Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on [email protected] for help. Thanks :)
Private profiles - please note that profiles marked as private will soon be public. This will facilitate moderation so mods can view users' warning histories. All of your posts across the site will appear on your profile page (including PI, RI). Groups posts will remain private except to users who have access to the same Groups as you. Thread here
Some important site news, please read here. Thanks!

Female Gaa Commentators / Analysists

  • 14-12-2020 9:08am
    #1
    Registered Users Posts: 548 ✭✭✭ crusier
    Registered User


    For the record I'm very fond of women. But when it comes to listening to them analysing matches on TV i.e men's Gaa match's I have a problem. By all means let them analyis the sports they played in at their level but to me it's just tokenism and a tick box exercise by broadcasters to the politically correct. The same is happening in soccer. I'm sure I'm going to be slaughtered by the politically correct but it needed to be said.


«134567

Comments

  • Registered Users Posts: 13,109 ✭✭✭✭ callaway92
    Registered User


    In fairness, most of the male analysts are atrocious on RTE for example too.

    Clichè after clichè

    “Y’know”...
    “Sure lookit”
    “X Team shot Y wides which is not good enough” with no context behind it..


  • Registered Users Posts: 548 ✭✭✭ crusier
    Registered User


    callaway92 wrote: »
    In fairness, most of the male analysts are atrocious on RTE for example too.

    Clichè after clichè

    “Y’know”...
    “X Team shot Y wides which is not good enough” with no context behind it..

    Can't argue with that in fairness


  • Registered Users Posts: 12,739 ✭✭✭✭ How Soon Is Now
    Registered User


    Its going on for the majority of sports unfortunately but ya equality...

    Whatever keeps people happy sure!


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 215 ✭✭ Misguided1


    I think calling any of them (men or women) 'commentators' is a stretch these days.
    Marty Morrissey is getting worse. Doesn't know the names of the players, and is so one sided it is shocking.

    For me - a commentator needs to have played the game to the highest level and have an in-depth understanding of it.
    Rugby commentators are much better in that they actually comment on what is going on rather than how beautiful it looks.


  • Registered Users Posts: 1,851 ✭✭✭ the kelt
    Registered User


    Is it that theyre female?

    Do you need to have played the game to certain level to be good enough to be an analyst?

    For what its worth female or male none of our analysts are what you would call stellar, actually theyre all pretty poor and all have played the game to a certain level.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 3,608 ✭✭✭ stoneill
    Registered User


    They seem to know a lot more about the sports than I do.


  • Registered Users Posts: 1,830 ✭✭✭ kala85
    Registered User


    Shefflin is the best.

    Donal og is a pure ejjitt


  • Registered Users Posts: 426 ✭✭ Bumpsy
    Registered User


    the kelt wrote: »
    Do you need to have played the game to certain level to be good enough to be an analyst?
    I think you do really to have any credibility, have there been GAA analysts before this that didn't?


    When will there be male analysts that didn't play at the highest levels, as it seems like an easy gig if you don't mind personal abuse :D


  • Registered Users Posts: 91 ✭✭ NoBread
    Registered User


    Misguided1 wrote: »
    For me - a commentator needs to have played the game to the highest level and have an in-depth understanding of it.
    Rugby commentators are much better in that they actually comment on what is going on rather than how beautiful it looks.

    I don't agree. Some of the best commentators in many sports have never played the sport to a high level, in some cases at all. And so many of the best players who are called back to commentate when they retire are dreadful.
    Mícheál Ó Muircheartaigh never played hurling in any championship to the best of my knowledge, but there was no one I'd rather listen to commentate on a game.
    Sonia O'Sullivan is one of our greatest athletes (if not the greatest) but TV really isn't her forté.

    Some people can understand a sport better than they can play it, others can play it better than they understand it.


  • Registered Users Posts: 1,851 ✭✭✭ the kelt
    Registered User


    Bumpsy wrote: »
    I think you do really to have any credibility, have there been GAA analysts before this that didn't?


    When will there be male analysts that didn't play at the highest levels, as it seems like an easy gig if you don't mind personal abuse :D

    Thats the thing.

    It seems to be a prerequisite that you played the game to a certain level yet none of them are actually that good at it? Theyre not all bad but it seems just having played the game is all thats required whether good or not is my point.

    Its a bit like the old "lets give your man the managers job sure he was a great player and that other fella never played at that level" despite the fact one could be better at the actual job of coaching/managing.

