Token women commentators in men’rt

Dick phelan

Even on the male side a lot of pundits haven't exactly had glittering careers. What standard of career did Dunphy have and he was on RTE for years? Richie Sadler who I enjoy listening to didn't exactly play at the highest level. Honestly just because you played at a high level doesn't mean your good at being a pundit.

I thought Henry was useless as a pundit, same with Michael Owen and they where both world class players in their day. Generally speaking punditry is a lot of rubbish anyway, I find very few of them mention anything I can't already see for myself.

Ironicname

sbsquarepants wrote:

Suggesting she could mange to competently discuss his performance seems somewhat less so!

She is competent.

But I can't see why she would be there instead of someone else who is equally competent AND has the experience, other than that she is there for some sort of tokenism.

Assetbacked

I like to see it, women are fans and players of the same sports as men and, particularly with football, having played it does not make you good as a pundit. Sticking with football, it discourages the Andy Gray and Richard Keys locker room reach around atmosphere to have women in the pundit box, which is of course a positive. Would be good to see more female commentators of high profile men's football games.

Gretas Gonna Get Ya!

sbsquarepants wrote: »

Punditry however is not a mens sport, it's just talking on the telly.

Punditry on men's sport, is men's sport... you don't have to physically kick the ball, in order for it to be an extension of the sport.

Jurgen Klopp mentally kicks every single ball on the sideline... but he doesn't actually kick any balls. He is still mentally engaged in the sport.

And he did also play too.

Alex Scott never played or managed at the highest level of men's football.

But even if she did completely understand every single facet of the men's game... I would still give her job to a man everyday of the week. And I would encourage her to go into the women's game, where she belongs!

And there is no reason to feel guilty about this, because there is nothing wrong with favouring men in men's sport! Or women in women's sport!

FunLover18

Ironicname wrote: »

She has no idea what it is like to play football at the elite men's level. She has an abundance of experience in women's football but while the rules are the same, the game is completely different regarding the pressure, the crowd, the expectations on players, how they deal with it etc.

Women's football is wildly inferior to men's football and they are miles apart in terms of skill, pressure and tactics.

You're talking as a punter watching, do you think as a player playing at the top level she doesn't feel pressure and drive to win the same way men do? It's not her fault women's football isn't as popular and therefore as profitable as men's. AFAIK the FA banned women matches being played in official grounds because they were attracting a bigger crowds than the men's games after WW2, you're penalising her for things that are out of her control.

And what I don't like about the standard argument is that it closes the door to women doing punditry on men's sport but leaves it open to men doing punditry on women's, now I know most people have said that it should be men doing men's sports and women doing women's but the standard argument leaves that open and that's not fair. I also just feel it's irrelevant as proved by a lot of good male pundits who were rarely more than average as players. It also rules out a lot of men who never played at the top level but could be excellent pundits but they're not recognisable enough.

Gretas Gonna Get Ya!

Dick phelan wrote: »

Even on the male side a lot of pundits haven't exactly had glittering careers. What standard of career did Dunphy have and he was on RTE for years? Richie Sadler who I enjoy listening to didn't exactly play at the highest level. Honestly just because you played at a high level doesn't mean your good at being a pundit.

I thought Henry was useless as a pundit, same with Michael Owen and they where both world class players in their day. Generally speaking punditry is a lot of rubbish anyway, I find very few of them mention anything I can't already see for myself.

Dunphy was a youth player at Man Utd around the same time as George Best and Johnny Giles, I think... he didn't make the grade. But he has been around some very impressive people in the game for a very long time! (I say that as someone who quite often disagrees with some of his opinions - but he certainly is qualified to express them!)

Sadlier was a top prospect - very talented striker. Target man type - back when they were important for most teams. His career was completely destroyed by injuries. But he certainly would have been a top player for Ireland, only for this!

So, because there are a few rubbish male pundits... this means you stop giving them opportunities in their own sport and give them to people outside the sport instead?

