Football

[bnm]

Women professionals appearing at the World Cup (for men) and being pundits is fundamentally wrong, because they’ve never played the men’s game. Likewise, men haven’t played the women’s game, and shouldn’t be invited to give their professional opinion during the Women’s World Cup.

Fundamentally wrong?

So, presumably its fundamentally wrong for Sue Barker, Sam Smith, Martina Navratilova, Celina Hinchcliffe, Tracy Austin, Billie Jean King and more, to present, commentate, provide expert analysis/punditry on men's matches for the BBC at Wimbledon. All the above have done so this year.

I guess it's wrong for Lee Mckenzie to present, and provide analysis/punditry on, the completely male competitor Formula One.

Then there's mens Snooker on the BBC. What on earth is a woman, who's never played the game, doing being the main presenter? Hazel Irvine is surely not welcome by your reckoning.

All do an excellent job, despite the hurdles put in their way in a male dominated workplace. All are excellent presenters/commentators/pundits regardless of the sex of the competitor(s) they are talking about. The female ex-competitors can have just as good an insight into male competitors regardless of their playing career. If a journalist who's never played a particulate sport can analyse and opinionate, then a woman who's actually played the sport can do so to. Regardless of the competitors sex.

Your attitude belongs in the mid 20th century. The media sporting coverage world has, unlike you, moved on.

 

[EM2]

Injury or not, he could have been required to take one. The 2012 League One play-off final between Huddersfield and Sheffield United went right down the the keepers before being decided. One of the successful takers for the Blades that day was a young Harry Maguire, not sure whatever happened to him...

Not the only time either. West Ham beat Everton 9-8 in a 2015 FA Cup R3 replay shootout, with Adrián scoring the winning penalty after compatriot Robles hit the crossbar.

 

[Domh245]

I guess it's wrong for Lee Mckenzie to present, and provide analysis/punditry on, the completely male competitor Formula One.

Pedantic point of order, Lee doesn't really do any punditry or analysis, she just interviews the drivers after each session, for which "any old journalist" will do. The pundits and analysts are the likes of DC, Mark Webber, Damon Hill, Martin Brundle, Ant Davidson, Karun Chandok, and Susie Wolff, all of whom have actually driven racing cars. Also note that the 'anchor' doesn't need to have any sort of relevant sporting experience to front coverage, and indeed it works well in terms of connecting the drivers, pundits, and the wider audience (eg Simon Lazenby, Jake Humphries, Suzi Perry, etc)

 

[AlterEgo]

Fundamentally wrong?

So, presumably its fundamentally wrong for Sue Barker, Sam Smith, Martina Navratilova, Celina Hinchcliffe, Tracy Austin, Billie Jean King and more, to present, commentate, provide expert analysis/punditry on men's matches for the BBC at Wimbledon. All the above have done so this year.

I guess it's wrong for Lee Mckenzie to present, and provide analysis/punditry on, the completely male competitor Formula One.

Then there's mens Snooker on the BBC. What on earth is a woman, who's never played the game, doing being the main presenter? Hazel Irvine is surely not welcome by your reckoning.

All do an excellent job, despite the hurdles put in their way in a male dominated workplace. All are excellent presenters/commentators/pundits regardless of the sex of the competitor(s) they are talking about. The female ex-competitors can have just as good an insight into male competitors regardless of their playing career. If a journalist who's never played a particulate sport can analyse and opinionate, then a woman who's actually played the sport can do so to. Regardless of the competitors sex.

Your attitude belongs in the mid 20th century. The media sporting coverage world has, unlike you, moved on.

I don’t know anything of the differences between any of those sports, none of which I have any expertise in, unlike football, which I played semi professionally.

I’m entirely correct about the differences between men’s and women’s football and you haven’t actually tried to argue why I’m wrong. It’s simply not correct to say that female professionals will understand the male game and offer insight on that basis, and equally it’s incorrect for male professionals to offer their irrelevant insight in the women’s game.

There’s nothing wrong with women presenters or commentators as per your list. They’re not there to give their professional experience. The pundits are. That’s a different role.

Could you let me know why you think the opinions of Aluko and Scott are worth the airtime in the Men’s World Cup, instead of just being snide?

 

[Antman]

Fundamentally wrong?

So, presumably its fundamentally wrong for Sue Barker, Sam Smith, Martina Navratilova, Celina Hinchcliffe, Tracy Austin, Billie Jean King and more, to present, commentate, provide expert analysis/punditry on men's matches for the BBC at Wimbledon. All the above have done so this year.

I guess it's wrong for Lee Mckenzie to present, and provide analysis/punditry on, the completely male competitor Formula One.

Then there's mens Snooker on the BBC. What on earth is a woman, who's never played the game, doing being the main presenter? Hazel Irvine is surely not welcome by your reckoning.

All do an excellent job, despite the hurdles put in their way in a male dominated workplace. All are excellent presenters/commentators/pundits regardless of the sex of the competitor(s) they are talking about. The female ex-competitors can have just as good an insight into male competitors regardless of their playing career. If a journalist who's never played a particulate sport can analyse and opinionate, then a woman who's actually played the sport can do so to. Regardless of the competitors sex.

Your attitude belongs in the mid 20th century. The media sporting coverage world has, unlike you, moved on.

I think suggesting somebody's attitude belongs in a previous century just because you don't agree with them is a bit crass quite honestly.

Funnily enough my wife questioned the need for female pundits.

