Token women commentators in men’rt

Ironicname

anewme wrote:

I'm not sure what you mean by 'certain roles suit a specific sex.

As an example, men generally are more suited to manual labour due to the fact they are typically genetically stronger.

anewme wrote:

Discrimination on the grounds of sex is illegal.

I know. So what level playing field are you talking about? There are laws to ensure that there is a level playing field.

The Orb

FunLover18 wrote: »

But again I'll ask what I asked a previous poster, what aspect of the men's game would someone like Alex Scott struggle to comprehend? Where is she lacking in analytical ability?

I didn't talk about Alex Scott or her's or any other female pundit's comprehension or lack of. I did mention that comprehension or knowledge of the theory is not enough. My point is that the women panellists are tokens, they may comprehend the game but never ever played at anything approaching the level of the men. It's the same with rugby. I'm all for women playing rugby if they want, but the standard is frankly brutal and nothing like the men's game and in the interests of equality we have to pretend that it's a good watch. Give me a break.

StupidLikeAFox

Ironicname wrote: »

As an example, men generally are more suited to manual labour due to the fact they are typically genetically stronger.

That's a physical trait and has nothing to do with someone's ability to talk ****e about football

Ironicname

StupidLikeAFox wrote:

That's a physical trait and has nothing to do with someone's ability to talk ****e about football

I am aware of that. It was to clarify a statement that someone else did not understand. Wasn't directly related to the op.

Look, having a female footballer on television to talk about male football is hardly an affront and isn't a huge deal, but it does smack of tokenism and sexism.

It's a shame as I'm sure there are some women who would be a great fit and bring some great points to a discussion, but the whole "insisting that women are represented in every show" policy has (sometimes unfairly) made a lot of women mere tokens rather than worthwhile contributers.

A man or a woman shouldn't be given a job just to pander to any type of inclusive or progressive social movement. It's demeaning.

Just like the BBC having the "must be at least 1 female on a panel show" policy, that is sexism and insulting.

StupidLikeAFox

But why are you assuming that the women are there due to tokenism? You say you would be happy to have a woman talking ****e about sport on merit, maybe they are?

Women should be on womens sports, men should be on mens. It’s not that difficult.

chopperbyrne

They have Clinton Morisson on Soccer Saturday now. My four year old daughter would do a better job.

Bowlardo

chopperbyrne wrote: »

They have Clinton Morisson on Soccer Saturday now. My four year old daughter would do a better job.

Hold up there son. Clinton is one of our own

JRant

Raconteuse wrote: »

I think it would be worth drilling it down a bit - and considering that maybe it's not tokenism in all cases.

You'd turn it off just because members of your own sex are among the pundits? Bit extreme.

Also your bit about ability contradicts the previous bit about "no matter how knowledgeable they may be". If they are knowledgeable and able to deliver well on TV, isn't that the ability bit covered?

Joanne Cantwell and Jacqui Hurley are very knowledgeable about GAA I believe, so what's the problem in their cases?

I like Jacqui, she's an excellent sports analyst. Cantwell, I can't really warm too. She is far too abrasive for the anchor role on the Sunday game.

Brian?

Silentcorner wrote: »

It's not a gender thing though...if you are into the punditry you will want to hear from people who have lived at the highest level of the game....women aren't anywhere near that.....

If they included an amateur or a 15 year bloke it would be the same....but because it's a woman we aren't supposed to question it.

That is of course, if you are into punditry!!!

Some of the greatest managers ever never played at the top of the game. Mourinho got his start as an interpreter.

If they have a great knowledge of the game, let them at it.

Every female pundit I've seen on RTE is better than Ray Houghton and Jim Beglin.

My 7 year old son would make a better pundit than most of the line up on BBC.

Brian?

chopperbyrne wrote: »

They have Clinton Morisson on Soccer Saturday now. My four year old daughter would do a better job.

I saw him a few weeks ago. He's wooojus.

Dyr

dobman88 wrote: »

Joanne Cantwell and Jacqui Hurley the 2 best sports broadcasters in RTE imo. Watch Allianz League Sunday tonight and then watch the Sunday game during the summer when Des Cahill is hosting. Absolutely no comparison, Joanne miles better. Jacqui Hurleys knowledge would put most people to shame and it's a pity shes not used more on telly.

Cantwell is absolutely brutal and always was brutal.

I don't want to hear a camogie player giving me their opinion on a hurling match any more than I want to hear a minor hurler or some lad who last played when the sunday game was in black and white

RTE is absolutely woeful at this stuff and the fact they thought the biggest change they needed to make was have some mná na héireann on panels tells you why they're woeful

Dyr

anewme wrote: »

I answered in my post if you read it.

