|
|
Post by mrpicton79 on Jun 17, 2024 21:52:38 GMT
Again you want to display to everyone how upset and angry you are at comments that you deem unacceptable, but it's clear you're not actually reading the thread properly. I'll listen to the 3 worst male pundits over the 3 "best" female pundits any day of the week thank you. And in this sentence alone you literally proved my point. Thank you What did I prove? How "biased" I am against women because I don't think female players critiquing the men's game works particularly well in broadcasting? I don't think you remotely understand the points I'm making. |
|
|
|
Post by allezlesrouges on Jun 18, 2024 21:56:52 GMT
And in this sentence alone you literally proved my point. Thank you What did I prove? How "biased" I am against women because I don't think female players critiquing the men's game works particularly well in broadcasting? I don't think you remotely understand the points I'm making. If the female pundits said exactly what the male pundits said verbatim you'd value it less coming from the woman. It's not about the quality of what's said to you, it's about the genitals of the person who says it. So yes, you're clearly very biased and brainwashed by tabloid talking points |
|
|
|
Post by mrpicton79 on Jun 20, 2024 8:04:02 GMT
What did I prove? How "biased" I am against women because I don't think female players critiquing the men's game works particularly well in broadcasting? I don't think you remotely understand the points I'm making. If the female pundits said exactly what the male pundits said verbatim you'd value it less coming from the woman. It's not about the quality of what's said to you, it's about the genitals of the person who says it. So yes, you're clearly very biased and brainwashed by tabloid talking points And you prove my point in your very next comment 🙄 It is absolutely about the quality of what's being said. In theory one of the women could put a male pundit to shame with her incredible insight and knowledge of the men's game, but that's never happened has it? Because it's all being driven by DEI bullshit rather than getting the best people available for the role. |
|
|
|
Post by kracken88 on Jun 20, 2024 8:31:38 GMT
I don't get the trump newsletter delivered,what does DEI mean then?
|
|
|
|
Post by kracken88 on Jun 20, 2024 8:34:48 GMT
I was trying to delete my above comment,I didn't want to spoil the thread anymore than the usual suspects already have.
|
|
|
|
Post by allezlesrouges on Jun 20, 2024 9:15:21 GMT
If the female pundits said exactly what the male pundits said verbatim you'd value it less coming from the woman. It's not about the quality of what's said to you, it's about the genitals of the person who says it. So yes, you're clearly very biased and brainwashed by tabloid talking points And you prove my point in your very next comment 🙄 It is absolutely about the quality of what's being said. In theory one of the women could put a male pundit to shame with her incredible insight and knowledge of the men's game, but that's never happened has it? Because it's all being driven by DEI bullshit rather than getting the best people available for the role. So you're saying if I pull up quotes of anonymous analysis on the same game from a female pundit and a male pundit you should be able to tell whether a man or a woman said it based on the quality of the quotes? Let's do that then... Here are some responses to the question "Are Germany more likely to win Euro 2024 than we thought based on their opening 2 performances?" Response 1: "England need to win the group don't they? [to avoid Germany]. In the last 16 in the last Euros we did beat them, although it was in Wembley so that's slightly different" Response 2: "Nagelsmann will be very very happy so far. I think he's found a good balance in the team, and he's got the key players to click: Musiala, Gundogan, Kroos, and that's the key to try and win this tournament" Response 3: I think the interesting thing we've seen from Julian Nagelsmann in both games is his timing of substitutions. I think of the book "The Legacy" about the All Blacks, they talk about different roles for players for example "the finishers", knowing that whilst you might not start you're coming on to either see a game out or impact it. It's a long tournament, and use of his subs so far has been key Now, here are some responses to Scotland's performance against Switzerland: Response 4: "Gilmour made a positive difference. We spoke before the game about he would have a role that was massively defensive, as well as that part that we've seen from him so many times in possession. And early on in the game he put in a real defenders tackle. He got stuck right in and you just think - yeah that's what we're going to need...hopefully the guys can look at their overall performance and take a lot from it going into Sunday" Response 5: "We were discussing how we're going to get Che Adams into the game. A striker wants to have more opportunities to score goals but I think he worked so hard tonight...there were moments, there was so much to build on, so much positivity. But as you said, slightly muted because there's still a job to do." Response 6: "It's a big relief actually. I've been there before after a bad defeat, and to get the next game out of the way with a better performance. Scotland showed more fight, much more commitment, looked as if they were in a game...They gave the opposition a game. There's things they can improve on but overall they will be happy with a point. Can you respond to this by saying the numbers of the responses that you think were said by male pundits please? |
|
|
|
Post by winsumluzsum on Jun 20, 2024 11:59:55 GMT
1, 3, 4 and 6 are male responses I would say, but I have very low confidence about being right.
