No, it is not a different game. It is literally the exact same game, by every criteria. Are the women as good at that game as the men? Obviously not. Partly due to biology (their strength/speed levels will never match mens), and partly due to the absolutely mind-blowing disparity in funding. Of course men will be technically better than women when they are literally fast-tracked into the sport from their pre-teens and trained by the best coaches in the world for pretty much their entire lives, whereas women often have to coach themselves, unless they are one of the best of the best, playing in one of the top teams in the world, in which case they will get second-rate coaching from the mens team's cast-offs. Of course, absolutely none of this has any impact whatsoever on their ability to comment on the sport / present / interview on a TV show. In fact, I'd argue Alex Scott and Emma Hayes are two of the most knowledgeable and insightful pundits on TV, currently. Funnily enough, their ability in that field hasn't been hampered by the fact they couldn't run as fast as Michael owen in his prime (a much better footballer than either of them, no doubt. But also a far, far worse pundit).
Quick addendum: a quick Google search just brought up this: https://www.givemesport.com/1780287...ins-pundit-of-the-year-award-for-itv-coverage So, Emma Hayes has literally been voted as the best pundit in the world by an impartial panel. This pretty much blows your "they don't know anything about the men's game!!!" argument out of the water...
Just a few of the comments from women on that Twitter feed .... LesleyCartwright @LACartwright1 · 3 Nov 2021 Replying to @broadcast_sport @itvpresscentre and 2 others Her voice is so annoying……we switched off every time she was on. Far worthier recipients. Here's another that echoes exactly what the OP said ... Gigi @Gigi9293 · 4 Nov 2021 Replying to @broadcast_sport , @emmahayes1 and @ITVSport Whilst I agree she’s a very good pundit, there were times where she would say the exact same 3/4 times in one half, word for word. Very irritating And another ... noone @SeptimusNoone4 · 8 Nov 2021 Replying to @broadcast_sport @itvpresscentre and 2 others She is appalling. Inarticulate, boring and she can’t even pronounce the names of the players. Dreadful!
If your best counter-argument is quoting random morons on Twitter, you should probably just accept that you're in the wrong.
The same people who voted for the lass and on whom you're basing your argument BTW, should you really be calling women morons simply because they disagree with you ... ... if I did that you'd be screaming that it was sexist.
To be fair Emma Hayes is one of the best pundits going, by a distance. There will always be some who dont agree, but when the majority speaks it is worth thinking about it. She offers a coaches view of football, which most pundits cantt offer because they arent able to coach. That in itself should tell us they are no more capable of passing comment than fans.
They're not the same people,at all... The Broadcaster of the Year Award was voted on by a panel of judges... But they're not all women, some of the ones you quoted are quite clearly men. And even if they were all women, I have absolutely no issue with calling a woman a moron if she is being a moron. Same goes for men. That is called equality. I really don't think you understand what I'm stating to be sexist. Calling women morons simply because they disagree with you = not sexist. Calling women morons simply because they are women = sexist.
I think the basic problem is that people don't actually need any pundits at all. I can watch football without any analysis whatsoever whether it's live at the ground or watching 'The Big Match Revisited' 40 years after it's happened. So if I'm watching coverage of a PL game I couldn't really care who's chipping in with comments. If it has to be anyone I'd prefer it to be someone who's played that game, in that league, and may have an anecdote or insight. A woman, or someone from non-league, may be perfectly fine but I'm not interested in their waffle tbh. I don't need anyone to tell me how to watch football ... ... if they insist I'd rather it was from someone who's played at that level.
Gabby Logan and Alex Scott are really good. There are decent women commentators as there are some rubbish. But by God their are some rubbish blokes doing the same job.
Thanks heaven for 'fast forward'. I rarely listen unless there's a huge controversy/argument going on. I don't watch Glastonbury and need someone to explain how to listen to music or what technique the guitarist was using. These people are just expensive clickbait imo.
@Smug in Boots to bring it back to the relevant thread, posts #81 and #87 are the ones you've failed to provide any sort of riposte to
That's because I've stuck to the point and not followed you down ludicrous diversions when you're unable to stick to the point, twisting what the OP said then convincing yourself you've proved your argument. You did twist what the OP said, he didn't say any of this, you've just made it all up .... "Women shouldn't be allowed to commentate on men's football" "OP is arguing women should be allowed nowhere near football programs, purely because of their gender." "Literally stating he'd rather see a man commentate than a woman, regardless of their individual knowledge, ability, etc." " ... what the OP is saying. "Women shouldn't be allowed to commentate on men's football" ".
Fair enough. I just enjoy listening to coaches talk about the game. I like intelligent insights into tactics. All I can say is for a long time we have paid lazy analysts who are not qualified to comment, in my opinion. They are all men. It is why I was so anti Roy Keane, he offers absolutely no insight, but he is far from the worse. You might well be correct though, we dont need any analysts, might reduce my sky subscription which wouldnt be a bad thing. Each month I pay the bill and hate the thought some of it goes to the likes of Kamara, Dawson, Sherwood etc, who with all respect, are like dial a cliche.
Dodging both points again I see, well done. Obviously the OP didn't explicitly say that, but is it quite clearly inferred. I didn't think I would have to spell this out. You're literally commenting in a thread called "women ruining BBC football", can you genuinely not understand how the underlying message is women on football shows = bad? The part I find really crazy is that I literally quoted the OP word-for-word, replacing nothing except for the word "women" with "black men", and you said it was "obviously racist", whilst simultaneously claiming the original version is somehow not sexist. Incredible stuff. And please don't try the ridiculous "but they haven't played men's football!!!" argument again, see post #81 and #82 for an explanation of why that line of reasoning is nonsense.
Only in your mind. You saw something that wasn't there and are sticking to it ... ... you won't admit it because the hole you've dug is too deep.
The part I find really crazy is that I literally quoted the OP word-for-word, replacing nothing except for the word "women" with "black men", and you said it was "obviously racist", whilst simultaneously claiming the original version is somehow not sexist. Incredible stuff. And please don't try the ridiculous "but they haven't played men's football!!!" argument again, see post #81 and #82 for an explanation of why that line of reasoning is nonsense. Stop dodging this. It's pathetic.
This is what you said, it's not quoting the OP in any way whatsoever. "Women shouldn't be allowed to commentate on men's football" "OP is arguing women should be allowed nowhere near football programs, purely because of their gender." "Literally stating he'd rather see a man commentate than a woman, regardless of their individual knowledge, ability, etc." " ... what the OP is saying. "Women shouldn't be allowed to commentate on men's football" ".
Are you going senile? See my post #73. I quoted the OP directly, replacing only one word. In your post #74, you stated that the updated version was "blatant racism". By extension, the OP must therefore be "blatant sexism".
Cheerio, you're only on here to hurl insults and cause arguments, thankfully you don't come on too often. You're incapable of having a discussion, just a typical internet warrior with all the usual dodges and distractions. For someone who believes themselves to be compassionate you're now suggesting I have mental health issues ... ... to be expected from someone who's username is a direct insult to someone's personal appearance.
