman speaking on football is taking away a role from men. I don't quite frankly care, if you're not getting a gig on Sky, BT whatever then just be a better analyst or pundit.
You don't have to take an interest in women's football. If you don't care about SCFC Women, fine. If you don't know who Georgia Stanway is, fine. But that's very different from thinking it's a deep state conspiracy that Alex Scott is presenting Football Focus.
|
|
|
|
Post by mickmillslovechild on Oct 6, 2023 10:57:50 GMT
If that's true and they're just doing it to further the women's game (and i don't see how a faceless Emma Hayes as co-commentator talking about two men's teams furthers women's football in any way myself, i dont tnink she even mentions women's football when co-commentating on men's matches) then it makes NO sense whatsoever to have female pundits on a MOTD or a Champs league game in the first place. That can't be the reason. How exactly would it further the women's game, if women have already exercised their free will and decided they're not interested in football anyway? If that's what they've decided then they're not watching MOTD or Champs league games in the first place anyway to see those female pundits, so it wouldn't have any chance to further anything.
I think it's more likely to simply be the case that football has realised now that, even whether you as a bloke like women's football or not, there are millions of women who do love football full stop (either men or women's football or both) and it therefore isn't just solely a TV show for men that's being aired. Really, nothing more complex than that. If they cater to the WHOLE audience (not just the blokes) then they're likely to get more viewers. But no, everyone just throws out ideas like yours above or says it's "box ticking" because it's lazy and easy, despite the fact that about 10 seconds of thinking about it would make you realise that it makes no kind of actual sense.
If that’s what you believe then that’s fair enough, I disagree but that’s opinions. They must be better placed than their male counterparts and positive discrimination doesn’t happen.
So, you disagee despite it making no sense whatsoever? Ok, you do you mate.
And if you genuienly think that the likes of Micah Richards, Michael Owen, Steve Mcmanaman, Robbie Savage, Danny Murphy are all better than the likes of Emma Hayes and Alex Scott when it comes to insight of the game thats actually being played, then i'd say you're not being genuine....because they just aren't.
Personally i just can't wait for a similar thread in the summer when people complain about John McEnroe commentating on women's games at Wimbledon, after all he hasn't even played the women's game before so as Keegan says, whatever John says doesn't cross over. He's therefore only there as positive discrimination and to tick boxes. I mean, it's exactly the same logic but i'm guessing there'll be a "But, that's different..." excuse to follow when that thread doesn't happen.
|
|
|
|
Post by a on Oct 6, 2023 11:21:29 GMT
If that’s what you believe then that’s fair enough, I disagree but that’s opinions. They must be better placed than their male counterparts and positive discrimination doesn’t happen.
So, you disagee despite it making no sense whatsoever? Ok, you do you mate.
And if you genuienly think that the likes of Micah Richards, Michael Owen, Steve Mcmanaman, Robbie Savage, Danny Murphy are all better than the likes of Emma Hayes and Alex Scott when it comes to insight of the game thats actually being played, then i'd say you're not being genuine....because they just aren't.
Personally i just can't wait for a similar thread in the summer when people complain about John McEnroe commentating on women's games at Wimbledon, after all he hasn't even played the women's game before so as Keegan says, whatever John says doesn't cross over. He's therefore only there as positive discrimination and to tick boxes. I mean, it's exactly the same logic but i'm guessing there'll be a "But, that's different..." excuse to follow when that thread doesn't happen.
Yup, I respectfully disagree. I actually think that women’s tennis should be made up of commentators who are women and I think that’s what we’ll hopefully see more and more, and good luck to them. |
|
|
|
Post by stokeson on Oct 6, 2023 11:42:05 GMT
If a Man who played international football transitions to a woman should she be allowed to be the pundit on a womans game? or visa versa? Its football everyones opinion is valid.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 6, 2023 11:47:36 GMT
I don’t understand why people get so upset by female pundits. The biggest positive discrimination racket in the English league is the mandatory employment of subpar British players.
What a box-ticking exercise that is.
|
|
|
|
Post by kjpt140v on Oct 6, 2023 11:53:47 GMT
He's not right or wrong it's his opinion. You could extend what he's saying to ex-male footballers as well though I guess. "What does Steve Bruce know about playing international football he was never capped?" "What does George Best know about playing in a World Cup tournament?" etc etc. I don't think you need to worry about George. |
|
|
|
Post by PotteringThrough on Oct 6, 2023 11:58:52 GMT
If a female pundit says something I agree then she’s excellent.
If she says something I don’t agree with then she doesn’t have a clue.
The same applies to the men.
Except Keith Andrews and David Prutton who have never been correct about anything in their punditry lives even when I agree with them because somehow they’re just wrong.
|
|
|
|
Post by a on Oct 6, 2023 11:59:41 GMT
I don’t understand why people get so upset by female pundits. The biggest positive discrimination racket in the English league is the mandatory employment of subpar British players. What a box-ticking exercise that is. Who’s upset? |
|
|
|
Post by spitthedog on Oct 6, 2023 12:04:02 GMT
I don’t understand why people get so upset by female pundits. The biggest positive discrimination racket in the English league is the mandatory employment of subpar British players. What a box-ticking exercise that is. Who’s upset? quite a few from what Ive read and heard, maybe just not you? |
|
|
|
Post by tommycarlsberg on Oct 6, 2023 12:07:11 GMT
It's not about having an opinion that Keegan takes issue with. It's when female ex-footballers (of an inferior level) make a direct comparison between the mens game and themselves. "But if I see an England lady footballer saying about England against Scotland at Wembley and she's saying, ' If I would have been in that position I would have done this,' I don't think it's quite the same. I don't think it crosses over that much." It's not like women to think they always know best. Typical 'Womansplaining'. World Cup final meant just as much as the Men’s final thought? The stakes are just as high for the women? |
|
|
|
Post by davejohnno1 on Oct 6, 2023 12:10:21 GMT
Some women pundits are decent. Some are absolutely rubbish.
Some men pundits are decent. Some are absolutely rubbish.
So long as we are allowed to say that one is rubbish and another is good, without being accused of being sexist, misogynist, racist, homophobic or whatever, I'm fine with it.
Same with Stoke City managers. Just because someone thinks a certain manager is rubbish and that a performance was not particularly decent, doesn't mean you've got an agenda or you wanted them to lose.
|
|
