Female Pundits on Men's Sports *Mod warning in Post #42*

good post but women’s tennis hasn’t been good in many decades. It’s hopelessly inferior nowadays

This is an interesting comment, and generally true.

In very general terms women are not as interested in sports as men, and men are not as interested in women's sports as they are in men's sports.

So overall women's sports are not as popular as men's.

Various patries like sports governing bodies and the media have over the last few years tried to push a narrative that the opposite is true, that people are as interested in women's sports as in men's.

And thus you have sports stories with headlines like "so and so to start for such and such a team in champions league quarter final", without any indication that it's the women's champions league they are talking about.

And the governing bodies are never slow to remind us how much they support the ladies side of the sport.

But this is beginning to come to a head, especially in rugby, where the ladies are looking for better facilities,a better share of profits etc.

But the governing body is pushing back, because in reality the women's game is not generating anything and has to be subsidized, because surprise surprise it's not actually that popular.

Women's sport is niche, and always will be.

Ladies Gaelic football has been on TG4 for over 20 years, and is well established there and is well suited there, as it's a niche product on a niche station.

For a start 'financial doping' is a phrase borrowed from a soccer manager and shoehorned into the GAA to suit arguements and agendas. If you look at GAAconomics by Michael Moyinhan

You will see how money in the GAA funnels back into itself.

--

As for 'financial doping' argument used against the GAA - it is normally used by non GAA people or contrarians looking for an argument online, but that is not a discussion for this thread. It has been well discussed in many other threads. Simply put you can't buy players in the GAA - so 'financial doping' line becomes tenuous at best or laughable at worst.

As regards falling back on your stereotypes of calling most GAA people as thick as short planks, I suggest you go through the Dublin football and hurling team. Look at where they are employed and so on. From all sorts of demographics they are doing well for themselves. Philly McMahon has his fitness/food business. Dr. Jack McCaffery... yes doctor Jack McCaffery has returned to the Dublin fold.

To be honest the GAA in Dublin has become a mainly middle class game. So the majority are erudite and articulate. You only have to listen to Eoghan O'Donnell (Dublin hurler) speaking and giving analysis - for example. Plus look at the areas where Dublin hurling traditionally thrives Ballyboden, Kilmacud, Dalkey. And when Dublin won Sam in 2011 in the football. One of the players started a singing on the bus parade 'We have the poshest full back line in the world'

All of which you plainly have no idea of judging by your post. The next question I will ask why do you think they come across as thick? I mean calling Rugby players thick in analysis, surely omits the fact that many Rugby players work in white collar and are privately educated. Shane Horgan is working in the Legal field in England, for example.

That is not to say you have to be extremely educated to give a good analysis of a game. Tomás Ó Sé is a primary school teacher, and has a good turn of phrase when describing matches or GAA issues. It is unfair to tar all analysts as 'thick' regardless of gender.

@CGI_Livia_Soprano 'along with some chemical assistance hahaha'

That's every sport though.

Vicky Sparks? I agree she is an awful commentator, used to work for Radio Norwich then got promoted to mainstream. Mistakes loudness for sincerity. But there are plenty of Male commentators just as bad.

Mick Fitzgerald is on talking about flat racing, he was a jump jockey, Jeffery Dujon, former West Indies wicket keeper was asked a question about keeping to the quick bowlers of the 70s & 80s, and just as he was about to answer, was interrupted by a female co commentator with a poor record at international level, who to listen to her talk about herself, you would think she was the greatest player in history, overconfidence and lack of awareness goes a long way. Nasser Hussein, captained England, was an average player but believes he was a legend of the game. That is more annoying than the gender of the person.

Isa Guha and Ebont are both absolutely SH1T! I specifically thought of Guha when I saw this thread. I have to watch on mute when she's on comms, shouting and screaming and cracking awful jokes. Useless aul bint!

they neither shout or scream, your TV is obviously broke ;) I doubt you heard of either before this thread…

Wrong. Wilson is a statistic nerd with a really good memory. The best analyst out there, for me, is Barney Ronay, with his next-level intellect.

He’s the best current analyst aswell that does popular not too in-depth analysis.

his withering analysis on the guardian podcast of the signing of Ronaldo by man united is one of the single great mic drops I’ve heard on a podcast

You seem triggered dude.

Don't be, sure I don't have a clue, mate.

Maybe you explain in expert detail why all those pundits you ridicule are so much worse than the one pundit you like? Thanks, pal.

Ireland is not full of transphobic racists.

Excellent stuff dude. The last paragraph is genius. You probably know more than ex professionals that played their sport at the highest level and won multiple trophies.

But dude, you forgot to mention this female pundit who is better than keane, neville, carragher, Giles etc etc. Can anyone be up there with yourself and wilson?

Ireland is Not full of transphobic racists.

