Women's football

[rock bus 851]

1 hour ago, Richard Richard said:

That's the spirit Rock Bus - dismiss and mock an opinion simply because you don't agree with it. The key to a successful thread.

Care to comment on any of the original content? Is/should women's football being forced on us? Should we have a say in what's reported or highlighted in the media? Is it in fact of a poor standard? Does anyone dare admit, secretly, that it's actually not very good?

Not really I’ve got better things to do than get in a debate with a sexist dinosaur who is getting all upset because they mistook a headline about women’s football to be about men’s football…how awful.

But I would add that I coached my daughter’s football team for a number of years and it was great to see how much joy they got out of playing a sport that historically had been closed off to them. I saw the game and skill level improve dramatically in that time. So the more exposure the women’s game gets and the more it annoys people like you the better as far as I’m concerned!

[king canary 7,604]

46 minutes ago, Richard Richard said:

As you asked KC, I'll try and explain (although it'll win me even less friends).

Women's football is fashionable. It's the latest thing to get behind and show your support for. The latest bandwagon for companies and organisations to get behind in order to seek recognition for backing the latest craze. Hence why it's everywhere at the moment.

But what's it's really about is the reaction to going against the grain, daring to disagree with the majority. Most people's reactions on here just confirm to me that it's alright to have an option on these sorts of subjects - as long as it's the opinion held by the majority. Otherwise it's just dismissed and derided. The irony.

There'll be more to come on here for me I'm sure.

On reflection, my OP was probably a bit too ranty and less-measured than I'd usually post (put it down to being ill and up at 0400 with a puppy).

As I've said, I hope girls and women love the game, succeed and achieve their dreams.

Doesn't mean I want to hear or see about it every time I watch the news, open my phone or listen to the radio.

 

 

You're entitled to your opinion buy the thing is, people are entitled to their opinion on your opinion.

I'm yet to see how any of this inconveniences you in the slightest. I follow football but I'm not hearing about women's football all the time. And when I do it is for significantly less time than I'm hearing about mens football. 

[Richard Richard 186]

17 minutes ago, rock bus said:

Not really I’ve got better things to do than get in a debate with a sexist dinosaur who is getting all upset because they mistook a headline about women’s football to be about men’s football…how awful.

But I would add that I coached my daughter’s football team for a number of years and it was great to see how much joy they got out of playing a sport that historically had been closed off to them. I saw the game and skill level improve dramatically in that time. So the more exposure the women’s game gets and the more it annoys people like you the better as far as I’m concerned!

I genuinely am pleased that you have personal experience of the joy that the game can bring, particularly to youngsters. Most of the more 'robust' responses have come from people in similar situations, and I expected it.

But... to brand me a "sexist dinosaur" without exploring the nuances of my argument is just a bit lazy.

Each to their own.

[king canary 7,604]

5 minutes ago, Richard Richard said:

I genuinely am pleased that you have personal experience of the joy that the game can bring, particularly to youngsters. Most of the more 'robust' responses have come from people in similar situations, and I expected it.

But... to brand me a "sexist dinosaur" without exploring the nuances of my argument is just a bit lazy.

Each to their own.

The problem is I can't see these nuances you keep talking about.

The argument seems to be, I don't think women's football is very good and it pisses me off that it gets coverage. 

What subtleties are we all missing?

[scoop 38]

1 minute ago, king canary said:

The problem is I can't see these nuances you keep talking about.

The argument seems to be, I don't think women's football is very good and it pisses me off that it gets coverage. 

What subtleties are we all missing?

The level of support/interest in relation to how and where it is covered on TV for example. 

Soccer AM is being cancelled due to the perceived level of interest. I wonder how women's football would compare? I think that's the nub of the OPs argument. 

[Richard Richard 186]

5 minutes ago, king canary said:

The problem is I can't see these nuances you keep talking about.

The argument seems to be, I don't think women's football is very good and it pisses me off that it gets coverage. 

What subtleties are we all missing?

The subtlety is two-fold. Yes, I do think it's of a poor standard and, yes, it does annoy me that amount of coverage it gets is not in proportion to the level of interest out there.

I don't have numbers to back this up but I could point to the usually poor attendances at most women's games (usually made up predominantly of women and children)

Nevertheless, decisions have been made to endlessly promote it regardless of whether it's popular or there's actually a significant audience for it out there.

[wcorkcanary 4,334]

1 hour ago, Greavsy said:

Hang on Corkio? 

Are you saying you DON'T have staff? 

Not at all, i was using tbe royal 'we' meaning 'they' ( the staff) do all those menial tasks while i check the FT index and eat kedgeree . I am truly a man of the  people. Honest.  

[The Bunny 309]

1 hour ago, scoop said:

The level of support/interest in relation to how and where it is covered on TV for example. 

Soccer AM is being cancelled due to the perceived level of interest. I wonder how women's football would compare? I think that's the nub of the OPs argument. 

Women's football soared in popularity after England won the euros. The fact that Sky are covering suggests people want to watch. They're not a charity. 

[Wings of a Sparrow 1,414]

2 hours ago, FenwayFrank said:

I quite like it 

 

I like women's football, despite what I may have said earlier.

[KiwiScot 1,443]

50 minutes ago, Richard Richard said:

Nevertheless, decisions have been made to endlessly promote it regardless of whether it's popular or there's actually a significant audience for it out there.

I get annoyed when a website for example has headlines for things like "Arsenal beat Man Utd" and my mind thinks it's mens football. It's annoying because it distracts me before I realise it's not something I'm interested in.  Sometimes it's labeled womens football so I don't get distracted. That's the only point for me really. Everything has it's place for people that are interested and I don't mind womens football articles or shows mixed in with the rest of the articles, but it should be always be obvious. As the OP believes I'd say the womens game doesn't have the same level of interest out there so it does feel forced.

It is the inclusive way of things now with the need of companies to promote themselves as such and from another angle The BBC also have Womens football they show live so it gives them football/sport they can show likely at a cheaper price and makes sense to promote it.

[king canary 7,604]

1 hour ago, Richard Richard said:

The subtlety is two-fold. Yes, I do think it's of a poor standard and, yes, it does annoy me that amount of coverage it gets is not in proportion to the level of interest out there.

I don't have numbers to back this up but I could point to the usually poor attendances at most women's games (usually made up predominantly of women and children)

Nevertheless, decisions have been made to endlessly promote it regardless of whether it's popular or there's actually a significant audience for it out there.

Bit chicken and egg though isn't it? You can argue you need greater coverage to help grow and develop the audience. And I struggle to see how anyone can object to the sport trying to grow itself?

[GJL Mid-Norfolk Canary 1,748]

It is pretty poor how Sky Sports have now lost the European Championship Qualifiers to Viaplay...yet the subscription has gone up. In the meantime substandard womens football gets more airtime

[keelansgrandad 6,679]

2 hours ago, Mello Yello said:

I see that the Women's Six Nations Rugby starts today.....'scrummy'.....

I shall watch it. England got to the WC Final, in NZ only to lose to NZ. You have to accept it for what it is. Or else nobody would ever watch another movie.

[Ulfotto 632]

The women game is rammed down everyone throat by the media not because it’s the same level as the men’s. It’s because it’s the right thing to do to promote the sport. Women’s or Girls football has a massive future as a mass participation sport. All the pitches and infrastructure is already in place you just need promote it and that’s what the media job is essentially.

[Greavsy 2,413]

1 hour ago, wcorkcanary said:

Not at all, i was using tbe royal 'we' meaning 'they' ( the staff) do all those menial tasks while i check the FT index and eat kedgeree . I am truly a man of the  people. Honest.  

Respect. 💪 

[Cowboy 197]

4 hours ago, Richard Richard said:

Thanks Cowboy. Firstly for your compassion and, secondly, for your insightful, engaging reply.

You're welcome.

Oh, hang on! That's bl**dy sarcasm isn't it? It's not a proper, straightforward reply which is what I expect to see when I come on here.

