People are always complaining about Danny Murphy and a few othe pundits and commentators but I, personally, much prefer listening to them than the token women pundits and commentators that are plaguing this tournament so far. I want to hear only from pundits who have played or managed at this level of football. Why should I be subjected to second rate punditry and commentary just because the TV companies are trying to match gender quotas?
Why does being a woman automatically make it second rate punditry?
The sentence before that quote answers that question.
Ok but most (if not all) of the women pundits have also played in World Cups so what's the point?
Because it’s not the same. Should you have 16 year olds on the panel because they’ve played at the U17 World Cup?
Lol that's a nice strawman argument. Yes it's definitely the same.
140 full international caps and three World Cups but still not good enough because she's female. By your reasoning, no women will ever be allowed give their opinion on the men's game. ( See what I did there? :-) )
It's probably jarring if you grew up with Des Lynam, Alan Hansen and Mark Lawrenson but get used to it because women pundits are here to stay.
One for trivia fans. Just read that if Rafael Marquez plays for Mexico in this tournament he will join an exclusive club of players who have appeared in five World Cups. Can anyone name the three players who have achieved this feat? Two are relatively recent but one is going back to the 50s/60s.
One for trivia fans. Just read that if Rafael Marquez plays for Mexico in this tournament he will join an exclusive club of players who have appeared in five World Cups. Can anyone name the three players who have achieved this feat? Two are relatively recent but one is going back to the 50s/60s.
One for trivia fans. Just read that if Rafael Marquez plays for Mexico in this tournament he will join an exclusive club of players who have appeared in five World Cups. Can anyone name the three players who have achieved this feat? Two are relatively recent but one is going back to the 50s/60s.
The excrutiating Mark Lawrenson in the commentary box. Took him half an hour but the dismal quips are now coming thick and fast.
Commentator mentions something about a new ball being required berceuse the original has burst. "New balls, that's not for a couple of weeks is it?!", presumably referencing the fact that Wimbledon starts soon. What is that? Is it supposed to be a joke?! It's a waste of sound, my ears have had to go through the effort of hearing that.
Really need to hear a commentator tell him to just shut the f#ck up live on air.
Must be one of the minority yet quite like Lawrenson as he tells it how it is... i.e. that challenge then, he's probably right, the french bloke must have gone down due to a dislocated shoelace
The excrutiating Mark Lawrenson in the commentary box. Took him half an hour but the dismal quips are now coming thick and fast.
Commentator mentions something about a new ball being required berceuse the original has burst. "New balls, that's not for a couple of weeks is it?!", presumably referencing the fact that Wimbledon starts soon. What is that? Is it supposed to be a joke?! It's a waste of sound, my ears have had to go through the effort of hearing that.
Really need to hear a commentator tell him to just shut the f#ck up live on air.
Turned the sound off five minutes ago. Give me a woman who hasn't played at this level any day over that waste of space.
People are always complaining about Danny Murphy and a few othe pundits and commentators but I, personally, much prefer listening to them than the token women pundits and commentators that are plaguing this tournament so far. I want to hear only from pundits who have played or managed at this level of football. Why should I be subjected to second rate punditry and commentary just because the TV companies are trying to match gender quotas?
Why does being a woman automatically make it second rate punditry?
The sentence before that quote answers that question.
Ok but most (if not all) of the women pundits have also played in World Cups so what's the point?
Because it’s not the same. Should you have 16 year olds on the panel because they’ve played at the U17 World Cup?
Lol that's a nice strawman argument. Yes it's definitely the same.
140 full international caps and three World Cups but still not good enough because she's female. By your reasoning, no women will ever be allowed give their opinion on the men's game. ( See what I did there? :-) )
It's probably jarring if you grew up with Des Lynam, Alan Hansen and Mark Lawrenson but get used to it because women pundits are here to stay.
What? Did you reply to the wrong person? I never said women shouldn’t be allowed to give their opinion on the men’s game. I answered your question about why their opinions might be ‘second rate’.
Pogba once again having a stinker. Commentator saying that Deschamps has been wondering how to get the best out of him. How about 'if he doesn't perform, then don't play him'. Why should he start just because he's Pogba and once cost 90m?
The excrutiating Mark Lawrenson in the commentary box. Took him half an hour but the dismal quips are now coming thick and fast.
Commentator mentions something about a new ball being required berceuse the original has burst. "New balls, that's not for a couple of weeks is it?!", presumably referencing the fact that Wimbledon starts soon. What is that? Is it supposed to be a joke?! It's a waste of sound, my ears have had to go through the effort of hearing that.
Really need to hear a commentator tell him to just shut the f#ck up live on air.
But he has made the point about France not pressing the ball a couple of times now. I had not noticed until he pointed it out.
People are always complaining about Danny Murphy and a few othe pundits and commentators but I, personally, much prefer listening to them than the token women pundits and commentators that are plaguing this tournament so far. I want to hear only from pundits who have played or managed at this level of football. Why should I be subjected to second rate punditry and commentary just because the TV companies are trying to match gender quotas?
Why does being a woman automatically make it second rate punditry?
The sentence before that quote answers that question.
Ok but most (if not all) of the women pundits have also played in World Cups so what's the point?
Because it’s not the same. Should you have 16 year olds on the panel because they’ve played at the U17 World Cup?
Lol that's a nice strawman argument. Yes it's definitely the same.
140 full international caps and three World Cups but still not good enough because she's female. By your reasoning, no women will ever be allowed give their opinion on the men's game. ( See what I did there? :-) )
It's probably jarring if you grew up with Des Lynam, Alan Hansen and Mark Lawrenson but get used to it because women pundits are here to stay.
What? Did you reply to the wrong person? I never said women shouldn’t be allowed to give their opinion on the men’s game. I answered your question about why their opinions might be ‘second rate’.
Might be second rate? The implication of the posts is that women pundits are second rate due to some perceived lack of experience.
But that was more to play you at your own game: "Oh if women are allowed then lets allow the U17s".
best thing about this aussie team is how strong they are. some cracking interceptions and tackles. just need to try and get the ball behind the French defenders on the wing, quick cross, goal. come on you Kangaroos!!!
One for trivia fans. Just read that if Rafael Marquez plays for Mexico in this tournament he will join an exclusive club of players who have appeared in five World Cups. Can anyone name the three players who have achieved this feat? Two are relatively recent but one is going back to the 50s/60s.
Without Googling but Tim Cahill must have done a few now maybe?
One for trivia fans. Just read that if Rafael Marquez plays for Mexico in this tournament he will join an exclusive club of players who have appeared in five World Cups. Can anyone name the three players who have achieved this feat? Two are relatively recent but one is going back to the 50s/60s.
Without Googling but Tim Cahill must have done a few now maybe?
One for trivia fans. Just read that if Rafael Marquez plays for Mexico in this tournament he will join an exclusive club of players who have appeared in five World Cups. Can anyone name the three players who have achieved this feat? Two are relatively recent but one is going back to the 50s/60s.
Without Googling but Tim Cahill must have done a few now maybe?
The article I read says Lothar Matthaus, Buffon and Antonio Carbajal for Mexico. If Italy had qualified for this one Buffon would have had an incredible six World Cups, although I think he was just a squad member in 1998.
People are always complaining about Danny Murphy and a few othe pundits and commentators but I, personally, much prefer listening to them than the token women pundits and commentators that are plaguing this tournament so far. I want to hear only from pundits who have played or managed at this level of football. Why should I be subjected to second rate punditry and commentary just because the TV companies are trying to match gender quotas?
Why does being a woman automatically make it second rate punditry?
The sentence before that quote answers that question.
Ok but most (if not all) of the women pundits have also played in World Cups so what's the point?
Because it’s not the same. Should you have 16 year olds on the panel because they’ve played at the U17 World Cup?
Lol that's a nice strawman argument. Yes it's definitely the same.
140 full international caps and three World Cups but still not good enough because she's female. By your reasoning, no women will ever be allowed give their opinion on the men's game. ( See what I did there? :-) )
It's probably jarring if you grew up with Des Lynam, Alan Hansen and Mark Lawrenson but get used to it because women pundits are here to stay.
What? Did you reply to the wrong person? I never said women shouldn’t be allowed to give their opinion on the men’s game. I answered your question about why their opinions might be ‘second rate’.
Might be second rate? The implication of the posts is that women pundits are second rate due to some perceived lack of experience.
But that was more to play you at your own game: "Oh if women are allowed then lets allow the U17s".
Again, not what I said. You seem to be reading my posts through some sort of filter where you’re desperate for me to say something sexist or racist. Keep trying.
Comments
140 full international caps and three World Cups but still not good enough because she's female. By your reasoning, no women will ever be allowed give their opinion on the men's game. ( See what I did there? :-) )
It's probably jarring if you grew up with Des Lynam, Alan Hansen and Mark Lawrenson but get used to it because women pundits are here to stay.
(Cue a goal)
Commentator mentions something about a new ball being required berceuse the original has burst. "New balls, that's not for a couple of weeks is it?!", presumably referencing the fact that Wimbledon starts soon. What is that? Is it supposed to be a joke?! It's a waste of sound, my ears have had to go through the effort of hearing that.
Really need to hear a commentator tell him to just shut the f#ck up live on air.
If they can get a win and draw from Peru and Denmark they might be able to qualify
Holland should be looking to get van Marwijk back the way he's got them organised, no wonder he got them to the 2010 World Cup Final
But that was more to play you at your own game: "Oh if women are allowed then lets allow the U17s".
best thing about this aussie team is how strong they are. some cracking interceptions and tackles. just need to try and get the ball behind the French defenders on the wing, quick cross, goal. come on you Kangaroos!!!