A pundits job is to engage the public.

Do you work for RTE?

Pundits should understand whats going on out on the pitch to a greater degree than the viewer and be able to explain. The big drawback with watching stuff on telly is you literally dont see the bigger picture, you dont see whats happening outside the cameras field. Good pundits fill that void and can point out things the average joe doesnt understand.

Brian?

Ironicname wrote: »

Competing at that level. There are countless more men that have played at the level she hasn't and she would be included purely for "progressive" reasons ahead of those men. She would be exceptionally qualified to speak about women's football.

The pundits I see that have played at that level are generally muck at being pundits.

I can't think of one pundit (Brian Kerr aside)I genuinely enjoy listening to anymore. There's a few I can tolerate because they speak their minds. Mostly it's bland nonsense.

Give me an intelligent woman with a point to make over some numpty who used to play for Spurs ant day .

Brian?

Bambi wrote: »

Do you work for RTE?

Pundits should understand whats going on out on the pitch to a greater degree than the viewer and be able to explain. The big drawback with watching stuff on telly is you literally dont see the bigger picture, you dont see whats happening outside the cameras field. Good pundits fill that void and can point out things the average joe doesnt understand.

I haven't seen a pundit do that in years. All they do these days is talk about refereeing decisions or whether the team selection was right.

greenspurs

Soccer republic - Siobhan Madigan does voice over on some of the matches, but for some reason she 'pretends' to be there live.
All the other voice over/commentators, do the 'normal' way of commentating on a edited piece, but for some reason , she does it as if whats going to happen is a surprise to her.
Its annoying, because I do like her as a broadcaster and presenter...

Silentcorner

Brian? wrote: »

Some of the greatest managers ever never played at the top of the game. Mourinho got his start as an interpreter.

If they have a great knowledge of the game, let them at it.

Every female pundit I've seen on RTE is better than Ray Houghton and Jim Beglin.

My 7 year old son would make a better pundit than most of the line up on BBC.

Stunning and brave!!!!

Right...this is just about appearing virtuous to the like's of you I see....

El_Duderino 09

The snooker coverage and commentary is very variable. It's almost all former pros with some current players who are knocked out early in tournaments.

The only woman pundit it Reane Evans (best ever woman snooker player by a long way) and she has interesting views but is a complete personality vacuum. With that said, the other pros on Quest are Jimmy white, Ronnie o Sullivan and Neil Foulds and they are all terrible. Genuinely terrible. Ronnie and Jimmy are massive names and are or were top pros. But they can't talk about the sport for toffee.

I think that simply being the very best isn't enough. They also need to be able to talk about it.

There was a similar thread about Ronan O Gara analysing he rugby. He's a current professional head coach of a top tier French club. He has all the knowledge and insights but he isn't good at the TV side of analysis.

I know some people love the men vs women aspect, but actually it's about having people with the golden combination of both the knowledge and insights AND can chat about it on TV.

Gretas Gonna Get Ya!

People quite often forget, that punditry is used by ex-players to get their face on TV with a view to getting employment opportunities... (In fact, this is pretty much the only reason why we're seeing so much of Roy Keane's grumpy mug with such frequency!:P)

Now, while you might not care if some rich ex-player gets a managerial job or not... this is MEN'S sport, so they do have the right to become pundits with this motivation in mind. But if some token woman is taking up a seat as one of these pundits, this will have an impact on some of these ex-players and whether or not they will be successful in becoming a manager or coach in the future!

And what is it really motivated by anyway? So a few self-hating soyboy men can score some PC brownie points, and feel all sophisticated and ultra-progressive around their equally deluded brain-dead buddies on the golf course! These women are merely pawns in their pointless little game!

Jim Root

can't turn on sports tv these days without seeing Alex scott.

Brian?

Silentcorner wrote: »

Stunning and brave!!!!

Right...this is just about appearing virtuous to the like's of you I see....

No. It’s about an intense dislike for Ray and Jim.

Jim Root

Jim Root wrote: »

can't turn on sports tv these days without seeing Alex scott.

And long may it continue.

Brian?

Jim Root wrote: »

can't turn on sports tv these days without seeing Alex scott.

Who’s Alex Scott. I watch everything from cycling to tiddlywinks and have no idea.

Gretas Gonna Get Ya!

Brian? wrote: »

Who’s Alex Scott. I watch everything from cycling to tiddlywinks and have no idea.

