[Football] MOTD

[SeagullDubai]

Is this a thread about MOTD or is it just a bunch of blinkered, reactionary old men moaning about women in general infiltrating their domain? Why not go all the way and admit (some of you) that you’d rather not allow women at the games at all? I’m fairly sure there’s a number of you out there who think that way. For what it’s worth, I go to the games, screech at the players, spout ill-informed nonsense, and probably get on everyone’s (including my own) nerves at times. But, strangely, I’ve never felt out of place..

Can t wait for the first woman manager.

Sent from my MI 6 using Tapatalk

 

[Super Steve Earle]

Hmmmm....You absolutely do not have to be a top player (or even a player) to be a good pundit. Half the bokes we hear droning on come out with utter bollocks on a regular basis. I give you:

"But it wasn't a pen" (yes it was; ref blew his whistle, spot kick, goal scored, are you blind?)
"Yes he did make contact, but he got the ball" (we all know the ****ing rules so why don't you, you're being paid for this shite)
"I don't care what the rules say that should never have been given" (well, **** off then)
"He should have went down and then it would have been a pen" (apart from the shit grammar, you are advocating cheating - this is a job for VAR. Now go away)
"Nobody knowns how VAR will work" (Yes they do, you lazy cretin).

In contrast to this we have the likes of Gabriel Marcotti, who is absolutely bang on. But he isn't a pundit. He's a trained journalist, trained to know what he's talking about.

So you don't have to be an ex top pro to be a pundit. No more do you have to be an ex top pro to be a good manager. Or a bloke, clearly.

Personally the women pundits (and commentators and interviewers) are no different than the blokes, although on average they are better (probably due to greater scrutiny). The woman (can't remember her name but she's a very personable British person of Asian (Pakistani? descent)) who was interviewing players post mtch about a week ago on some channel was really excellent.

No place for anyone other than an ex top pro male in football punditry? Utter bollocks. Sorry.

The woman (can't remember her name but she's a very personable British person of Asian (Pakistani? descent)) who was interviewing players post match about a week ago on some channel was really excellent.

I thought the same - think it was MoTD.

 

[Reagulls]

The woman commentating on the Wolves v Shrewsbury game makes my ears bleed.

Heard her before and she's still unlistenable to me.

I've read the rest of the thread so I'll put this simply.
Regardless of gender the person commentating on the aforementioned game was bloody awful!

 

[DavidinSouthampton]

There are many male presenters to have objections over, it's a little heavy sided. But it is men playing football and the pundits should be/are men.

It obviously matters to you. I can't say it matters that much to me. The ability to talk knowledgeably and intelligently about the game is more important.

 

[GooGull]

I like Alex Scott, I think she does a good job and certainly no worse than a majority of the male pundits on TV.

She may not have played men’s football but her whole career was at Arsenal whose men’s team was managed by a certain Arsene Wenger. I’m sorry but you’ll never convince me she didn’t gain a good knowledge and understanding of the men’s game, in particularly the Premier League while she was there.

She’s confident, articulate and a match for her fellow pundits.

It’s not just football though with cricket probably leading the way with female commentators and panellists.

 

[1066familyman]

Well Gullit and Murphy have both disagreed with Alex Scott over Steve Bruce's decision to watch cricket before joining Massive.

So that gives a lie to the notion some have on this thread that the men dare not disagree with the woman for fear of reprisal.

 

[dangull]

Alison Mitchell does a good job with the cricket. Something I thought would be a no go in that sport.

 

[1066familyman]

On a side note. I'm surprised the Massive keeper is allowed to wear that kit as he looks almost the same as their outfield players. Especially so with Massive defending so deep

 

[Winker]

So... were we last on MOTD? Did they say anything noteworthy about the Albion/BAME derby?

 

[Steve in Japan]

So, Match of the Day? How was it??

Let's just say we remain safely under the radar.

 

[LamieRobertson]

The jug eared one is missing. The hostess is wearing trackies. It's not a good start.

Any views on Gabbys outfit today?

 

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

There's another bloody woman on (Chelski Massive game) now. It's that same one we were talking about earlier. Danny Murphy just said she made a 'good point'. Give me strength.

 

[Steve in Japan]

Any views on Gabbys outfit today?

I'd prefer slacks, blazer and tie. Standards should be maintained....

 

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

Any views on Gabbys outfit today?

Looks like a bus conductor's jacket. She's now pretending to steal another job for men.

 

[Not Andy Naylor]

Generally, on average, I expect you're right that players who have played at the level of game they're watching will have a better insight into the game. But there will of course be exceptions. You also need to take into account that the game now is not the same as it was 20 years ago - sometimes what used to be a fair challenge, is now a yellow card. So are you going to extend your logic to say that pundits must have been playing at the level within the last 5 years?

Your logic would also suggest that all the best managers will have succeeded at the top level, but we know that's not the case. Often a less talented player is better at getting the most from his players.

The idea that female pundits can't gain good knowledge of how the men's game is currently played is ridiculous.

Sure, I don't disagree with that, but you've got to start somewhere, and I don't see why we can never have very good female pundits.

Yes, as a matter of fact I would definitely ditch the older pundits such as Mark Lawrenson, who is past his sell-by date on every level. I mentioned Carragher and Neville as recent players and Bilic as a recently-employed coach. And my original post began by suggesting that most pundits of either gender add very little, even great former players. George Best was one of the worst. He didn't seem to understand football at all.

I disagree that my logic means that successful managers must have been successful players. As you say, that has been proved incorrect many times. You don't have to have been a horse to be a jockey. The best coaches have to have a range of skills, many of which aren't required to be great players.

But what are pundits there for, in theory? To tell us more than we can see for ourselves. I've never thought that Alex Scott has done that. But I also think that about Chris Sutton, and almost anyone on Match of the Day, whose opinions are mostly superficial and ill-informed.. Most of them fall down on that basic point. And I dismiss almost any opinion on goalkeeping from outfield players or on refereeing from players and managers, whose ignorance of the laws of the game can be breathtaking.

 

[Dick Knights Mumm]

There's another bloody woman on

Listen to yourself.

 

[Billy the Fish]

Ageing white male here prepared to be dismissed as a sexist dinosaur.

Alex Scott is okay on football basics that are common to the men's and women's game - although I wonder if she'd be on quite so much if she was less, er, telegenic - and some male pundits are utterly useless. Agreed.

But if I want pundits and analysts at all, then I want pundits who have played the game at the level that is being broadcast, who have been there and can give insight into what the players are experiencing and what their motivations might be. I wouldn't be as interested in hearing a League Two defender's opinions on Manchester United v Liverpool as I am Jamie Carragher and Gary Neville. When watching international football. I'm interested in their opinions and those of, say, Slaven Bilic, who has played and coached in international football. I'm less interested in what Alex Scott has to say because she has played a slower, less physical version of the same sport.

By all means have her on panels, but let's just be honest as to why she's there - to give credibility to women's football and so that the TV companies can point to her presence as giving gender balance. Just as having Trevor Sinclair analysing women's World Cup games was an attempt to make their coverage appear more serious because it had a proper ex-Premier League player there. Which I found unnecessary and patronising because I thought the games were quite entertaining and absorbing enough on their own merits.

I get where your coming from and it seems like a sound theory, but at last year's World Cup Eni Aluko was a brilliant pundit, she gave better insight than most of the men.

The problem with this discussion is that it's so subjective - I quite like Danny Murphy but I know others can't stand him.

People should be allowed to say they don't like any pundit, sticking up for female pundits just because they're a woman is also sexist, but in a patronising way.

 

[surlyseagull]

Well Gullit and Murphy have both disagreed with Alex Scott over Steve Bruce's decision to watch cricket before joining Massive.

So that gives a lie to the notion some have on this thread that the men dare not disagree with the woman for fear of reprisal.

Twas a small point ,but...…. there may be trouble ahead .

 

[Triggaaar]

I disagree that my logic means that successful managers must have been successful players. As you say, that has been proved incorrect many times. You don't have to have been a horse to be a jockey. The best coaches have to have a range of skills, many of which aren't required to be great players.

But to succeed as a manager you need to understand the game well, just as you do to be a good pundit.

But what are pundits there for, in theory? To tell us more than we can see for ourselves. I've never thought that Alex Scott has done that.

This isn't about Alex Scott, it's about whether females are capable of understanding the mens game well enough to add the viewers experience, and I don't see why they can't be.

But I also think that about Chris Sutton, and almost anyone on Match of the Day, whose opinions are mostly superficial and ill-informed.. Most of them fall down on that basic point. And I dismiss almost any opinion on goalkeeping from outfield players or on refereeing from players and managers, whose ignorance of the laws of the game can be breathtaking.

It sounds like you're against nearly all pundits, not just the female ones.

 

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

Listen to yourself.

Erm, take a look at my other posts in the thread.....