How dare this site show sarcastic replies, that's not why I expect from this free website. And the quality of the reply is sh!t too. It shouldn't be allowed.

Surely there ought to be another place for sarcastic replies, because I am not interested in them.

(I did it as multi-paragraph for you, but couldn't be bothered to flesh it out anymore than this.)

 

[Richard Richard 186]

4 minutes ago, Cowboy said:

You're welcome.

Oh, hang on! That's bl**dy sarcasm isn't it? It's not a proper, straightforward reply which is what I expect to see when I come on here.

How dare this site show sarcastic replies, that's not why I expect from this free website. And the quality of the reply is sh!t too. It shouldn't be allowed.

Surely there ought to be another place for sarcastic replies, because I am not interested in them.

(I did it as multi-paragraph for you, but couldn't be bothered to flesh it out anymore than this.)

 

Tangent. Off on one.

[TIL 1010 4,738]

3 hours ago, Mello Yello said:

As a modern male I'm usually too busy doing housework, laundry, ironing, shopping, cooking or hoovering when Women's football is on.....

Should that not be cooking and ironing as surely as a modern male you can multi task like women ?

[scoop 38]

53 minutes ago, The Bunny said:

Women's football soared in popularity after England won the euros. The fact that Sky are covering suggests people want to watch. They're not a charity. 

I agree, it has increased and I made no suggestion that it hasn't.
What your comment about charity has to do with anything is beyond me but I would suggest, if the support is there as you say, then let Sky give it a dedicated channel ala F1, horse racing etc.. and we'll see what the support is exactly. There will be no room for dispute then but pinning it on the coat tails as Greavsy said earlier doesn't help either party.

FTR and just to be absolutely clear - I have absolutely no objection to womens football and more power to them if they succeed in their own right.
If I don't want to watch it I can simply ignore it. Just like people can ignore this thread if they don't agree with Richard Richards opinion, without the need to condemn.

Now ... back to my ironing...

[Richard Richard 186]

33 minutes ago, king canary said:

Bit chicken and egg though isn't it? You can argue you need greater coverage to help grow and develop the audience. And I struggle to see how anyone can object to the sport trying to grow itself?

....and back to my original point. If something is going to be so heavily advertised or "rammed down our throats" as Ulfotto correctly states, at least make sure what you're promoting is worthy.

Tin hat back on.

[The Bunny 309]

1 minute ago, scoop said:

I agree, it has increased and I made no suggestion that it hasn't.
What your comment about charity has to do with anything is beyond me but I would suggest, if the support is there as you say, then let Sky give it a dedicated channel ala F1, horse racing etc.. and we'll see what the support is exactly. There will be no room for dispute then but pinning it on the coat tails as Greavsy said earlier doesn't help either party.

"They're not a charity" was a reference to the fact that the decisions Sky make are primarily to make money for Sky, either in the short term or the long term. Ultimately they're not supporting women's football out of the goodness of their hearts; they're trying to get more viewers. 

Women's football is clearly growing in popularity. It would be strange, frankly, if companies like Sky weren't pushing it and trying to get more eyeballs on their services. I'm guessing they have a lot of analytics and data which feeds into their decisions. The fact that they're showing it on their main prime-time football channels suggests that they think that strategy will be optimal for them financially. 

[nutty nigel 7,531]

It's just different to what we are used to.

As a kid I used to love it every year when Wimbledon came round. Looking back there was the same coverage of the women's and men's tournaments. (Perhaps I'm misremembering). I remember John Newcombe and Billie Jean King winning their titles. We called her Jelly Bean King and she was certainly the one I remember best of the two. Undoubtedly Newcombe would have beaten King every day of the week and twice on Sundays but we enjoyed both tournaments equally. Never considered prize money but no doubt Newcombe got more. I hope that's evened out now because both tournaments were equally enjoyable.

If I'd grown up with men's and women's football tournaments in the same way as the tennis there's no doubt in my mind that I'd have enjoyed them the same as I did the tennis. 

