Shelly Kerr

[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]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

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]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

What about female Tories?

Good card players!

[Sir David Gray]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

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 quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

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]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

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]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

That's the nub of the issue right there.

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.

[marinello59]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

That's the nub of the issue right there.

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.

[easty]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

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]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

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]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

That's the nub of the issue right there.

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]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Less physicality. Not less skill or ability.

See now this discussion is just getting silly.

[Danderhall Hibs]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

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

Why is it important that we don’t?

[Tommy75]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

That's the nub of the issue right there.

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]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

That's the nub of the issue right there.

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]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

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]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

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]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

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]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

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]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

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]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

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]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

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]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

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]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

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]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

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

[Danderhall Hibs]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

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]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

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?