She is sky sports token female pundit... every progressive's wet dream basically! Folks struggling not to soil themselves, every time she opens her mouth! :P

She's an average pundit - but somehow gets rave reviews, just because she has a vagina!

Everyone got butthurt recently, because Graeme Souness cut her off mid sentence... which had nothing to do with her gender, and everything to do with the mundane point she was labouring to make!

I've nothing against her personally btw. I don't actually blame her trying to get a better job in men's football. I blame the people so eager to use her for their own foolish agenda!

Brian?

Gretas Gonna Get Ya! wrote: »

She is sky sports token female pundit... every progressive's wet dream basically! Folks struggling not to soil themselves, every time she opens her mouth! :P

She's an average pundit - but somehow gets rave reviews, just because she has a vagina!

Everyone got butthurt recently, because Graeme Souness cut her off mid sentence... which had nothing to do with her gender, and everything to do with the mundane point she was labouring to make!

I've nothing against her personally btw. I don't actually blame her trying to get a better job in men's football. I blame the people so eager to use her for their own foolish agenda!

In argument involving Souness, I’m on the other side. I’d say I’m not he only one.

I think I’ve seen her on Sky Sports. She was just as bland as the rest of them.

JRant

Brian? wrote: »

No. It’s about an intense dislike for Ray and Jim.

Without a doubt, you can add Ronnie Whelan to that list of awful commentators.

Soccer and GAA have awful commentators in the main. Just bland ****é talk without adding any real value to it. Compare that to Tony Romo in the NFL coverage as it's clear the difference in quality is huge.

andekwarhola

It's always ironic to demand that every pundit be an ex pro at the highest level yet every workplace, pub and indeed, football thread in boards, is full of people talking sh1te about football having never played at even a decent schoolboy level.

As for pundits, just because they played at a high level doesn't mean they can analyse the game in a way that is cogent and interesting to viewers that haven't played at that level. They being, after all, the overwhelming majority of the viewership.

suicide_circus

do men do commentary for women's sports? i presume they do. dont see an issue tbh . it is tokensim but you won't notice it after a while.

ohnonotgmail

Gretas Gonna Get Ya! wrote: »

She is sky sports token female pundit... every progressive's wet dream basically! Folks struggling not to soil themselves, every time she opens her mouth! :P

She's an average pundit - but somehow gets rave reviews, just because she has a vagina!

Everyone got butthurt recently, because Graeme Souness cut her off mid sentence... which had nothing to do with her gender, and everything to do with the mundane point she was labouring to make!

I've nothing against her personally btw. I don't actually blame her trying to get a better job in men's football. I blame the people so eager to use her for their own foolish agenda!

most pundits are average. she is no worse than the men doing the same job.

Gretas Gonna Get Ya!

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

most pundits are average. she is no worse than the men doing the same job.

If you were talking about the board of directors in some real world business setting, you would be correct in that way of thinking.

But this is men's professional football... there is zero obligation to employ female pundits. (Or referees/linesmen etc) It is one of those rare sections of society, where it should be perfectly acceptable to favour one gender over the other!

And so my point is, that men should be given these punditry jobs over women... they should be given complete priority. It's their sport. There is nothing sexist about this view either.

And I think the same should be the case for women's sport too. (More women need to take an interest in their own sports, for this to change!)

ohnonotgmail

Gretas Gonna Get Ya! wrote: »

If you were talking about the board of directors in some real world business setting, you would be correct in that way of thinking.

But this is men's professional football... there is zero obligation to employ female pundits. (Or referees/linesmen etc) It is one of those rare sections of society, where is should be perfectly acceptable to favour one gender over the other!

And so my point is, that men should be given these punditry jobs over women... they should be given complete priority. It's their sport. There is nothing sexist about this view either.

And I think the same should be the case for women's sport too. (More women need to take an interest in their own sports, for this to change!)

well that is just total bollix.

Gretas Gonna Get Ya!

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

well that is just total bollix.

Why?

str8talkingguy

There are token women getting these jobs now but your irritation isn't coming from this op,its coming from them being insecure in their positions because they feel like the token women and they often don't relax and be trotting out cliche after cliche.If they settle and start to give their own opinions the feeling of irritation will go away.