Did dinosaur's even play football?

Edited March 25, 2023 by nutty nigel
🦕 centre back Grantosaurus..

[hogesar 9,658]

I'm pleased it gets exposure and if the sport is growing then that can only be a good thing.

The only gripe I have is it being merged into the main BBC football page sometimes - well all the time but moreso taking the key headlines during international break which I get can be a bit misleading. It's not a disaster by any means but can occasionally be annoying.

[Barham Blitz 652]

If the standard of football is all that you care a about presumably you only watch top end of the premiership or Champions League matches and don't sully yourself with anything less.  Lord knows what you've made of some of our televised outings this season - I can only suppose Sky have a whole folder of multi-paragraphed rants demanding that we be taken off air immediately...

Now I watch the occasional Women's football game and enjoyed the Euros.  I also enjoy women's cricket.  And watching Norwich.  I don't pretend that any of them would be equivalent to the very top men's sides but enjoy each in their own context.  If you don't, that is entirely your choice but no reason to deny others the opportunity to do so for reasons that could at best be described as inconsistent.

[TheGunnShow 5,940]

The question I would pose is - how is women's football likely to thrive without some kind of media broadcasting behind it? Especially when considering that the reason it's such a change to us in the UK was because the FA back in the 1920s were basically jealous of the success of some women's teams (D/ick, Kerr Ladies in particular) in pulling big crowds.

Is the standard going to be as good? Nope. Is it entertaining? Sure is. Hardly any simulation, players genuinely competing for every ball without trying to basically cheat and not much sign of any prima-donna antics. I quite enjoy watching it, but I do have to bear in mind that it's not possible for women to physically be on the same level as equivalent pro men, and also that professional football for women is very much in its infancy.

And when I bear those in mind, I find it a very enjoyable watch and hope more will see it for what it is. Not the same standard as men's football, but proof that women can play the game, and indeed play it quite well.

Edited March 25, 2023 by TheGunnShow
BUT D-ICK WAS THE NAME OF THE *BLEEP* TEAM, MUCKING RICKHEADS!

[All the Germans 1,075]

3 hours ago, scoop said:

The level of support/interest in relation to how and where it is covered on TV for example. 

Soccer AM is being cancelled due to the perceived level of interest. I wonder how women's football would compare? I think that's the nub of the OPs argument. 

I say this as someone with zero interest in Womens football and have no intention of watching it. The level of support is not the only thing here though, it's essentially the cost vs the level of support / viewing / income generation. So, even if Womens football has less support than Soccer AM (I am not sure if it does or not), it is not that straightforward of a comparison as there are other factors.

[Danke bitte 965]

The more things change the more they stay the same - people convinced modern life is conspiring against them. Fk it, I say pour women’s football all over my eyeballs, I want to see more to fk the old guard off. Makes me laugh how y’all get so annoyed at change. :  D

[TheGunnShow 5,940]

2 minutes ago, Danke bitte said:

The more things change the more they stay the same - people convinced modern life is conspiring against them. Fk it, I say pour women’s football all over my eyeballs, I want to see more to fk the old guard off. Makes me laugh how y’all get so annoyed at change. :  D

Plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose. As they say in Bolton. 😉 

[lake district canary 4,531]

The annoying thing is that you get women's football scores/results often now without saying its women's football. This is clearly misleading.  No objections to women's football at all, or the reporting of it, but if its going to be alongside the men's game, like tennis, they will have to call it mens football and ladies football from now on, not just football.

[king canary 7,604]

Just for some context on how much these woke snowflakes are ramming their agenda of WOMEN PLAYING FOOTBALL HOW DARE THEY down your throats.

In Sky next weekend you can ONLY watch a PITIFUL 12 games of mens football from a MEASLY 3 different countries.

In comparison it is wall to wall NON STOP WOMAN BALL as Sky show a positively decadent 2 WHOLE GAMES of women's football from one league.

Honestly it is a wonder a good honest man can avoid this constant coverage of ladies kicking balls around.