|
|
|
|
Post by allezlesrouges on Jun 20, 2024 12:03:54 GMT
1, 3, 4 and 6 are male responses I would say, but I have very low confidence about being right. I will let you know once Picton responds - should be easy for him as it's all about quality of the analysis & nothing to do with what the person looks like! |
|
|
|
Post by mrpicton79 on Jun 20, 2024 23:51:15 GMT
And you prove my point in your very next comment 🙄 It is absolutely about the quality of what's being said. In theory one of the women could put a male pundit to shame with her incredible insight and knowledge of the men's game, but that's never happened has it? Because it's all being driven by DEI bullshit rather than getting the best people available for the role. So you're saying if I pull up quotes of anonymous analysis on the same game from a female pundit and a male pundit you should be able to tell whether a man or a woman said it based on the quality of the quotes? Let's do that then... Here are some responses to the question "Are Germany more likely to win Euro 2024 than we thought based on their opening 2 performances?" Response 1: "England need to win the group don't they? [to avoid Germany]. In the last 16 in the last Euros we did beat them, although it was in Wembley so that's slightly different" Response 2: "Nagelsmann will be very very happy so far. I think he's found a good balance in the team, and he's got the key players to click: Musiala, Gundogan, Kroos, and that's the key to try and win this tournament" Response 3: I think the interesting thing we've seen from Julian Nagelsmann in both games is his timing of substitutions. I think of the book "The Legacy" about the All Blacks, they talk about different roles for players for example "the finishers", knowing that whilst you might not start you're coming on to either see a game out or impact it. It's a long tournament, and use of his subs so far has been key Now, here are some responses to Scotland's performance against Switzerland: Response 4: "Gilmour made a positive difference. We spoke before the game about he would have a role that was massively defensive, as well as that part that we've seen from him so many times in possession. And early on in the game he put in a real defenders tackle. He got stuck right in and you just think - yeah that's what we're going to need...hopefully the guys can look at their overall performance and take a lot from it going into Sunday" Response 5: "We were discussing how we're going to get Che Adams into the game. A striker wants to have more opportunities to score goals but I think he worked so hard tonight...there were moments, there was so much to build on, so much positivity. But as you said, slightly muted because there's still a job to do." Response 6: "It's a big relief actually. I've been there before after a bad defeat, and to get the next game out of the way with a better performance. Scotland showed more fight, much more commitment, looked as if they were in a game...They gave the opposition a game. There's things they can improve on but overall they will be happy with a point. Can you respond to this by saying the numbers of the responses that you think were said by male pundits please? It's extraordinary the lengths people like you will go to to try to convince everybody that female pundits aren't as shit as most people concur they are. You're really going to scour footage on iplayer desperately trying to find comments they've made where they don't sound clueless talking about the men's game? Lucky you weren't trying to do that with Karen Carney or Eni Aluko. But for the record I remember Alex Scott making the 3rd comment, which is pretty typical of what she does. Just rambling on and not saying anything relevant to what we were watching. Rachel Corsie covered the Scotland game, I think she made the 4th comment. She didn't embarrass herself but she didn't really provide any great insight either, as you would expect. I know it's inconceivable to you but some people just prefer listening to people who've actually been involved at the level they're discussing when sitting down to watch some football. And it's not just the technical side; it's the disagreements, the camaraderie, the banter. None of which happen when you've got female pundits on the panel. |
|
|
|
Post by mrpicton79 on Jun 20, 2024 23:55:40 GMT
I don't get the trump newsletter delivered,what does DEI mean then? It's not difficult to Google things you aren't familiar with these days. It's diversity, equity, and inclusion. It's basically the reason all this crap came in in the first place. |
|
|
|
Post by allezlesrouges on Jun 21, 2024 9:35:53 GMT
So you're saying if I pull up quotes of anonymous analysis on the same game from a female pundit and a male pundit you should be able to tell whether a man or a woman said it based on the quality of the quotes? Let's do that then... Here are some responses to the question "Are Germany more likely to win Euro 2024 than we thought based on their opening 2 performances?" Response 1: "England need to win the group don't they? [to avoid Germany]. In the last 16 in the last Euros we did beat them, although it was in Wembley so that's slightly different" Response 2: "Nagelsmann will be very very happy so far. I think he's found a good balance in the team, and he's got the key players to click: Musiala, Gundogan, Kroos, and that's the key to try and win this tournament" Response 3: I think the interesting thing we've seen from Julian Nagelsmann in both games is his timing of substitutions. I think of the book "The Legacy" about the All Blacks, they talk about different roles for players for example "the finishers", knowing that whilst you might not start you're coming on to either see a game out or impact it. It's a long tournament, and use of his subs so far has been key Now, here are some responses to Scotland's performance against Switzerland: Response 4: "Gilmour made a positive difference. We spoke before the game about he would have a role that was massively defensive, as well as that part that we've seen from him so many times in possession. And early on in the game he put in a real defenders tackle. He got stuck right in and you just think - yeah that's what we're going to need...hopefully the guys can look at their overall performance and take a lot from it going into Sunday" Response 5: "We were discussing how we're going to get Che Adams into the game. A striker wants to have more opportunities to score goals but I think he worked so hard tonight...there were moments, there was so much to build on, so much positivity. But as you said, slightly muted because there's still a job to do." Response 6: "It's a big relief actually. I've been there before after a bad defeat, and to get the next game out of the way with a better performance. Scotland showed more fight, much more commitment, looked as if they were in a game...They gave the opposition a game. There's things they can improve on but overall they will be happy with a point. Can you respond to this by saying the numbers of the responses that you think were said by male pundits please? It's extraordinary the lengths people like you will go to to try to convince everybody that female pundits aren't as shit as most people concur they are. You're really going to scour footage on iplayer desperately trying to find comments they've made where they don't sound clueless talking about the men's game? Lucky you weren't trying to do that with Karen Carney or Eni Aluko. But for the record I remember Alex Scott making the 3rd comment, which is pretty typical of what she does. Just rambling on and not saying anything relevant to what we were watching. Rachel Corsie covered the Scotland game, I think she made the 4th comment. She didn't embarrass herself but she didn't really provide any great insight either, as you would expect. I know it's inconceivable to you but some people just prefer listening to people who've actually been involved at the level they're discussing when sitting down to watch some football. And it's not just the technical side; it's the disagreements, the camaraderie, the banter. None of which happen when you've got female pundits on the panel. "Scouring footage on iPlayer" - yes typing in "BBC" and clicking on the first 2 videos I saw was really extensive scouring wasn't it? What's funny is that you've clearly googled it to find these quotes because you couldn't answer just based off the quotes alone. Don't try telling me you knew who Rachel Corsie was & you remember Alex Scott exact words from free recall. You've clearly Googled this because you couldn't answer correctly on your own Surely the fact you had to Google it must highlight to you that you're not interested in quality alone, otherwise you'd be able to answer this question without Googling who said it |
|
|
|
Post by allezlesrouges on Jun 21, 2024 9:41:43 GMT
1, 3, 4 and 6 are male responses I would say, but I have very low confidence about being right. 3 was Alex Scott & 4 was Rachel Corsie (captain of Scotland women apparently) Our friend Picton here mysteriously remembered Alex Scott's exact words. He also knew exactly who Rachel Corsie was, and recognised her specific words too, despite the fact that he despises the idea of female pundits He definitely didn't Google who covered each game, find the clips on iPlayer and check his answers before he responded to me, because he can just tell based on the words alone who is male and female... definitely! 😂 |
|
|
|
Post by CrackityJones on Jun 21, 2024 9:41:46 GMT
Lads can you leave it there now please. You've both made your point
|
|
|
|
Post by surge on Jun 21, 2024 20:25:58 GMT
Can we get back to talking about the Cymru women's team now?
