MFC Fans Only Non Dees AFL thread 2019 edition- Thank god its over. Tylenol NOW!

[00Stinger]

One thing McCartin could do besides getting concussed is mark the ball. Not sure why you think he's a s**t mark??

Agree on Phil Hughes though. I'm fairly certain he'd be a mainstay in this test team right now. Had some deficiencies in his batting as everyone does, but he was talented. Absolutely could have been averaging 40 at test level.

because he would drop easy marks consistantly

Might have been confidence or nerves but he didnt show this marking ability at AFL level

Sent from my SM-A505YN using Tapatalk

 

[schmuttt]

McCartin dropped a heap of marks at AFL level, especially easy chest marks.

 

[TheCount]

I’d summarise McCartin as being a really crap mark for a guy with a good set of hands.
He’d take some really strong grabs, and then drop some stupidly easy ones

 

[Cannon82]

I’d summarise McCartin as being a really crap mark for a guy with a good set of hands.
He’d take some really strong grabs, and then drop some stupidly easy ones

His hands are probably good, but it doesn't help that he's always discombobulated. Or drunk.

 

[Topkent]

Just read the Socceroos split their money with the Matilda's equally now. The men's team don't deserve any money but the women's team deserve less. What a joke. Congratulations to the women for getting paid to do something no one cares about, if the men and women's team both played England in Melbourne and the men's team plays in front of 100k at the G while the women's team Plays in front of 15k why the * are they getting the same amount of money

 

[HANDSOLO]

Just read the Socceroos split their money with the Matilda's equally now. The men's team don't deserve any money but the women's team deserve less. What a joke. Congratulations to the women for getting paid to do something no one cares about, if the men and women's team both played England in Melbourne and the men's team plays in front of 100k at the G while the women's team Plays in front of 15k why the fu** are they getting the same amount of money

i would argue they both do something g meaningless, bring about the same amount of national prestige and the women outperform the men in terms of achievement so it feels right to me

maybe the men bring in more revenue on the odd occasion they play a meaningful game in Australia, but i suspect their indirect costs are higher to the taxpayer

I hate people making token moves and virtue signaling for the sake of it but this doesn’t feel like that

professional sport your arguments make more sense as the objective is profit

 

[Crusty Demon]

i would argue they both do something g meaningless, bring about the same amount of national prestige and the women outperform the men in terms of achievement so it feels right to me

maybe the men bring in more revenue on the odd occasion they play a meaningful game in Australia, but i suspect their indirect costs are higher to the taxpayer

I hate people making token moves and virtue signaling for the sake of it but this doesn’t feel like that

professional sport your arguments make more sense as the objective is profit

I have no problem at all with equal pay for men's and women's teams when representing their country. I think it's completely fair and reasonable. The men in high profile sports like soccer, will be getting paid a decent wage through their clubs(employers) anyway. The $$ gained through teams representing Australia whether women or mens teams, should be distributed where needed to boost that sport at local level and ground roots. I'm sure Ash Barty would have no problem sharing the wealth of ticket sales or other revenue to distribute in promoting tennis in general within Australia. The men's soccer team should feel the same way. And even though the men's teams will probably always be played at a higher better more popular level, you can see the growth in women's sport like soccer, AFL and cricket where there are some genuine superstars playing and more and more people wanting to watch them live or on tv. The aussie girls cricket team in particular are fun to watch. We will see more and more women who sre hugely talented playing these sports because the $$ will be there to make it viable to put in the hard yards as a junior. I think it's fantastic. More Ash Barty's Erin Phillips, and Alyssa Healey's thanks..

 

[Topkent]

i would argue they both do something g meaningless, bring about the same amount of national prestige and the women outperform the men in terms of achievement so it feels right to me

maybe the men bring in more revenue on the odd occasion they play a meaningful game in Australia, but i suspect their indirect costs are higher to the taxpayer

I hate people making token moves and virtue signaling for the sake of it but this doesn’t feel like that

professional sport your arguments make more sense as the objective is profit

Their achievements arent as impressive. It's like arguing the people in the Belgian first division should make as much as a player at Real Madrid. I mean they both play professionally right? Facts are the mens world Cup is the most watched sporting even in the world. The women's would come no where close.

 

[Cannon82]

i would argue they both do something g meaningless, bring about the same amount of national prestige and the women outperform the men in terms of achievement so it feels right to me

maybe the men bring in more revenue on the odd occasion they play a meaningful game in Australia, but i suspect their indirect costs are higher to the taxpayer

I hate people making token moves and virtue signaling for the sake of it but this doesn’t feel like that

professional sport your arguments make more sense as the objective is profit

Why would the men's "indirect cost" be higher to the taxpayer? The Aussie government recently subsidized televising "underrepresented sport" to the tune of $30M... the main beneficiary there being women's sports.

If the objective isn't profit and players being paid relative to the value bring to an organisation, then that effectively means women's sport is a charity. People hardly watch the women's football team, even less pay to do so and the standard they play at is shocking. Not sure how you can view the pay being made equal as anything other than a virtue-signalling token move.

 

[Proper Gander]

Why would the men's "indirect cost" be higher to the taxpayer? The Aussie government recently subsidized televising "underrepresented sport" to the tune of $30M... the main beneficiary there being women's sports.

If the objective isn't profit and players being paid relative to the value bring to an organisation, then that effectively means women's sport is a charity. People hardly watch the women's football team, even less pay to do so and the standard they play at is shocking. Not sure how you can view the pay being made equal as anything other than a virtue-signalling token move.

*even fewer

 

[Cannon82]

I have no problem at all with equal pay for men's and women's teams when representing their country. I think it's completely fair and reasonable. The men in high profile sports like soccer, will be getting paid a decent wage through their clubs(employers) anyway. The $$ gained through teams representing Australia whether women or mens teams, should be distributed where needed to boost that sport at local level and ground roots. I'm sure Ash Barty would have no problem sharing the wealth of ticket sales or other revenue to distribute in promoting tennis in general within Australia. The men's soccer team should feel the same way. And even though the men's teams will probably always be played at a higher better more popular level, you can see the growth in women's sport like soccer, AFL and cricket where there are some genuine superstars playing and more and more people wanting to watch them live or on tv. The aussie girls cricket team in particular are fun to watch. We will see more and more women who sre hugely talented playing these sports because the $$ will be there to make it viable to put in the hard yards as a junior. I think it's fantastic. More Ash Barty's Erin Phillips, and Alyssa Healey's thanks..

I don't see how its fair and reasonable. Just because some of the men play in competitions around the world that people actually pay to watch, its fine to pay the women's side more than they're worth? Its quite clearly not fair and reasonable. What would be fair and reasonable would be eliminating gendered competitions and letting everyone compete equally to get into one side. Strangely enough, not many people are in favour of actual equality.

Kids typically put the hard yards in as Juniors because they love the sport. I'm sure most kids would love to play professionally, but the $ signs hanging in front of their face as 12 year olds wouldn't be the key motivating factor to improve. Most kids love playing sport. Getting paid more at the top level surely does make a difference in terms of playing level and professionalism, but it doesn't make much of a difference at grass roots level.

You realize there are hundreds of thousands of Ash Barty's, Erin Phillips and Alyssa Healeys playing in men's competitions across Australia, right? Its a bit like taking enjoyment out of watching Davey Warner smoking a team of 14 year olds around the park. Yes, amazing, look at how well he does, but the higher standard and competitiveness is what makes the men's competitions worth watching.

 

[HANDSOLO]

Their achievements arent as impressive. It's like arguing the people in the Belgian first division should make as much as a player at Real Madrid. I mean they both play professionally right? Facts are the mens world Cup is the most watched sporting even in the world. The women's would come no where close.

You are conflating two issues so let’s go through them one at a time.

Firstly, the achievements are directly comparable by definition. International competition, and our women’s team The last two tournaments has progressed further. Is the general standard of men’s play higher? I guess if you ignore the faking and divining it is, but the relative level of competition in each tournament is comparable and that is what counts for this argument

So it’s not like arguing Belgian first division at all - red herring. If you are after an Analogy, I am saying that a woman winning bronze in the 100m at the Olympics is equal or greater than the achievement of a man making the top 20

secondly, yes the men’s World Cup is more watched, but I don’t see how that justifies more coin - unless we get some revenue share in which case I will
Cede this point to you.

both teams represent our country, one performs better than the other

 

[Cannon82]

You are conflating two issues so let’s go through them one at a time.

Firstly, the achievements are directly comparable by definition. International competition, and our women’s team The last two tournaments has progressed further. Is the general standard of men’s play higher? I guess if you ignore the faking and divining it is, but the relative level of competition in each tournament is comparable and that is what counts for this argument

So it’s not like arguing Belgian first division at all - red herring. If you are after an Analogy, I am saying that a woman winning bronze in the 100m at the Olympics is equal or greater than the achievement of a man making the top 20

secondly, yes the men’s World Cup is more watched, but I don’t see how that justifies more coin - unless we get some revenue share in which case I will
Cede this point to you.

both teams represent our country, one performs better than the other

"Is the general standard of men's play higher" - there is no "I guess" about it. The standard of the men's competition is much, much higher.

Coach Not Worried That Matildas Got Beaten 7-0 By 15-Year-Old-Boys

They're still on track for Rio.

www.huffingtonpost.com.au

The various national teams get shares of the prize money on offer at the World Cup, and the men earn a significantly greater prize money because the World Cup draws significantly more revenue than the women's version.

Its not a "red herring" at all. Compare the lap times of the man making the top 20 and the woman winning Bronze in the 100 meters. The man will be much quicker, but the woman's effort is somehow more impressive? Please.

 

[HANDSOLO]

"Is the general standard of men's play higher" - there is no "I guess" about it. The standard of the men's competition is much, much higher.

Coach Not Worried That Matildas Got Beaten 7-0 By 15-Year-Old-Boys

They're still on track for Rio.

www.huffingtonpost.com.au

The various national teams get shares of the prize money on offer at the World Cup, and the men earn a significantly greater prize money because the World Cup draws significantly more revenue than the women's version.

Its not a "red herring" at all. Compare the lap times of the man making the top 20 and the woman winning Bronze in the 100 meters. The man will be much quicker, but the woman's effort is somehow more impressive? Please.

I fear you have missed my point entirely old boy. Maybe that’s on me so let me try again.

didn’t say it was more impressive said it was directly comparable and it is. You have not made an argument that is logically sound.

Is a woman being world champion of women as impressive as a man being. World champion of men? Absolutely, that is how the competition is defined

just to make sure I understand you correctly -Is your argument that men have a higher athletic ceiling than woman, and therefore a man beating a man is more impressive than a woman beating a woman in a given event?

 

[Cannon82]

didn’t say it was more impressive said it was directly comparable and it is. You have not made an argument that is logically sound.

Is a woman being world champion of women as impressive as a man being. World champion of men? Absolutely, that is how the competition is defined

just to make sure I understand you correctly -Is your argument that men have a higher athletic ceiling than woman, and therefore a man beating a man is more impressive than a woman beating a woman in a given event?

No, a woman being the world champion of women is not as impressive as a man being world champion, because the man is the actual world champion, not just the world champion of women. Who is the fastest person in the world? The guy with the 100 metre world record. The fastest woman in the world is nearly a full second slower. The only reason that woman is able to win is that the pool of entrants is restricted. Ergo, not as impressive as winning the men's competition, AKA the open competition. If people are happy to arbitrarily split competition along gender lines, why not have a world champion for redheads? Why not have a world champion of people with three nipples? How come the paralympians and the kids competing in the U16s aren't being paid the same as the men and women's competitions? I wasn't good enough to play sport professionally - how come we don't make a separate sporting competition for people who aren't good enough to make it professionally and then pay them the same as people who are?

Please don't talk of logic when your arguments are rooted in sexism. You can't have this both ways. Women are happy to compare themselves to the men's competitions when the discussion is around pay, but when it comes to performance level, all of a sudden we shouldn't compare them because women can't compete? Odd how selective the terms of what they're wanting to compare are.

Feel free to look at other events as well. Why do women have a separate chess competition to men? Women can compete in the "men's" events, AKA the open events, but men can't compete in the women's events. Only fair I guess given the inherent athletic advantage men have in chess...

 

[Topkent]

I fear you have missed my point entirely old boy. Maybe that’s on me so let me try again.

didn’t say it was more impressive said it was directly comparable and it is. You have not made an argument that is logically sound.

Is a woman being world champion of women as impressive as a man being. World champion of men? Absolutely, that is how the competition is defined

just to make sure I understand you correctly -Is your argument that men have a higher athletic ceiling than woman, and therefore a man beating a man is more impressive than a woman beating a woman in a given event?

All of the money involved comes from advertising and tv rights. People only pay advertising fees and tv rights deals if people are watching. I don't care if you are the world champion of women or men, if no one watches then why are you getting money?

The Belgian league analogy with Real Madrid is apt. The standard of the league's is irrelevant, what is relevant is the millions of fans Real Madrid have that buy merchandise and watch games and the millions of dollars of sponsorship they get paid. That's where revenue comes from and that's why there players get paid more.

If the women were getting sell out crowds every week and millions upon millions of tv revenue then pay them whatever they want

 

[Topkent]

No, a woman being the world champion of women is not as impressive as a man being world champion, because the man is the actual world champion, not just the world champion of women. Who is the fastest person in the world? The guy with the 100 metre world record. The fastest woman in the world is nearly a full second slower. The only reason that woman is able to win is that the pool of entrants is restricted. Ergo, not as impressive as winning the men's competition, AKA the open competition. If people are happy to arbitrarily split competition along gender lines, why not have a world champion for redheads? Why not have a world champion of people with three nipples? How come the paralympians and the kids competing in the U16s aren't being paid the same as the men and women's competitions? I wasn't good enough to play sport professionally - how come we don't make a separate sporting competition for people who aren't good enough to make it professionally and then pay them the same as people who are?

Please don't talk of logic when your arguments are rooted in sexism. You can't have this both ways. Women are happy to compare themselves to the men's competitions when the discussion is around pay, but when it comes to performance level, all of a sudden we shouldn't compare them because women can't compete? Odd how selective the terms of what they're wanting to compare are.

Feel free to look at other events as well. Why do women have a separate chess competition to men? Women can compete in the "men's" events, AKA the open events, but men can't compete in the women's events. Only fair I guess given the inherent athletic advantage men have in chess...

100%
If women want full equal pay and rights then open up sport to everyone and get rid of genders. The only medals women will win are in rythmic gymnastics and equestrian. Every other medal will be owned by a man, then they can distribute the money to the best

 

[HANDSOLO]

No, a woman being the world champion of women is not as impressive as a man being world champion, because the man is the actual world champion, not just the world champion of women. Who is the fastest person in the world? The guy with the 100 metre world record. The fastest woman in the world is nearly a full second slower. The only reason that woman is able to win is that the pool of entrants is restricted. Ergo, not as impressive as winning the men's competition, AKA the open competition. If people are happy to arbitrarily split competition along gender lines, why not have a world champion for redheads? Why not have a world champion of people with three nipples? How come the paralympians and the kids competing in the U16s aren't being paid the same as the men and women's competitions? I wasn't good enough to play sport professionally - how come we don't make a separate sporting competition for people who aren't good enough to make it professionally and then pay them the same as people who are?

Please don't talk of logic when your arguments are rooted in sexism. You can't have this both ways. Women are happy to compare themselves to the men's competitions when the discussion is around pay, but when it comes to performance level, all of a sudden we shouldn't compare them because women can't compete? Odd how selective the terms of what they're wanting to compare are.

Feel free to look at other events as well. Why do women have a separate chess competition to men? Women can compete in the "men's" events, AKA the open events, but men can't compete in the women's events. Only fair I guess given the inherent athletic advantage men have in chess...

ok I did understand you correctly - and disagree entirely with your point of view. There is a logical distinction between men and women in athletic endeavors in my mind due to biology/physiology and hence the level of competition within that divide is what counts, not the absolute across the divide

Of course you could then go and make more arbitrary and less meaningful sub divisions like red hair, and some more meaningful perhaps, but that would be rather silly wouldn’t it - It’s a nice construct for the sake of argument but ultimately meaningless

I am clearly not saying the division between women and men in chess is logical, but I consider the playing field much more even across genders in that example.

Anyway we will not agree so no point discussing further

 

[HANDSOLO]

All of the money involved comes from advertising and tv rights. People only pay advertising fees and tv rights deals if people are watching. I don't care if you are the world champion of women or men, if no one watches then why are you getting money?

The Belgian league analogy with Real Madrid is apt. The standard of the league's is irrelevant, what is relevant is the millions of fans Real Madrid have that buy merchandise and watch games and the millions of dollars of sponsorship they get paid. That's where revenue comes from and that's why there players get paid more.

If the women were getting sell out crowds every week and millions upon millions of tv revenue then pay them whatever they want

If you are using the Belgian league as an example of commercial considerations then i still disagree as the objective of national sport is not to create profits (at least for the countries that participate, the officials yes)

just out of interest - in the US, according to my google search, the men and women’s US team bring in about the same revenue - ok to pay them equal then?

 

[Cannon82]

ok I did understand you correctly - and disagree entirely with your point of view. There is a logical distinction between men and women in athletic endeavors in my mind due to biology/physiology and hence the level of competition within that divide is what counts, not the absolute across the divide

So why does that "logical distinction" you admit not then extend to levels of remuneration? So men as a rule are better at sport, but that doesn't matter because... "the level of competition within the divide" is the important distinction? Did you make that drivel up on the spot? Why don't we pay Australian disabled representatives the same as the men and women? Why don't we pay U16s and over 55s Aus representatives the same? After all, its the "level of competition within the divide" that matters after all? Surely even you don't believe the drivel you just punched out. Take the word "women" out of the equation and you wouldn't be able to justify why Group A deserves to be paid more than Group B despite palpably lower levels of performance and support unless you're a hardcore believer in communism.

Of course you could then go and make more arbitrary and less meaningful sub divisions like red hair, and some more meaningful perhaps, but that would be rather silly wouldn’t it - It’s a nice construct for the sake of argument but ultimately meaningless

As with the above, its illegal to discriminate along the lines of gender. Age, disability, sexual preference, race, etc are also protected attributes. If the women should be paid the same as the men and the level of performance and level of interest / support from fans, broadcasters, sponsors aren't factors, why would this not similarly extend to other attributes? Gender is absolutely an arbitrary factor. You can kick a ball around regardless of anatomical plumbing, just like a person can do the same whether they're gay, Asian, 5 or 125 years old. How good a person is does matter when it comes to playing at a competitive, professional level. If you want to restrict the level of competition to allow people of lesser ability to compete, then they can correspondingly receive a lower level of remuneration.

I am clearly not saying the division between women and men in chess is logical, but I consider the playing field much more even across genders in that example.

2 of the top 100 players in the world are women. You're right, its probably slightly more even than other sports where a woman wouldn't be close to the top rankings in the world, but according to your thinking, women should be getting paid the same in a separate competition because of "the level of competition within that divide". Why does performance actually matter when you can just form a crappy knockoff competition and demand equal pay?

 

[Cannon82]

If you are using the Belgian league as an example of commercial considerations then i still disagree as the objective of national sport is not to create profits (at least for the countries that participate, the officials yes)

just out of interest - in the US, according to my google search, the men and women’s US team bring in about the same revenue - ok to pay them equal then?

The women have to play about 2 or 3 times as many games to bring in that cash, and amusingly, its their own fault for getting paid less because they elected to go with the security of a base salary for the year rather than getting paid a fee per game. As the multitude of horrifically biased articles out there will tell you, the USMNT gets "paid to lose", or paid per game in standard terms. If a guy doesn't play, he doesn't get paid. The men play less games, they get paid less. Quite a chuckle that the US women are now up in arms about the pay structure they agreed to just a few years ago.

 

[HANDSOLO]

So why does that "logical distinction" you admit not then extend to levels of remuneration? So men as a rule are better at sport, but that doesn't matter because... "the level of competition within the divide" is the important distinction? Did you make that drivel up on the spot? Why don't we pay Australian disabled representatives the same as the men and women? Why don't we pay U16s and over 55s Aus representatives the same? After all, its the "level of competition within the divide" that matters after all? Surely even you don't believe the drivel you just punched out. Take the word "women" out of the equation and you wouldn't be able to justify why Group A deserves to be paid more than Group B despite palpably lower levels of performance and support unless you're a hardcore believer in communism.



As with the above, its illegal to discriminate along the lines of gender. Age, disability, sexual preference, race, etc are also protected attributes. If the women should be paid the same as the men and the level of performance and level of interest / support from fans, broadcasters, sponsors aren't factors, why would this not similarly extend to other attributes? Gender is absolutely an arbitrary factor. You can kick a ball around regardless of anatomical plumbing, just like a person can do the same whether they're gay, Asian, 5 or 125 years old. How good a person is does matter when it comes to playing at a competitive, professional level. If you want to restrict the level of competition to allow people of lesser ability to compete, then they can correspondingly receive a lower level of remuneration.



2 of the top 100 players in the world are women. You're right, its probably slightly more even than other sports where a woman wouldn't be close to the top rankings in the world, but according to your thinking, women should be getting paid the same in a separate competition because of "the level of competition within that divide". Why does performance actually matter when you can just form a crappy knockoff competition and demand equal pay?

mate you need to relax

My points are clear, you are misrepresenting them in each reply, and I know you are not of low intellect so have to assume either you are angry about this issue or trying to get a raise out of me

and yes I’m ok with all people representing us in national sport being played the same coin by taxpayers if they perform equally well in their segment

good day sir!

 

[Topkent]

If you are using the Belgian league as an example of commercial considerations then i still disagree as the objective of national sport is not to create profits (at least for the countries that participate, the officials yes)

just out of interest - in the US, according to my google search, the men and women’s US team bring in about the same revenue - ok to pay them equal then?

Yeah it is fair.

If you are using the Belgian league as an example of commercial considerations then i still disagree as the objective of national sport is not to create profits (at least for the countries that participate, the officials yes)

just out of interest - in the US, according to my google search, the men and women’s US team bring in about the same revenue - ok to pay them equal then?

Of course it's about profit, do you think all actors should get paid the same regardless of how successful their movies are?

 

[Cannon82]

mate you need to relax

My points are clear, you are misrepresenting them in each reply, and I know you are not of low intellect so have to assume either you are angry about this issue or trying to get a raise out of me

and yes I’m ok with all people representing us in national sport being played the same coin by taxpayers if they perform equally well in their segment

good day sir!

I'm perfectly relaxed. I think your argument is terrible and I'm not beating about the bush telling you so. I'm also not misrepresenting your points. Your argument is that the men and women's Australian soccer players deserve to get paid the same because... "the level of competition within a divide". If you think that applies wholly and solely to this one example but not to anything else, then explain why. Your argument is purely based on sexism because I don't think you'd be arguing that a 65 year old Australian representative deserves to get paid the same as someone who represents their country at the top level.

 

[Proper Gander]

I love arguments like this. They’re so sustaining and never involve a rehash of the same information which is just great. I’m sure I’m not alone.

Personally I think that women should get less prize money in grand slams because they play 3 sets rather than 5. By the same token I think Usain Bolt should give back most of his earnings because he didn’t run nearly as far as some of those marathon dudes.

Also I think that bantamweight fighters shouldn’t get any money because they would be pulverised by the heavyweights etc.

Also WTF does any of this have to do with AFL?