Shelly Kerr

[Since90+2]

Not sure you’re applying that much logic with your argument when tennis is a sport in which men and women play to a different set of rules in grand slams, and men and women appear to play the same rules in football.

I suppose with Tennis the men and ladies games are more similar in terms of the intensity, atmosphere, attendance,media coverage ect.

The Champions League final is one of the biggest sporting events of the year across the globe. It's played out in front of huge crowds of 70,000/80,000, is watched in over 200 countries and by hundreds of millions of viewers.

I'd hazard a guess that every single person who has ever posted on this forum has watched a Champions League final. Similarly I'd imagine a tiny percentage have seen a ladies Champions League final.

Putting all that together IMO there is no comparison between the two using that example.

[Crunchie]

Out of interest see the woman’s highlights show on the other night who were the presenters and pundits?

Didn't even know there was such a show but I'll hazard a guess and say ex or present female footballers?

[James Stephen]

While I agree Marv comes across well as a pundit. I do think there’s some classic football fan hypocrisy. Boyd was slated for talking up Rangers while still at Killie. Yet we love Marv talking up Hibs despite playing for Livi.

Hate to say it, but i think Marv offers nothing. He talks in cliches, as most ex pros do.

Much better with journos in my opinion.

[GreenCastle]

I've just had a worrying thought.

We've spent the last eight pages debating whether capable female pundits should be allowed to discuss the men's game when they've never played it, yet none of us who have posted on those eight pages have ever been a pundit, so what right do we have to comment on those who are pundits?

I can’t believe some of the nonsense written on this thread.

Women’s football and men’s football are the same sport.

Men’s tennis and women’s tennis are the same sport.

If anyone thinks they aren’t - they are completely deluded.

Of course there may be different rules in tennis competitions - but like Sunday league football at the Gyle compared to International tournaments where they use VAR there are also different rules in football. Playing less sets at a grand slam and prize money is a different debate.

Do posters even know the history of women’s football ? How old it is ? The ban of the game ?

Some of the logic on here is that if you haven’t played at an elite level you can’t have an opinion. Nonsense again - what’s the point of a football forum ? Of course ex professionals may have experiences some on here haven’t had but there is no imaginary line and there are also many professionals who are thick as mince.

[Sir David Gray]

No, but that doesn't mean anything in this argument. Lets just apply some logic as opposed to starting from a point of assuming sexism is in play.

If Martina is asked ANY question about a men's Grand Slam final you'll be hanging on to her every word. She's experienced umpteen women's finals and the similarities are very obvious. Her overall tennis experience is incredible- everything she tells you will be insightful. She's a great talker and is not scared to upset somebody with what she says.

If Alex Scott was asked what's it's like preparing for a male Champions League final what could she tell us of real value? Can you honestly say it's a fair comparison?

The similarities between a women's Grand Slam final and a men's Grand Slam final really aren't obvious at all.

One match is best of three sets and the other is best of five sets. The preparation and tactics involved with both matches is completely different.

At least with football, the length of the match is the same, the size of the pitch is the same and the rules are exactly the same.

PS - I'm more than happy to listen to Martina Navratilova speaking about men's tennis, it doesn't bother me at all. I just wanted to point out the inaccuracies with what you were saying about men's and women's Grand Slam tennis being so similar compared with men's and women's football.

[Brightside]

Didn't even know there was such a show but I'll hazard a guess and say ex or present female footballers?

Go and watch it. Comms by men and women. Presented by Jane Lewis, post analysis Julie Fleeting (4 mins worth). It’s probably been made using the money saved having less male pundits on the “men’s” show. And I doubt Gary Caldwell wants to stand and watch a game at K Park.

[Crunchie]

Go and watch it. Comms by men and women. Presented by Jane Lewis, post analysis Julie Fleeting (4 mins worth). It’s probably been made using the money saved having less male pundits on the “men’s” show. And I doubt Gary Caldwell wants to stand and watch a game at K Park.
No thanks mate,not my cup of tea but each to their own :aok:

[Greenbeard]

Hate to say it, but i think Marv offers nothing. He talks in cliches, as most ex pros do.

Much better with journos in my opinion.
Hate to criticise a reveered Hibee but I agree. Marv as a pundit doesn't do it for me. What he says may be better than most (esp putting an end to the Boyle at a bigger club chat the other night) but he mumbles and usually looks like he'd rather be somewhere else. He needs some of Chris Iwelumo's enthusiasm (or whatever else it is that peps him up!)

[Dalianwanda]

I've just had a worrying thought.

We've spent the last eight pages debating whether capable female pundits should be allowed to discuss the men's game when they've never played it, yet none of us who have posted on those eight pages have ever been a pundit, so what right do we have to comment on those who are pundits?

But they are 'punditing' for us. We are the ones the punditry is intended for so yes we can decide whether they hit the mark or not. Still a subjective thing & no I dont know what goes on behind the scenes which gives us the end product, but the end products all Im bothered about.

[WeeRussell]

I suppose with Tennis the men and ladies games are more similar in terms of the intensity, atmosphere, attendance,media coverage ect.

The Champions League final is one of the biggest sporting events of the year across the globe. It's played out in front of huge crowds of 70,000/80,000, is watched in over 200 countries and by hundreds of millions of viewers.

I'd hazard a guess that every single person who has ever posted on this forum has watched a Champions League final. Similarly I'd imagine a tiny percentage have seen a ladies Champions League final.

Putting all that together IMO there is no comparison between the two using that example.

Putting that all together still doesn’t equate to women being incapable of analysing the technical side of a football game, which is the point.

[WeeRussell]

I can’t believe some of the nonsense written on this thread.

Women’s football and men’s football are the same sport.

Men’s tennis and women’s tennis are the same sport.

If anyone thinks they aren’t - they are completely deluded.

Of course there may be different rules in tennis competitions - but like Sunday league football at the Gyle compared to International tournaments where they use VAR there are also different rules in football. Playing less sets at a grand slam and prize money is a different debate.

Do posters even know the history of women’s football ? How old it is ? The ban of the game ?

Some of the logic on here is that if you haven’t played at an elite level you can’t have an opinion. Nonsense again - what’s the point of a football forum ? Of course ex professionals may have experiences some on here haven’t had but there is no imaginary line and there are also many professionals who are thick as mince.

Calm down. The differences in men’s and women’s tennis was used to highlight what a daft argument it was to say women are fit to analyse that as a male sport but not football.

The rest I agree with. Although not sure the history and age of the women’s game is really relevant.

[Since90+2]

Putting that all together still doesn’t equate to women being incapable of analysing the technical side of a football game, which is the point.

The technical side I agree with.

However the magnitude,pressure and level of media scrunity of games played at the very highest elite level in mens football are on a completely different level to the ladies game.

Michael Owen, who I think is generally a pretty poor pundit, spoke before the match last night about sharing a dressing room with Zidane and how he is as a person and how he interacted with his teammates. I found that fascinating just to hear that little bit of inside information about one of the greatest there has ever been.

[Brightside]

Personally i'd rather we didn't bother with the majority of pundits. I dont need some ex pros debating a penalty for 10 mins post a game. Its just filler. I like specific shows like MNF on SKY were they are dedicated to a review of tactics pre and post a game. Thats worth the time to watch. I have no interest in Steven Pressely, Julie Fleeting or anyone else pointing out everything that we've just watched with our own eyes.

[green leaves]

Has there ever been a more inarticulate pundit than Shelly Kerr??

Not only that her analysis is awful.

I completely agree with more gender balance in football, however England have Alex Scott, who is articulate, understands the game, likeable and relatable, compared to Skeletor in Scotland.....
Why is it necessary to mention how she looks?
Invalidates all your other points and just makes you look like a misogynistic dinosaur

[jacomo]

While I agree Marv comes across well as a pundit. I do think there’s some classic football fan hypocrisy. Boyd was slated for talking up Rangers while still at Killie. Yet we love Marv talking up Hibs despite playing for Livi.


1. Marv isn’t clearly playing to the gallery.
2. Rangers-minded Kris Boyd was just the latest in a long line of Rangers-minded pundits. It’s refreshing to hear from people who don’t see everything in terms of the Old Firm.

[jacomo]

Why is it necessary to mention how she looks?
Invalidates all your other points and just makes you look like a misogynistic dinosaur


Sorry but TV is all about appearance. Sorry you hadn’t noticed that before.

Occasionally people will get a gig despite their appearance, but it’s rare.

If you think this is misogynistic or unfair, there’s a whole industry full of commissioning editors and casting directors you need to speak to.

[green leaves]

Sorry but TV is all about appearance. Sorry you hadn’t noticed that before.

Occasionally people will get a gig despite their appearance, but it’s rare.

If you think this is misogynistic or unfair, there’s a whole industry full of commissioning editors and casting directors you need to speak to.

Pure defection.
Some neanderthals on this thread.

[GreenCastle]

The similarities between a women's Grand Slam final and a men's Grand Slam final really aren't obvious at all.

One match is best of three sets and the other is best of five sets. The preparation and tactics involved with both matches is completely different.

At least with football, the length of the match is the same, the size of the pitch is the same and the rules are exactly the same.

PS - I'm more than happy to listen to Martina Navratilova speaking about men's tennis, it doesn't bother me at all. I just wanted to point out the inaccuracies with what you were saying about men's and women's Grand Slam tennis being so similar compared with men's and women's football.

Curious to know more about the different preparation and different tactics which are used between male and female tennis ?

What happens at non grand slam events when both play best of 3 sets ?

[GreenCastle]

Calm down. The differences in men’s and women’s tennis was used to highlight what a daft argument it was to say women are fit to analyse that as a male sport but not football.

The rest I agree with. Although not sure the history and age of the women’s game is really relevant.

History and age is important as for those are unaware the women’s game hasn’t been played as long as the men’s game - the infrastructure/ support / fan bases and player pool takes time to develop.

The women’s game is growing daily as next generation comes through - it’s a fantastic option if you have a daughter who wants to play sport and the game is growing stronger all the time - just look at the last World Cup in France smashing many records on and off the pitch.

[jacomo]

Pure defection.
Some neanderthals on this thread.


I don’t disagree, but the fact remains that TV is by its nature shallow and obsessed by appearance.

Viewers - both men and women - judge and criticise the people they see on TV all the time.

Criticising Shelley Kerr’s appearance might be tedious to you but I don’t assume it’s misogyny. Frankly, she is a high profile spokesperson for the Scottish game and should represent it in the best possible light. Some enthusiasm and looking like she has made an effort wouldn’t go amiss.

[green leaves]

I don’t disagree, but the fact remains that TV is by its nature shallow and obsessed by appearance.

Viewers - both men and women - judge and criticise the people they see on TV all the time.

Criticising Shelley Kerr’s appearance might be tedious to you but I don’t assume it’s misogyny. Frankly, she is a high profile spokesperson for the Scottish game and should represent it in the best possible light. Some enthusiasm and looking like she has made an effort wouldn’t go amiss.

Looking like she's made an effort!!!!!
Deary me its like the 70s in here

[jacomo]

Looking like she's made an effort!!!!!
Deary me its like the 70s in here


Ok you are clearly determined to take this a certain way.

Why do you think TV studios use make up artists? You are being very naive if you think judging people’s appearances started when women were invited to talk about men’s football.

[Sir David Gray]

Curious to know more about the different preparation and different tactics which are used between male and female tennis ?

What happens at non grand slam events when both play best of 3 sets ?

When they both play best of 3 sets then I'm sure the tactics and preparation will be the same or very similar, I'm not sure why that's been mentioned though as I was speaking specifically about Grand Slam finals in response to an earlier post which said men's Grand Slam finals have "obvious" similarities with a women's Grand Slam final.

Preparing for a best of five set match is completely different to preparing for a best of three set match. You just need to ask any male player who has played at a Grand Slam to know that the demands are completely different.

The levels of concentration required to compete over a five set match are completely different, the level of stamina required is completely different and the training regimes which are required to prepare for a Grand Slam are totally different as well compared with the training for a standard tour level match.

Best of five set matches often last around 3-4 hours, whereas best of 3 set matches typically finish in under 2 hours. It's completely different circumstances.

For the avoidance of doubt as I know things can often be misinterpreted on here and someone's original point lost in translation when there's a prolonged discussion taking place I'm more than happy to have any female tennis player of the stature of Martina Navratilova commenting on a men's match in the same way that I'm happy with a female football player who knows what they are talking about commenting on a men's match.

I'm really not bothered by gender when it comes to who is giving their thoughts on a sport. As long as that person is knowledgable and thorough in their research and comes across eloquently then gender is irrelevant to me.

[Shrekko]

The similarities between a women's Grand Slam final and a men's Grand Slam final really aren't obvious at all.

One match is best of three sets and the other is best of five sets. The preparation and tactics involved with both matches is completely different.

At least with football, the length of the match is the same, the size of the pitch is the same and the rules are exactly the same.

PS - I'm more than happy to listen to Martina Navratilova speaking about men's tennis, it doesn't bother me at all. I just wanted to point out the inaccuracies with what you were saying about men's and women's Grand Slam tennis being so similar compared with men's and women's football.
Absolutely gobsmacked - seeing as I know you’re a tennis fan that you believe there are less similarities between a men and women’s Grand Slam tennis final and a men and women’s Champions League football final.

Just because it’s best of 3 sets and not best of 5?

Are you honestly suggesting the size of tennis court is different or the rules are different (apart from length of match)? This thread is nuts.

When Martina played in her pomp the woman’s finals were almost as high profile as the men’s. They played on the same court, in the same stadium, to similar size audiences and for similar money. How on earth can you even think about saying it’s not far closer to a men’s final than the football equivalent?

[blackpoolhibs]

Looking like she's made an effort!!!!!
Deary me its like the 70s in here

It's clear you can say what you want about men, did anyone see the state of Boris yesterday, and that clown is running the country, but don't question the look of a woman, it's worse than double murder if you do here.

[hibsbollah]

When they both play best of 3 sets then I'm sure the tactics and preparation will be the same or very similar, I'm not sure why that's been mentioned though as I was speaking specifically about Grand Slam finals in response to an earlier post which said men's Grand Slam finals have "obvious" similarities with a women's Grand Slam final.

Preparing for a best of five set match is completely different to preparing for a best of three set match. You just need to ask any male player who has played at a Grand Slam to know that the demands are completely different.

The levels of concentration required to compete over a five set match are completely different, the level of stamina required is completely different and the training regimes which are required to prepare for a Grand Slam are totally different as well compared with the training for a standard tour level match.

Best of five set matches often last around 3-4 hours, whereas best of 3 set matches typically finish in under 2 hours. It's completely different circumstances.

For the avoidance of doubt as I know things can often be misinterpreted on here and someone's original point lost in translation when there's a prolonged discussion taking place I'm more than happy to have any female tennis player of the stature of Martina Navratilova commenting on a men's match in the same way that I'm happy with a female football player who knows what they are talking about commenting on a men's match.

I'm really not bothered by gender when it comes to who is giving their thoughts on a sport. As long as that person is knowledgable and thorough in their research and comes across eloquently then gender is irrelevant to me.

:agree: I’m not sure how anyone could disagree.

[Since90+2]

It's clear you can say what you want about men, did anyone see the state of Boris yesterday, and that clown is running the country, but don't question the look of a woman, it's worse than double murder if you do here.

Male footballers are regularly ribbed for the way they look on here. Being overweight, daft haircuts ect are all regularly mentioned.

[Victor]

Why do we need presenters, commentators or pundits? Just show the game, with captions to identify who is playing, (you don’t need commentary when watching a game at Easter Road) that way no debate over who is , or isn’t qualified and what sex they are. Sorted!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[happiehibbie]

The similarities between a women's Grand Slam final and a men's Grand Slam final really aren't obvious at all.

One match is best of three sets and the other is best of five sets. The preparation and tactics involved with both matches is completely different.

At least with football, the length of the match is the same, the size of the pitch is the same and the rules are exactly the same. Not to be a fanny but all football pitches are not the same size there is a minimum size and a maximum size. Very odd that all pitches are not the same size :)

PS - I'm more than happy to listen to Martina Navratilova speaking about men's tennis, it doesn't bother me at all. I just wanted to point out the inaccuracies with what you were saying about men's and women's Grand Slam tennis being so similar compared with men's and women's football.


Not to be a fanny but all football pitches are not the same size there is a minimum size and a maximum size. Very odd that all pitches are not the same size :)

[happiehibbie]

No thanks mate,not my cup of tea but each to their own :aok:


What you don't like Women's football how dare you :)

I thought I was alone in this

[Shrekko]

Not to be a fanny but all football pitches are not the same size there is a minimum size and a maximum size. Very odd that all pitches are not the same size :)

Whereas all tennis courts are very much the same size and nets are the same height etc etc

[GreenCastle]

When they both play best of 3 sets then I'm sure the tactics and preparation will be the same or very similar, I'm not sure why that's been mentioned though as I was speaking specifically about Grand Slam finals in response to an earlier post which said men's Grand Slam finals have "obvious" similarities with a women's Grand Slam final.

Preparing for a best of five set match is completely different to preparing for a best of three set match. You just need to ask any male player who has played at a Grand Slam to know that the demands are completely different.

The levels of concentration required to compete over a five set match are completely different, the level of stamina required is completely different and the training regimes which are required to prepare for a Grand Slam are totally different as well compared with the training for a standard tour level match.

Best of five set matches often last around 3-4 hours, whereas best of 3 set matches typically finish in under 2 hours. It's completely different circumstances.

For the avoidance of doubt as I know things can often be misinterpreted on here and someone's original point lost in translation when there's a prolonged discussion taking place I'm more than happy to have any female tennis player of the stature of Martina Navratilova commenting on a men's match in the same way that I'm happy with a female football player who knows what they are talking about commenting on a men's match.

I'm really not bothered by gender when it comes to who is giving their thoughts on a sport. As long as that person is knowledgable and thorough in their research and comes across eloquently then gender is irrelevant to me.

I was hoping you could go into more detail about how preparation for a 5 set match is different to 3 sets ?

You are aware women’s 3 set matches can also last several hours ?

Just like a men’s match can be quickly over in 3 sets at a grand slam or regular tournament.

Of course the potential for 5 sets you will need to be ready for that but many women’s players train to last longer than 3 sets of tennis - especially as tournament tennis you regularly play matches very close together. That includes some players playing doubles and mixed at same tournament.

I think the issue on this thread is there are some posters saying women’s and men’s football are different sports when they are the same sport.

A guy playing for dog and parrot FC in the Gyle pub league is playing the same sport as a women in the World Cup final. You wouldn’t get people looking down on the pub league saying their opinion isn’t valid.

[matty_f]

When they both play best of 3 sets then I'm sure the tactics and preparation will be the same or very similar, I'm not sure why that's been mentioned though as I was speaking specifically about Grand Slam finals in response to an earlier post which said men's Grand Slam finals have "obvious" similarities with a women's Grand Slam final.

Preparing for a best of five set match is completely different to preparing for a best of three set match. You just need to ask any male player who has played at a Grand Slam to know that the demands are completely different.

The levels of concentration required to compete over a five set match are completely different, the level of stamina required is completely different and the training regimes which are required to prepare for a Grand Slam are totally different as well compared with the training for a standard tour level match.

Best of five set matches often last around 3-4 hours, whereas best of 3 set matches typically finish in under 2 hours. It's completely different circumstances.

For the avoidance of doubt as I know things can often be misinterpreted on here and someone's original point lost in translation when there's a prolonged discussion taking place I'm more than happy to have any female tennis player of the stature of Martina Navratilova commenting on a men's match in the same way that I'm happy with a female football player who knows what they are talking about commenting on a men's match.

I'm really not bothered by gender when it comes to who is giving their thoughts on a sport. As long as that person is knowledgable and thorough in their research and comes across eloquently then gender is irrelevant to me.

Thanks for the explaining the difference between the 3 and 5 sets preparation. How much experience of either/both do you have to be able to do that?

[easty]

Looking like she's made an effort!!!!!
Deary me its like the 70s in here

If someone says Kris Boyd is a **** pundit and an absolute mess, that’s fine.

Substitute Kris Boyd for Shelley Kerr, and it becomes a problem about sexism?

[GreenCastle]

Why do we need presenters, commentators or pundits? Just show the game, with captions to identify who is playing, (you don’t need commentary when watching a game at Easter Road) that way no debate over who is , or isn’t qualified and what sex they are. Sorted!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Why do we need fans in stadiums?

It’s all about entertainment and generating interest / role models / education to everyone.

It’s great you can listen to the radio commentary of Hibs games if you can’t make a game - what annoys me is the bias or lack of actually describing what’s happening and going off on tangents when simply describing the game both on tv and radio is the minimum expected.

Regarding watching a game live - it’s something I miss is the away team players - often I google a player to find about who they are / what clubs they have played for it they are U.K. against Hibs. Cricket and possibly some rugby games do an audio service and many find this service very beneficial for a variety of reasons.

[lord bunberry]

If someone says Kris Boyd is a **** pundit and an absolute mess, that’s fine.

Substitute Kris Boyd for Shelley Kerr, and it becomes a problem about sexism?
Men haven’t been on the end of centuries of misogyny and downright ****ty behaviour though. It’s the same argument that the people that come out with the all lives matter line, it’s missing the point spectacularly. We shouldn’t really be criticising anyone based on their appearance, but it does happen and I’ve been guilty of it many times, more so when a woman is involved. We need to be more sensitive to the issues we face in society and change our behaviour accordingly.

[easty]

Men haven’t been on the end of centuries of misogyny and downright ****ty behaviour though. It’s the same argument that the people that come out with the all lives matter line, it’s missing the point spectacularly. We shouldn’t really be criticising anyone based on their appearance, but it does happen and I’ve been guilty of it many times, more so when a woman is involved. We need to be more sensitive to the issues we face in society and change our behaviour accordingly.

The “centuries of misogyny” is irrelevant because this isn’t misogyny.

All/any criticism of women isn’t automatically misogynistic. When the exact same criticisms can, and are, levelled at men doing who are doing the same thing...that’s not misogyny, it’s just criticism.

We’re allowed to criticise women. Just like we’re allowed to criticise black people despite the centuries of racism.

[Sir David Gray]

Absolutely gobsmacked - seeing as I know you’re a tennis fan that you believe there are less similarities between a men and women’s Grand Slam tennis final and a men and women’s Champions League football final.

Just because it’s best of 3 sets and not best of 5?

Are you honestly suggesting the size of tennis court is different or the rules are different (apart from length of match)? This thread is nuts.

When Martina played in her pomp the woman’s finals were almost as high profile as the men’s. They played on the same court, in the same stadium, to similar size audiences and for similar money. How on earth can you even think about saying it’s not far closer to a men’s final than the football equivalent?

This is exactly what I was meaning when I said in my last post that things get lost in translation on here and people only pick up on certain parts of a post.

Re the bit in bold I'm not suggesting anything of the sort and have no idea what I said that might have made you think otherwise. I'm aware that the court size and the rules are the same. However there is quite clearly an obvious difference between a best of 3 sets tennis match and a best of 5 sets tennis match and I've provided a further explanation in my subsequent post. The differences isn't a men v women argument either, as I've said for a male player, preparation for a Grand Slam match is completely different to any other match that they play on the tour.

Why? Because they play best of 5 sets at a Grand Slam and best of 3 sets everywhere else.

I'm genuinely struggling to understand how anyone can argue with that to be honest.

In football the length of a women's match is exactly the same as a men's match and everything else is the same too with regards to the rules. There's obvious differences between the physicality of a men's football match and a women's football match but I don't see that as a barrier to having a female footballer commenting on a men's match.

[Brightside]

https://youtu.be/zWfX5jeF6k4

[matty_f]

Men haven’t been on the end of centuries of misogyny and downright ****ty behaviour though. It’s the same argument that the people that come out with the all lives matter line, it’s missing the point spectacularly. We shouldn’t really be criticising anyone based on their appearance, but it does happen and I’ve been guilty of it many times, more so when a woman is involved. We need to be more sensitive to the issues we face in society and change our behaviour accordingly.

That's the nub of the issue right there. :agree:

Shelley Kerr would have, I imagine, had all sorts to overcome to get to the position where she coached Scotland at a World Cup - from overcoming the huge male-dominance in the sport, to having to do more than a male counterpart to prove her worth and ability because of all the in-built prejudices that people have about women in football etc

Then there is the requirement to look good, which is important, apparently. We know this because if it wasn't important, Matt Le Tissier etc would have been nowhere near the TV.

Yes people make comments about male presenters and pundits' appearance, but if you take the scale and frequency of that and compare it to that of a female pundit or presenter, you'll see exactly why people need to make more of an effort to be sensitive to it and choose not to make that comment.

Female pundits deserve a platform, there have been, for many, many years, no female role-models for any aspiring female pundits or presenters, we need some on the TV to change that, and if that means accepting that they might not be Gary Neville to start off with, then it's a price worth paying because when we persevere with it and create an environment where female pundits are the norm as much as male pundits were, then better ones come through (as happened with male pundits many moons ago).

If there was an aspiring female pundit reading this thread, I can only imagine how discouraging it would be. From people telling them that they can't understand the men's game to others saying they should only be pundits on women's football, and others saying that they turn off immediately if there's a female pundit on a show.

Those are the ingrained attitudes that they are up against.

[hibsbollah]

The “centuries of misogyny” is irrelevant because this isn’t misogyny.

All/any criticism of women isn’t automatically misogynistic. When the exact same criticisms can, and are, levelled at men doing who are doing the same thing...that’s not misogyny, it’s just criticism.

We’re allowed to criticise women. Just like we’re allowed to criticise black people despite the centuries of racism.

It’s up to the individual. Personally, I was brought up to treat women with more respect than I treat Tories, hence I feel comfortable slagging off Boris Johnson’s ****ing clown like Barnet but I’d feel less comfortable slagging Shelly Kerrs looks. I don’t think that’s hypocritical personally, I’m happy to be judged according to my prejudices, and I’ll continue to call out other peoples when I think it’s warranted.

[Brightside]

If someone says Kris Boyd is a **** pundit and an absolute mess, that’s fine.

Substitute Kris Boyd for Shelley Kerr, and it becomes a problem about sexism?

Im not sure you understand what sexism is in that case.

[Brightside]

That's the nub of the issue right there. :agree:

Shelley Kerr would have, I imagine, had all sorts to overcome to get to the position where she coached Scotland at a World Cup - from overcoming the huge male-dominance in the sport, to having to do more than a male counterpart to prove her worth and ability because of all the in-built prejudices that people have about women in football etc

Then there is the requirement to look good, which is important, apparently. We know this because if it wasn't important, Matt Le Tissier etc would have been nowhere near the TV.

Yes people make comments about male presenters and pundits' appearance, but if you take the scale and frequency of that and compare it to that of a female pundit or presenter, you'll see exactly why people need to make more of an effort to be sensitive to it and choose not to make that comment.

Female pundits deserve a platform, there have been, for many, many years, no female role-models for any aspiring female pundits or presenters, we need some on the TV to change that, and if that means accepting that they might not be Gary Neville to start off with, then it's a price worth paying because when we persevere with it and create an environment where female pundits are the norm as much as male pundits were, then better ones come through (as happened with male pundits many moons ago).

If there was an aspiring female pundit reading this thread, I can only imagine how discouraging it would be. From people telling them that they can't understand the men's game to others saying they should only be pundits on women's football, and others saying that they turn off immediately if there's a female pundit on a show.

Those are the ingrained attitudes that they are up against.

Spot On! :agree:

[Since90+2]

It’s up to the individual. Personally, I was brought up to treat women with more respect than I treat Tories, hence I feel comfortable slagging off Boris Johnson’s ****ing clown like Barnet but I’d feel less comfortable slagging Shelly Kerrs looks. I don’t think that’s hypocritical personally, I’m happy to be judged according to my prejudices, and I’ll continue to call out other peoples when I think it’s warranted.

What about female Tories?

[easty]

Shelley Kerr would have, I imagine, had all sorts to overcome to get to the position where she coached Scotland at a World Cup - from overcoming the huge male-dominance in the sport, to having to do more than a male counterpart to prove her worth and ability because of all the in-built prejudices that people have about women in football etc


The Scotland womens team had only ever been managed by females (since it's inception in 1998), so she wasn't really overcoming male dominance to get the job, at all.

[easty]

Im not sure you understand what sexism is in that case.

No, I don't think you understand what it is.

[matty_f]

The Scotland womens team had only ever been managed by females (since it's inception in 1998), so she wasn't really overcoming male dominance to get the job, at all.

To get to the position where she's coached any team, she's overcome male dominance.

[hibsbollah]

What about female Tories?

Tough one :greengrin

Nah, I’d also feel uncomfortable slagging Ruth or Theresa.

[Brightside]

The Scotland womens team had only ever been managed by females (since it's inception in 1998), so she wasn't really overcoming male dominance to get the job, at all.

There was very few females Head coaches in the league though. Males continue to dominate coaching positions in the women's game. Which is weird as how do they even understand women's football. Oh and the current coach is a man and its only the last 3 that have been women.

[Jay]

It's clear you can say what you want about men, did anyone see the state of Boris yesterday, and that clown is running the country, but don't question the look of a woman, it's worse than double murder if you do here.

I dont understand your point. I havent seen anything on the state Boris was yesterday but I'll guarantee you if Sturgeon turned up with her hair uncombed and looking an untidy mess there would be worldwide coverage on it.



What you don't like Women's football how dare you :)

I thought I was alone in this

That's not the point. It's okay not to like womans football - I dont like golf . The point is that some people have said they turn off if it's a woman pundit talking about a mens game and others have said they arent qualified to discuss the mans game. Its beyond ridiculous

[keep the faith]

The nub of this chat is that there are some very poor pundits covering scottish football at the moment. It's a big dip from the Stewart/Nevin/Spiers days of even the recent past.
Kerr is particularly poor, as is McFadden who shares her love of the word "brilliant". Too many of the scots pundits are not offering anything other than bias, cliches and stating the obvious.
Marv I think is articulate but very safe. To be fair he should be erring on that side, as he is currently playing. It was a disgrace how Boyd slagged off other players and bigged up rangers while playing for Killie. Now he is just an embarrassment on sky. I would put Marv on hold until his playing days are over.
Foster showed promise, and Iwalumo seems ok, but really we should be wheeling out Stewart every week, if at all possible.
It's like we go out our way to make our game look as amateur as possible.

[H18 SFR]

The nub of this chat is that there are some very poor pundits covering scottish football at the moment. It's a big dip from the Stewart/Nevin/Spiers days of even the recent past.
Kerr is particularly poor, as is McFadden who shares her love of the word "brilliant". Too many of the scots pundits are not offering anything other than bias, cliches and stating the obvious.
Marv I think is articulate but very safe. To be fair he should be erring on that side, as he is currently playing. It was a disgrace how Boyd slagged of other players and bigged up rangers while playing for Killie. Now he is just an embarrassment on sky. I would put Marv on hold until his playing days are over.
Foster showed promise, and Iwalumo seems ok, but really we should be wheeling out Stewart every week, if at all possible.
It's like we go out our way to make our game look as amateur as possible.

I agree with all this more or less. Also like Neil McCann, decent analysis.

[WeeRussell]

What about female Tories?

Good card players!

[Sir David Gray]

I was hoping you could go into more detail about how preparation for a 5 set match is different to 3 sets ?

You are aware women’s 3 set matches can also last several hours ?

Just like a men’s match can be quickly over in 3 sets at a grand slam or regular tournament.

Of course the potential for 5 sets you will need to be ready for that but many women’s players train to last longer than 3 sets of tennis - especially as tournament tennis you regularly play matches very close together. That includes some players playing doubles and mixed at same tournament.

I think the issue on this thread is there are some posters saying women’s and men’s football are different sports when they are the same sport.

A guy playing for dog and parrot FC in the Gyle pub league is playing the same sport as a women in the World Cup final. You wouldn’t get people looking down on the pub league saying their opinion isn’t valid.

I'm aware that some women's matches last longer and some men's matches last less time. As I say though, it's not really a male v female issue it's a 5 set v 3 set issue.

Novak Djokovic was on court for almost 19 hours on his way to winning the Australian Open earlier this year. Naomi Osaka was on court for just over 9 hours.

Again it's not specifically a male v female issue. I'm sure similar stats would be available if you compared how long Djokovic had spent on court during a Grand Slam tournament compared with any other tournament he had won.

[Shrekko]

This is exactly what I was meaning when I said in my last post that things get lost in translation on here and people only pick up on certain parts of a post.

Re the bit in bold I'm not suggesting anything of the sort and have no idea what I said that might have made you think otherwise. I'm aware that the court size and the rules are the same. However there is quite clearly an obvious difference between a best of 3 sets tennis match and a best of 5 sets tennis match and I've provided a further explanation in my subsequent post. The differences isn't a men v women argument either, as I've said for a male player, preparation for a Grand Slam match is completely different to any other match that they play on the tour.

Why? Because they play best of 5 sets at a Grand Slam and best of 3 sets everywhere else.

I'm genuinely struggling to understand how anyone can argue with that to be honest.

In football the length of a women's match is exactly the same as a men's match and everything else is the same too with regards to the rules. There's obvious differences between the physicality of a men's football match and a women's football match but I don't see that as a barrier to having a female footballer commenting on a men's match.

It was because you emphasised that football pitches were the same size and that the rules were the same...

People are simply saying they’d PREFER an analyst that is insightful and ideally has played the game at the same level. Simply playing the game is not enough - as a man or woman, if they don’t bring anything else to the table.

Apart from all of that though ... women’s tennis is far more similar to men’s tennis than women’s football is to men’s football. I can’t believe it’s even up for debate. It’s been well documented that women’s international teams have lost to boys youth teams etc whereas players like Martina and the Williams sisters would probably beat all but a few hundred men’s players in the world - take away first serves and it’s even less.

[matty_f]

It was because you emphasised that football pitches were the same size and that the rules were the same...

People are simply saying they’d PREFER an analyst that is insightful and ideally has played the game at the same level. Simply playing the game is not enough - as a man or woman, if they don’t bring anything else to the table.

Apart from all of that though ... women’s tennis is far more similar to men’s tennis than women’s football is to men’s football. I can’t believe it’s even up for debate. It’s been well documented that women’s international teams have lost to boys youth teams etc whereas players like Martina and the Williams sisters would probably beat all but a few hundred men’s players in the world - take away first serves and it’s even less.

I think there was one high profile instance of a women's international team losing to a boy's youth team - not sure if there are several instances but that's more to do with the limitations of my knowledge than anything else.

There are definitely loads of instances of lower league teams beating higher league teams over the years, so can we accept that they are also a better standard than top flight teams?

I'm being mischievous with that, there are clear differences between men's and women's football due to a whole load of different factors, but it's the same game at the heart of it and there are some excellent female footballers out there who would find the comparison to boy's youth football rightly insulting.

