WHO Poll
Q:



LeroysBoots 6:49 Sun Feb 2
West Ham Women Lose 8-0
To Chelsea

Oh dear

Replies - Newest Posts First (Show In Chronological Order)

Pickle Rick 5:51 Thu Feb 6
Re: West Ham Women Lose 8-0
Jonah Lomas 11:53 Tue Feb 4

It because those that like those sport complain about the amount of football on TV, tennis fans conveniently forgetting that for 2 weeks in June tennis is on everyday for 12 odd hours.

tanman 5:51 Thu Feb 6
Re: West Ham Women Lose 8-0
A good example of my intranet at work 'West Ham captain Flaherty opens up about suicide attempt'.

It's not about our captain but the captain of the women's team and how she found it hard to accept she was a lezza. Why not just add Women's to the title to allow the reader to at least know who the article is referring to.

tanman 5:48 Thu Feb 6
Re: West Ham Women Lose 8-0
(nt)

pdbis 1:52 Wed Feb 5
Re: West Ham Women Lose 8-0
Could be the score on Sunday if we don't tighten up at the back and Man City decide to turn it on.

tanman 11:36 Wed Feb 5
Re: West Ham Women Lose 8-0
Totally agree, you see a headline such as 'More injury woe for England' then find out the injuries are to do with the women's team with who no one has any interest. The coverage is so disproportionate to the levels of interest. In the same way that the World Bowling Championships only warrant a tiny summary in the sports pages, the same should apply to women's football/rugby etc.

Fivetide 12:28 Tue Feb 4
Re: West Ham Women Lose 8-0
The only part of all this that really annoys me, is when the media are so determined to show how inclusive their approach to women's sport is that they are now worse at their main job - telling us the news clearly and succinctly.

TalkSport and 5Live both do this. You'll suddenly get a news roundup and be told that in football news, Man City have beaten Wolves 3-1. Frequently they won;t go on to explain that its women's football, and not the men's team you've been supporting all your life. It's stupid; why make things more confusing just to make some lateral point of virtue?

on the wider point: I'm glad professional women's football and women's cricket exist and that each subsequent generation of girls will get a chance to play and develop the game. But they are totally different sports than their longstanding male equivalents, and the quality simply isn't there. It doesn't mean you can't catch a rare competitive game that is watchable between the very best sides(USA vs France say, or India vs England in cricket). But 99% of matches are works in progress, waiting for a new generation of players. Batting and fielding in cricket, notably, is still abyssmal and makes most matches barely watcheable. That's okay, it's still developing, just don;t pretend it's already equivalent to a sport that's been honed over 200 years.

Side of Ham 12:02 Tue Feb 4
Re: West Ham Women Lose 8-0
It really IS odd that someone who lives on the other side of the world would bother himself telling strangers this tbh......

Jonah Lomas 11:53 Tue Feb 4
Re: West Ham Women Lose 8-0
I really find it odd that people manage to get so worked up about how shit they think women's sport is.

Because it really IS odd.

I think horse racing is shit, so I don't watch it.

I find motor racing pretty boring for the most part. The same with snooker and darts.

I find tennis a difficult watch.

But, I find it very hard to be bothered by them enough to complain vehemently on a message board.

goose 11:21 Tue Feb 4
Re: West Ham Women Lose 8-0
People get the hump because it’s inferior and yet somehow is constantly pushed into the sports headlines as big news.
There’s no money in it and yet they demand equal pay.

It’s like the BBC cannot afford the mens game so we get force fed the women’s game instead, and then get frowned upon when you point out it’s shit.

I’d rather they broadcast the U23s games.

Mad Dog 11:15 Tue Feb 4
Re: West Ham Women Lose 8-0
You still don't get my point do you???

I have no objection to womens football. In fact I actively encourage it.

My objection is to the fact that it's being rammed down our throats at every opportunity that its just as good and important as the mens game.

It isnt.