I never said job - equates to intelligence, you seem to enjoy playing the contrarian 'That's your bag man!' - as they would have said in the 60's..

In fact I said the opposite see my comment on Tomas O'Se and his turn of phrase, you can't teach that - he lives football.

However, I also stated how erudite and composed many Rugby and GAA pundits are these days. Refuting your blanket initial statement. It was you yourself who claimed that the GAA and Rugby pundits you have seen/heard were not very intelligent. In other words 'thicks' to use the vernacular.

But there are many young vibrant pundits these days who are very articulate as I pointed out. Regardless of gender, you just refuse to see it. Or watch it apparently.

You posture/pose to argue at an informed level on the issue of pundits on one hand.

Yet on the other state you stated do not watch GAA analysis at all! So who is fooling who? Your'e tying yourself in knots for some reason. You just don't seem as informed as you pretend to be.

But that is what contrarians like you do they don't see the wood from the trees, all the sake of argument. It is black or white and there is no grey in your world. No nuanced argument.

It was yourself you stated that all pundits in the GAA and Rugby you have seen/heard were thick'. You seem to have a massive chip on your shoulder which is unrelated to the current issue of this thread. And are just looking to vent. I suggest read the relevant Dublin threads involving finances etc. Because I have discussed it in detail at a knowledgeable/informed level. Away from your your style of hyperbole, and very narrow take on that issue. You do not factor in a myriad of variables.

---

By the way the way you replied makes it very hard to read poorly laid out, and poor formatting IMO.

It seems like a desperate backtracking attempt by you.

A better person would instead admit that your initial premise that many pundits on Rugby/GAA were 'stupid', is a somewhat flawed argument for many reasons But that is not how you operate is it?

You are not reading are you or reading correctly apparently.

This is what I said in my initial post.

'That is not to say you have to be extremely educated to give a good analysis of a game. Tomás Ó Sé is a primary school teacher, and has a good turn of phrase when describing matches or GAA issues. It is unfair to tar all analysts as 'thick' regardless of gender.'

--

Yet, magically - you somehow have attempted to twist this to me meaning that you have to be educated at a high level to be considered intelligent. The mind boggles.

But to me I think you did so because you looked foolish in your initial blanket statement that all rugby/GAA pundits are 'thick'.

And you also admit in the same post that you don't watch GAA analysis! So how can you claim to be informed? It does not make any logical sense on a lot of levels.

What have angels and pins got to with anything? It is only in another effort by yourself at obfuscation.

1) How can you claim that all GAA/Rugby pundits are thick? It does not stack up in my opinion and I gave you pundits/examples which show how illogical your argument was.

2) You als boldly stated that you don't watch GAA analysis correct? How do you argue at an informed level (beyond stereotypes) if you don't watch it?

-

Your'e GAA opinions seem to be of a distant barstooler - 'pub talk' , with little or no informed opinion. Your'e opinions of Rugby much the same - it seems.

Inform yourself of the facts - then make an argument?

Watch Noelle Healy (football), and Eoghan O'Donnell (hurling) doing punditry both are excellent. And I don't even consider gender as an issue. Once a pundit or poster is informed - I applaud them. If not I would see through them quick enough, as a bluffer.

If you were a pundit (regardless of gender) I would switch off - ill informed/agenda led (playing to the gallery) and with chip on the shoulder. With added constant obfuscation.

Not good viewing IMO. Maybe a novelty for some at first, but it would wear thin fast.

Haha good one dude.

Maybe you should read what your buddy soprano wrote above. Very triggered today.

But you'd defend anything that poster says. All we need is emmet in here too. The three amigos!

#bekind

Well that's fair enough, but unlike the poster above @CGI_Livia_Soprano who doesn't watch the analyse of GAA (Hurling or Football) - :

At least you don't base your opinions on biases/agenda/stereotypes/hyperbole. What the poster above you @CGI_Livia_Soprano is the equivalent of someone not reading a book or watching a film. Then going in all guns blazing with major holes of logic/reason because it is so ill informed.

@CGI_Livia_Soprano whole premise can be summed up as follows (by this image)

The poster has the gall to say they don't watch GAA analysis, then proceed to slate all analysts as 'thicks'. At least do a bit of research is my point.

---

Anyway, I was trying to think of my favourite analyst/pundit.

In snooker it would be Alan McManus.

But funny enough, I was just after watching Reanne Evans female snooker player giving her opinion on the male snooker world championship.

But. Reanne gets wildcard to some male snooker events by virtue of her ladies WC title.

The most famous match she played was an acrimonious one against her ex partner Mark Allen.

Do posters feel that she is more entitled to talk about men's snooker (as a pundit) because she played competitively against some of them?

Or does it not make any difference as she has a knowledge an interest about the game of snooker?

You're not making making sense to me pal.

But thanks for proving my point in response to the doc.