[lord bunberry]

That's the nub of the issue right there. :agree:

Shelley Kerr would have, I imagine, had all sorts to overcome to get to the position where she coached Scotland at a World Cup - from overcoming the huge male-dominance in the sport, to having to do more than a male counterpart to prove her worth and ability because of all the in-built prejudices that people have about women in football etc

Then there is the requirement to look good, which is important, apparently. We know this because if it wasn't important, Matt Le Tissier etc would have been nowhere near the TV.

Yes people make comments about male presenters and pundits' appearance, but if you take the scale and frequency of that and compare it to that of a female pundit or presenter, you'll see exactly why people need to make more of an effort to be sensitive to it and choose not to make that comment.

Female pundits deserve a platform, there have been, for many, many years, no female role-models for any aspiring female pundits or presenters, we need some on the TV to change that, and if that means accepting that they might not be Gary Neville to start off with, then it's a price worth paying because when we persevere with it and create an environment where female pundits are the norm as much as male pundits were, then better ones come through (as happened with male pundits many moons ago).

If there was an aspiring female pundit reading this thread, I can only imagine how discouraging it would be. From people telling them that they can't understand the men's game to others saying they should only be pundits on women's football, and others saying that they turn off immediately if there's a female pundit on a show.

Those are the ingrained attitudes that they are up against.
:top marks

[marinello59]

That's the nub of the issue right there. :agree:

Shelley Kerr would have, I imagine, had all sorts to overcome to get to the position where she coached Scotland at a World Cup - from overcoming the huge male-dominance in the sport, to having to do more than a male counterpart to prove her worth and ability because of all the in-built prejudices that people have about women in football etc

Then there is the requirement to look good, which is important, apparently. We know this because if it wasn't important, Matt Le Tissier etc would have been nowhere near the TV.

Yes people make comments about male presenters and pundits' appearance, but if you take the scale and frequency of that and compare it to that of a female pundit or presenter, you'll see exactly why people need to make more of an effort to be sensitive to it and choose not to make that comment.

Female pundits deserve a platform, there have been, for many, many years, no female role-models for any aspiring female pundits or presenters, we need some on the TV to change that, and if that means accepting that they might not be Gary Neville to start off with, then it's a price worth paying because when we persevere with it and create an environment where female pundits are the norm as much as male pundits were, then better ones come through (as happened with male pundits many moons ago).

If there was an aspiring female pundit reading this thread, I can only imagine how discouraging it would be. From people telling them that they can't understand the men's game to others saying they should only be pundits on women's football, and others saying that they turn off immediately if there's a female pundit on a show.

Those are the ingrained attitudes that they are up against.

:top marks

[easty]

There was very few females Head coaches in the league though. Males continue to dominate coaching positions in the women's game. Which is weird as how do they even understand women's football. Oh and the current coach is a man and its only the last 3 that have been women.

It's not that weird as it's easy to understand womens football, it's like mens football, but with less physicality, ability and skill.

The current coach is the interim coach, until they appoint someone permanently. He's been the interim coach for about 3 months. Those "only the last 3" previous female coaches held the permanent position for over 22 years.

[Brightside]

It's not that weird as it's easy to understand womens football, it's like mens football, but with less physicality, ability and skill.

The current coach is the interim coach, until they appoint someone permanently. He's been the interim coach for about 3 months. Those "only the last 3" previous female coaches held the permanent position for over 22 years.

Less physicality. Not less skill or ability.

[Andy74]

That's the nub of the issue right there. :agree:

Shelley Kerr would have, I imagine, had all sorts to overcome to get to the position where she coached Scotland at a World Cup - from overcoming the huge male-dominance in the sport, to having to do more than a male counterpart to prove her worth and ability because of all the in-built prejudices that people have about women in football etc

Then there is the requirement to look good, which is important, apparently. We know this because if it wasn't important, Matt Le Tissier etc would have been nowhere near the TV.

Yes people make comments about male presenters and pundits' appearance, but if you take the scale and frequency of that and compare it to that of a female pundit or presenter, you'll see exactly why people need to make more of an effort to be sensitive to it and choose not to make that comment.

Female pundits deserve a platform, there have been, for many, many years, no female role-models for any aspiring female pundits or presenters, we need some on the TV to change that, and if that means accepting that they might not be Gary Neville to start off with, then it's a price worth paying because when we persevere with it and create an environment where female pundits are the norm as much as male pundits were, then better ones come through (as happened with male pundits many moons ago).

If there was an aspiring female pundit reading this thread, I can only imagine how discouraging it would be. From people telling them that they can't understand the men's game to others saying they should only be pundits on women's football, and others saying that they turn off immediately if there's a female pundit on a show.

Those are the ingrained attitudes that they are up against.

Why is it important that we have female pundits in the men’s game?

[Since90+2]

Less physicality. Not less skill or ability.

See now this discussion is just getting silly.

[Danderhall Hibs]

Why is it important that we have female pundits in the men’s game?

Why is it important that we don’t?

[Tommy75]

That's the nub of the issue right there. :agree:

Shelley Kerr would have, I imagine, had all sorts to overcome to get to the position where she coached Scotland at a World Cup - from overcoming the huge male-dominance in the sport, to having to do more than a male counterpart to prove her worth and ability because of all the in-built prejudices that people have about women in football etc

Then there is the requirement to look good, which is important, apparently. We know this because if it wasn't important, Matt Le Tissier etc would have been nowhere near the TV.

Yes people make comments about male presenters and pundits' appearance, but if you take the scale and frequency of that and compare it to that of a female pundit or presenter, you'll see exactly why people need to make more of an effort to be sensitive to it and choose not to make that comment.

Female pundits deserve a platform, there have been, for many, many years, no female role-models for any aspiring female pundits or presenters, we need some on the TV to change that, and if that means accepting that they might not be Gary Neville to start off with, then it's a price worth paying because when we persevere with it and create an environment where female pundits are the norm as much as male pundits were, then better ones come through (as happened with male pundits many moons ago).

If there was an aspiring female pundit reading this thread, I can only imagine how discouraging it would be. From people telling them that they can't understand the men's game to others saying they should only be pundits on women's football, and others saying that they turn off immediately if there's a female pundit on a show.

Those are the ingrained attitudes that they are up against.

I agree with most of your post but I don't understand why we should accept a below par pundit just because they happen to be female? If anything that will just reinforce outdated stereotypes that females shouldn't be pundits for the mens game. Surely they should be as good or better than the men they are replacing?

[James Stephen]

Is the whole point though, not that Shelley Kerr has got the gig because she is a woman.

She hasnt played the game at a level, she has managed at the equivalent of mens junior fitba, she isnt particuarly articulate, nor is she insightful.

Her only qualification is that she is a woman involved in woman's football, and the BBC now feel a requirement to have a woman on every panel.

So what are the criteria for being a pundit? And if you dont have to have played or managed at elite level, why cant we find more articulate and insightful people, be they men or women?

[Vault Boy]

That's the nub of the issue right there. :agree:

Shelley Kerr would have, I imagine, had all sorts to overcome to get to the position where she coached Scotland at a World Cup - from overcoming the huge male-dominance in the sport, to having to do more than a male counterpart to prove her worth and ability because of all the in-built prejudices that people have about women in football etc

Then there is the requirement to look good, which is important, apparently. We know this because if it wasn't important, Matt Le Tissier etc would have been nowhere near the TV.

Yes people make comments about male presenters and pundits' appearance, but if you take the scale and frequency of that and compare it to that of a female pundit or presenter, you'll see exactly why people need to make more of an effort to be sensitive to it and choose not to make that comment.

Female pundits deserve a platform, there have been, for many, many years, no female role-models for any aspiring female pundits or presenters, we need some on the TV to change that, and if that means accepting that they might not be Gary Neville to start off with, then it's a price worth paying because when we persevere with it and create an environment where female pundits are the norm as much as male pundits were, then better ones come through (as happened with male pundits many moons ago).

If there was an aspiring female pundit reading this thread, I can only imagine how discouraging it would be. From people telling them that they can't understand the men's game to others saying they should only be pundits on women's football, and others saying that they turn off immediately if there's a female pundit on a show.

Those are the ingrained attitudes that they are up against.

Excellent post.

[Andy74]

Why is it important that we don’t?

It isn’t - nothing to do with women in my opinion. I’d like the experts to be people who add the knowledge of having played the game - the specific game of men’s football.

Other than the false notion that anyone can be anything they want to be in this world why is it important we have women represented as experts in a form of the game they don’t play?

[matty_f]

It isn’t - nothing to do with women in my opinion. I’d like the experts to be people who add the knowledge of having played the game - the specific game of men’s football.

Other than the false notion that anyone can be anything they want to be in this world why is it important we have women represented as experts in a form of the game they don’t play?
It’s important because women should have the same opportunity as men to work in these roles, it’s important because diversity of opinion and experience is a good thing, generally.

Your two daughters play, do you honestly want to limit their opportunities if they want to get into that line of work?

[hibsbollah]

It isn’t - nothing to do with women in my opinion. I’d like the experts to be people who add the knowledge of having played the game - the specific game of men’s football.

Other than the false notion that anyone can be anything they want to be in this world why is it important we have women represented as experts in a form of the game they don’t play?

It isnt a different ‘form’ of the game. If they played on a diamond or a circle or a rhombus it would be. They play on a rectangle to the same rules. I think you’re missing something.

[Brightside]

It isn’t - nothing to do with women in my opinion. I’d like the experts to be people who add the knowledge of having played the game - the specific game of men’s football.

Other than the false notion that anyone can be anything they want to be in this world why is it important we have women represented as experts in a form of the game they don’t play?

So does that mean men shouldnt comment on Womens games? I'd rather they did if they are good pundits. What sex they are is totally irrelevant.

[GreenCastle]

I'm aware that some women's matches last longer and some men's matches last less time. As I say though, it's not really a male v female issue it's a 5 set v 3 set issue.

Novak Djokovic was on court for almost 19 hours on his way to winning the Australian Open earlier this year. Naomi Osaka was on court for just over 9 hours.

Again it's not specifically a male v female issue. I'm sure similar stats would be available if you compared how long Djokovic had spent on court during a Grand Slam tournament compared with any other tournament he had won.

Osaka played really well in that tournament and pretty much wiped the floor with most of her opponents. The men’s side has several very strong players right now hence why matches took longer.

Many women want to play 5 sets and get equal pay for it.

[GreenCastle]

It was because you emphasised that football pitches were the same size and that the rules were the same...

People are simply saying they’d PREFER an analyst that is insightful and ideally has played the game at the same level. Simply playing the game is not enough - as a man or woman, if they don’t bring anything else to the table.

Apart from all of that though ... women’s tennis is far more similar to men’s tennis than women’s football is to men’s football. I can’t believe it’s even up for debate. It’s been well documented that women’s international teams have lost to boys youth teams etc whereas players like Martina and the Williams sisters would probably beat all but a few hundred men’s players in the world - take away first serves and it’s even less.

Football has 11 players on pitch and tennis 2 max on the court. It’s hard co compare as such as more variables.

You could do a freekick competition in an empty stadium between the best women’s players and best men’s players and there wouldn’t be much difference either way - if for example they were asked to hit a specific target. That doesn’t mean I think there are players better than Messi as for me he is the greatest but there will be players who could hit a good freekick. Doing it in a game and under pressure would be a completely different test.

[GreenCastle]

Is the whole point though, not that Shelley Kerr has got the gig because she is a woman.

She hasnt played the game at a level, she has managed at the equivalent of mens junior fitba, she isnt particuarly articulate, nor is she insightful.

Her only qualification is that she is a woman involved in woman's football, and the BBC now feel a requirement to have a woman on every panel.

So what are the criteria for being a pundit? And if you dont have to have played or managed at elite level, why cant we find more articulate and insightful people, be they men or women?

Comparing a World Cup where she managed Scotland to men’s junior football?!!

She has won the FA Cup and 59 caps for Scotland - more than the average guy who posts on here or plays for some team many people have never heard of.

[J-C]

Surely men's and women's football is the same it's just the standard of of the play that's different. We have to put up with multiple people on here giving their twopence worth each week when 99% have only kicked the ball at a low amateur level and there's a small minority who think they know all there is to know about the game.

I don't mind women talking about men's football as long as they are good at what they do, the whole point about Shelley Kerr is she's ***** at what she does along with 75% of the men who are pundits on BBC/SKY/BT.

[Shrekko]

I think there was one high profile instance of a women's international team losing to a boy's youth team - not sure if there are several instances but that's more to do with the limitations of my knowledge than anything else.

There are definitely loads of instances of lower league teams beating higher league teams over the years, so can we accept that they are also a better standard than top flight teams?

I'm being mischievous with that, there are clear differences between men's and women's football due to a whole load of different factors, but it's the same game at the heart of it and there are some excellent female footballers out there who would find the comparison to boy's youth football rightly insulting.

You know what Matty? As good a poster as you are and regardless of whether you want to cover it by using words like 'mischievous' you're saying basically saying something ridiculous that you know is silly to make an argument and that kind of tells me a lot with regards to this debate.

I'm not 'comparing' women's football to boy's youth football either because quite simply you shouldn't. I was actually comparing woman's football and tennis.

I think it's fair to say that there are a lot of layers to the argument and people's thoughts are definitely being misconstrued. I'm genuinely not getting the impression that anyone doesn't want women involved in ANY aspect of male football but like every other job you sometimes find (for whatever reason) that one of the genders has an advantage for some roles. Personally I think the key role in sports coverage is that of the presenter and I'd definitely argue that women are surpassing men there now with people like Eilidh Barbour and countless others- same with the interviewers. I don't see a problem in saying that a male footballer who has played at the top level and is articulate is your preferred choice as an analyst for male top level football. People seem to be looking for more than equal opportunities- they're looking for manufactured equal outcomes. Shelley Kerr is currently doing somebody else (male or female) out of a gig because she's not there on merit.

[lord bunberry]

Why is it important that we have female pundits in the men’s game?
So that young girls who have an interest in football can watch a game and see that they have a chance of making a living from doing something they love.

[matty_f]

You know what Matty? As good a poster as you are and regardless of whether you want to cover it by using words like 'mischievous' you're saying basically saying something ridiculous that you know is silly to make an argument and that kind of tells me a lot with regards to this debate.

I'm not 'comparing' women's football to boy's youth football either because quite simply you shouldn't. I was actually comparing woman's football and tennis.

I think it's fair to say that there are a lot of layers to the argument and people's thoughts are definitely being misconstrued. I'm genuinely not getting the impression that anyone doesn't want women involved in ANY aspect of male football but like every other job you sometimes find (for whatever reason) that one of the genders has an advantage for some roles. Personally I think the key role in sports coverage is that of the presenter and I'd definitely argue that women are surpassing men there now with people like Eilidh Barbour and countless others- same with the interviewers. I don't see a problem in saying that a male footballer who has played at the top level and is articulate is your preferred choice as an analyst for male top level football. People seem to be looking for more than equal opportunities- they're looking for manufactured equal outcomes. Shelley Kerr is currently doing somebody else (male or female) out of a gig because she's not there on merit.

In that case I think I misinterpreted the point you made when you highlighted that women's international teams lost to boy's youth teams, I apologise.

[WeeRussell]

Seems to be a consensus that at least Alex Scott and Eilidh Barbour are really good at what they do.. I'd say, given the relatively small percentage of women involved, they're already performing at a far better ratio than their male counterparts :greengrin

[Danderhall Hibs]

It isn’t - nothing to do with women in my opinion. I’d like the experts to be people who add the knowledge of having played the game - the specific game of men’s football.

Other than the false notion that anyone can be anything they want to be in this world why is it important we have women represented as experts in a form of the game they don’t play?

It’s the same game ffs.

[Baader]

It isn’t - nothing to do with women in my opinion. I’d like the experts to be people who add the knowledge of having played the game - the specific game of men’s football.

So John McEnroe, for example, shouldn't be a pundit on a women's tennis match?

[Sir David Gray]

Osaka played really well in that tournament and pretty much wiped the floor with most of her opponents. The men’s side has several very strong players right now hence why matches took longer.

Many women want to play 5 sets and get equal pay for it.

I just used that as one example, I'm sure I could find many more examples of a male player spending far more time on court during a 5 set tournament in comparison with how much time another male (sometimes even the same male) or a female player spends on court during a 3 set tourmament.

It's not just because Osaka played well and wiped the floor with each opponent during this particular tournament.

Again it's not a male v female argument, some male players aren't good enough to get into a Grand Slam event and therefore never experience a 5 set match. I'd say the same about them too. It is a different form of the game and there are differences in how a 5 set match is approached.

Anyway I'm probably going to bow out of this now as this has developed into a conversation that I really didn't expect to get into. I am perfectly happy with a female commenting on a male version of a sport. As I said before the only criteria I am interested in is that they are knowledgeable, do their research before appearing on the show and are capable of speaking eloquently.

Gender doesn't come into it for me, there are many male pundits who I would gladly see the back of due to them not meeting the criteria I've outlined above.

[Danderhall Hibs]

Anyway I'm probably going to bow out of this now as this has developed into a conversation that I really didn't expect to get into. I am perfectly happy with a female commenting on a male version of a sport. As I said before the only criteria I am interested in is that they are knowledgeable, do their research before appearing on the show and are capable of speaking eloquently.

Gender doesn't come into it for me, there are many male pundits who I would gladly see the back of due to them not meeting the criteria I've outlined above.

Absolutely agree SDG.

[James Stephen]

Comparing a World Cup where she managed Scotland to men’s junior football?!!

She has won the FA Cup and 59 caps for Scotland - more than the average guy who posts on here or plays for some team many people have never heard of.

She managed in the women's world cup, won the woman's FA Cup and won caps for the Scotland women's team. None of those things are the same as doing them in the men's game. There is no equivalence.

This is one of the contradictions that we face with woman's football - people say its the same game, so in that case it ahould be judged on the same terms. In which case its poor quality football.

But no, you cant judge it on the same terms, people cry. So which is it?

Shelley Kerr has played and managed at the equivalent of junior football (if that). To pretend otherwise is just wishful thinking.

There is nothing wrong with that. But to pretend some equivalence with the men's game is stupid and self-defeating for women's fitba.

As a pundit she is neither qualified nor any good. She only has the job because she is a woman. Again if its about representation, thats fine, but lets not insult everyone's intelligence by making up false equivalence.

[GreenCastle]

I just used that as one example, I'm sure I could find many more examples of a male player spending far more time on court during a 5 set tournament in comparison with how much time another male (sometimes even the same male) or a female player spends on court during a 3 set tourmament.

It's not just because Osaka played well and wiped the floor with each opponent during this particular tournament.

Again it's not a male v female argument, some male players aren't good enough to get into a Grand Slam event and therefore never experience a 5 set match. I'd say the same about them too. It is a different form of the game and there are differences in how a 5 set match is approached.

Anyway I'm probably going to bow out of this now as this has developed into a conversation that I really didn't expect to get into. I am perfectly happy with a female commenting on a male version of a sport. As I said before the only criteria I am interested in is that they are knowledgeable, do their research before appearing on the show and are capable of speaking eloquently.

Gender doesn't come into it for me, there are many male pundits who I would gladly see the back of due to them not meeting the criteria I've outlined above.

Ok - definitely agree with last paragraphs.

Still curious to how players prepare differently excep possibly different conditioning. Though obviously mentally fatigue and mindset etc will come into it the longer the game goes on.

I’m like you all I care about is they are knowledgeable and I agree there are many crap pundits on tv and radio in Scotland - surely we could better :)

[Danderhall Hibs]

She managed in the women's world cup, won the woman's FA Cup and won caps for the Scotland women's team. None of those things are the same as doing them in the men's game. There is no equivalence.

This is one of the contradictions that we face with woman's football - people say its the same game, so in that case it ahould be judged on the same terms. In which case its poor quality football.

But no, you cant judge it on the same terms, people cry. So which is it?

Shelley Kerr has played and managed at the equivalent of junior football (if that). To pretend otherwise is just wishful thinking.

There is nothing wrong with that. But to pretend some equivalence with the men's game is stupid and self-defeating for women's fitba.

As a pundit she is neither qualified nor any good. She only has the job because she is a woman. Again if its about representation, thats fine, but lets not insult everyone's intelligence by making up false equivalence.

I’m not sure why you’re guessing what “level” the woman’s game is vs the men’s game - it’s the same game played by people with different genetics. An opinion can be formed fairly easily without having even played at all (look at any thread on here as an example). Are you saying Paula Radcliffe can’t make comment on Mo Farah’s London Marathon performance cos she’s never run the men’s race before?

I don’t think Kerr’s a good pundit but think the qualification of “having played the game” is a huge flaw. Allan Preston played now and again - didn’t win anything but is a better bet based on the criteria?

No thanks.

[WhileTheChief..]

It’s important because women should have the same opportunity as men to work in these roles, it’s important because diversity of opinion and experience is a good thing, generally.

Your two daughters play, do you honestly want to limit their opportunities if they want to get into that line of work?

You don’t have to be a different gender or race to have a different opinion or experience though.

Just read this forum - predominantly white males but a multitude of opinions on every thread.

The current Hibs board is 100% white.

Who should be binned and what experience would an ethnic minority bring to enhance our club?

[James Stephen]

I’m not sure why you’re guessing what “level” the woman’s game is vs the men’s game - it’s the same game played by people with different genetics. An opinion can be formed fairly easily without having even played at all (look at any thread on here as an example). Are you saying Paula Radcliffe can’t make comment on Mo Farah’s London Marathon performance cos she’s never run the men’s race before?

I don’t think Kerr’s a good pundit but think the qualification of “having played the game” is a huge flaw. Allan Preston played now and again - didn’t win anything but is a better bet based on the criteria?

No thanks.

I agree, as arrigo sacchi said, i didnt realise that be a jockey, i first had to be a horse.

However, the BBC does seem to only pick people who have played at top level pro football as pundits, which often means many men who would be better, are disqualified for not having played at a top level.

That rule seems to have been waived for Kerr, which is exactly my point. By the BBCs own (misguided) policy, she is not qualified.

[GreenCastle]

She managed in the women's world cup, won the woman's FA Cup and won caps for the Scotland women's team. None of those things are the same as doing them in the men's game. There is no equivalence.

This is one of the contradictions that we face with woman's football - people say its the same game, so in that case it ahould be judged on the same terms. In which case its poor quality football.

But no, you cant judge it on the same terms, people cry. So which is it?

Shelley Kerr has played and managed at the equivalent of junior football (if that). To pretend otherwise is just wishful thinking.

There is nothing wrong with that. But to pretend some equivalence with the men's game is stupid and self-defeating for women's fitba.

As a pundit she is neither qualified nor any good. She only has the job because she is a woman. Again if its about representation, thats fine, but lets not insult everyone's intelligence by making up false equivalence.

You are becoming a little mixed up.

"people say it's the same game, so in that case it should be judged on the same terms. In which case its poor quality football."

It IS the same game - everyone has agreed it's the same rules and same objective = to score more goals than the other team.

Explain why it isn't the same game? Using examples like the goalkeepers are small and rubbish doesn't make sense. There are plenty small and rubbish mens goalkeepers and tall mens goalkeepers making a living. Hibs have seen plenty of them over the years!!

Why should it be judged on same terms? Poor quality football ? That's a pretty wide generalisation. I've seen hundreds of crap Hibs mens games - I've even watched Barcelona mens team and Brazil mens team play poor football. There has been numerous on threads on here recently saying fans aren't enjoying football on TV with no crowds compared to being in the stadium. Even then I've come away from ER having watched Hibs play crap.

Shelly has more qualifications than probably most on here - a degree and UEFA Pro license. She has also had experiences of coaching at an International tournament - again wonder how many posters have that on their CV?

I do agree I don't think she's a very good pundit though as she just speaks in cliches but to shoot her down due to looks (as some has posted) or claiming she's just a woman given a job is nonsense.

[Greenbeard]

zzzzzzzzzzzzz......

[happiehibbie]

I tread with care !

Do we think a all women's team could be a success lets say the Lowland League?, Shelly was the manager of the UNI for a while. Lots of comments about her fitting the criteria of the SFA. Do i like her as a pundit no Julie Fleeting No however Amy Irons she speaks well and seems knowledgeable.

I could list many sports I don't like and Womens football is one of them. I don't wish any of them harm or miss fortune.

I do not believe in giving people a job just to meet with current gender gaps I feel this is happening to often in all walks of life.

Some valid points have been made on this subject but we're all scared incase we upset someone with something we say.

let me throw Andy Walker into the mix OH MY GOD :)

We are all human beings with different views some we agree with some we don't. live and let live

[WeeRussell]

So John McEnroe, for example, shouldn't be a pundit on a women's tennis match?

You cannot be serious?

[easty]

I tread with care !

Do we think a all women's team could be a success lets say the Lowland League?, Shelly was the manager of the UNI for a while. Lots of comments about her fitting the criteria of the SFA. Do i like her as a pundit no Julie Fleeting No however Amy Irons she speaks well and seems knowledgeable.

I could list many sports I don't like and Womens football is one of them. I don't wish any of them harm or miss fortune.

I do not believe in giving people a job just to meet with current gender gaps I feel this is happening to often in all walks of life.

Some valid points have been made on this subject but we're all scared incase we upset someone with something we say.

let me throw Andy Walker into the mix OH MY GOD :)

We are all human beings with different views some we agree with some we don't. live and let live

Any women’s team would lose every game every week in the lowland league.

That doesn’t mean that women don’t “know” football though.

[Andy74]

Any women’s team would lose every game every week in the lowland league.

That doesn’t mean that women don’t “know” football though.

Knowing football isn’t really the issue - we all ‘know’ football.

Being a pundit (the ex player type) is a specific role that should be there to provide the direct experience and thoughts of those that have done it. The commentators and others are there to describe what’s going on.

We aren’t plucking non league players or former youth level only players out and putting them up as experts.

Do any other similar type sports do this? Do the NFL have female players as expert pundits (not presenters or reporters) or rugby?

In all sorts of areas representation and allowing pathways, even positively promoting, is important. I’m not sure being an expert ex pro football pundit in the men’s game is one of those areas that needed to be solved for.

[marinello59]

Knowing football isn’t really the issue - we all ‘know’ football.

Being a pundit (the ex player type) is a specific role that should be there to provide the direct experience and thoughts of those that have done it. The commentators and others are there to describe what’s going on.

We aren’t plucking non league players or former youth level only players out and putting them up as experts.

Do any other similar type sports do this? Do the NFL have female players as expert pundits (not presenters or reporters) or rugby?

In all sorts of areas representation and allowing pathways, even positively promoting, is important. I’m not sure being an expert ex pro football pundit in the men’s game is one of those areas that needed to be solved for.

Providing your own definition of what a pundit should provide really doesn’t begin to make your ingrained prejudice acceptable in any way. Poor stuff from you over a long series of posts.

[Brightside]

Knowing football isn’t really the issue - we all ‘know’ football.

Being a pundit (the ex player type) is a specific role that should be there to provide the direct experience and thoughts of those that have done it. The commentators and others are there to describe what’s going on.

We aren’t plucking non league players or former youth level only players out and putting them up as experts.

Do any other similar type sports do this? Do the NFL have female players as expert pundits (not presenters or reporters) or rugby?

In all sorts of areas representation and allowing pathways, even positively promoting, is important. I’m not sure being an expert ex pro football pundit in the men’s game is one of those areas that needed to be solved for.

A female coaching an NBA team for example.... :wink:

[GreenCastle]

Any women’s team would lose every game every week in the lowland league.

That doesn’t mean that women don’t “know” football though.

Majority of men’s Sunday league team would lose every game, every week against a decent women’s team.

That doesn’t mean that men don’t “know” football though.

[Danderhall Hibs]

Do any other similar type sports do this? Do the NFL have female players as expert pundits (not presenters or reporters) or rugby?


ITV have had female pundits for the 6 Nations.

[James Stephen]

You are becoming a little mixed up.

"people say it's the same game, so in that case it should be judged on the same terms. In which case its poor quality football."

It IS the same game - everyone has agreed it's the same rules and same objective = to score more goals than the other team.

Explain why it isn't the same game? Using examples like the goalkeepers are small and rubbish doesn't make sense. There are plenty small and rubbish mens goalkeepers and tall mens goalkeepers making a living. Hibs have seen plenty of them over the years!!

Why should it be judged on same terms? Poor quality football ? That's a pretty wide generalisation. I've seen hundreds of crap Hibs mens games - I've even watched Barcelona mens team and Brazil mens team play poor football. There has been numerous on threads on here recently saying fans aren't enjoying football on TV with no crowds compared to being in the stadium. Even then I've come away from ER having watched Hibs play crap.

Shelly has more qualifications than probably most on here - a degree and UEFA Pro license. She has also had experiences of coaching at an International tournament - again wonder how many posters have that on their CV?

I do agree I don't think she's a very good pundit though as she just speaks in cliches but to shoot her down due to looks (as some has posted) or claiming she's just a woman given a job is nonsense.

I agree its the same game, but they are absolutely a million miles away in level - thats the point.

I dont doubt her qualifications, or that she would have more insight than me (im not a pundit either) but by the definition of the role as we know it, she is not qualified in any way.

Fwiw, i think this sense of some moral obligation to like womens football because you like mens football is what puts a lot of men off. Its being artificially inflated beyond any reasonable sense of its popularity, when it is just poor quality football.

I think its great that the women's game is growing, i think its great that participation is growing. Hopefully one day there will be big crowds attending regularly, with a high % of women, and women can even make a living out of it. But at the moment, i dont want to watch it, because its not very good and lacks many of the key ingredients that i love about football. Aggression, needle, speed, decades of rivalry and narrative and grudge, crowds, atmosphere, hatred, tribalism.

Some of those things might come in time of course, but its the emperor's new clothes at the moment. Its just not very good football. Sure, lots of mens football is not very good too, and i probably dont watch that either.

Shelley Kerr is filling a quota. I wouldnt really mind if she was any good, but she is terrible, which makes it a terrible decision.

[easty]

Majority of men’s Sunday league team would lose every game, every week against a decent women’s team.

That doesn’t mean that men don’t “know” football though.

I don’t see any Sunday league sides managers being invited onto Sportscene.

I’ve played in Sunday teams who I’d be fully confident would beat Hibs women’s team though, just saying.

[Brightside]

I agree its the same game, but they are absolutely a million miles away in level - thats the point.

I dont doubt her qualifications, or that she would have more insight than me (im not a pundit either) but by the definition of the role as we know it, she is not qualified in any way.

Fwiw, i think this sense of some moral obligation to like womens football because you like mens football is what puts a lot of men off. Its being artificially inflated beyond any reasonable sense of its popularity, when it is just poor quality football.

I think its great that the women's game is growing, i think its great that participation is growing. Hopefully one day there will be big crowds attending regularly, with a high % of women, and women can even make a living out of it. But at the moment, i dont want to watch it, because its not very good and lacks many of the key ingredients that i love about football. Aggression, needle, speed, decades of rivalry and narrative and grudge, crowds, atmosphere, hatred, tribalism.

Some of those things might come in time of course, but its the emperor's new clothes at the moment. Its just not very good football. Sure, lots of mens football is not very good too, and i probably dont watch that either.

Shelley Kerr is filling a quota. I wouldnt really mind if she was any good, but she is terrible, which makes it a terrible decision.


Nobody it telling anyone to like womens football.... this is nothing to do with womens football. People are complaining that women are being asked to be pundits on a mens football game. Its got zero to do with what you think about Womens football and more to do what you and others think of women.

[Andy74]

Nobody it telling anyone to like womens football.... this is nothing to do with womens football. People are complaining that women are being asked to be pundits on a mens football game. Its got zero to do with what you think about Womens football and more to do what you and others think of women.

It has nothing to do with what people think of women and if that is what you have picked up then you have't understood.

It is about how expert anyone can be as a pundit when they haven't played the version of the game they are commenting on. That could be non league players, youth players, ordinary fans who only played for their school or someone who has played women's football.

[Andy74]

Providing your own definition of what a pundit should provide really doesn’t begin to make your ingrained prejudice acceptable in any way. Poor stuff from you over a long series of posts.

Ah, here we go with with the 'you are actually a sexist' response.

[jacomo]

Providing your own definition of what a pundit should provide really doesn’t begin to make your ingrained prejudice acceptable in any way. Poor stuff from you over a long series of posts.


:agree:

Doubting Shelley Kerr’s qualifications as a pundit IS sexist imo.

Slagging her as a pundit isn’t necessarily sexist... depending on the motivation for doing so, of course.

[James Stephen]

Nobody it telling anyone to like womens football.... this is nothing to do with womens football. People are complaining that women are being asked to be pundits on a mens football game. Its got zero to do with what you think about Womens football and more to do what you and others think of women.

She has been given a role based on her career in women's football, and the discussion has been how valid that is, and what the equivalence between the two is, and what the criteria are, or should be for being a pundit on mens football, so i think its been central to the discussion.

And i dont mind women pundits and commentators, if they are good. I do have a problem with rubbish ones being given a gig purely because she is a woman.

[James Stephen]

:agree:

Doubting Shelley Kerr’s qualifications as a pundit IS sexist imo.

Slagging her as a pundit isn’t necessarily sexist... depending on the motivation for doing so, of course.

But its the BBCs definition - you have to have played at a level more or less equivalent. Sky do it too, with lower league journey man type players restricted to punditry on lower league games.

Which brings us back to nub - is women's fitba the same as mens, and is shelley kerr qualified. Some think yeah, others think no.

Claiming sexism just posions the debate imo. So on that note, im out, and away to see what her inside has made me for my tea before i go for a pint and watch the fitba as she sees to the bairns.

[J-C]

But its the BBCs definition - you have to have played at a level more or less equivalent. Sky do it too, with lower league journey man type players restricted to punditry on lower league games.

Which brings us back to nub - is women's fitba the same as mens, and is shelley kerr qualified. Some think yeah, others think no.

Claiming sexism just posions the debate imo. So on that note, im out, and away to see what her inside has made me for my tea before i go for a pint and watch the fitba as she sees to the bairns.


Perfect example is on Quest tv, Colin Murray hosts the show showing all the highlights from lower leagues in England, his guests are generally ex lower league players I've never heard of but have had a decent career playing for say, Plymouth. Now that ex Plymouth player will never get a gig on MOTD or SKY because he's never played at that higher level, most pundits are well known ex pros from to players in the higher league, Jermaine Jenus, Ian Wright, Jamie Redknapp etc. Any women on there are usually ex top female players who have played in the top female league in England or in the continent, there's not many of them but they tend to be very knowledgeable. Shelley Kerr Played for struggling Doncaster Belles in the women's premier league but only for 2 seasons with most of her time playing in Scotland for Kilmarnock, Hibs and Spartans, so not really at a high level as such. I find her football knowledge on the men's game poor and not because she's a woman but because she just isn't a very good pundit and it shows. Unfortunately the BBC have a habit of paying piss poor football pundits to ruin our enjoyment of the game up here.