Leonard Hatred 5:31 Tue Feb 4
Re: West Ham Women Lose 8-0
Splitarse football has no business being on television because it's shit and nobody's interested in it.

lowermarshhammer 3:23 Tue Feb 4
Re: West Ham Women Lose 8-0
Of course not all women's sport is shit.

What annoys many is the ridiculous level of TV and press coverage that is given to it in relation to the actual number of people who are really interested in it.

3656 average attendance in Women's Premier League this year for football. Transfer news from women's football is often featured on BBC radio sports reporting, I would think less than 1% of listeners have any interest.


In 2019 for all professional cricket in the UK total attendance was 3.15 million. For the ENTIRE women's Ashes series across all the games attendance was 24,369... And don't forget the tickets are tuppence as well.

Jonah Lomas 2:46 Tue Feb 4
Re: West Ham Women Lose 8-0
Mad Dog 2:17 Tue Feb 4

I'm sure you understand the physical differences between men and women.

So, why do you HAVE to compare them?

Of course men are going to be faster and stronger. But if you are simply going to compare the top level of mens football, for example, and the top level of women's football and decide that women's is shit because they're not as good, not as fast, not as strong, not as skillful, then surely anything below Internationals and the Premier League is also shit and not worth watching.

No?

So it's really just because they're women isn't it.

Jonah Lomas 2:42 Tue Feb 4
Re: West Ham Women Lose 8-0
lowermarshhammer 1:36 Tue Feb 4

So because a pensioner who likes T20 cricket and your daughter don't like women's cricket, all women's sport is shit?

Mad Dog 2:17 Tue Feb 4
Re: West Ham Women Lose 8-0
Leeshere.

Club teams under 15s boys teams have destroyed national womens sides in a few countries.

Jonah.

No its because the womens game is shite compared to the mens in several sports, yet it's being rammed down our throats that it's just as good.

Jonah Lomas 2:08 Tue Feb 4
Re: West Ham Women Lose 8-0
Boycie 12:45 Tue Feb 4

Neither can a lot of highly paid men - those who take the corners for West Ham anyway.

lowermarshhammer 1:36 Tue Feb 4
Re: West Ham Women Lose 8-0
Jonah 1047

I was sitting next to a pensioner at a T20 game a few seasons back. She knew her cricket, husband had played club as had her boys. She'd watched Essex home and away for a long time.

She was quite happy to tell me that women's cricket was unequivocally shit. She'd seen a few games down at Essex as I have. The women like it there because it's a small ground ( they still bring the boundary in to just off the square). I told her that she couldn't say that or the PC Brigade would arrest her. "What for? For telling the truth?"

My daughter has been going to cricket since she was 5 or 6. She doesn't rate women's cricket as a spectacle compared to the men's game and has no interest in it.

Boycie 12:45 Tue Feb 4
Re: West Ham Women Lose 8-0
highest paid woman player takes corner cannot kick it to the 6 yard box

goose 11:08 Mon Feb 3
Re: West Ham Women Lose 8-0
“For example, some of the best games of sevens rugby I've seen, have involved the NZ Black Ferns side.”

The ones who play in swimwear & covered in baby oil??

Jonah Lomas 10:47 Mon Feb 3
Re: West Ham Women Lose 8-0
I STILL don't get the animosity towards women's sport overall.

I guess it's because some men feel threatened by women being given a sliver of the limelight, and getting the opportunity to showcase their skills.

Sexist, backwards bastards.

Pretty narrow-minded to simply rule out watching half the population play sport just because of their sex.

For example, some of the best games of sevens rugby I've seen, have involved the NZ Black Ferns side.

Leeshere 10:00 Mon Feb 3
Re: West Ham Women Lose 8-0
I’ve nothing against women wanting to play football, but I’m pretty sure a semi decent Hackney marshes Sunday league team would beat the England women’s team quite easily. Maybe the BBC should screen that, would be worth watching!

Page 1 - Next




Copyright 2006 WHO.NET | Powered by: