Shelly Kerr

[easty]

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

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

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

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]

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

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]

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

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]

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

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]

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

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]

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

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"

[Since90+2]

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

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]

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

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"

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

[Vault Boy]

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

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

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]

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

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]

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

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]

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

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]

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

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]

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

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]

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

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]

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

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]

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

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..]

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

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

[Shrekko]

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

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]

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

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]

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

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]

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

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]

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

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.