[JimBHibees]

She has been given a role based on her career in women's football, and the discussion has been how valid that is, and what the equivalence between the two is, and what the criteria are, or should be for being a pundit on mens football, so i think its been central to the discussion.

And i dont mind women pundits and commentators, if they are good. I do have a problem with rubbish ones being given a gig purely because she is a woman.

What about male ones who are given a gig because of who they played for or who their mates are?

[Andy74]

What about male ones who are given a gig because of who they played for or who their mates are?

Yes I'd agree with this too. I said in an earlier post that ideally the 'experts' should have played at a high enough level to actually add some insight and experience to what you can see yourself but should also have the right skills and personality. Too many pundits overall fail in some of those criteria.

[Brightside]

But its the BBCs definition - you have to have played at a level more or less equivalent. Sky do it too, with lower league journey man type players restricted to punditry on lower league games.

Which brings us back to nub - is women's fitba the same as mens, and is shelley kerr qualified. Some think yeah, others think no.

Claiming sexism just posions the debate imo. So on that note, im out, and away to see what her inside has made me for my tea before i go for a pint and watch the fitba as she sees to the bairns.

Youve totally made up that BBC definition.

[marinello59]

Ah, here we go with with the 'you are actually a sexist' response.

You provided a definition to suit your argument that would specifically exclude any woman from being a pundit for the men’s game regardless of their knowledge and experience. That is sexist.

[Barney McGrew]

We have to put up with multiple people on here giving their twopence worth each week when 99% have only kicked the ball at a low amateur level and there's a small minority who think they know all there is to know about the game

:top marks

I would hope that those who think that women pundits aren’t qualified to comment on the men’s game because it’s a ‘different game’ will now make sure they don’t comment about Hibs games on here in the future unless they’ve played at Premiership level.

Otherwise they’d either be complete hypocrites or the real reason they don’t like women pundits is in reality something completely different.

[Eyrie]

Yes I'd agree with this too. I said in an earlier post that ideally the 'experts' should have played at a high enough level to actually add some insight and experience to what you can see yourself but should also have the right skills and personality. Too many pundits overall fail in some of those criteria.

Then surely the same logic applies to managers?

Because if Ferguson never played at the same level as Manchester United, then there is clearly no possibility that he would have enough insight and experience to take them back to that level and win multiple league titles and the Champions League?

[easty]

Then surely the same logic applies to managers?

Because if Ferguson never played at the same level as Manchester United, then there is clearly no possibility that he would have enough insight and experience to take them back to that level and win multiple league titles and the Champions League?

No.

[easty]

:top marks

I would hope that those who think that women pundits aren’t qualified to comment on the men’s game because it’s a ‘different game’ will now make sure they don’t comment about Hibs games on here in the future unless they’ve played at Premiership level.

Otherwise they’d either be complete hypocrites or the real reason they don’t like women pundits is in reality something completely different.

It only makes sense if you believe posting on an internet fans forum is the same as sitting as a pundit on the telly.

Which it’s very obviously not.

[Eyrie]

No.

Why not?

[Tommy75]

That's the nub of the issue right there. :agree:

Shelley Kerr would have, I imagine, had all sorts to overcome to get to the position where she coached Scotland at a World Cup - from overcoming the huge male-dominance in the sport, to having to do more than a male counterpart to prove her worth and ability because of all the in-built prejudices that people have about women in football etc

Then there is the requirement to look good, which is important, apparently. We know this because if it wasn't important, Matt Le Tissier etc would have been nowhere near the TV.

Yes people make comments about male presenters and pundits' appearance, but if you take the scale and frequency of that and compare it to that of a female pundit or presenter, you'll see exactly why people need to make more of an effort to be sensitive to it and choose not to make that comment.

Female pundits deserve a platform, there have been, for many, many years, no female role-models for any aspiring female pundits or presenters, we need some on the TV to change that, and if that means accepting that they might not be Gary Neville to start off with, then it's a price worth paying because when we persevere with it and create an environment where female pundits are the norm as much as male pundits were, then better ones come through (as happened with male pundits many moons ago).

If there was an aspiring female pundit reading this thread, I can only imagine how discouraging it would be. From people telling them that they can't understand the men's game to others saying they should only be pundits on women's football, and others saying that they turn off immediately if there's a female pundit on a show.

Those are the ingrained attitudes that they are up against.

I agree with the sentiment of your post but disagree with large parts of it.

What would a female coach, coaching a female team have to overcome?

I disagree that we should accept below standard pundit just because they are female. In many ways that would reinforce the outdated stereotypes that women shouldn't be able to comment on the mens game and may actually make it more difficult for women to break through. Also, it does a massive disservice to female pundits who actually know what they are talking about. Their credentials would be challenged even if they were there on merit.

Scottish football has been through some pretty lean years of late. The Scottish national team went 2 decades without qualifying for a major tournament, we have struggled to secure a fair TV deal from Sky etc, struggled to secure outside investment and so on. The last thing we need is our national broadcaster to put up pundits who can't provide a decent insight in to our game. We need pundits who can engage the public and make them want to watch Scottish football. If there are women who can do that then great. If not, then so be it.

[Barney McGrew]

It only makes sense if you believe posting on an internet fans forum is the same as sitting as a pundit on the telly.

Which it’s very obviously not.


Not really. If people are going to say that women pundits can’t comment because they’ve not played at the same level, then surely it stands to reason that they shouldn’t be able to - for example - comment tactically on a game they’ve never played at that level either?

I agree it’s totally odd, but then it’s no more bonkers then saying a woman can’t comment on a mans game in the first place.

[easty]

Why not?

It’s not the same. Clearly not. It’s not worth even discussing it really.

[easty]

Not really. If people are going to say that women pundits can’t comment because they’ve not played at the same level, then surely it stands to reason that they shouldn’t be able to - for example - comment tactically on a game they’ve never played at that level either?

I agree it’s totally odd, but then it’s no more bonkers then saying a woman can’t comment on a mans game in the first place.

I’ll never say that a women “shouldn’t” be commentating on men’s football, but I would say I’d prefer it to be someone who’s been at a high level of the game. Personal preference.

If there was an equivalent for acting, for example, where experienced actors talk about new tv/films. I’d rather have an Oscar winners opinion than someone who’s won a Bella magazine best actor/actress award for their role on Hollyoaks.

[Eyrie]

It’s not the same. Clearly not. It’s not worth even discussing it really.

So you're unable to explain your negative response :aok:

[Barney McGrew]

I’ll never say that a women “shouldn’t” be commentating on men’s football, but I would say I’d prefer it to be someone who’s been at a high level of the game. Personal preference

There’s been plenty of others on this thread who’ve made it clear that’s exactly why they don’t think women should be on as pundits though. And Shelley Kerr as an example will have been involved at a far higher level than 99.9% of them.

[easty]

So you're unable to explain your negative response :aok:

I can explain it.

It’s. Not. The. Same. Thing.

Doesn’t really need any more explaining than that.

[easty]

There’s been plenty of others on this thread who’ve made it clear that’s exactly why they don’t think women should be on as pundits though. And Shelley Kerr as an example will have been involved at a far higher level than 99.9% of them.

Shelley Kerr is a rubbish pundit.

Male/female, white/black, old/young, experience/none - none of that really matters when you’re nae good at the job.

[GreenCastle]

I agree with the sentiment of your post but disagree with large parts of it.

What would a female coach, coaching a female team have to overcome?

I disagree that we should accept below standard pundit just because they are female. In many ways that would reinforce the outdated stereotypes that women shouldn't be able to comment on the mens game and may actually make it more difficult for women to break through. Also, it does a massive disservice to female pundits who actually know what they are talking about. Their credentials would be challenged even if they were there on merit.

Scottish football has been through some pretty lean years of late. The Scottish national team went 2 decades without qualifying for a major tournament, we have struggled to secure a fair TV deal from Sky etc, struggled to secure outside investment and so on. The last thing we need is our national broadcaster to put up pundits who can't provide a decent insight in to our game. We need pundits who can engage the public and make them want to watch Scottish football. If there are women who can do that then great. If not, then so be it.

The Scottish National team qualified for the World Cup in France and before that the Euros in Holland - it’s been a positive of an awful time for the other national teams including the men’s team and youth teams.

I do agree that better pundits would make fans possibly tune in more on TV and radio - a start would be stop the bias towards Old Firm and more recently Hearts who have had a ridiculous amount of coverage (even though it’s been pretty hilarious listening).

[hibbysam]

So you're unable to explain your negative response :aok:

Ones getting paid for their ‘expert analysis’ to thousands of viewers to enhance their viewing of a game. The others are giving an opinion on an online forum which bares absolutely no significance. Not much difference.

[Eyrie]

I can explain it.

It’s. Not. The. Same. Thing.

Doesn’t really need any more explaining than that.

That's not explaining it, that's repeating your statement and inability to provide any reasoning for your statement.

A good manager and a good pundit have something in common - the ability to understand the game and to communicate that understanding to players/fans. That is a very different skill set to the ability to play football.

[Barney McGrew]

Shelley Kerr is a rubbish pundit.

Male/female, white/black, old/young, experience/none - none of that really matters when you’re nae good at the job.

I’m not disputing that.

[hibsbollah]

It only makes sense if you believe posting on an internet fans forum is the same as sitting as a pundit on the telly.

Which it’s very obviously not.

Some of the best football minds have never kicked a ball AT ALL. Patrick Barclay, ever read Barney Ronay or seen him in the studio? Did you think James Richardson was an intelligent contributor on Football Italia? Or back in time Hugh McIlvaney?

[easty]

That's not explaining it, that's repeating your statement and inability to provide any reasoning for your statement.

A good manager and a good pundit have something in common - the ability to understand the game and to communicate that understanding to players/fans. That is a very different skill set to the ability to play football.

The onus isn’t on me to prove why they’re not the same. That’s not how it works. You made a stupid comparison between being a pundit and being Alex Ferguson. I’m saying it doesn’t work. I stand by that.

[easty]

Some of the best football minds have never kicked a ball AT ALL. Patrick Barclay, ever read Barney Ronay or seen him in the studio? Did you think James Richardson was an intelligent contributor on Football Italia? Or back in time Hugh McIlvaney?

That’s a fair point.

As I’ve said previously on this thread, I’m not saying women “shouldn’t” be involved, just that my preference is someone who’s been at the top of the game.

There’s always room for exceptions.

[Andy74]

Why not?

It’s not quite the same. It was discussed earlier in the thread that even the likes of Mourinho and Wenger did play professionally.

I guess a more pertinent related question is whether any top level men’s teams would currently employ as a manager anyone who has played and managed only in women’s football.

I’d doubt it. Not because they are inherently sexist but for the same reasons they probably wouldn’t go for someone who had only played at youth level or non league.

[Andy74]

Some of the best football minds have never kicked a ball AT ALL. Patrick Barclay, ever read Barney Ronay or seen him in the studio? Did you think James Richardson was an intelligent contributor on Football Italia? Or back in time Hugh McIlvaney?

They are examples of good journalists. Not engaged to give expert opinions as ex pros would, which is kind of what a few have been saying. We are talking specifically about that pundit who is there to give their view and experience of playing.

[hibsbollah]

It’s not quite the same. It was discussed earlier in the thread that even the likes of Mourinho and Wenger did play professionally.

I guess a more pertinent related question is whether any top level men’s teams would currently employ as a manager anyone who has played and managed only in women’s football.

I’d doubt it. Not because they are inherently sexist but for the same reasons they probably wouldn’t go for someone who had only played at youth level or non league.

Of course they wouldn’t :dunno: But women’s professional football is only a few years old. I feel like you’re now trotting out the youth level or non league tropes as a trolling exercise. I’ve already pointed out that tactically and in terms of professionalism women’s football is way in front of youth or non league.

[superfurryhibby]

There’s been plenty of others on this thread who’ve made it clear that’s exactly why they don’t think women should be on as pundits though. And Shelley Kerr as an example will have been involved at a far higher level than 99.9% of them.

What does a far higher level really mean? If we forget gender, then the best women’s teams in the world would probably play competitively at Edinburgh juvenile under 15- under 16 level in terms of standard. I’m not just referring to competing physically, I’m also referring to basic skills.

[hibsbollah]

They are examples of good journalists. Not engaged to give expert opinions as ex pros would, which is kind of what a few have been saying. We are talking specifically about that pundit who is there to give their view and experience of playing.

No YOU are choosing to narrowing the terms of debate, because you know that you’re contradicting yourself. If you’re Hugh McIlvaney or Patrick Barclay you’re taken seriously despite having never played at the level they are discussing. You’ve already said you question the worth of womens footballers views because they have never played at the level they are discussing. That’s a clear contradiction.

Plus, i still can’t get over the fact that you think you’re qualified to pass judgement on anyone’s view on football. You were trying to persuade us all for months that Alan O’Brien was a quality player :aok:

[Andy74]

Of course they wouldn’t :dunno: But women’s professional football is only a few years old. I feel like you’re now trotting out the youth level or non league tropes as a trolling exercise. I’ve already pointed out that tactically and in terms of professionalism women’s football is way in front of youth or non league.

Can you not discuss stuff without comments like being ignorant and trolling?

I’ve posted here for a long number of years and haven’t been any of those things.

So if they wouldn’t yet be employed at clubs why should they be expert pundits?

[Andy74]

No YOU are choosing to narrowing the terms of debate, because you know that you’re contradicting yourself. If you’re Hugh McIlvaney or Patrick Barclay you’re taken seriously despite having never played at the level they are discussing. You’ve already said you question the worth of womens footballers views because they have never played at the level they are discussing. That’s a clear contradiction.

Plus, i still can’t get over the fact that you think you’re qualified to pass judgement on anyone’s view on football. You were trying to persuade us all for months that Alan O’Brien was a quality player :aok:

You might not have been following this properly then because I’ve been talking squarely about anyone who is being employed as a pundit in that ex player space not generally as journalists or commentators.

[hibsbollah]

What does a far higher level really mean? If we forget gender, then the best women’s teams in the world would probably play competitively at Edinburgh juvenile under 15- under 16 level in terms of standard. I’m not just referring to competing physically, I’m also referring to basic skills.

How do you know this? I ask because I know for a fact that if you ask the coaches of div 1 kids teams in Edinburgh, there is literally no difference between the technical skills of the best girls and boys in that cohort. There literally isn’t. That’s because girls in the up and coming generation were given the chance to play and girls in my generation weren’t.

That doesn’t mean you’re necessarily 100% wrong about technical skills of women’s teams, because changes will happen as kids get older, but I suspect you are wrong, and you’ll get exponential improvements in women’s football as the next generation of girls come through.

[Barney McGrew]

What does a far higher level really mean? If we forget gender, then the best women’s teams in the world would probably play competitively at Edinburgh juvenile under 15- under 16 level in terms of standard. I’m not just referring to competing physically, I’m also referring to basic skills.

If you don’t think that playing at a World Cup in front of tens of thousands in the stadium and millions on TV is a higher level than some school kids playing 11s at Wardie or Saughton the I’m afraid we’ll have to disagree.

The standard is a completely different argument.

[truehibernian]

No YOU are choosing to narrowing the terms of debate, because you know that you’re contradicting yourself. If you’re Hugh McIlvaney or Patrick Barclay you’re taken seriously despite having never played at the level they are discussing. You’ve already said you question the worth of womens footballers views because they have never played at the level they are discussing. That’s a clear contradiction.

Plus, i still can’t get over the fact that you think you’re qualified to pass judgement on anyone’s view on football. You were trying to persuade us all for months that Alan O’Brien was a quality player :aok:

To be fair bollah, I must admit, I thought he had potential to be a good player :cb I remember him missing two glorious chances v Gretna and his confidence levels plummeting thereafter.............he had a hard act to follow in Ivan and the fans were expectant.......if ever there was a cliched 'confidence player' it was AOB.

Anyway, get more of Rose Reilly on the telly...........she was excellent on Off The Ball and a pioneer in the women's game :aok:

[hibsbollah]

You might not have been following this properly then because I’ve been talking squarely about anyone who is being employed as a pundit in that ex player space not generally as journalists or commentators.

That’s a very odd, artificial distinction, which I think you’re using as a device to deflect.

Me mentioning Alan O’Brien isn’t trolling. It just reflects the fact that you tend to get things wrong a lot of the time.

[hibsbollah]

To be fair bollah, I must admit, I thought he had potential to be a good player :cb I remember him missing two glorious chances v Gretna and his confidence levels plummeting thereafter.............he had a hard act to follow in Ivan and the fans were expectant.......if ever there was a cliched 'confidence player' it was AOB.

Anyway, get more of Rose Reilly on the telly...........she was excellent on Off The Ball and a pioneer in the women's game :aok:

The Geordies were mad for him. A friend of mine from Durham was an obsessive Mags fan,used to attend the reserve fixtures and when I asked him he said we’d got ourselves a bargain when he signed.

Then he rocked up at ER in a flash Range Rover with AOB plates and proceeded to be a cautionary tale.

[Pretty Boy]

How many prominent food critics have cooked at Michelin star or AA rosette level? Did Barry Norman ever direct an Oscar winning film? The idea someone has to have performed at a certain level to add insight to or critique something seems flawed.