Nobody needs ex pros to make a good pundit either,you just need people willing and unafraid to voice their own opinions and thoughts,back in the early days of Dunphy for a couple years i didn't realise Dunphy was en ex pro i thought he was just a journalist,but it didn't make me less want to hear him because he wasn't afraid to voice an opinion,once the women become comfortable and voice their opinions instead of a line of cliches they will fit right in.

ohnonotgmail

Gretas Gonna Get Ya! wrote: »

Why?

mens Football and womens football is the same game. there are no differences. Pundits should be chosen based on ability and nothing else. Former players do not have a right to earn a living as a pundit

Raconteuse

In the 90s there were numerous female - not pundits but presenters and reporters on Sky Sports football programmes. E.g. Gabby Logan, Gabby Yorath, Kirsty Gallacher... and nobody gave a sh1t.

I get the feeling that this is just part of the "Waaaah, women have it better" narrative everywhere these past few years.

Gretas Gonna Get Ya!

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

mens Football and womens football is the same game. there are no differences. Pundits should be chosen based on ability and nothing else. Former players do not have a right to earn a living as a pundit

No they're not. Both forbid mixed genders to compete with each other. They are gender specific.

Also... It may have the same rules, but the standards are nowhere near the same!

There is no obligation to hire women, in men's professional football.

People's instinct is to apply the same rules we apply in general society, regarding equal opportunities for both genders... but a gender specific sport is not the same as other areas of society!

There is absolutely nothing sexist, if someone decided that they only wanted male pundits in men's professional football. If women were blocked from taking these jobs, there would be nothing sexist about that decision!

ThewhiteJesus

Raconteuse wrote: »

In the 90s there were numerous female - not pundits but presenters and reporters on Sky Sports football programmes. E.g. Gabby Logan, Gabby Yorath, Kirsty Gallacher... and nobody gave a sh1t.

I get the feeling that this is just part of the "Waaaah, women have it better" narrative everywhere these past few years.

I'm the op, and again i like female sports so your comments cannot be directed at me, but the tokenism point still stands, and it's taken away from the enjoyment side of things especially with the punditry and analysis, the games are different by nature. Gabby still does a weekend sports show afaik but the other two simply read news

FunLover18

The Orb wrote: »

I didn't talk about Alex Scott or her's or any other female pundit's comprehension or lack of. I did mention that comprehension or knowledge of the theory is not enough. My point is that the women panellists are tokens, they may comprehend the game but never ever played at anything approaching the level of the men. It's the same with rugby. I'm all for women playing rugby if they want, but the standard is frankly brutal and nothing like the men's game and in the interests of equality we have to pretend that it's a good watch. Give me a break.

What is enough then? A penis? I've admitted there's tokenism involved of course there is but they picked woman who has played professionally for years and knows the game so why isn't that enough. If the standard of the women's game isn't affecting her comprehension or knowledge why would she struggle to do punditry on a men's game?

IAMAMORON

Raconteuse wrote: »

In the 90s there were numerous female - not pundits but presenters and reporters on Sky Sports football programmes. E.g. Gabby Logan, Gabby Yorath, Kirsty Gallacher... and nobody gave a sh1t.

I get the feeling that this is just part of the "Waaaah, women have it better" narrative everywhere these past few years.

No, the reason those women were on the show was to attract male viewers. Not dissimilar to having a cracking looking lounge girl ( sorry I should have said lounge person ) working in a pub. Kirsty Gallagher is a ride whose Dad was a successful golfer, they are presenting the show, not offering analysis of the sport.

If anything their inclusion on those shows should have been infuriating the more militant feminists, as it was their sexual attractiveness which was being exploited to promote the show.

You rarely see ugly women reading the sports news on Sky, do you?

Kirsty Gallagher

Gabby Yorath / Logan

Stevieluvsye

Raconteuse wrote: »

In the 90s there were numerous female - not pundits but presenters and reporters on Sky Sports football programmes. E.g. Gabby Logan, Gabby Yorath, Kirsty Gallacher... and nobody gave a sh1t.

I get the feeling that this is just part of the "Waaaah, women have it better" narrative everywhere these past few years.

LOL

Same person

Gretas Gonna Get Ya!

Raconteuse wrote: »

In the 90s there were numerous female - not pundits but presenters and reporters on Sky Sports football programmes. E.g. Gabby Logan, Gabby Yorath, Kirsty Gallacher... and nobody gave a sh1t.

I get the feeling that this is just part of the "Waaaah, women have it better" narrative everywhere these past few years.

You forgot Kelly Dalglish!

Who for me, puts someone like Alex Scott to shame with her vastly superior knowledge of the game... but Kelly also has the respect of most players, because she grew up around and completely immersed in the male game, and is the daughter of a famous ex-player!

She also knows when to shut up, and let the ex-pros discuss things... like all great presenters should (Regardless of gender).

There is a difference between a presenter and a pundit too btw. A presenter doesn't necessarily need to have vast knowledge on the subject they are presenting (it helps of course)... but they need to know how to present a show. It's a skill in and of itself.

ohnonotgmail

Gretas Gonna Get Ya! wrote: »

No they're not. Both forbid mixed genders to compete with each other. They are gender specific.

Also... It may have the same rules, but the standards are nowhere near the same!

There is no obligation to hire women, in men's professional football.

People's instinct is to apply the same rules we apply in general society, regarding equal opportunities for both genders... but a gender specific sport is not the same as other areas of society!

There is absolutely nothing sexist, if someone decided that they only wanted male pundits in men's professional football. If women were blocked from taking these jobs, there would be nothing sexist about that decision!

football is not a gender specific sport. Next you will try to tell me that the 100m dash is a gender specific sport. the sport is the same.

Gretas Gonna Get Ya!

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

football is not a gender specific sport. Next you will try to tell me that the 100m dash is a gender specific sport. the sport is the same.

It's not a mixed gender sport, so they are different.

You're just being obtuse now... I'll leave you to it.

(I've seen enough of your "debates" around here, to have the sense to know when to walk away! :P)

Silentcorner

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

football is not a gender specific sport. Next you will try to tell me that the 100m dash is a gender specific sport. the sport is the same.

Football tests different parts of the male physical and mental capabilities, the obvious ones are speed, endurance etc but it also tests a man's spacial awareness, certain positions test that more than others, but that is football intelligence and the higher the level a man plays, the more football intelligence is required.

Can an amateur play the game and enjoy, of course...will an amateur have the required level of football intelligence to be a capable pundit....that is very very unlikely.

Can women play the sport, course they can....just at a drastically lower standard than men can.

Punditry should reflect that...but it no longer does...

IAMAMORON

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

football is not a gender specific sport. Next you will try to tell me that the 100m dash is a gender specific sport. the sport is the same.

But you would have to admit that the standard of women's soccer is atrocious in compared to the men's game? The same for Rugby as far as I can see?

I mean I have no problem watching a women's Tennis match, or watching athletics, but the soccer is rubbish, I mean that.

Raconteuse

Stevieluvsye wrote: »

LOL

Same person

D'oh!

Anna Walker was another one.

It does look very whingey though.

There are comments like "100% tokens" - I've asked why. Not a word in response of course though. It really depends on the sport.

Someone even admitted Kelly Dalglish knows her stuff while at the same time going on about it being tokenism. There you go - knowing your stuff should surely be enough.

I sure as sh1t don't think people should be hired just based on their sex, but this thread is being used as an opportunity to be derogatory. E.g. "The way it is now is fine i.e females doing a bit of punditry here and there, commentating on a match no one is too arsed with etc.

But tbh if I tuned into the champions league final or mens WC final and I heard a woman giving it all that, I’d be fuming. 

Need some George Hamilton or Martin Tyler talking bollocks. Not some wan." - wow, the hostility is strong.

ThewhiteJesus

IAMAMORON wrote: »

But you would have to admit that the standard of women's soccer is atrocious in compared to the men's game? The same for Rugby as far as I can see?

I mean I have no problem watching a women's Tennis match, or watching athletics, but the soccer is rubbish, I mean that.

it's just different, soccer in particular, i watch a good bit of women's soccer and while the skills are all there, and hard work ect, there is no real physicality.
It's just gender instinct a woman will pull out of the real tough aggressive challenge to avoid injury, where as a man will go in full pelt regardless of consequence. You could argue what's the smarter move but i much prefer watching a war on the pitch and then pundits explaining from experience what i've just seen

akelly02

the one one sky sports 'describing' the action between man city and man utd yesterday should be shot

sbsquarepants

Jim Root wrote: »

can't turn on sports tv these days without seeing Alex scott.

I personally can't see enough of her - that woman is a work of art!

I don't see the problem with women commentators if they know what they are talking about (which Alex does I suppose) So what if she didn't compete at the same level?

Being a good player / manager / pundit are not interchangeable terms.

ohnonotgmail

Silentcorner wrote: »

Football tests different parts of the male physical and mental capabilities, the obvious ones are speed, endurance etc but it also tests a man's spacial awareness, certain positions test that more than others, but that is football intelligence and the higher the level a man plays, the more football intelligence is required.

Can an amateur play the game and enjoy, of course...will an amateur have the required level of football intelligence to be a capable pundit....that is very very unlikely.

Can women play the sport, course they can....just at a drastically lower standard than men can.

Punditry should reflect that...but it no longer does...

and that is why the best players always make the best pundits, right?