    As someone mentioned soccer for example id much prefer to listen to Ken Early analyse a game than the been there and done it pundits that actually do.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 13,109 ✭✭✭✭ callaway92
    Registered User


    Misguided1 wrote: »
    For me - a commentator needs to have played the game to the highest level and have an in-depth understanding of it.
    Rugby commentators are much better in that they actually comment on what is going on rather than how beautiful it looks.

    This is an awful take. In fact, people who read the game on a daily basis as their job etc would probably have a better insight into it than most players.

    The unfortunate thing is that viewers on TV generally would be casual to the point that they just want to see former players that they know doing the coverage and will take their ‘they need to get stuck in more’ as gospel.


  • Registered Users Posts: 776 ✭✭✭ Deskjockey
    Registered User


    Joanne Cantwell is very good I think.(know she is an anchor moreso than a commentator)

    Ursula Jacob isn't brilliant, and doesn't bring any great insight to the thing, but you could say that about half of the analysts on there, male or female


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 207 ✭✭ Rolo2010


    crusier wrote: »
    For the record I'm very fond of women, in fact it's been a bit of a weakness at times. But when it comes to listening to them analysing matches on TV i.e men's Gaa match's I have a problem. By all means let them analyis the sports they played in at their level but to me it's just tokenism and a tick box exercise by broadcasters to the politically correct. The same is happening in soccer. I'm sure I'm going to be slaughtered by the politically correct but it needed to be said.

    Most of the men are crap too. It's nothing to do with political correctness. Just RTÉ hiring people who aren't good enough for the job which a problem beyond their sports coverage as well.


  • Registered Users Posts: 2,494 ✭✭✭ ahnowbrowncow
    Registered User


    NoBread wrote: »
    Some people can understand a sport better than they can play it, others can play it better than they understand it.

    But that's not why they're being picked. They're being picked because of their gender, they certainly haven't improved the analysis from what I've seen.

    With all else being equal the person being picked should be the one who is most qualified i.e. played at the higher level.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 207 ✭✭ Rolo2010


    But that's not why they're being picked. They're being picked because of their gender, they certainly haven't improved the analysis from what I've seen.

    With all else being equal the person being picked should be the one who is most qualified i.e. played at the higher level.

    Most of the male presenters should be fired on this basis then. The presenter for the Joe McDonagh final was no worse than any of the men and most of them have been covering the ladies games.


  • Registered Users Posts: 12,739 ✭✭✭✭ How Soon Is Now
    Registered User


    Rolo2010 wrote: »
    Most of the men are crap too. It's nothing to do with political correctness. Just RTÉ hiring people who aren't good enough for the job which a problem beyond their sports coverage as well.

    Oh its all to do with political correctness ha. Its been an across the board thing for Rte and Sky to just even up the numbers.


    It doesn't matter if half the lads are not up to it standard wise because I'm yet to come across any women who have been introduced in the last few years for any sports I've watched that where worth it.
    Sure its always going to stand against you when your given a job not based on how good you are but because the company wants to look like they care.


  • Registered Users Posts: 91 ✭✭ NoBread
    Registered User


    But that's not why they're being picked. They're being picked because of their gender, they certainly haven't improved the analysis from what I've seen.
    That's true, and if anything it hinders the advancement of gender diversity.
    As mentioned already, Joanne Cantwell is good I think, but an anchor is different I guess.
    With all else being equal the person being picked should be the one who is most qualified i.e. played at the higher level.
    Maybe, as they'll likely have more insight, but it's very rare that you'll have everything else equal. Usually a good commentator or analyst will stand out above the next best.


  • Registered Users Posts: 1,851 ✭✭✭ the kelt
    Registered User


    But that's not why they're being picked. They're being picked because of their gender, they certainly haven't improved the analysis from what I've seen.

    With all else being equal the person being picked should be the one who is most qualified i.e. played at the higher level.

    But playing hurling/Football at a high level has nothing to do with being cogent, coherent with an ability to get a point across on TV?

    Thats the issue really not whether the gender.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 207 ✭✭ Rolo2010


    Oh its all to do with political correctness ha. Its been an across the board thing for Rte and Sky to just even up the numbers.




    It doesn't matter if half the lads are not up to it standard wise because I'm yet to come across any women who have been introduced in the last few years for any sports I've watched that where worth it.
    Sure its always going to stand against you when your given a job not based on how good you are but because the company wants to look like they care.

    No, it's not. I've listened to several of the women and they're not that bad. And I don't like the commentators and analysts in general.


  • Registered Users Posts: 9,775 ✭✭✭ Effects
    Registered User


    crusier wrote: »
    For the record I'm very fond of women, in fact it's been a bit of a weakness at times.
    Ah would you fúck off with that shíte.
    By all means let them analyis the sports they played in at their level.
    Why should women have to stick by this rule, but men don't?


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 12,739 ✭✭✭✭ How Soon Is Now
    Registered User


    Rolo2010 wrote: »
    No, it's not. I've listened to several of the women and they're not that bad. And I don't like the commentators and analysts in general.

    To be honest especially with the crowd not being there now id mute the sound altogether :pac:


  • Registered Users Posts: 141 ✭✭ KIB4Life
    Registered User


    Misguided1 wrote: »
    I think calling any of them (men or women) 'commentators' is a stretch these days.
    Marty Morrissey is getting worse. Doesn't know the names of the players, and is so one sided it is shocking.

    For me - a commentator needs to have played the game to the highest level and have an in-depth understanding of it.
    Rugby commentators are much better in that they actually comment on what is going on rather than how beautiful it looks.

    To be honest a lot of the analysts in the Sunday Game currently are bad and I think shows that just because someone might have been a great player doesn’t mean that they are going to be a good analyst or pundit. In terms of commentary Darragh Moloney is by far and away the best by never gets the All Ireland Final, Marty even though he is from my own parish is poor at times, probably better on the radio, Ger Canning is dreadful as well.

    The best analysts I feel in the hurling at the moment on RTÉ are Daly, Cummins, Tyrrell and Duignan, I also think Micheál Donoghue is good as well but I have only seen him on it a few times. Donal Og and Derek McGrath are the worst. Two massive egos who think they know everything.

    Donal Og made some very tasteless comments about Antrim after the match yesterday. McGrath is the biggest dose of all, haven’t seen him in awhile so don’t know if he is still on it, but when he was used to come out when this words know seems to have heard, just to make the point of how much intelligent is and how much cleverer he is compared to everyone else.

    A bit like Joe Brolly used to be like, but at least Brolly had a sense of humour and could say something funny and had at least a bit of charm. As regards the women doing the analysis I don’t think Ursula Jacob is that good on the it. Elaine Alyward was doing the co commentary for the Joe McDonagh and Camoige final and I felt that she was fairly good on the analysis, and would have been helped if she had a better commentator with her.

    Joanne Cantwell I feel thinks that she has to argue with every point a pundit makes and I would have preferred if they were going to pick a woman for the job that they might have picked either Jacqui Hurley or Evanne Ní Chuilinn. As regards the football analysis the pundits are even worse on RTÉ Tomas O’Sé and Ciaran Whelan are the only good ones. I think Sky’s coverage is actually a lot better nowadays in both hurling and football.

    Anyway I think the GAA hour is the best Gaa podcast and show out there I know they were involved in a bit of controversy with Eddie Brennan, but that aside the podcast is brilliant a great mixture of analysing and a bit of humour and craic. Some very good analysts in the likes of Cheddar Plunkett and Cian Ward who are the two best analysts out there in my opinion.


  • Registered Users Posts: 8,204 ✭✭✭ partyguinness
    Registered User


    "I am not racist but..."


  • Registered Users Posts: 12,739 ✭✭✭✭ How Soon Is Now
    Registered User


    "I am not racist but..."

    Haven't seen many if any black women doing the sport on Rte actually ?

    Surprising considering!


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 215 ✭✭ Misguided1


    NoBread wrote: »
    I don't agree. Some of the best commentators in many sports have never played the sport to a high level, in some cases at all. And so many of the best players who are called back to commentate when they retire are dreadful.
    Mícheál Ó Muircheartaigh never played hurling in any championship to the best of my knowledge, but there was no one I'd rather listen to commentate on a game.
    Sonia O'Sullivan is one of our greatest athletes (if not the greatest) but TV really isn't her forté.

    Some people can understand a sport better than they can play it, others can play it better than they understand it.

    Totally agree about Micheal - he's the best. He commentates for radio which means that he actually tells you what is happening. He is your eyes on the pitch. Knows every player and their background. He put a huge amount of work in before games. I never get the sense that Marty does that. But he doesn't analyse the game. He doesn't bring the perspective that having played the game might bring. And that is what we have become accustomed to hearing.

    Having been a great athlete doesn't mean you will be a great commentator. I don't think any of the current RTE pundits are good at all. But I'm sure there are good ones out there......somewhere......


  • Registered Users Posts: 2,494 ✭✭✭ ahnowbrowncow
    Registered User


    the kelt wrote: »
    But playing hurling/Football at a high level has nothing to do with being cogent, coherent with an ability to get a point across on TV?

    Thats the issue really not whether the gender.

    As I said, the analysis has not improved so they're obviously not picking female panelists based on their ability to get an insightful, coherent point across.

    Also, if the sole criteria for the job is getting a coherent point across rather than having insight, why are only lady footballers getting the role? Why not let a media student apply for it?

    So if candiates have an equal ability to get a coherent point across, the next selection criteria should be the level they played the game at and therefore insight they can offer. i.e. How many of the female panelists know what it's like to play in front of 80,000 people?

    I don't care about the gender of the person commentating or analysing, I just want to see the best applicant get the role, which is highly unlikely with gender quotas.


  • Registered Users Posts: 12,556 ✭✭✭✭ jmayo
    Registered User


    Misguided1 wrote: »
    I think calling any of them (men or women) 'commentators' is a stretch these days.
    Marty Morrissey is getting worse. Doesn't know the names of the players, and is so one sided it is shocking.

    For me - a commentator needs to have played the game to the highest level and have an in-depth understanding of it.
    Rugby commentators are much better in that they actually comment on what is going on rather than how beautiful it looks.

    Some people here seem to mixed up between the difference of a commentator and an analyst, expert or pundit.

    An analyst or expert ideally needs to have played the game(s) to some decent level so that they can talk from experience.
    But that doesn't mean the best players will make the best analysts,
    i.e. Thierry Henry being a prime example.
    Sounding as dull as ditchwater doesn't help in this regard.
    Also see Kevin Moran and Frank Stapleton.
    Also will admit James Horan would make that list.

    A commentator is the guy (well usually guy) that just gives a play by play description of what is happening on the pitch.
    They need to be able to remember players names (unbelievable how many seem to forget that little nugget), give an adequate description of the flow of the game without making it sound boring even if it is.

    They should ideally know when to speak and when not to.
    Sometime less is better e.g Jimmy Magee's commentary of Maradona's second goal against England was one of the best.

    Bill McLaren in rugby was brilliant and I think Micheal O'Muircheartaigh learned a thing or two from him.
    Peter O'Sullevan in horse racing was another brilliant guy much like Peter Alliss in golf.
    They just were very listenable.
    They could drop in anecdotes if nothing much was happening and fill space when needed.
    They might not have been ever brilliant at the sports, but generally they made it enjoyable for listeners or laterally viewers.

    Murray Walker was another although he ended up just being listened to for his gaffs.

    AFAIK the co commentating expert is something that only I think came in from 80s onwards.
    They are meant to be an expert and add an experts opinion during the match, especially during a break in play.
    They have to be listenable, give concise opinion and quickly or otherwise they are no benefit.
    They are meant to see things that the commentator wouldn't spot like the dirty tackles, etc.
    Johnny Giles was excellent at using his massive experience at that.

    And then there are presenters.
    They are not meant to give expert opinion, but facilitate others to do so.
    They are meant to prompt and ask the questions a normal viewer might ask.
    Bill O'Herlihy was excellent as he played the normal guy on the street and got the best TV out of his pundits.


  • Registered Users Posts: 426 ✭✭ Bumpsy
    Registered User


    Effects wrote: »
    Ah would you fúck off with that shíte.


    Why should women have to stick by this rule, but men don't?


    But this is the point of the thread, women should be hired on the same basis as men, but it appears as if they've been given preferential treatment.


    Men do have to have played at this level. A lot of us, male and female, could spout similar sh1te to what's presented by male analysts at the moment but only women get the opportunity without having played at this level.


  • Registered Users Posts: 830 ✭✭✭ carq
    Registered User


    Looking forward to Anna Geary coming in for 2021 and giving us some teamwork anecdotes from her cork camogie days.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 13,109 ✭✭✭✭ callaway92
    Registered User


    carq wrote: »
    Looking forward to Anna Geary coming in for 2021 and giving us some teamwork anecdotes from her cork camogie days.

    She won’t mention anything that includes praise for the Cork Team/Paudie Murray, so that’s a moot point.


Advertisement