Kerr is a crap pundit because she's a crap pundit. She talks in clichés and describes exactly what everyone had already seen for themselves. I'm not sure the level she has player or coached at had much to do with it. Willie Miller has won a European trophy and he does the same. Michael Owen played for some of the biggest clubs in the world and has nearly 100 England caps and adds almost nothing of note when employed as a pundit or Co commentator. I'd rather listen to someone like Alex Scott than either of those 2.

[truehibernian]

The Geordies were mad for him. A friend of mine from Durham was an obsessive Mags fan,used to attend the reserve fixtures and when I asked him he said we’d got ourselves a bargain when he signed.

Then he rocked up at ER in a flash Range Rover with AOB plates and proceeded to be a cautionary tale.

Whilst the legend that is Amadou drove up in a S Reg Corsa :greengrin (only teasing)

[hibsbollah]

Whilst the legend that is Amadou drove up in a S Reg Corsa :greengrin (only teasing)

Zemmama drove a crappy wee second hand VW golf. It takes a sense of style for a footballer to drive a rubbish car :greengrin

[truehibernian]

Zemmama drove a crappy wee second hand VW golf. It takes a sense of style for a footballer to drive a rubbish car :greengrin

Cannae top trump Wee Russell's VW Beetle with the wee flower on the dash :greengrin:wink: just a shame he couldn't work oot his sat nav :greengrin

[superfurryhibby]

If you don’t think that playing at a World Cup in front of tens of thousands in the stadium and millions on TV is a higher level than some school kids playing 11s at Wardie or Saughton the I’m afraid we’ll have to disagree.

The standard is a completely different argument.

I did make the distinction and specifically referred to standard of play.

A higher level, mmmmmm, maybe not. A higher profile setting, of course. I measure standard of play by skill factor.

Personally, I find women’s football pretty dull. It’s slow, lacking in technique, with lots of basic errors. Fine by me if others enjoy that though.

Women’s tennis, no problems I enjoy it. I know they play at a level I could never have dreamed of, even although I was not bad at the game.

I’m fine with women pundits, but let’s not pretend that Kerr is there for her insight or ability to articulate. It’s all about inclusivity and I think that’s ok too.

[hibsbollah]

Cannae top trump Wee Russell's VW Beetle with the wee flower on the dash :greengrin:wink: just a shame he couldn't work oot his sat nav :greengrin

That sounds like a bit of a lassies car :duck:

I’m oota here.

[truehibernian]

That sounds like a bit of a lassies car :duck:

I’m oota here.

True story....I told him that after that 'incident' :agree::greengrin whilst sharing a cigarette with Dwight Yorke :rolleyes::greengrin one of those 'had to be there' moments in life

[Sir David Gray]

That's the nub of the issue right there. :agree:

Shelley Kerr would have, I imagine, had all sorts to overcome to get to the position where she coached Scotland at a World Cup - from overcoming the huge male-dominance in the sport, to having to do more than a male counterpart to prove her worth and ability because of all the in-built prejudices that people have about women in football etc

Then there is the requirement to look good, which is important, apparently. We know this because if it wasn't important, Matt Le Tissier etc would have been nowhere near the TV.

Yes people make comments about male presenters and pundits' appearance, but if you take the scale and frequency of that and compare it to that of a female pundit or presenter, you'll see exactly why people need to make more of an effort to be sensitive to it and choose not to make that comment.

Female pundits deserve a platform, there have been, for many, many years, no female role-models for any aspiring female pundits or presenters, we need some on the TV to change that, and if that means accepting that they might not be Gary Neville to start off with, then it's a price worth paying because when we persevere with it and create an environment where female pundits are the norm as much as male pundits were, then better ones come through (as happened with male pundits many moons ago).

If there was an aspiring female pundit reading this thread, I can only imagine how discouraging it would be. From people telling them that they can't understand the men's game to others saying they should only be pundits on women's football, and others saying that they turn off immediately if there's a female pundit on a show.

Those are the ingrained attitudes that they are up against.

As someone who is part of a minority group myself I want to be given a job because I'm the best person for it.

I think organisations like the BBC in particular should be employing the very best presenters and pundits around regardless of gender, race, sexuality etc.

I'm quite sure that there's many females out there who could do a better job than Derek Ferguson, Billy Dodds and Allan Preston and on that basis they should be in ahead of them regardless of how much experience they have of playing professional men's football (like I said before that is irrelevant to me) but I disagree that they should be picked as some tick box exercise.

[Crunchie]

As someone who is part of a minority group myself I want to be given a job because I'm the best person for it.

I think organisations like the BBC in particular should be employing the very best presenters and pundits around regardless of gender, race, sexuality etc.

I'm quite sure that there's many females out there who could do a better job than Derek Ferguson, Billy Dodds and Allan Preston and on that basis they should be in ahead of them regardless of how much experience they have of playing professional men's football (like I said before that is irrelevant to me) but I disagree that they should be picked as some tick box exercise.
And that I think would be the opinion of the vast majority :top marks

[mcohibs]

As someone who is part of a minority group myself I want to be given a job because I'm the best person for it.

I think organisations like the BBC in particular should be employing the very best presenters and pundits around regardless of gender, race, sexuality etc.

I'm quite sure that there's many females out there who could do a better job than Derek Ferguson, Billy Dodds and Allan Preston and on that basis they should be in ahead of them regardless of how much experience they have of playing professional men's football (like I said before that is irrelevant to me) but I disagree that they should be picked as some tick box exercise.

Nowt wrong with Derek Ferguson btw. Very knowledgeable pundit

[Danderhall Hibs]

How many prominent food critics have cooked at Michelin star or AA rosette level? Did Barry Norman ever direct an Oscar winning film? The idea someone has to have performed at a certain level to add insight to or critique something seems flawed.

Kerr is a crap pundit because she's a crap pundit. She talks in clichés and describes exactly what everyone had already seen for themselves. I'm not sure the level she has player or coached at had much to do with it. Willie Miller has won a European trophy and he does the same. Michael Owen played for some of the biggest clubs in the world and has nearly 100 England caps and adds almost nothing of note when employed as a pundit or Co commentator. I'd rather listen to someone like Alex Scott than either of those 2.

Absolutely - to all of that.

And Miller won all those trophies back in the old days when today’s rules didn’t apply, the game was played in mud and you were allowed to break the strikers legs.

[green leaves]

If someone says Kris Boyd is a **** pundit and an absolute mess, that’s fine.

Substitute Kris Boyd for Shelley Kerr, and it becomes a problem about sexism?

Then you're part of the problem.
It's not hard to understand

[Brightside]

This thread is very depressing.

[WhileTheChief..]

As someone who is part of a minority group myself I want to be given a job because I'm the best person for it..

Excellent, just as it should be.

I apply the same in all of these areas. I simply don’t pay attention to gender, sexuality or race in any of these issues - I treat everyone exactly the same.

To me, that is equality.

Where I disagree with so many on this board, is where the whole identity politics comes into it.

By saying more women should do this, or more ethnic minorities are needed here or there, that adds to the problem. You’re creating a division right there.

“You’re LGBT therfore......”
”you’re black so.....”

That’s total BS. It might be with the best of intentions but by doing so you’re immediately treating them differently, the very opposite of what equality is.

So, yeah, treat everyone the same and we’ll be well on the road to actual equality.

[vuefrom1875]

Nowt wrong with Derek Ferguson btw. Very knowledgeable pundit

Except he struggles to string a sentence together 🤔

[mcohibs]

Except he struggles to string a sentence together 🤔

Does he? Not really the impression I've got from listening to him tbh

[easty]

Then you're part of the problem.
It's not hard to understand

Yawn.

[Eyrie]

The onus isn’t on me to prove why they’re not the same. That’s not how it works. You made a stupid comparison between being a pundit and being Alex Ferguson. I’m saying it doesn’t work. I stand by that.

It's up to you to prove why what you are saying is a valid observation.

It's up to others to judge the validity of that observation given your refusal to do so.

I'll leave you to keep digging.

[easty]

It's up to you to prove why what you are saying is a valid observation.

It's up to others to judge the validity of that observation given your refusal to do so.

I'll leave you to keep digging.

You’ve not half taken the hump at being told your comparison was ****!

Digging? Hardly. I don’t care.

[Andy74]

This thread is very depressing.

I think only because it has gone the same way as many threads now in that the assumption is that people are being sexist / racist, whatever.

Actually reading what people are saying shows that isn’t the case.

If anyone was to say women just don’t belong in football or women aren’t capable of understanding football then that would be sexist.

The worst thing that has been said here is that women’s football is not the same standard as men’s football. That’s a matter of taste and opinion, not an insult based on sex.

I don’t see that anyone has said in this specific discussion that women shouldn’t be pundits because they are women or because they don’t understand football. People are saying that their preference is to have pundits that have played at the sort of level they are watching. That goes for men and women.

We’ve had acceptance here from some of the strongest arguers for the women’s game that it isn’t yet at the same level or developed to the point where someone from the women’s game would, for example, be employed by a men’s football team as a coach.

Getting upset or depressed about people’s preference for pundits to be at the same level and experience as the playing and coaching staff seems a bit misplaced. Equating it too sexism is very much missing the point of the discussion.

[Vault Boy]

I think only because it has gone the same way as many threads now in that the assumption is that people are being sexist / racist, whatever.

Actually reading what people are saying shows that isn’t the case.

If anyone was to say women just don’t belong in football or women aren’t capable of understanding football then that would be sexist.

The worst thing that has been said here is that women’s football is not the same standard as men’s football. That’s a matter of taste and opinion, not an insult based on sex.

I don’t see that anyone has said in this specific discussion that women shouldn’t be pundits because they are women or because they don’t understand football. People are saying that their preference is to have pundits that have played at the sort of level they are watching. That goes for men and women.

We’ve had acceptance here from some of the strongest arguers for the women’s game that it isn’t yet at the same level or developed to the point where someone from the women’s game would, for example, be employed by a men’s football team as a coach.

Getting upset or depressed about people’s preference for pundits to be at the same level and experience as the playing and coaching staff seems a bit misplaced. Equating it too sexism is very much missing the point of the discussion.

Apart from comments that have actually had to be deleted due to sexist content, people referring to female pundits as 'adorable', and the compulsion of some to continue to belittle the women's game by making pointless comparisons to amateur men's football and the like.

I agree that there have been a lot of rather depressing posts on this thread. I'm somewhat surprised you continue to repeat your argument because a few pages ago you said you don't really care.

[Baader]

The usual dinosaurs and attention seekers on here it seems. "Personal preference" always a convenient get out clause before the "I don't care" card gets produced. 😔

Interesting that, on another recent thread, Bob Crampsey is lauded as one of the greatest football pundits we've had (which I would agree with.) He didn't play professional football so according to some on here he shouldn't have had a career in sports broadcasting 🤣

[Since90+2]

As someone who is part of a minority group myself I want to be given a job because I'm the best person for it.

I think organisations like the BBC in particular should be employing the very best presenters and pundits around regardless of gender, race, sexuality etc.

I'm quite sure that there's many females out there who could do a better job than Derek Ferguson, Billy Dodds and Allan Preston and on that basis they should be in ahead of them regardless of how much experience they have of playing professional men's football (like I said before that is irrelevant to me) but I disagree that they should be picked as some tick box exercise.

The best post on this entire thread IMO.

Well put SDG.

[happiehibbie]

No YOU are choosing to narrowing the terms of debate, because you know that you’re contradicting yourself. If you’re Hugh McIlvaney or Patrick Barclay you’re taken seriously despite having never played at the level they are discussing. You’ve already said you question the worth of womens footballers views because they have never played at the level they are discussing. That’s a clear contradiction.

Plus, i still can’t get over the fact that you think you’re qualified to pass judgement on anyone’s view on football. You were trying to persuade us all for months that Alan O’Brien was a quality player :aok:
t



Alan O’Brien was a quality player


WAY TO FAR :greengrin

[happiehibbie]

This Thread has had some hits
I think having an opinion on any subject the other person does not agree with has transferred into being a Racist,Sexist,bigot chauvinist,hypocrite, all round bad person.

Lets get talking about Hibs :)

[happiehibbie]

excellent, just as it should be.

I apply the same in all of these areas. I simply don’t pay attention to gender, sexuality or race in any of these issues - i treat everyone exactly the same.

To me, that is equality.

Where i disagree with so many on this board, is where the whole identity politics comes into it.

By saying more women should do this, or more ethnic minorities are needed here or there, that adds to the problem. You’re creating a division right there.

“you’re lgbt therfore......”
”you’re black so.....”

that’s total bs. It might be with the best of intentions but by doing so you’re immediately treating them differently, the very opposite of what equality is.

So, yeah, treat everyone the same and we’ll be well on the road to actual equality.



this

[hibbysam]

Apart from comments that have actually had to be deleted due to sexist content, people referring to female pundits as 'adorable', and the compulsion of some to continue to belittle the women's game by making pointless comparisons to amateur men's football and the like.

I agree that there have been a lot of rather depressing posts on this thread. I'm somewhat surprised you continue to repeat your argument because a few pages ago you said you don't really care.

I made the comparison to amateur men’s football, because It was said that football is football, regardless of level (women’s or mens) it’s the same game. Therefore someone playing amateur football is also ‘qualified’ to become a top level pundit. I also believe that amateur men’s football and women’s football is, at worst. on a par in this country. That’s an opinion and I don’t think it’s controversial. Kerr got the biggest job in Scottish women’s football based on a rather average time in the Lowland league.

Therefore if you stuck me on the tele to talk about the Premiership, and I was really ***** at it, you’d be asking why I was there. I don’t think many would accept ‘because he’s played at such and such a level’.

Hardly depressing. What’s depressing is the same posters shooting anyone down that has an opinion on anything and turns it controversial. Is Shelley Kerr a ***** pundit? Aye she is.

I’d have a full panel of women if they added to the experience and we’re better than their male counterparts. Right now I’d struggle to pick a decent 3 pundits between men or women. It’s not prejudiced against women, but it’s right to question why someone is there when they are brutal at the job.

[Brizo]

How many prominent food critics have cooked at Michelin star or AA rosette level? Did Barry Norman ever direct an Oscar winning film? The idea someone has to have performed at a certain level to add insight to or critique something seems flawed.

Kerr is a crap pundit because she's a crap pundit. She talks in clichés and describes exactly what everyone had already seen for themselves. I'm not sure the level she has player or coached at had much to do with it. Willie Miller has won a European trophy and he does the same. Michael Owen played for some of the biggest clubs in the world and has nearly 100 England caps and adds almost nothing of note when employed as a pundit or Co commentator. I'd rather listen to someone like Alex Scott than either of those 2.

:top marks

Add to that TV critics, music critics, book critics etc. Sport and football, in particular, is the only part of the entertainment industry where the mentality exists that you have to have performed at a certain level to have a valid opinion. It's quite bizarre and I think it says a lot about the insular bubble a lot of professional football people inhabit.

Kerr is crap but no worse than the vast majority of ex-pros Doddsy, Boydy, Preston etc. Decent ex-pro pundits are few and far between. I used to really enjoy Craig Pattersons' punditry and that's not green-tinted glasses as I thought Murdo was useless. Michael Stewart is good but not as good as he thinks he is and hasn't really got much competition in the stringing a coherent sentence together stakes.

[easty]

The usual dinosaurs and attention seekers on here it seems. "Personal preference" always a convenient get out clause before the "I don't care" card gets produced. 😔

Interesting that, on another recent thread, Bob Crampsey is lauded as one of the greatest football pundits we've had (which I would agree with.) He didn't play professional football so according to some on here he shouldn't have had a career in sports broadcasting 🤣

I don’t think you’ve even bothered to read the whole thread.

[Brightside]

this

This is no "This" about it....it's so far off the mark it's brutal. You cannot have equality when one group is starting 50 yards behind in a 100 yard sprint. Positive discrimination is all about trying to get everyone to an equal playing field and then we can actually have some equality.

This continues to amaze me.

There are female coaches in the NBA - how can that be possible when they aren't 6ft9 and have played at that level?

A women who plays football is more than capable of being a pundit on mens football - they are the exact same sport. I've coached both...unbelievably i don't have different sessions for different sexes. There aren't different coaching badges for women's football. If it was a different sport there would be.

A man who plays golf can comment on women's golf - they are the exact same sport.

A women who plays darts can comment on mens darts - they are the exact same sport.

Anyone thinking otherwise is doing so based on a previously learnt behaviour.

[worcesterhibby]

Shelly Kerr, Davie Provan and Andy Walker are all absolutely terrible pundits. Pat Nevin is great, Micheal Stewart is decent and Marvin Bartley is a joy. I don’t mind Leanne Crichton and Eilidh Barbour is pretty Decent. Tom English is an absolute roaster.
I think what all this actually proves is that being a good pundit is very hard and requires a bunch of key skills which are very, very rarely found in ex footballers.
To be a good pundit you have to be articulate, be a confident public speaker with a clear voice that is easy to listen to, you have to have an analytical mind and an excellent knowledge of the tactical side of football as well as the ability to remember players names, stats and strengths and weaknesses. It helps if you are not overly biased towards one team, or at least self aware enough to not let that bias overly influence your opinion. A sense of humour helps as does the ability to listen to other presenters and interact in a positive and constructive way with them. It’s a tall order, and very few people have that skill set, let alone ex professional footballers. The women’s game is growing year on year, so the pool of ex women players to choose from will increase and I suspect the standard of female pundit will therefore improve. If that means there are less Andy Walker/ Davie Provan types on my telly squeezing the joy out of life, it will be a good thing.