 

[AlterEgo]

I think suggesting somebody's attitude belongs in a previous century just because you don't agree with them is a bit crass quite honestly.

Funnily enough my wife questioned the need for female pundits.

As did my mother (someone who knows pip all about football), and my dad, who is a former international footballer.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

I think suggesting somebody's attitude belongs in a previous century just because you don't agree with them is a bit crass quite honestly. Funnily enough my wife questioned the need for female pundits.

In Anglo-Indian use in the early 19th century, a Pundit was the name associated to a native male inhabitant of India who was both trained and employed by the British. As far as I can establish, there were never any females ever in post in such a role.

 

[Antman]

In Anglo-Indian use in the early 19th century, a Pundit was the name associated to a native male inhabitant of India who was both trained and employed by the British. As far as I can establish, there were never any females ever in post in such a role.

I'll try and remember that for the pub quiz!

 

[EM2]

I’m entirely correct about the differences between men’s and women’s football and you haven’t actually tried to argue why I’m wrong.

While the differences you posted do exist, are they so substantially different to make the views of female pundits redundant? I'd say not.
Football is a simple game. Try and get the ball in their goal more times than you let them get it in yours. The rest of it is just flannel really.
And I've played semi-pro too (at a very low level, admittedly).

 

[AlterEgo]

While the differences you posted do exist, are they so substantially different to make the views of female pundits redundant? I'd say not.
Football is a simple game. Try and get the ball in their goal more times than you let them get it in yours. The rest of it is just flannel really.
And I've played semi-pro too (at a very low level, admittedly).

The premise is simple but the execution at a professional level certainly isn’t. If it wasn’t, why aren’t you and I pundits?

 

[EM2]

The premise is simple but the execution at a professional level certainly isn’t. If it wasn’t, why aren’t you and I pundits?

I reckon we could be

 

[Cowley]

I reckon we could be

Yeah you should be.
I’d listen to both of you.

 

[Cowley]

Mind you, that’s not saying much.

Edit - You’d probably make quite a good double act actually...

 

[EM2]

Mind you, that’s not saying much.

Edit - You’d probably make quite a good double act actually...

As long as we don't talk about politics...

 

[Cowley]

As long as we don't talk about politics...

Good point.

 

[bnm]

Could you let me know why you think the opinions of Aluko and Scott are worth the airtime in the Men’s World Cup, instead of just being snide?

Excellent additions to the line-up. A refreshing change from having to listen to the likes of Shearer, Lawrenson, O'Neil and Hoddle.

Despite their experience on the field, their analysis is often just banal. Or plain silly. Here's some expert analysis from Hoddle during the England v Colombia game, before a free kick:

"It'll either be a left footer or a right footer."

Really Glenn? I thought he'd hit it with his c**k.

Jermaine Jenas has his moments, but often just starts his replies to Lineker or fellow pundits by repeating what they've just said.

I've been very impressed with the insight and enthusiasm shown by Alex Scott.

'Today at Wimbledon' regularly has expert analysis on both the men's and women's matches from ex-pros of both sexes. Pre-match expert analysis of Kyle Edmund's (the last British hope at Wimbledon in the Singles) 2nd round match today was provided by Samantha Smith.

I can't understand the logic shown here that suggests it's okay for women to report on or present a particular sport but not provide expert insight having competed in said sport, at whatever level.

Susie Wolff is a far better analyst than Eddie Jordan in F1. Despite her having never competed at the highest level of motorsport.

Watching the sport, competing in the sport (whatever the level), knowing the sport, loving the sport. An ability to string a coherent sentence together on camera. That's all that's needed to provide analysis. It's not about the 'level' one has competed at. There's plenty of male football analysts who've never attained 'World Cup' level. Doesn't preclude them.

 

[Howardh]

I love it when you have the option to watch a sport commentator-free (as you used to on Sky football and still can if the options are available on Eurosport player)

 

[61653 HTAFC]

I don’t know anything of the differences between any of those sports, none of which I have any expertise in, unlike football, which I played semi professionally.

Hmmm... to paraphrase those VW ads on ITVs World Cup coverage, you only semi know what you're talking about then!

 

[Darandio]

Brazil v Belgium kicks off. I'll make no score predictions, but I will await the first mention of Hazard's 'low centre of gravity'.

 

[AlterEgo]

Brazil v Belgium kicks off. I'll make no score predictions, but I will await the first mention of Hazard's 'low centre of gravity'.

Brazil to win, by at least two goals I think.

 

[Howardh]

Brazil to win, by at least two goals I think.

They'll need three then! BEL go one up thanks to a Brazilian goal, beautifully handballed (well, upper-armed) past his own keeper.

 

[BlueFox]

2-0 to Belgium

 

[61653 HTAFC]

Two of the three best sides in the competition on display here, France being the other. England probably fourth.

We may see an all-European last six...
More likely now as De Bruyne finishes a brilliant Belgian move!

 

[AlterEgo]

Brazil will still win this I think.

 

[Domh245]

Should be a cracker of a second half then!

 

[61653 HTAFC]

2-1 now, game on!

 

[AlterEgo]

Brazil going to win this 4-2.

 

[Darandio]

Roberto Martinez frozen on the touchline. Should be very recognisable to Everton and Wigan fans.

History repeating itself.

 

[Kite159]

Brazil going to win this 4-2.

Nah, 3-2 with the Brazil goal coming in the last minute of stoppage time

 

[61653 HTAFC]

Belgium will hang on.

(He typed, as Brazil have a penalty shout...)