The BBC and Women's Football

[Special K]

That's where you're wrong IMO, it is less worthy of being on TV. I think the England women's team would probably be beaten by a half decent Sunday League men's team. You wouldn't sit watching a men's Sunday League match on TV, so why would you watch a women's game of similar quality.

 

There is no other reason to watch it other than the fact that it is women playing. To me that's positive discrimination in favour of women, which I disagree with.

 

I fail to see why you are comparing Women's football with the Men's game? Why draw a comparison at all? The last time I looked, they didn't play against men. Please feel free to correct me if I am wrong, though.

 

Your point about "positive discrimination" is equally baffling. Can you please expand it? There is no discrimination as far as I can see as there was no Men's game usurped in favour of the England Women's game. Just because you don't consider it something to watch, doesn't mean that everybody does. Do you apply the same logic to everything you don't want to watch?

 

And there is a simple solution to stop you frothing at the mouth - turn off the f**king TV, mush. Now there's a thought.

[sadoldgit]

Perhaps we should ban all women's sports on TV - especially the lazy tarts in tennis who only play 3 sets?

[Lord Duckhunter]

If men didn't play tennis , women's tennis would still be interesting and a credible sport to show on TV. Same with athletics and swimming. Women's football and cricket are not, without the men's game they are not a valid sport to attract this level of media and TV interest.

[sadoldgit]

My comments were tongue in cheek but I thought the viewing figures for women's football were growing?

[Lighthouse]

I fail to see why you are comparing Women's football with the Men's game? Why draw a comparison at all? The last time I looked, they didn't play against men. Please feel free to correct me if I am wrong, though.

 

Your point about "positive discrimination" is equally baffling. Can you please expand it? There is no discrimination as far as I can see as there was no Men's game usurped in favour of the England Women's game. Just because you don't consider it something to watch, doesn't mean that everybody does. Do you apply the same logic to everything you don't want to watch?

 

And there is a simple solution to stop you frothing at the mouth - turn off the f**king TV, mush. Now there's a thought.

 

I'm drawing a comparison because it's the same sport. If I want to watch football I will watch a decent quality game, like a Premier League game, Champs League, WC etc. I, along with pretty much everyone else wouldn't want to watch a Sunday League match on TV or at Wembley.

 

My comment about positive discrimination is simple. You can find hundreds of men's football games of similar quality which wont get played at Wembley with exposure on national TV, yet this women's game got just that for no other reason than it is women involved. Put simply, if those players had been men of equal ability they wouldn't have been on the news or at Wembley.

 

Your last line is just petulant. I put forwards an opinion which you happen to disagree with. I'm not frothing at the mouth, I didn't even watch the game and my TV is off. I just saw the highlights on the news.

[Tokyo-Saint]

My nipper played in an under 12 game on Saturday morning - the oppsoition had a girl in their team. My nippers team won 8 nil .... make of that what you will

 

You were playing a team from the North East?

[Lord Duckhunter]

I'm drawing a comparison because it's the same sport. If I want to watch football I will watch a decent quality game, like a Premier League game, Champs League, WC etc. I, along with pretty much everyone else wouldn't want to watch a Sunday League match on TV or at Wembley.

 

My comment about positive discrimination is simple. You can find hundreds of men's football games of similar quality which wont get played at Wembley with exposure on national TV, yet this women's game got just that for no other reason than it is women involved. Put simply, if those players had been men of equal ability they wouldn't have been on the news or at Wembley.

 

Your last line is just petulant. I put forwards an opinion which you happen to disagree with. I'm not frothing at the mouth, I didn't even watch the game and my TV is off. I just saw the highlights on the news.

 

Spot on

[Special K]

I'm drawing a comparison because it's the same sport. If I want to watch football I will watch a decent quality game, like a Premier League game, Champs League, WC etc. I, along with pretty much everyone else wouldn't want to watch a Sunday League match on TV or at Wembley.

 

My comment about positive discrimination is simple. You can find hundreds of men's football games of similar quality which wont get played at Wembley with exposure on national TV, yet this women's game got just that for no other reason than it is women involved. Put simply, if those players had been men of equal ability they wouldn't have been on the news or at Wembley.

 

Your last line is just petulant. I put forwards an opinion which you happen to disagree with. I'm not frothing at the mouth, I didn't even watch the game and my TV is off. I just saw the highlights on the news.

 

So you are comparing apples with oranges. Same sport, different type of game. Using your logic, I guess you'd complain about having Women's tennis at Wimbledon televised because the average Female probably wouldn't take a game off of the average Male tennis player. But again, just because you don't like it, doesn't make it any less valid to put on TV.

 

I still don't agree with your perception of discrimination. Did the simple fact that it was the Women's national team escape you? Not any old Sunday league team, irrespective of the non argument of quality. If there is any discrimination, it's from posters like you who don't want to see the Women's game progress and would presumably, rather see it suffer. Pretty blatant sexism, if you ask me.

[Lighthouse]

So you are comparing apples with oranges. Same sport, different type of game. Using your logic, I guess you'd complain about having Women's tennis at Wimbledon televised because the average Female probably wouldn't take a game off of the average Male tennis player. But again, just because you don't like it, doesn't make it any less valid to put on TV.

 

I still don't agree with your perception of discrimination. Did the simple fact that it was the Women's national team escape you? Not any old Sunday league team, irrespective of the non argument of quality. If there is any discrimination, it's from posters like you who don't want to see the Women's game progress and would presumably, rather see it suffer. Pretty blatant sexism, if you ask me.

 

Well, since you've already decided my opinion, you don't need to bother reading the rest of this post.

 

Tennis is different. If you take a decent male player from any Sunday afternoon tennis club and put him up against one of the Williams sisters or Sharapova, he will get destroyed. Men's and women's tennis are fairly similar in terms of ability because they played by roughly equal numbers at grass roots level. The strongest players will always be men because they are naturally stronger but women's tennis is still worth watching in terms of skill and ability.

 

Does anyone know if there are any rules preventing women from playing in the men's football league?

[Lord Duckhunter]

Well, since you've already decided my opinion, you don't need to bother reading the rest of this post.

 

Tennis is different. If you take a decent male player from any Sunday afternoon tennis club and put him up against one of the Williams sisters or Sharapova, he will get destroyed. Men's and women's tennis are fairly similar in terms of ability because they played by roughly equal numbers at grass roots level. The strongest players will always be men because they are naturally stronger but women's tennis is still worth watching in terms of skill and ability.

 

Does anyone know if there are any rules preventing women from playing in the men's football league?

 

Again, the voice of reason.

 

The simple facts are that The Williams sisters would wipe the floor with any a average Joe playing tennis. Same as running , Jess Ennis would be far quicker than the average Joe. It is elite sport and therefore deserves it place on TV. Chick football is not elite , it is rubbish . Most pub teams could batter the women's national team . The standard is hopeless it doesn't deserve the billing it gets. It could be packaged as a novelty , like sports aid or that match that the celebs play. It could even be marketed as a " look at these pretty little things kicking a ball about" type of show . What I object to is not them playing the game, but people trying to take it seriously and making out people who don't are dinosaurs . It isn't on TV because there's a demand for it or because it's elite sport , it's political correctness . I wonder what the birds who play netball for England think about it. They have more talent yet get overlooked because they don't play a mans sport. That's hardly empowering women, piggybacking on the back of men.

[whelk]

Again, the voice of reason.

 

The simple facts are that The Williams sisters would wipe the floor with any a average Joe playing tennis. Same as running , Jess Ennis would be far quicker than the average Joe. It is elite sport and therefore deserves it place on TV. Chick football is not elite , it is rubbish . Most pub teams could batter the women's national team . The standard is hopeless it doesn't deserve the billing it gets. It could be packaged as a novelty , like sports aid or that match that the celebs play. It could even be marketed as a " look at these pretty little things kicking a ball about" type of show . What I object to is not them playing the game, but people trying to take it seriously and making out people who don't are dinosaurs . It isn't on TV because there's a demand for it or because it's elite sport , it's political correctness . I wonder what the birds who play netball for England think about it. They have more talent yet get overlooked because they don't play a mans sport. That's hardly empowering women, piggybacking on the back of men.

 

I don't think anyone is claiming it is elite sport. Think most also agree that BBC are over promoting it as well. However 1.1m watched the game on TV - perhaps for the novelty but that is a high figure for a Sunday afternoon.

 

From you posts it does appear you have a very unenlightened approach to women. Most rational people don't feel threatened and tolerate things that may not appeal to them personally. Plenty of the BBC's output is not top quality but caters for different tastes. Why do they put Doctors on when they could be showing Shakespeare. Can't they see the dialogue is appalling and nowhere near the highest standard?

A little facetious maybe but the fact that it seems to annoy you and others so much is sad although maybe illustrates an increase in anger and intolerance generally.

 

I'm not a dinosaur but......

[pap]

I don't think anyone is claiming it is elite sport. Think most also agree that BBC are over promoting it as well. However 1.1m watched the game on TV - perhaps for the novelty but that is a high figure for a Sunday afternoon.

 

From you posts it does appear you have a very unenlightened approach to women. Most rational people don't feel threatened and tolerate things that may not appeal to them personally. Plenty of the BBC's output is not top quality but caters for different tastes. Why do they put Doctors on when they could be showing Shakespeare. Can't they see the dialogue is appalling and nowhere near the highest standard?

A little facetious maybe but the fact that it seems to annoy you and others so much is sad although maybe illustrates an increase in anger and intolerance generally.

 

I'm not a dinosaur but......

Where's the foetus going to gestate? You going to keep it in a box?

 

Only messing, good post, whelk.

[whelk]

Where's the foetus going to gestate? You going to keep it in a box?

 

Only messing, good post, whelk.

 

Genuinely touched Pap

[whelk]

http://www.independent.co.uk/sport/football/this-letter-from-a-reader-explains-why-women-cant-play-football-9883877.html

[benjii]

The tennis example is flawed. No woman would be a regular in the top 500 in the men's game and actually a decent county/regional level male would give the Williams a decent match.

 

Google Karsten Braasch. He destroyed them ranked 203 and he was probably half-cut.

 

In fact, given the short matches and the poor standard, equal grand slam prize money in tennis is a complete sham.

 

I have my own views on the reasons why women's tennis gets coverage:

 

 

 

[farawaysaint]

[tpbury]

I bothered to find the previous thread about this:

 

http://www.saintsweb.co.uk/showthread.php?52053-Why-no-Saints-women-team&highlight=womens#.VHu9BDGUcTp

 

To be honest, I thought it was the same people churning out the same turgid crap about women's football on this thread. But it's not - a completely different set of people churning out the same turgid crap!

 

I suppose the weight of opinion must make it true that promoting and supporting women at the highest level of the sport is a waste of time, as they couldn't beat the Dog and Duck.

 

It's a bit depressing that those who denigrate the quality of football they see should also seek to quash any aspirations the participants may have to raise the level.

 

I think of women's cycling, and indeed indoor cycling in general, could also chuck various forms of rowing in. This sport, as far as I remember, had zero profile and very limited public interest until targeted gazillions were thrown at it (including paying elite athletes from other sports to switch) - primarily for the Olympics. Right now, these are big ticket medal shots for GB Team, though I wonder whether there is a great deal of grass roots interest in them. With will, the same kind of transformation could be applied to Women's Football, or indeed archery.

 

Quick squiz at Wiki shows a 53K at Goodison in 1920 - the year before the FA pulled the plug on women's football, as it 'damaged their bodies':

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Women%27s_football_in_England

 

The subsequent 70 years or so seem to have reinforced the view that women are crap at it and shouldn't play. This is evidenced by the retrogressive and blinkered views of what appears to be the majority of male opinion here.

 

Sadly, the ABC over here is cutting its support of the W-league after budget cuts, but I have been very happy to watch my daughter (CB) out-muscle male centre forwards in the u15 league. The women's top level team she is trialling for has many skillful, quick thinking players and is miles better than 5 years ago - who knows what the standard will be in 10 or 20 years. Why kill it off now?

Edited 1 December, 2014 by tpbury

[Halo Stickman]

I have my own views on the reasons why women's tennis gets coverage:

 

 

Good point. There are in fact plenty of sports where I prefer to watch the women’s version – topless darts, naked mud wrestling and tennis are just three of them.

[Saint in Paradise]

Good point. There are in fact plenty of sports where I prefer to watch the women’s version – topless darts, naked mud wrestling and tennis are just three of them.

 

 

Now that would make a very interesting triathlon.

[sadoldgit]

A girl could win the goal of the season competition above James Rodriguez and Van Persie, Make of that what you will. Saw it the other night and it was a cracker.

[bridge too far]

Interesting article on the BBC website about the history of women's football, its beginnings, decline and resurgence.

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-30329606