[WhileTheChief..]

This is no "This" about it....it's so far off the mark it's brutal. You cannot have equality when one group is starting 50 yards behind in a 100 yard sprint. Positive discrimination is all about trying to get everyone to an equal playing field and then we can actually have some equality.

This continues to amaze me.

There are female coaches in the NBA - how can that be possible when they aren't 6ft9 and have played at that level?

A women who plays football is more than capable of being a pundit on mens football - they are the exact same sport. I've coached both...unbelievably i don't have different sessions for different sexes. There aren't different coaching badges for women's football. If it was a different sport there would be.

A man who plays golf can comment on women's golf - they are the exact same sport.

A women who plays darts can comment on mens darts - they are the exact same sport.

Anyone thinking otherwise is doing so based on a previously learnt behaviour.

He was replying to my post.

I just strongly disagree with you.

There may be certain instances where positive discrimination is required but it should not be the norm.

”anyone thinking otherwise” ... so, we all have to agree with you? A bit arrogant no?

[superfurryhibby]

The “if you don’t agree, you’re part of the problem” nonsense is quite strong on this thread. It does no opinion ( and that all it is) any favours.

[Brightside]

He was replying to my post.

I just strongly disagree with you.

There may be certain instances where positive discrimination is required but it should not be the norm.

”anyone thinking otherwise” ... so, we all have to agree with you? A bit arrogant no?

Its not arrogant. Where there is currently discrimination there has to be positive discrimination to get it to a level game. Wether it is sexism or racism you can't just say pick the best person when one group has been deliberately held back for hundreds of years.

If you teach a kid to ride a bike and you keep pulling her back by the saddle will she ever be a great cyclist? You have to push and help all the way.

TBF i shouldnt call it Positive Discrimination as thats actually against the law. Positive Action is the term i should use.

[Brightside]

The “if you don’t agree, you’re part of the problem” nonsense is quite strong on this thread. It does no opinion ( and that all it is) any favours.

If someone is being sexist - i'll point it out. Its my opinion that there is plenty of that on this thread. An opinion that a women shouldn't be a pundit on a mens sport is Sexism.

[hibee-boys]

Its not arrogant. Where there is currently discrimination there has to be positive discrimination to get it to a level game. Wether it is sexism or racism you can't just say pick the best person when one group has been deliberately held back for hundreds of years.

If you teach a kid to ride a bike and you keep pulling her back by the saddle will she ever be a great cyclist? You have to push and help all the way.

TBF i shouldnt call it Positive Discrimination as thats actually against the law. Positive Action is the term i should use.

Where candidates for a position, and I mean any job, have equal ability/skills I wholeheartedly agree that positive action should be taken to try and achieve a ‘level game’. Reading through the posts on this thread I’d suggest that the vast majority of people would agree. However, when people of certain gender/race/sexual orientation/religion beliefs are being selected over more competent candidates, purely on the basis of what sets them apart, how can that be anything other than discrimination against the individual who is better qualified for the job........any job?

[superfurryhibby]

If someone is being sexist - i'll point it out. Its my opinion that there is plenty of that on this thread. An opinion that a women shouldn't be a pundit on a mens sport is Sexism.

Yes, but not many people have really come out with that, have they? If so, they get rightly highlighted as being ridic.

Instead there have been many more nuanced discussions around qualifying how you measure standards of the game etc. That kind of debate is hard, nigh impossible to qualify definitively, yet still the accusations of being part of problem etc are being trotted out.

We have all kinds of sensitivities at play. One example, we call call Boyd a lumpen, angry, fat, Hun prick but most of us realise that referring toShelley Kerr as a muttfaced Bride of Dracula etc, isn’t that appropriate. The vast majority recognise the differing context and post accordingly.

Discussion can shed light and help inform, possibly even give cause for reflection and change/ shape opinion. Let’s not get to holier than thou unless it really is required ?

[Spike Mandela]

I think the football tv format lends itself to monotony and clichė. A presenter, a couple of pundits a highlights package, throw in a rubbish game to boot and all that air time to fill. What can they honestly say that you haven’t heard before?

What I look for is variety. It used to be the same old people over and over again back in the day. Usually Rangers/ Celtic centred jobs for the boys..

I don’t care if they are male, female, good looking, ex players, current players, journslists, presenters, Scottish, foreign, referees or comedians etc as long as they are interesting, engaging, have opinions and don’t resort to the same old “game of two halves” jargon. I don’t care what team they support as long as all shades of supporter are represented.

I don’t buy this quota thing either, that women are only asked on to fulfill a quota. Look around you at football games nowadays there are lots of women attending matches and clubs want to attract more people, of all persuasions, to the games. Women who follow football no doubt want to see people who look and sound like them talking about the game on tv from time to time.

The trouble you have is finding the right people. Some are good at television presentation, some are good at football analysis, some have great experience, some have charisma and some like to stoke controversey and make interesting tv. The challenge is finding people with all these attributes, if they indeed exist.

You are never going to find someone that pleases everybody and until they do I hope they keep shaking up the roster of pundits and keep the range and diversity up.

[Brightside]

Yes, but not many people have really come out with that, have they? If so, they rightly highlighted as being ridic.

Instead there have been many more nuanced discussions around qualifying how you measure standards of the game etc. That kind of debate is hard, nigh impossible to qualify definitively, yet still the accusations of being part of problems etc are being trotted out.

We have all kinds of sensitivities at play. One example, we call call Boyd a lumpen, angry, fat, Hun prick but most of us realise that referring toShelley Kerr as a muttfaced Bride of Dracula etc, isn’t that appropriate. The vast majority recognise the differing context and post accordingly.

Discussion can shed light and help inform, possibly even give cause for reflection and change/ shape opinion. Let’s not get to holier than thou unless it really is required perhaps?

Some of the main contributors to the thread have said that women shouldn't be pundits on mens sport. Its not holier than thou to point out that its inherently sexist to have that view. Its a totally different view to "She's a ***** pundit" :aok:

[Since90+2]

Yes, but not many people have really come out with that, have they? If so, they rightly highlighted as being ridic.

Instead there have been many more nuanced discussions around qualifying how you measure standards of the game etc. That kind of debate is hard, nigh impossible to qualify definitively, yet still the accusations of being part of problems etc are being trotted out.

We have all kinds of sensitivities at play. One example, we call call Boyd a lumpen, angry, fat, Hun prick but most of us realise that referring toShelley Kerr as a muttfaced Bride of Dracula etc, isn’t that appropriate. The vast majority recognise the differing context and post accordingly.

Discussion can shed light and help inform, possibly even give cause for reflection and change/ shape opinion. Let’s not get to holier than thou unless it really is required perhaps?

Good post.

Insightful and respectful without throwing petty slurs and lazy accusations around. Exactly what this site needs more of.

[Andy74]

Some of the main contributors to the thread have said that women shouldn't be pundits on mens sport. Its not holier than thou to point out that its inherently sexist to have that view. Its a totally different view to "She's a ***** pundit" :aok:

You really aren’t understanding the discussion then and comments like this that ignore the actual points made just detract from it.

[Vault Boy]

I made the comparison to amateur men’s football, because It was said that football is football, regardless of level (women’s or mens) it’s the same game. Therefore someone playing amateur football is also ‘qualified’ to become a top level pundit. I also believe that amateur men’s football and women’s football is, at worst. on a par in this country. That’s an opinion and I don’t think it’s controversial. Kerr got the biggest job in Scottish women’s football based on a rather average time in the Lowland league.

Therefore if you stuck me on the tele to talk about the Premiership, and I was really ***** at it, you’d be asking why I was there. I don’t think many would accept ‘because he’s played at such and such a level’.

Hardly depressing. What’s depressing is the same posters shooting anyone down that has an opinion on anything and turns it controversial. Is Shelley Kerr a ***** pundit? Aye she is.

I’d have a full panel of women if they added to the experience and we’re better than their male counterparts. Right now I’d struggle to pick a decent 3 pundits between men or women. It’s not prejudiced against women, but it’s right to question why someone is there when they are brutal at the job.

Somebody saying they think Kerr is a crap pundit isn't the depressing thing about this thread, my post made it clear what posts I was referring to. I've never been impressed by Kerr.

You wouldn't have a whole panel of women, because you've just reiterated that professional women's football is equivalent to men's amateur football, which completely gates off the opportunity for women in punditry positions by the same standard. The level between the pro men's and women's game must be important to you and others, otherwise you wouldn't have mentioned it RE Kerr.

If a pundit is inarticulate, uninsightful, or uninteresting etc, then fire away - but many on this thread have decided that female pundits can't do the job, regardless of how well they analyse the game, simply because women's football isn't (and never will be) at the same standard as the men's. That's wrong.

[Tommy75]

This is no "This" about it....it's so far off the mark it's brutal. You cannot have equality when one group is starting 50 yards behind in a 100 yard sprint. Positive discrimination is all about trying to get everyone to an equal playing field and then we can actually have some equality.

This continues to amaze me.

There are female coaches in the NBA - how can that be possible when they aren't 6ft9 and have played at that level?

A women who plays football is more than capable of being a pundit on mens football - they are the exact same sport. I've coached both...unbelievably i don't have different sessions for different sexes. There aren't different coaching badges for women's football. If it was a different sport there would be.

A man who plays golf can comment on women's golf - they are the exact same sport.

A women who plays darts can comment on mens darts - they are the exact same sport.

Anyone thinking otherwise is doing so based on a previously learnt behaviour.

Are you just talking about football or are you suggesting certain groups start 50 yards behind in a 100 yard sprint in general?

[Brightside]

Are you just talking about football or are you suggesting certain groups start 50 yards behind in a 100 yard sprint in general?

I'm just painting a picture. If women have been systematically held back for so many years, there has to be positive action to try and reverse that. Otherwise everyone will continue to grow up thinking they cant do things like be a pundit on a mans football show. Thats no way to bring up children in my view. I'm probably more aware of this stuff as i have daughters. I'm never going to tell them they shouldn't do something just because they are women.

The vast majority of pundits in scotland are pish... but that has nothing to do with their sex, or what level they played at in sport.

[hibbysam]

Somebody saying they think Kerr is a crap pundit isn't the depressing thing about this thread, my post made it clear what posts I was referring to. I've never been impressed by Kerr.

You wouldn't have a whole panel of women, because you've just reiterated that professional women's football is equivalent to men's amateur football, which completely gates off the opportunity for women in punditry positions by the same standard. The level between the pro men's and women's game must be important to you and others, otherwise you wouldn't have mentioned it RE Kerr.

If a pundit is inarticulate, uninsightful, or uninteresting etc, then fire away - but many on this thread have decided that female pundits can't do the job, regardless of how well they analyse the game, simply because women's football isn't (and never will be) at the same standard as the men's. That's wrong.

It’s not important, it was important enough to the poster that said because she’s been to a World Cup qualifies her for the position. I’m allowed to completely disagree with this. Also the ‘women’s football and men’s football is the same sport’ is true, so the amateur football argument fits that Bill too. They are the points I was making with adding amateur football in.

I don’t disagree with the last point.

[Baader]

I don’t think you’ve even bothered to read the whole thread.

No, sadly I have. Anyone that holds arguably a more progressive view has either "not understood" or"hasnt read the thread." Tedious in the extreme.

[WeeRussell]

I'm just painting a picture. If women have been systematically held back for so many years, there has to be positive action to try and reverse that. Otherwise everyone will continue to grow up thinking they cant do things like be a pundit on a mans football show. Thats no way to bring up children in my view. I'm probably more aware of this stuff as i have daughters. I'm never going to tell them they shouldn't do something just because they are women.

The vast majority of pundits in scotland are pish... but that has nothing to do with their sex, or what level they played at in sport.

Not saying I point blank disagree with most of your points - but surely there is a legitimate case from those arguing against you that while attitudes and systems need to change (due to the systemic disadvantage you refer to) fast-tracking people into roles because of their gender isn't the way to do it?

Furthermore, they may wish to contest that being held back for "so many years" isn't really that relevant (other than acknowledging how sad it is that this was the case for so long) and what's important is the current position and how it can be addressed. Clearly while there is still plenty of work to be done across society, we are in a better place than ever in regards to gender discrimination, whether that is thanks to positive discrimination or otherwise.

Finally, I understand the having daughters perspective, but wonder if those with young sons would feel something similar if they seen their child rejected for an opportunity due to their gender.

Like I say, you're not necessarily wrong. But I wouldn't write-off a lot of those posters challenging your view as hopeless misogynists (not that you have!) - there is a debate to be had in much of this.

[Andy74]

Not saying I point blank disagree with most of your points - but surely there is a legitimate case from those arguing against you that while attitudes and systems need to change (due to the systemic disadvantage you refer to) fast-tracking people into roles because of their gender isn't the way to do it?

Furthermore, they may wish to contest that being held back for "so many years" isn't really that relevant (other than acknowledging how sad it is that this was the case for so long) and what's important is the current position and how it can be addressed. Clearly while there is still plenty of work to be done across society, we are in a better place than ever in regards to gender discrimination, whether that is thanks to positive discrimination or otherwise.

Finally, I understand the having daughters perspective, but wonder if those with young sons would feel something similar if they seen their child rejected for an opportunity due to their gender.

Like I say, you're not necessarily wrong. But I wouldn't write-off a lot of those posters challenging your view as hopeless misogynists (not that you have!) - there is a debate to be had in much of this.


I actually disagree with much of that - I think there are definitely situations where you have to positively promote minorities in order to achieve a better balance for the here and now and the future.

Ironically (if that’s the correct use) given what people chose to be reading into what I’m saying in this thread, I helped to research and draft a report which has become the current standard for achieving diversity at Board level across the UK. I’ve also drafted several inclusion and diversity policies and ensured they were carried out in the organisations that adopted them to help drive change now on Boards and in the executive populations that provide the pipeline. This includes making sure that for a period females and other groups that are not represented to a sufficient level are given pathways and direct appointments to those positions.

I take exception when people wrongly read sexism into everything and don’t really take the time to actually understand what is being said and why.

In this case football is inherently a segregated sport in terms of participation. We may get into gender issues in the future but I think for now most people would agree that this is done not for issues of sexism but for reasons of physicality etc.

There are loads of roles in football where you do want to see more gender diversity and this should be positively encouraged because football has an audience which includes females and you should try to have set ups that reflect that. It would be great to see more female CEOs, on boards, on football associations, football journalism, presenting, referees etc. I would absolutely encourage positive action on all those fronts.

For me, quite simply, the very narrow and niche role of being the ex player pundit to give some helpful colour and experience of the level you are watching should be seen as extension of the pool that you have of players - who we haven’t argued to date can continue to be limited to men. I agree with what others have said that this should also be about the appropriate level - counting out non league and youth players for higher level games. They should also be good at it.

I don’t see that as one of the roles that needs any positive action taken quite simply because I think it should be linked to having played the specific version of the game at the specific level.

Loads of folk disagree and that’s fine too - the TV companies largely agree with those people and that’s what we have in place now, but I should be free to disagree for the pretty clear reasons I’ve given without being called directly or indirectly a sexist or a dinosaur or non progressive. I’m very happy to be actively progressive when I think there’s a proper and genuine reason to do it.

[easty]

No, sadly I have. Anyone that holds arguably a more progressive view has either "not understood" or"hasnt read the thread." Tedious in the extreme.

Anyone who does this blah blah
Anyone who says this blah blah

We get it, you’re “woke” or whatever.

[Danderhall Hibs]

I actually disagree with much of that - I think there are definitely situations where you have to positively promote minorities in order to achieve a better balance for the here and now and the future.

Ironically (if that’s the correct use) given what people chose to be reading into what I’m saying in this thread, I helped to research and draft a report which has become the current standard for achieving diversity at Board level across the UK. I’ve also drafted several inclusion and diversity policies and ensured they were carried out in the organisations that adopted them to help drive change now on Boards and in the executive populations that provide the pipeline. This includes making sure that for a period females and other groups that are not represented to a sufficient level are given pathways and direct appointments to those positions.

I take exception when people wrongly read sexism into everything and don’t really take the time to actually understand what is being said and why.

In this case football is inherently a segregated sport in terms of participation. We may get into gender issues in the future but I think for now most people would agree that this is done not for issues of sexism but for reasons of physicality etc.

There are loads of roles in football where you do want to see more gender diversity and this should be positively encouraged because football has an audience which includes females and you should try to have set ups that reflect that. It would be great to see more female CEOs, on boards, on football associations, football journalism, presenting, referees etc. I would absolutely encourage positive action on all those fronts.

For me, quite simply, the very narrow and niche role of being the ex player pundit to give some helpful colour and experience of the level you are watching should be seen as extension of the pool that you have of players - who we haven’t argued to date can continue to be limited to men. I agree with what others have said that this should also be about the appropriate level - counting out non league and youth players for higher level games. They should also be good at it.

I don’t see that as one of the roles that needs any positive action taken quite simply because I think it should be linked to having played the specific version of the game at the specific level.

Loads of folk disagree and that’s fine too - the TV companies largely agree with those people and that’s what we have in place now, but I should be free to disagree for the pretty clear reasons I’ve given without being called directly or indirectly a sexist or a dinosaur or non progressive. I’m very happy to be actively progressive when I think there’s a proper and genuine reason to do it.

Which paper is it Andy? It’d be good to have a read. I assume it’s out there given it’s the UK standard.

Especially interested given your stated opposition to female ex players being barred from the ex player pundit role.

[Baader]

Anyone who does this blah blah
Anyone who says this blah blah

We get it, you’re “woke” or whatever.

Andy has taken the time to explain his stance on it. Yours amounts to "blah blah." Really good.

[WhileTheChief..]

Andy has taken the time to explain his stance on it. Yours amounts to "blah blah." Really good.

In fairness, your post didn’t merit much more of a response:na na:

[Shrekko]

No, sadly I have. Anyone that holds arguably a more progressive view has either "not understood" or"hasnt read the thread." Tedious in the extreme.

I think you've maybe 'read' the thread but chosen to take from it things that aren't there or haven't actually been said. Your Bob Crampsey post proves it.

[Andy74]

Which paper is it Andy? It’d be good to have a read. I assume it’s out there given it’s the UK standard.

Especially interested given your stated opposition to female ex players being barred from the ex player pundit role.

Message sent!

[easty]

Andy has taken the time to explain his stance on it. Yours amounts to "blah blah." Really good.

I’m bored of the constant inference of sexism, where it’s actually the opposite.

I could be wrong, but asking for the sexes to be treated the same, can’t be sexist...

[Danderhall Hibs]

I’m bored of the constant inference of sexism, where it’s actually the opposite.

I could be wrong, but asking for the sexes to be treated the same, can’t be sexist...

Yeah it’s probably not sexism just an in built misogyny.

I saw a form of it today at the football camp my daughter’s going to where in a team of 3 the boys wouldn’t pass to the girl. They think at the age of 10 that the girl isn’t good enough - and from what I saw it simply isn’t true.

[J-C]

This thread is ****ing nuts.

Football across the board is the same the only difference is the standard to which it is played but TBH this has absolutely nothing to do with gender whatsoever.

We should be looking at the simple facts here that Kerr is basically a pish poor pundit and it has nothing to do with her gender, who she played for or at what level. The other problem is companies like the BBC etc are trying too hard to be woke and have a diverse panel of pundits, Kerr is a high profile woman in football and it's obvious why the BBC chose her for the gig but she's still garbage as a pundit.

[easty]

Yeah it’s probably not sexism just an in built misogyny.

I saw a form of it today at the football camp my daughter’s going to where in a team of 3 the boys wouldn’t pass to the girl. They think at the age of 10 that the girl isn’t good enough - and from what I saw it simply isn’t true.

Is society now got to the point where we’re accusing 10 year old kids of misogyny?

I’d guess they don’t think she’s very good, and kids do that...they don’t pass to the other kids who aren’t any good.

[Danderhall Hibs]

Is society now got to the point where we’re accusing 10 year old kids of misogyny?

I’d guess they don’t think she’s very good, and kids do that...they don’t pass to the other kids who aren’t any good.

They only know what they’ve been taught.

It’s not about ability IMO - there are some good girls but the boys dismiss them. I’ve heard it before they’ve even played them - “it’s only a girls team” or “they’ve got girls in their team”.

[WhileTheChief..]

Aw c’mon, boys not wanting to play with girls? Who’d have thought it!!

Primary school playgrounds are full of boys playing with boys and girls playing with girls. It’s what children do.

[Danderhall Hibs]

Aw c’mon, boys not wanting to play with girls? Who’d have thought it!!

Primary school playgrounds are full of boys playing with boys and girls playing with girls. It’s what children do.

Yeah you could dismiss it as that. Although they’re not in a playground. And they’re playing a team game but only participating with some of the team.

Maybe the girls are more switched on and understand how a team works better.

Luckily it’s not all the boys (wonder why they’re different?)

[matty_f]

They only know what they’ve been taught.

It’s not about ability IMO - there are some good girls but the boys dismiss them. I’ve heard it before they’ve even played them - “it’s only a girls team” or “they’ve got girls in their team”.

When i mentioned the obstacles that a woman has to overcome to get to the level that someone like Shelley Kerr has, this is the sort of thing that’s just the starting point for them.

[Keith_M]

Did this thread really get so heated just because the person being criticised is female?


Personally I wouldn't have started a thread specifically about her, because she's only one of quite a few pundits that are (IMO) very poor and have trouble talking in front of the camera, but surely her gender doesn't make her immune to criticism?

:dunno:

[matty_f]

Did this thread really get so heated just because the person being criticised is female?


Personally I wouldn't have started a thread specifically about her, because she's only one of quite a few pundits that are (IMO) very poor and have trouble talking in front of the camera, but surely her gender doesn't make her immune to criticism?

:dunno:
I don’t think anyone (i could be wrong) has said she’s immune from criticism, to be fair.

[Danderhall Hibs]

I don’t think anyone (i could be wrong) has said she’s immune from criticism, to be fair.

And interestingly I don’t think anyone has said she’s a good pundit.

[Keith_M]

I don’t think anyone (i could be wrong) has said she’s immune from criticism, to be fair.


Not directly, but any perceived criticism has definitely had responses calling out alleged misogyny.

I don't want to quote them here, as I've no desire to attack posters directly, but they are there if you a wee read through the thread.

Something similar happened with a previous thread where one poster made a cheeky remark about Kerr (at least I think it was her) and was blasted as a misogynist comment, despite the fact that it appeared to me that it was no different to the kind of comments made all the time about male pundits, players, etc (and much less insulting than what people have called Davie Dodds)

[Pretty Boy]

Yeah you could dismiss it as that. Although they’re not in a playground. And they’re playing a team game but only participating with some of the team.

Maybe the girls are more switched on and understand how a team works better.

Luckily it’s not all the boys (wonder why they’re different?)

It's learned behaviour. Kids soak everything up like a sponge. If they see their Dad or cousin posting 'no one cares' every time ladies football is mentioned on Facebook or Twitter they think that's an acceptable attitude. If they hear the male influences in their life ranting about female pundits every time they are seen on TV they will learn to parrot that. Kids learn sexism, sectarianism racism etc from outside sources.

I do think it is an attitude that will die out sooner rather than later. Thinking bakc to my own school days I could count on one had how many girls played football. There was just no real opportunity for them to do so, certainly not comparable to what was on offer for us boys. Now I see loads of girls kicking about near me in their tracksuits. Castlevale, Musselburgh Windsor and Spartans seem the teams of choice near where I live. Not only can these girls now play football competitively they also have female role models getting exposure on TV, radio and social media.

There is literally nothing about increased exposure for women's football that is not to like. If that means we get a crap female pundit on Sportscene rather than a crap male pundit every week then so be it. The benefits in the short, medium and long term outweigh any perceived 'inconvenience'.

[matty_f]

Not directly, but any perceived criticism has definitely had responses calling out alleged misogyny.

I don't want to quote them here, as I've no desire to attack posters directly, but they are there if you a wee read through the thread.

Something similar happened with a previous thread where one poster made a cheeky remark about Kerr (at least I think it was her) and was blasted as a misogynist comment, despite the fact that it appeared to me that it was no different to the kind of comments made all the time about male pundits, players, etc (and much less insulting than what people have called Davie Dodds)

There has been a lot of explanation on various threads about why making a comment about a woman isn’t the same as making a comment about a man, to be fair.

[Keith_M]

There has been a lot of explanation on various threads about why making a comment about a woman isn’t the same as making a comment about a man, to be fair.


I don't make those kind of comments myself, but it did suggest there's a completely different standard for men and women. Though I do get that women have a lot of ridiculous, over the top criticism on Social Media, though, and there's definitely some real dinosaurs out there.


As an aside: Sorry to hear about the wee girl being treated that way in football training. I think it's important to let the kids know (though with as much tact as possible) that it's not acceptable.

I used to teach both boys and girls at primary school level and it was something you had to keep an eye out for.

[matty_f]

I don't make those kind of comments myself, but it did suggest there's a completely different standard for men and women. Though I do get that women have a lot of ridiculous, over the top criticism on Social Media, though, and there's definitely some real dinosaurs out there.


As an aside: Sorry to hear about the wee girl being treated that way in football training. I think it's important to let the kids know (though with as much tact as possible) that it's not acceptable.

I used to teach both boys and girls at primary school level and it was something you had to keep an eye out for.

Good on you for addressing it :aok:

[Keith_M]

Good on you for addressing it :aok:


Thanks Matty. But to be fair to the wee boys that used to go, they were very good when you just explained to them that we wanted everybody to learn and enjoy themselves and that they could actually help the other players by getting them involved.

It's amazing how much they took that on board and wanted to help out... though they could still be a trouble making bunch of wee buggers when they wanted :greengrin

[Andy74]

There has been a lot of explanation on various threads about why making a comment about a woman isn’t the same as making a comment about a man, to be fair.

There have been explanations but it doesn’t mean they’ve been right.

I think there’s a bit of bringing together a few things that aren’t really that linked in this one.

Yes women probably do get a lot of comment from men of a sexualised nature in particular - a lot of that direct on social media. That needs to be stopped.

Is there a history of women being judged by their looks? Possibly in professions where it has traditionally mattered, yes. A lot of those roles are actually based on looks to some extent and so that is a bit of a double edged sword.

Do women feel particular pressure to look a certain way? Yes but it is widely recognised that this pressure largely comes from other women and publications / TV that women themselves are the main producers and supporters of.

Taking the example of a female pundit who attracts a reasonably lame comment on a football fans forum based on her looks - is this based squarely in misogyny and does it reflect some of the things that have potentially held women back? I think the answer to that is not really. I don’t think it is an example where treating a woman differently because she is a woman is really that well justified.

If anything I think it would show that she is being treated the same way as anyone else in football and it should be taken in that same spirit. No one is equating her value to her looks and no one is suggesting her looks should hold her back from doing her job. Yes, equality does not always mean treating everyone the same. Sometimes it does though.

I wouldn’t make those comments myself, nor would I feel the need to make them about the likes of Morelos. I probably did make them about Davie Dodds back in the day. If though that stuff is getting banded about to everyone I’m not sure it is really that justifiable to keep picking up the ones that happen to involve a woman.

[Jay]

Andy I'm not even justifying that post with quoting it. I have rarely seen so much utter drivel in my life as there is in that one post. I'm actually really angry, as a woman, that you were supposedly ever involved in a paper on diversity.

[hibsbollah]

There have been explanations but it doesn’t mean they’ve been right.

I think there’s a bit of bringing together a few things that aren’t really that linked in this one.

Yes women probably do get a lot of comment from men of a sexualised nature in particular - a lot of that direct on social media. That needs to be stopped.

Is there a history of women being judged by their looks? Possibly in professions where it has traditionally mattered, yes. A lot of those roles are actually based on looks to some extent and so that is a bit of a double edged sword.

Do women feel particular pressure to look a certain way? Yes but it is widely recognised that this pressure largely comes from other women and publications / TV that women themselves are the main producers and supporters of.

Taking the example of a female pundit who attracts a reasonably lame comment on a football fans forum based on her looks - is this based squarely in misogyny and does it reflect some of the things that have potentially held women back? I think the answer to that is not really. I don’t think it is an example where treating a woman differently because she is a woman is really that well justified.

If anything I think it would show that she is being treated the same way as anyone else in football and it should be taken in that same spirit. No one is equating her value to her looks and no one is suggesting her looks should hold her back from doing her job. Yes, equality does not always mean treating everyone the same. Sometimes it does though.

I wouldn’t make those comments myself, nor would I feel the need to make them about the likes of Morelos. I probably did make them about Davie Dodds back in the day. If though that stuff is getting banded about to everyone I’m not sure it is really that justifiable to keep picking up the ones that happen to involve a woman.

This really is just a long winded way of saying ‘there isn’t really much of a problem here’. If you really were involved in drawing up some sort of policy on ways of working in relation to equality by your employer, it strikes me that maybe the people involved in commissioning it didn’t really want any real changes to be made? In your third and fourth paragraph, you’re mansplaining to women what the female experience is, you’ve really crossed the line into David Brent territory.

[Andy74]

Andy I'm not even justifying that post with quoting it. I have rarely seen so much utter drivel in my life as there is in that one post. I'm actually really angry, as a woman, that you were supposedly ever involved in a paper on diversity.

My preference is to deal with the real issues and to actually do something on that front in real life rather than talk about it.

That also means having perspective on things that aren't the real issues.

I'm sorry if you found my post offensive but I don't believe in giving anyone any type of abuse really and certainly not directly. I won't apologise though for thinking that if light hearted name calling is happening to pretty much everyone in football that women should somehow be separated out of that.

[Since90+2]

There have been explanations but it doesn’t mean they’ve been right.

I think there’s a bit of bringing together a few things that aren’t really that linked in this one.

Yes women probably do get a lot of comment from men of a sexualised nature in particular - a lot of that direct on social media. That needs to be stopped.

Is there a history of women being judged by their looks? Possibly in professions where it has traditionally mattered, yes. A lot of those roles are actually based on looks to some extent and so that is a bit of a double edged sword.

Do women feel particular pressure to look a certain way? Yes but it is widely recognised that this pressure largely comes from other women and publications / TV that women themselves are the main producers and supporters of.

Taking the example of a female pundit who attracts a reasonably lame comment on a football fans forum based on her looks - is this based squarely in misogyny and does it reflect some of the things that have potentially held women back? I think the answer to that is not really. I don’t think it is an example where treating a woman differently because she is a woman is really that well justified.

If anything I think it would show that she is being treated the same way as anyone else in football and it should be taken in that same spirit. No one is equating her value to her looks and no one is suggesting her looks should hold her back from doing her job. Yes, equality does not always mean treating everyone the same. Sometimes it does though.

I wouldn’t make those comments myself, nor would I feel the need to make them about the likes of Morelos. I probably did make them about Davie Dodds back in the day. If though that stuff is getting banded about to everyone I’m not sure it is really that justifiable to keep picking up the ones that happen to involve a woman.

Good post.

[hibsbollah]

Good post.

It’s a ****ing appalling post.

[Andy74]

This really is just a long winded way of saying ‘there isn’t really much of a problem here’. If you really were involved in drawing up some sort of policy on ways of working in relation to equality by your employer, it strikes me that maybe the people involved in commissioning it didn’t really want any real changes to be made?

I'm saying there are real problems, and yes I'm actually doing something to resolve those. This isn't one of them though, in my opinion.

It is quite possible to be able to understand the urgent need for diversity within business and the actions that we need to take to get there and still think that a woman being included in some light hearted name calling that men also get subjected to is not something that we need to be overly concerned about.

They are at hugely opposite ends of the issues at play here. It is quite evident from this thread though that separating out those sensibly is not going to happen here!

[hibsbollah]

I'm saying there are real problems, and yes I'm actually doing something to resolve those. This isn't one of them though, in my opinion.

It is quite possible to be able to understand the urgent need for diversity within business and the actions that we need to take to get there and still think that a woman being included in some light hearted name calling that men also get subjected to is not something that we need to be overly concerned about.

They are at hugely opposite ends of the issues at play here. It is quite evident from this thread though that separating out those sensibly is not going to happen here!

I would love to see you in a conference room, as a man, explaining to a group of women that certain things are 'not something that WE need to be overly concerned about' :top marks
I think some self awareness is called for here.

[Andy74]

I would love to see you in a conference room, as a man, explaining to a group of women that certain things are 'not something that WE need to be overly concerned about' :top marks
I think some self awareness is called for here.

Thankfully the fact that no one should ever say anything bad about a woman hasn't been discussed yet so I think I'll be fine.

Just to be very clear - which I think I've been. I wouldn't condone anyone saying bad about anyone but if you think this is in any way material to the actual issues which have to be dealt with then you perhaps need a bit more awareness.

[Jay]

The widely recognised that its other women bit and questions on being judged on their looks is fluff made up in your head. Just because you type it doesnt make it factual. The truth is exactly the opposite of what you've said. I'm bowing out because I am enraged that we are still hearing this drivel.

[Keith_M]

Wow, just when you thought this thread couldn't go any more downhill...


:offski:

[WeeRussell]

The widely recognised that its other women bit and questions on being judged on their looks is fluff made up in your head. Just because you type it doesnt make it factual. The truth is exactly the opposite of what you've said. I'm bowing out because I am enraged that we are still hearing this drivel.

I guess if nothing else good came from this, you got to see a real example of the term “mansplaining” being used, J.S. 🤷🏻

[Jay]

I guess if nothing else good came from this, you got to see a real example of the term “mansplaining” being used, J.S. 🤷🏻

:greengrin

[Keith_M]

I guess if nothing else good came from this, you got to see a real example of the term “mansplaining” being used, J.S. 🤷🏻


I'm sure she'll very much appreciate it as well.

:greengrin

[hibsbollah]

Just to be very clear - which I think I've been. I wouldn't condone anyone saying bad about anyone but if you think this is in any way material to the actual issues which have to be dealt with then you perhaps need a bit more awareness.

This sentence is completely meaningless. Be specific.

[Eyrie]

I think the BBC has been reading this thread. There's no other reason for their choice of pundits (https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/56674613) this weekend.

[Brightside]

I think the BBC has been reading this thread. There's no other reason for their choice of pundits (https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/56674613) this weekend.

Richard and Marv are ok. I’ve no interest in the other pundits tbh.

[EI255]

Maybe with all the poor comments relating to dear old Shelly, STV should re launch Scotsport and let her front it. Kinda made for each other.

Sent from my LG-H870 using Tapatalk

[Allant1981]

Maybe with all the poor comments relating to dear old Shelly, STV should re launch Scotsport and let her front it. Kinda made for each other.

Sent from my LG-H870 using Tapatalk

You seem very bitter towards her, did she knock you back

[marinello59]

This one isn’t moving any further forward now, thread closed.