Anyone off out to Croatia in July?
|
|
|
|
Post by CrackityJones on Jun 21, 2024 22:28:02 GMT
No but will be at the home vs Kosovo and looking forward to it
|
|
|
|
Post by allezlesrouges on Jun 22, 2024 12:33:05 GMT
Would like to get down to one of the home games soon, hoping the recent uptick in crowds continues
|
|
|
|
Post by surge on Jul 12, 2024 15:19:00 GMT
Am I right in saying that the next game is tonight at 7:15 pm?
|
|
|
|
Post by kracken88 on Jul 12, 2024 15:33:05 GMT
Yes you are,away to Croatia.
|
|
|
|
Post by stevej on Jul 12, 2024 18:43:49 GMT
1 nil up, another cracker from Jess Fishlock..
|
|
|
|
Post by kracken88 on Jul 12, 2024 19:22:33 GMT
Only just tuning in but judging by the games so far it seems us and Ukraine are a level above the others in the group.
|
|
|
|
Post by surge on Jul 12, 2024 19:42:31 GMT
Really fantastic cross by Rachel Rowe eventually leading to Ingle's goal.
I would still like to see more but understand it's filthy warm and it's most player's pre-season.
|
|
|
|
Post by stevej on Jul 12, 2024 20:28:45 GMT
Very good performance with some high quality moments, 3 nil was the least we deserved..
|
|
|
|
Post by welshrover on Jul 12, 2024 20:41:18 GMT
It was a hard watch.
|
|
|
|
Post by stevej on Jul 12, 2024 20:55:35 GMT
Surprised you feel like that, the only 'downside' if you want to call it that was the gulf in class between us and Croatia, especially considering they were top of the group goin into the game..
|
|
|
|
Post by surge on Jul 16, 2024 19:35:18 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by stevej on Jul 16, 2024 20:40:29 GMT
My first game and I got to witness a bit of history being made... 👏👏
|
|
|
|
Post by welshrover on Jul 16, 2024 23:07:14 GMT
Unfortunately those young fans at the game will be scarred for life with the knob singing "ogie ogie ogie"
|
|
|
|
Post by Belle Vue on Jul 17, 2024 4:47:26 GMT
And they will also be scarred for life for watching absolutely horrendous football 😂😂
|
|
|
|
Post by daearegwr on Jul 17, 2024 8:03:43 GMT
I've raised this before but it's still mad how qualifying for Euro 2025 works. The fact that Wales, who topped their group, will still have another 4 games to play before they can qualify
Wales are in Path 2
Seeded: Portugal, Scotland, Wales, Serbia, Ukraine, Northern Ireland
Unseeded: Türkiye, Croatia, Hungary, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Slovakia, Azerbaijan
And then the final round is against the winners from Path 1
Seeded: Sweden, Norway, Austria, Belgium, Finland, Czechia, Republic of Ireland, Poland
Unseeded: Slovenia, Romania, Belarus, Greece, Albania, Luxembourg, Montenegro, Georgia
|
|
|
|
Post by kracken88 on Jul 17, 2024 8:57:06 GMT
I'm confused what do you mean winners from path one? Didn't Sweden finish second and Eire finish third in Englands group? God can't they make it any more complicated 😁
|
|