I don't really get the logic of that way of thinking. There's plenty of good male pundits around, and plenty of rubbish one's too. But it's still their sport. They don't deserve to be discriminated against, because they don't meet a certain bullsh!t gender quota!

andekwarhola

Ironicname wrote: »

She has no idea what it is like to play football at the elite men's level. She has an abundance of experience in women's football but while the rules are the same, the game is completely different regarding the pressure, the crowd, the expectations on players, how they deal with it etc

Neither have you, presumably, so by your own token, your opinion on football or suitability of others to comment on same is equally invalid.

The stuff on Dunphy and Sadlier is also barstool rhetoric from celebrity fanboys. Even if they didn't get to the heights of the infinitesimally small elite of players, they still had more talent than the overwhelming majority of viewers.

Ironicname

FunLover18 wrote:

You're talking as a punter watching, do you think as a player playing at the top level she doesn't feel pressure and drive to win the same way men do? It's not her fault women's football isn't as popular and therefore as profitable as men's. AFAIK the FA banned women matches being played in official grounds because they were attracting a bigger crowds than the men's games after WW2, you're penalising her for things that are out of her control.

No. I don't think that elite women footballers could possibly feel the same pressure as the elite men. It's ridiculous to think they would. A mistake by a premiership player will be back page news and scrutinized for weeks in every pub and on television. Not the same for women.

I'm not penalising her. If her punditry was absolutely exceptional and a man couldn't compare, of course she should have the job. But if a man can offer the same insight and their opinions hold more weight as they were in that position themselves, then I can't see why she should have that position outside of tokenism.

FunLover18 wrote:

And what I don't like about the standard argument is that it closes the door to women doing punditry on men's sport but leaves it open to men doing punditry on women's, now I know most people have said that it should be men doing men's sports and women doing women's but the standard argument leaves that open and that's not fair. I also just feel it's irrelevant as proved by a lot of good male pundits who were rarely more than average as players. It also rules out a lot of men who never played at the top level but could be excellent pundits but they're not recognisable enough.

I don't know if men are pundits on women's sports. I rarely watch it. Most people rarely watch women's football.

Ideally, what would be my ideal line up would be a presenter, male or female(who may or may not have experience in football) who is good at interviewing and getting the most out of the panel with questions, surrounded by people who have been involved with the game they are talking about at an elite level (managing, coaching, playing etc) who have an ability to put forth their opinion in an entertaining and informative way.

Ironicname

andekwarhola wrote:

Neither have you, presumably, so by your own token, your opinion on football or suitabilityoof others to comment on same is equally invalid.

My suitability to be a pundit on television is absolutely non existent. My opinion on what makes a good pundit, is not.

andekwarhola

Ironicname wrote: »

My suitability to be a pundit on television is absolutely non existent. My opinion on what makes a good pundit, is not.

Would a successful television career at the highest level help us to take that claim more seriously?

Gretas Gonna Get Ya!

FunLover18 wrote: »

I also just feel it's irrelevant as proved by a lot of good male pundits who were rarely more than average as players. It also rules out a lot of men who never played at the top level but could be excellent pundits but they're not recognisable enough.

You know what also rules out a lot of men?

Gender quotas in men's sport!

Ironicname

andekwarhola wrote:

Would a successful television career at the highest level help us to take that claim more seriously?

As a presenter, yes. As a pundit, no.

Gretas Gonna Get Ya!

Assetbacked wrote: »

I like to see it, women are fans and players of the same sports as men and, particularly with football, having played it does not make you good as a pundit. Sticking with football, it discourages the Andy Gray and Richard Keys locker room reach around atmosphere to have women in the pundit box, which is of course a positive. Would be good to see more female commentators of high profile men's football games.

Gray and Keys were hung out to dry...

Andy Gray's knowledge on the game would surpass anything that Alex Scott could ever contribute as a pundit. But it's more important to be boring and PC, than to actually contribute something interesting and meaningful to the sport...

Someone like Gray might be very rough around the edges... but I would still rather listen to his opinions on the game, than some of the more polite and civilized pundits!

If you want boring and PC on your TV screens... that's what you'll get. But don't complain about the standard of punditry being rubbish at the same time!

sbsquarepants

Ironicname wrote: »

She is competent.

But I can't see why she would be there instead of someone else who is equally competent AND has the experience, other than that she is there for some sort of tokenism.

So she can do the job perfectly fine.......but still

Gretas Gonna Get Ya! wrote: »

Punditry on men's sport, is men's sport... you don't have to physically kick the ball, in order for it to be an extension of the sport.

Jurgen Klopp mentally kicks every single ball on the sideline... but he doesn't actually kick any balls. He is still mentally engaged in the sport.

And he did also play too.

Alex Scott never played or managed at the highest level of men's football.

Punditry is not sport, end of, it's talking about sport.

Jurgen Klopp is materially effecting the game, deciding tactics, substitutions etc - he is a key member of the team. He is involved in the sport. That's why Liverpool FC pay his wages.

Jamie Carragher is sitting in a studio, watching, talking, giving his opinion. He is not involved in the sport. Sky TV pay his wages.

Sky won't pay Klopp to manage the pool, and the pool won't pay Carragher to talk about football on Sky Sports.

This should be obvious.

Pauliedragon

Gretas Gonna Get Ya! wrote: »

Gray and Keys were hung out to dry...

Andy Gray's knowledge on the game would surpass anything that Alex Scott could ever contribute as a pundit. But it's more important to be boring and PC, than to actually contribute something interesting and meaningful to the sport...

Someone like Gray might be very rough around the edges... but I would still rather listen to his opinions on the game, than some of the more polite and civilized pundits!

If you want boring and PC on your TV screens... that's what you'll get. But don't complain about the standard of punditry being rubbish at the same time!

There are a few pundits who are out of the game too long aswell though. Should there be an age limit too? Souness made a comment a while back about formations being nonsense. His words were something along the lines of whoever gets to the ball first generally wins the game. Now in fairness whilst I do think it is over analysed that's a bit too simplistic. Reminded me of Giles with his "back in my days at leeds" comments.

Raconteuse

Shur zero people have indicated they want pc or whatever. English football punditry is terribly nice anyway by and large.

I'd still like to know how people are so sure that all the women in sport punditry are tokenistic. Maybe I'll get an answer this time.

Gretas Gonna Get Ya!

sbsquarepants wrote: »

Punditry is not sport, end of, it's talking about sport.

Nope, punditry is part of the sport. Talking about the sport in an intelligent and knowledgeable way is part of the sport, and an important part too!

Johan Cruyff used to sit around, and completely dissect the game in great detail... he was doing punditry. He had a genius mind for the game - even when he could no longer kick a ball.

To suggest this is not part of the sport, is naive and rather foolish tbh.

Gretas Gonna Get Ya!

Pauliedragon wrote: »

There are a few pundits who are out of the game too long aswell though. Should there be an age limit too? Souness made a comment a while back about formations being nonsense. His words were something along the lines of whoever gets to the ball first generally wins the game. Now in fairness whilst I do think it is over analysed that's a bit too simplistic. Reminded me of Giles with his "back in my days at leeds" comments.

You do have a point. Sometimes even top pundits can reach their sell by date... but I think Souness does still add something valuable.

He doesn't easily buy into some of the modern nonsense that some of the younger generation get obsessed by. That is good to have on a panel.

Why is a high press any different to "getting in people's faces" or "put them under pressure" or regarding Souness's old Liverpool "Hunting in packs"... some of the so-called modern strategies, are mere re-heatings of old ideas!

Souness knows this... hence why he seems a bit bored by some of it. :pac:

Raconteuse wrote: »

Shur zero people have indicated they want pc or whatever. English football punditry is terribly nice anyway by and large.

I'd still like to know how people are so sure that all the women in sport punditry are tokenistic. Maybe I'll get an answer this time.

But that is what's getting pushed on the sport... this is why someone like Andy Gray needed to be banished to wilderness. Yes granted he said some questionable things... but he was/is still a great mind on the game!

And that's why we have gender quotas and so many bland and boring empty suits, giving cliches rather than interesting insights... beware what you wish for and all that!

You got plenty of cogent answers regarding female tokenism in sport. You just didn't like the answers!

ohnonotgmail

Gretas Gonna Get Ya! wrote: »

You do have a point. Sometimes even top pundits can reach their sell by date... but I think Souness does still add something valuable.

He doesn't easily buy into some of the modern nonsense that some of the younger generation get obsessed by. That is good to have on a panel.

Why is a high press any different to "getting in people's faces" or "put them under pressure" or regarding Souness's old Liverpool "Hunting in packs"... some of the so-called modern strategies, are mere re-heatings of old ideas!

Souness knows this... hence why he seems a bit bored by some of it. :pac:



But that is what's getting pushed on the sport... this is why someone like Andy Gray needed to be banished to wilderness. Yes granted he said some questionable things... but he was/is still a great mind on the game!

And that's why we have gender quotas and so many bland and boring empty suits, giving cliches rather than interesting insights... beware what you wish for and all that!

You got plenty of cogent answers regarding female tokenism in sport. You just didn't like the answers!

I watched andy gray yesterday for the manchester derby. Him and Keys are as ****e as ever.

Gretas Gonna Get Ya!

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

I watched andy gray yesterday for the manchester derby. Him and Keys are as ****e as ever.

That's your opinion. You have a lot of questionable opinions, but you're entitled to them!

Did you figure out how favouring men in men's professional football is sexist? :P

Ironicname

sbsquarepants wrote:

So she can do the job perfectly fine.......but still

Many men can do it better. She shouldn't be given the job if she is inferior to others purely because they need to fill a quota.

She is adequate.

Ironicname

Raconteuse wrote:

I'd still like to know how people are so sure that all the women in sport punditry are tokenistic. Maybe I'll get an answer this time.

Because it is well publicised and well known that television channels need to fill quotas for inclusivity. This is a very obvious example of it.

Gretas Gonna Get Ya!

She's also black or mixed race... so she probably ticks more than one box in their quota checklist. (She's a keeper basically;))

andekwarhola

Gretas Gonna Get Ya! wrote: »

Gray and Keys were hung out to dry...

Andy Gray's knowledge on the game would surpass anything that Alex Scott could ever contribute as a pundit. But it's more important to be boring and PC, than to actually contribute something interesting and meaningful to the sport...

Someone like Gray might be very rough around the edges... but I would still rather listen to his opinions on the game, than some of the more polite and civilized pundits!

If you want boring and PC on your TV screens... that's what you'll get. But don't complain about the standard of punditry being rubbish at the same time!

By rough around the edges, you mean managing to get fired for sexually harassing women?

Raconteuse

I just don't see how someone who knows their stuff and delivers well has definitely been hired because of their sex.

GGGY, it's only you who keeps going on about "pc" whatever. Nobody else gives a sh1t about being politically correct.

Ironicname

Raconteuse wrote:

I just don't see how someone who knows their stuff and delivers well has definitely been hired because of their sex.

It's not definite but the probability is exceptionally high

Gretas Gonna Get Ya!

andekwarhola wrote: »

By rough around the edges, you mean managing to get fired for sexually harassing women?

If you say so.

I was of the understanding that they were sacked, for some derogatory remarks about a female lineswoman and possibly a presenter too. A bit of locker room banter blown out of proportions! (Not that I'm here to defend either of them)

They wanted rid of them... simple as that. So they used this as their reason!

Jamie Carragher spits at a young girl out his car window, but he's still on the payroll. Why? Because it suits them to keep him.

Andy Gray was old school and far from perfect. But he also knew the game inside out... and his views on the game were far more interesting than most of the boring pundits who have replaced him! But he doesn't fit the culture that they want... that's the world we live in now.

Gretas Gonna Get Ya!

Raconteuse wrote: »

I just don't see how someone who knows their stuff and delivers well has definitely been hired because of their sex.

GGGY, it's only you who keeps going on about "pc" whatever. Nobody else gives a sh1t about being politically correct.

The people hiring Alex Scott care about being PC. (or someone is making sure that they appear like they do!)

andekwarhola

Gretas Gonna Get Ya! wrote: »

If you say so.

Aye, that was the general purpose of saying it alright.

Ironicname

Gretas Gonna Get Ya! wrote:

Jamie Carragher spits at a young girl out his car window, but he's still on the payroll. Why? Because it suits them to keep him.

Television stations want the most views and that's understandable. The current progressive view is that men and women are interchangeable and therefore equal.

It's only a matter of time until reality sets in and we realise that men are men and women are women. There is not a need for equality of representation but an equality of opportunity.