National News Joey Barton

SteMerritt said:
I'll say on a similar point that if you follow cricket there are a few female pundits who certainly have good insight on top level men's cricket, such as Ebony Rainford-Brent, gender has no bearing on it. Different sports of course, but to blanket all female pundits under one assumption seems a bit off to me. I won't comment on the specifics of the two mentioned, as I've not heard either of them, I tend to mute live games.
Click to expand...

I play league cricket and I’m an avid follower of England.

ERB or Alex Hartley are excellent pundits, no doubt. As you say, different sport.
 
Scotchegg said:
It's got nothing to do with colour because neither Barton or you have said that all black pundits are bad.

There's nothing wrong with saying that you think Eni Aluko is a s**t pundit. Everyone is entitled to an opinion. But there are numerous male pundits that are bad, many that are awful and earning huge wages simply because they're a big name and nothing to do with ability.

However, he has said that there is no place for women pundits in the men's game, and you have said that he has a point. That is lumping all women together and saying that their views are inferior to men's. That is misogynistic.

Label yourself.
Click to expand...

Calm down, egg.

If you happen to go back through this thread, you’ll note that this subject was referenced again yesterday, following Joey Barton’s outburst about Aluko.

This thread isn’t really discussing male pundits, it’s discussing Joey Barton’s comments.

Out of interest, would a ‘big name’ in the male game, render them more relevant to
comment on the elite level men’s game than a female equivalent, that has never played at the physical or technical level?

For instance, male Manc Derby, would you prefer to listen to Paul Scholes and Gary Neville or Ella Toone and Steph Houghton discuss the technical intricacies?

There isn’t a right or wrong but there is a relevance that is lost on many.
 
ECYellow said:
Out of interest, would a ‘big name’ in the male game, render them more relevant to
comment on the elite level men’s game than a female equivalent, that has never played at the physical or technical level?
Click to expand...

It depends on who that "big name" is. I would say that a current or recently retired women's footballer is closer to the modern game than the likes of Phil Thompson, Paul Walsh and Charlie Nicholas on the old Soccer Saturday panel.
 
Scotchegg said:
It depends on who that "big name" is. I would say that a current or recently retired women's footballer is closer to the modern game than the likes of Phil Thompson, Paul Walsh and Charlie Nicholas on the old Soccer Saturday panel.
Click to expand...

Really? Have you attended a females game recently?

Or, more to the point, have you attended a man’s Xl game?

The ladies have been great for young girls that aspire to play, no doubt. To have them commentating on elite level mens football, though? Nope, I’m sorry.
It a different game. Quicker, more physical and much more competitive.
 
ECYellow said:
Really? Have you attended a females game recently?

Or, more to the point, have you attended a man’s Xl game?

The ladies have been great for young girls that aspire to play, no doubt. To have them commentating on elite level mens football, though? Nope, I’m sorry.
It a different game. Quicker, more physical and much more competitive.
Click to expand...

I've attended many women's games and a few thousands men's games over 40 years.

As I said before, the game evolves and if you only want the views of those who have played at exactly the same level that they're commenting on the dozens of male pundits would be out of work too.

Roy Keane was a fantastic player in his day, but would barely finish a game today with VAR. Gary Neville's distribution was playing the ball 5 yards to Beckham and would struggle to be the attacking fullback that so many demand now. Michael Owen had electric pace which meant he scored for fun, but he has little understanding of the wider game. Dion Dublin? Danny Murphy? Lee Dixon?

There are dozens of pundits getting paid very decent wages who played a very different game than the one played today, but people only appear to worry about gender.
 
Scotchegg said:
I've attended many women's games and a few thousands men's games over 40 years.

As I said before, the game evolves and if you only want the views of those who have played at exactly the same level that they're commenting on the dozens of male pundits would be out of work too.

Roy Keane was a fantastic player in his day, but would barely finish a game today with VAR. Gary Neville's distribution was playing the ball 5 yards to Beckham and would struggle to be the attacking fullback that so many demand now. Michael Owen had electric pace which meant he scored for fun, but he has little understanding of the wider game. Dion Dublin? Danny Murphy? Lee Dixon?

There are dozens of pundits getting paid very decent wages who played a very different game than the one played today, but people only appear to worry about gender.
Click to expand...

Every single example is male.

The women’s game is different. It isn’t inferior, it is just different.

In other news, got squeeze on the Alexa. What a band.
 
ECYellow said:
Every single example is male.

The women’s game is different. It isn’t inferior, it is just different.

In other news, got squeeze on the Alexa. What a band.
Click to expand...
What about the male commentators/presenters who haven't played professionally at all, should we get rid of them then?
 
Followtheox1 said:
What about the male commentators/presenters who haven't played professionally at all, should we get rid of them then?
Click to expand...

Commentator, analyser or pundit? Which is it? There are not many lead commentators that have played, as that’s broadcasting profession. Neville types (analysers) or pundits (Carra) are employed to not call the game, but to offer EXPERT opinion on it.
 
ECYellow said:
Commentator, analyser or pundit? Which is it? There are not many lead commentators that have played, as that’s broadcasting profession. Neville types (analysers) or pundits (Carra) are employed to not call the game, but to offer EXPERT opinion on it.
Click to expand...
So is it ok for presenters and commentators to be women, in your view? I.e your Martin Tyler, Dan Walker, David Jones etc. Your broadcast types.
 
ECYellow said:
Every single example is male.

The women’s game is different. It isn’t inferior, it is just different.

In other news, got squeeze on the Alexa. What a band.
Click to expand...
Pulling muscles from a shell?
 
When the EFL highlights were on Quest, Ali Maxwell and our man George Elek provided more far more insight than any ex-player they got to sit on the sofa. Such is the nature of EFL highlights when they can have as many as 36 matches to cover, Maxwell and Elek did a great job of pointing out system changes, patterns in form and performances of managers and players based on data. The likes of Dean Ashton sat there spouting cliches and offering little in terms of insight. Neither played the game professionally and offered far more than a pro ever did.

Likewise Emma Hayes never played a professional match yet can spot tactical changes better than any male pundit can.

It’s all about communicating well with the audience. Jerome and Nathan are both intelligent guys on Rad Ox and do that superbly well. Again, two more that aren’t ex pros but can do a better job of explaining what’s occurred than (with the greatest of respect to them) PRB and Eddie Odiambo.

Perhaps ITV see value in Eni Aluko doing that. I can’t say I know enough about her nor seen her enough to comment.
 
Scotchegg said:
I've attended many women's games and a few thousands men's games over 40 years.

As I said before, the game evolves and if you only want the views of those who have played at exactly the same level that they're commenting on the dozens of male pundits would be out of work too.

Roy Keane was a fantastic player in his day, but would barely finish a game today with VAR. Gary Neville's distribution was playing the ball 5 yards to Beckham and would struggle to be the attacking fullback that so many demand now. Michael Owen had electric pace which meant he scored for fun, but he has little understanding of the wider game. Dion Dublin? Danny Murphy? Lee Dixon?

There are dozens of pundits getting paid very decent wages who played a very different game than the one played today, but people only appear to worry about gender.
Click to expand...


You‘re saying Gary Neville wasn’t an attacking full back ? With that view I’d suggest those ‘thousands of men’s games’ haven’t taught you very much. Neville would slot into the modern game seamlessly. I also disagree re Keane, his well publicised isolated incidents shouldn’t cover up the fact that Keane, in the main and week in week out, was a hard but fair midfielder and a great player rather than a dirty one. I’m not getting your point re the others - Dublin, Murphy, Dixon, Owen? Are you saying they’re out of touch and can’t relate to football in the 2020’s. They would all thrive today.
 
Pep Guardiola hasn’t played in a long time maybe he should get Emma Hayes in to explain the modern game to him, get Man City out of the slump they are in.
 
I just don't get this 'they have to have played at the top level' analogy. We've already heard about Michael Owen and the garbage he comes out with in his commentary.

But also by that same reckoning, that must make Jose Mourinho a crap manager, afterall he only ever played up to semi-professional level.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Leysboy
Local News Barton
Replies
0
Views
1K
Leysboy
Leysboy
Back
Top Bottom