[Football] Alex Scott @ Sky Sports.

[mejonaNO12 aka riskit]

She shouldn't be offering her opinions because she hasn't played at the highest level of BLOKES football, that's nothing to do with her gender.

Just corrected that for you.

 

[Green Cross Code Man]

Just corrected that for you.

Yeah you are right. Therefore she hasn't earned the right as the higher level blokes have, even if their opinions are stupid. Imagine if instead of Brian Cox, a female scientist was wheeled out for a TV programme, but she only had A level physics, would that be acceptable?

 

[mejonaNO12 aka riskit]

She shouldn't be offering her opinions because.............

Trying to write anything sensible after starting with this GEM is excellent work

know you're place.

 

[portlock seagull]

Well I don’t like her so there. There’s always one woman celebrity who is on everything for a couple of years before someone else’s turn. Why they can’t spread between several no idea (as they do with male pundits) Currently it’s her. Fair play mind, she must travel by helicopter and have a huge entourage because it’s impossible to pop up as many time as she does currently!

 

[mejonaNO12 aka riskit]

. Imagine if instead of Brian Cox, a female scientist was wheeled out for a TV programme, but she only had A level physics, would that be acceptable?

That's literally not the same thing.

You are talking about a standard qualification in a field which is open to both sexes with the same opportunities to gain them. She, by VERY DEFINITION, would be less qualified to talk about it. Literally less qualified.

Go for another example that makes sense.

Also, again, well done for using "wheeled out".

 

[trueblue]

If you don’t agree with me on Rooney we could both name a dozen players fairly rapidly.

So, you genuinely seem to be saying that Rooney - who's collected every domestic, European and club trophy (many of them multiple times), who played almost 500 Premier League matches scoring more than 200 goals and won 120 England caps - is no more deserving of publicity than players who appear in a league with an average gate of 937 spectators.

I wouldn't waste your time listing the others.

 

[trueblue]

Fair enough. So what level of men's football is Alex Scott allowed to talk about before her opinion is considered worthy?

I would give her views the same credence as anyone else that hasn't played the game to that level. Which is not a great deal so I wouldn't bother watching. If she was talking about the women's game, I'd consider her hugely well qualified and, no doubt, find her insight very interesting.

Likewise, I probably wouldn't be that bothered about listening a to male pro talk about, say, the women's World Cup, unless they'd actually worked within the female game.

It's about expertise. All opinions do not carry equal weight, despite the fact we can all have a good natter on NSC and Twitter.

 

[happypig]

Yeah you are right. Therefore she hasn't earned the right as the higher level blokes have, even if their opinions are stupid. Imagine if instead of Brian Cox, a female scientist was wheeled out for a TV programme, but she only had A level physics, would that be acceptable?

"Earned the right" ?

What utter nonsense. She has 100+ caps playing football. She wouldn't have got them without ability and knowledge, even if she is just a bird. What I want from a pundit is someone engaging and knowledgable, something that cannot be said of half the blokes that do it.
The analogy with a science presenter is flawed in that if the presenter can present it in an informed and entertaining manner then the level of qualification is irrelevant.

 

[Gritt23]

I think she's very good.

Not everyone will agree, but that's punditry for you.

 

[Grombleton]

Can we just all agree that she's better than Andy ****ing Townsend?

 

[Bladders]

I'd like to hear her punditry on this

 

[McTavish]

I'd like to hear her punditry on this

Would you let her comment on these?

 

[METALMICKY]

At the risk of going off at a slight tangent but still on the subject of equality we should perhaps examine Sky sports recruitment approach to front line female presenters. Fairly obviously I think it goes much like this :

1.Essential - Have you a pretty face and wear make up
2. Essential - Are you slim and have a reasonable pair of txxs and a nice arse?
3. Desirable - Have you any knowledge of sport?

From a man's perspective you're not going to complain about their approach but how does that square with the drive for equality/diversity and being seen to being politically correct? Or perhaps to put it another way why are their no ' plane Jane's' presenting?

Personally I think Alex Scott is qualified to be a pundit. Whether I rate her is another subjective matter. However, when Sky decided to give her the job how much of a factor was it that she is ' easy on the eye'?

 

[Bladders]

Would you let her comment on these?

Would I let her?

She doesn't need my permission.

 

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

It's the top level of lower level monkey tennis....

It's a level, of course, and good for her - but do I want to hear someone who's played only at that level critiquing someone who has played at a vastly superior level?

No, I don't.

To be honest I think the idea of having ex footballers of any gender working as pundits or analysists is dubious. They are only there as celebs, frankly. Just focusing on the blokes, plenty don't know even the rules ('back in my day that wasn't a foul/penalty/offide' - yes it was, and it still is, you utter utter clown).

Think about it. Who would you prefer to have passing judgement on your ECG and blood pressure? A cardiologist or someone who has just survived a heart attack?

Leave the presenting job to the journalists and, anyone who wants to do a bit of punditry, just be interesting, whether you are an ex-pro bloke, an ex pro woman, or even a DJ or comedian (I'd love to see Henning Wehn punditting on the beeb).

****ing Linneker is not a journalist so he should **** off over to the pundit chair where he can talk about 'his day' with Mary Poppins (Shearer) and Ian Wrighty Wright.

 

[sussex_guy2k2]

To be honest, I think she talks more sense than Souness a lot of the time. I like her. I also think she's hot. So I don't really see any issues at all.

 

[sussex_guy2k2]

To be honest I think the idea of having ex footballers of any gender working as pundits or analysists is dubious. They are only there as celebs, frankly. Just focusing on the blokes, plenty don't know even the rules ('back in my day that wasn't a foul/penalty/offide' - yes it was, and it still is, you utter utter clown).

Think about it. Who would you prefer to have passing judgement on your ECG and blood pressure? A cardiologist or someone who has just survived a heart attack?

Leave the presenting job to the journalists and, anyone who wants to do a bit of punditry, just be interesting, whether you are an ex-pro bloke, an ex pro woman, or even a DJ or comedian (I'd love to see Henning Wehn punditting on the beeb).

****ing Linneker is not a journalist so he should **** off over to the pundit chair where he can talk about 'his day' with Mary Poppins (Shearer) and Ian Wrighty Wright.

Totally this.

 

[A1X]

Indeed. Nice to have a bird on the pane. Technically the most f*ckable pundit since, er, Graeme Le Saux?

I dunno, that Jamie Redknapp...

 

[Green Cross Code Man]

"Earned the right" ?

What utter nonsense. She has 100+ caps playing football. She wouldn't have got them without ability and knowledge, even if she is just a bird. What I want from a pundit is someone engaging and knowledgable, something that cannot be said of half the blokes that do it.
The analogy with a science presenter is flawed in that if the presenter can present it in an informed and entertaining manner then the level of qualification is irrelevant.

Earned the right playing at a rubbish level of football. Not the same as being very good. Let's have some equality here.

 

[One Teddy Maybank]

I don't think levels of play have anything to do with understanding the game.

Mourinho and Wenger hardly kicked a ball in their careers and did alright for themselves.

It's also why we can look at games and have opinions and ideas on tactics or players or the financial state of global football likely without having played at any level.

To say you have to have been at the top of your profession in order to have your knowledge be taken seriously is patently ridiculous.

Sorry I don’t agree at all.

Wenger played at a lower level and Mourinho did not just step into a managerial job, he learnt under Robson for one.

I firmly believe that you have played/coached to a level to appreciate what is trying to be achieved. You wouldn’t get a car mechanic undertaking surgery.

As you say it doesn’t stop everyone having an opinion, which is the best thing about football and NSC, but equally you are more likely to learn something from an ex-pro, than you are from some of the NSC posters.

The Dale Stephens debate being a prime example.

Computer games don’t help either.... [emoji23]




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk