What unpopular AFL opinions do you have? Part 2

[jatz14]

Stupid and unpopular are not mutually exclusive.

Neither are stupid and popular.

Sent from my XT1068 using Tapatalk

 

[bluespooner]

Can't stand the AFL bankrolling women's football, whilst doing nothing for grassroots football and at the expense of the AFL Development League, SANFL and WAFL.

 

[jameses]

Can't stand the AFL bankrolling women's football, whilst doing nothing for grassroots football and at the expense of the AFL Development League, SANFL and WAFL.

Why should men’s football be more of a priority than women’s?

 

[bluespooner]

Why should men’s football be more of a priority than women’s?

Because there is zero interest in women's football and it is attempting to make itself relevant by hanging onto the coattails of men's football.
At the same time by directing resources into women's football (not much more than a kick and giggle) serious issues in the men's game go under-resourced.

 

[somo84]

Bailey Scott > Bailey Smith > Bailey Williams

What kind of w***ers name their kid 'Bailey?'

 

[jatz14]

Can't stand the AFL bankrolling women's football, whilst doing nothing for grassroots football and at the expense of the AFL Development League, SANFL and WAFL.

Firstly, the AFL isn't responsible for bankrolling grassroots football, and never has been. That the AFL isn't using grassroots football as a piggy bank like other sports is the biggest leg up it can give.

It doesn't build changerooms, club rooms, grounds, pay for grass roots coaches or equipment, and couldn't if it wanted to.

It does provide intellectual resources, training, accreditation and guidelines.

Second, supporting women's football has been going on about 4 years. So, 5 years ago, they were not spending anything on women's footy, so could you list all the grassroots programs, and support for state leagues that has been dropped to allow for women's football? Because my understanding is, it's nothing. Other areas lost nothing when women's footy came along, and if women's footy was abandoned next year, what other areas of footy will gain, is nothing.

Third. Women's footy is booming, and this is driving grassroots. Local government on the Gold Coast is finally scrambling to provide more facilities on the back of clubs running at 200% capacity, and a large part of that is female teams.

There was an article in Tasmania a few years back. Traditional clubs had gone from not being interested in women's teams, to fighting to be the first lo get one. This is because they discovered that a club suffering low numbers, tight budgets, few volunteers, generally struggling to keep the lights on, if that club got a women's team, well, more over the bar,more supporters, more volunteers, more likely to grow. Who would have thunk it.

If you grow grass roots clubs, grass roots clubs grow. What a ****ing concept, genious.

Would growing grass roots clubs qualify as helping grass roots?

Because if so, do you know what is making grassroots clubs grow the most?

Women's football is.

There are clubs out there with 2, 3 women's teams, plus juniors, how do you think they are going relative to clubs without?

The investment in AFLW, whilst draining not 1 cent from other programs, has funnelled tens of thousands of women into grass roots footy clubs as players, volunteers, supporters and members.

Clubs are now going to local government and saying, we are growing, we need new facilities, and local government is listening.

It's the most cost effective investment in grassroots footy the AFL has ever made, and if you are an advocate for grass roots, you should be all over the AFLW.

Sent from my XT1068 using Tapatalk

 

[Power Raid]

Why should men’s football be more of a priority than women’s?

it's interesting that women's tennis has a following but there isn't many other women's sports that have commercial and spectator success

 

[jatz14]

it's interesting that women's tennis has a following but there isn't many other women's sports that have commercial and spectator success

It's tough in women's sport, no doubt, but there is a correlation with history. Tennis clubs have been mixed as far back as I am aware. When was the first female tennis major?

The newer the women's version is, the more it struggles for acceptance.

That, and some sports are just boring, and the women's version moreso.

Sent from my XT1068 using Tapatalk

 

[jameses]

Because there is zero interest in women's football and it is attempting to make itself relevant by hanging onto the coattails of men's football.
At the same time by directing resources into women's football (not much more than a kick and giggle) serious issues in the men's game go under-resourced.

Considering the exponential increase in women’s participation in the sport over the past few years, your statements are really unfounded. And to be honest, it seems to me that your opinion is grounded in the idea that men have more right to the game than women.

 

[Power Raid]

It's tough in women's sport, no doubt, but there is a correlation with history. Tennis clubs have been mixed as far back as I am aware. When was the first female tennis major?

The newer the women's version is, the more it struggles for acceptance.

That, and some sports are just boring, and the women's version moreso.

Sent from my XT1068 using Tapatalk

I feel women’s tennis has an advantage over men’s as they rely upon skill rather than strength. Making for a better chance of a rally than a serve dominated game.

Where the lack of strength is evident in cricket and soccer. Where skills alone won’t get the job done.

TV stations live it though as it’s cheap feed.

 

[jatz14]

I feel women’s tennis has an advantage over men’s as they rely upon skill rather than strength. Making for a better chance of a rally than a serve dominated game.

Where the lack of strength is evident in cricket and soccer. Where skills alone won’t get the job done.

TV stations live it though as it’s cheap feed.

Cheap by itself doesn't cut it though, otherwise it would all be Gilligans Island reruns.

 

[FredLeDeux]

It's tough in women's sport, no doubt, but there is a correlation with history. Tennis clubs have been mixed as far back as I am aware. When was the first female tennis major?

The newer the women's version is, the more it struggles for acceptance.

That, and some sports are just boring, and the women's version moreso.

Sent from my XT1068 using Tapatalk

The biggest factor in the relative popularity of women's tennis is the fact that for a very long time it has been played alongside men's tennis in the same tournaments.

 

[2Knights]

The biggest factor in the relative popularity of women's tennis is the fact that for a very long time it has been played alongside men's tennis in the same tournaments.

This, also the relative standards of women's and men's tennis are closer than for most other sports.

 

[jatz14]

I feel women’s tennis has an advantage over men’s as they rely upon skill rather than strength. Making for a better chance of a rally than a serve dominated game.

Where the lack of strength is evident in cricket and soccer. Where skills alone won’t get the job done.

TV stations live it though as it’s cheap feed.

I think that is just perspective though. Women do not hit a tennis ball as hard, and there are certainly people that consider that this means womens tennis is inferior (quite a few of them on BF, as this very subject has been discussed). Many sports are similar, women do not have the strength to approach it the way men do, so find alternative strategies. The tactics involved can be interesting in their own right, however, the more historically a sport is associated with men, the more any difference between the female and the male version is viewed as inferiority, rather than difference.

 

[Wallaby]

This, also the relative standards of women's and men's tennis are closer than for most other sports.

There's no evidence for that at all. Tennis has a strength and speed factor - like most sports. When we look at absolute records for strength and speed - eg, athletics, weightlifting, swimming - we find women are around the 8-12% behind the male records. There is no reason to believe the world's best women could beat the number 1000 in the world.

If you want sports where strength and speed have basically no influence - say, darts, pool, maybe some forms of motor racing - women can compete with men, but overall there still seems to be a gap.

 

[jatz14]

There's no evidence for that at all. Tennis has a strength and speed factor - like most sports. When we look at absolute records for strength and speed - eg, athletics, weightlifting, swimming - we find women are around the 8-12% behind the male records. There is no reason to believe the world's best women could beat the number 1000 in the world.

If you want sports where strength and speed have basically no influence - say, darts, pool, maybe some forms of motor racing - women can compete with men, but overall there still seems to be a gap.

There are some oddities, like extreme long distance swimming where women can beat a field of men. Interestingly, women have a real good track record in drag racing, winning races regularly, and even national titles. Why the difference with other forms of motorsport, where they do not feature nearly as much?

My suspicions are, either longer form racing can wear you down, so maybe mens advantage in strength starts to have an influence. Although, I suspect the real reason is that NHRA specifically, and organised drag racing in general, are reasonably new (starting in the 50s), and the first winning female come along in the 70s, so its just more accepted in that sport.

 

[Wallaby]

There are some oddities, like extreme long distance swimming where women can beat a field of men. Interestingly, women have a real good track record in drag racing, winning races regularly, and even national titles. Why the difference with other forms of motorsport, where they do not feature nearly as much?

My suspicions are, either longer form racing can wear you down, so maybe mens advantage in strength starts to have an influence. Although, I suspect the real reason is that NHRA specifically, and organised drag racing in general, are reasonably new (starting in the 50s), and the first winning female come along in the 70s, so its just more accepted in that sport.

While some women CAN beat some men at ultra-marathon swimming, at the elite level there is still a similar difference (around 10%) in record times. (There are no 'officia'l records for open-water ocean swimming due to conditions changing). Also, there are significantly fewer female competitors in marathons - either swimming or running. This means that the women who do compete are more likely to be the serious or semi-serious athletes, while there are more men just 'having a go' and making up numbers. (In most amateur sports that are not gender-specific, men outnumber women 2-or-3 to 1).

As for motor racing, it can be incredibly gruelling. The g-forces, the impact on the body from braking (race cars brake HARD) can be very wearing. Males aso have measureably faster reaction times to stimuli, in addition to being stronger - ie - able to make the muscle movements quicker to react the stimuli.

 

[Do the Dew]

I feel women’s tennis has an advantage over men’s as they rely upon skill rather than strength. Making for a better chance of a rally than a serve dominated game.

Where the lack of strength is evident in cricket and soccer. Where skills alone won’t get the job done.

TV stations live it though as it’s cheap feed.

Have to stop you there because you clearly don't understand the difference between mens and womens tennis.

There is obviously a strength disparity in tennis between men and women, hardly surprising because men are typically taller and stronger. If you understand and watch tennis, then you'll see that female matches are typically comprised of points with longer rallies, compared to men. These rallies are comprised of shots that come from the hip (i.e. the ball is around hip height when they hit it). For those of you that don't know, this is the easiest place to hit the ball from and you can generate maximum power and control. Watching women, you constantly see them bashing away at the ball from around their hip, but rarely see anything else (vollies, slice, heavy topspin).

In men's matches, you rarely see the players bashing the ball around from their hip, because if they did, after 1 or two shots someone would hit a winner. Instead, you see the men play with heavy topspin to bounce the ball above shoulder height or slicing it low to get it below the knees (both shot types takes the ball out of the hitting zone).

The womens game relies on skill to out-hit the other girl from the hip. Womens tennis is tactically pretty weak because in general they really struggle to hit many other shots. This is why every so often a female tennis player will come through and do extremely well, simply cause they play with a different style then other women (Henin, Radwanska come to mind).

The men's game relies on both skill (to keep the ball out of the opponent's hitting zone), and strength (because a slow shot will get pummeled anyway). It's far far more tactically advanced than the women's game and allows for multiple gamestyles (7-0" Karlovic/Isner, 5-10" Hewitt, everything in between).

My expertise: 20+ years of tennis, US college, professional tournaments (nowhere near good enough to make it professionally but good enough to understand the game).

How does this relate to footy? How the dangerflop would I know.

 

[Do the Dew]

This, also the relative standards of women's and men's tennis are closer than for most other sports.

Again, I disagree if you truly understand tennis. The #800 male tennis player would crush the #1 female, undoubtedly, for the reasons/gamestyles/tactics I pointed out in my previous post. Compared to other sports, it's obviously difficult to rank people (except golf) because most sports are team sports and rankings are subjective.

I'm actually surprised there aren't any co-ed golf tournaments because you're playing against the course, not necessarily against other players. I think this would be a fascinating exercise.

 

[Power Raid]

Have to stop you there because you clearly don't understand the difference between mens and womens tennis.

There is obviously a strength disparity in tennis between men and women, hardly surprising because men are typically taller and stronger. If you understand and watch tennis, then you'll see that female matches are typically comprised of points with longer rallies, compared to men. These rallies are comprised of shots that come from the hip (i.e. the ball is around hip height when they hit it). For those of you that don't know, this is the easiest place to hit the ball from and you can generate maximum power and control. Watching women, you constantly see them bashing away at the ball from around their hip, but rarely see anything else (vollies, slice, heavy topspin).

In men's matches, you rarely see the players bashing the ball around from their hip, because if they did, after 1 or two shots someone would hit a winner. Instead, you see the men play with heavy topspin to bounce the ball above shoulder height or slicing it low to get it below the knees (both shot types takes the ball out of the hitting zone).

The womens game relies on skill to out-hit the other girl from the hip. Womens tennis is tactically pretty weak because in general they really struggle to hit many other shots. This is why every so often a female tennis player will come through and do extremely well, simply cause they play with a different style then other women (Henin, Radwanska come to mind).

The men's game relies on both skill (to keep the ball out of the opponent's hitting zone), and strength (because a slow shot will get pummeled anyway). It's far far more tactically advanced than the women's game and allows for multiple gamestyles (7-0" Karlovic/Isner, 5-10" Hewitt, everything in between).

My expertise: 20+ years of tennis, US college, professional tournaments (nowhere near good enough to make it professionally but good enough to understand the game).

How does this relate to footy? How the dangerflop would I know.

Yep I probably over simplified it.

What I should have said is men’s tennis is service dominated and thus boring.

Women don’t have such a powerful serve, so service advantage isn’t as great. Leading to rallies.

Other sports viewers would see this differently and may enjoy the big serve dominance.


From a spectator point of view, they are the same game but very different viewing experiences. Perhaps that’s why women’s tennis is relatively successful because there is something different on offer.

 

[4THAWN]

While some women CAN beat some men at ultra-marathon swimming, at the elite level there is still a similar difference (around 10%) in record times. (There are no 'officia'l records for open-water ocean swimming due to conditions changing).

The average female in a ultra-swimming event beats the average man(not sure if you were arguing this or the opposite)

In the manhattan island marathon swim, Women averaged a completion time of 371 minutes, as opposed to 424 minutes for men (Women 12.5% quicker on average than men)

 

[Scotland]

I feel women’s tennis has an advantage over men’s as they rely upon skill rather than strength. Making for a better chance of a rally than a serve dominated game.

Where the lack of strength is evident in cricket and soccer. Where skills alone won’t get the job done.

TV stations live it though as it’s cheap feed.

Most of the successful women's tennis players are at least 170cm+ and physically strong. Some are 180cm+ and pushing 80kg or more. Sure it's not going to compete with Rafael Nadal but that's not who the competition is. You're not winning a Grand Slam getting around as a dainty little 50kg size 6. The big 3 in the men's game are Rafa/Fed/Novak who are 185/185/188cm respectively. I would say that the top men's tennis players have more in common with the average man than the top women's players do with the average woman in terms of size and strength. You get some monsters like Medvedev and Zverev but they're not wiping the floor with everyone like Serena Williams.

If anything I'd say that the men's game has moved away from power servers and baseline hitters vs skillful serve and volley players to everyone being powerful and the skill level catching up. Watching the top players play each other is incredible. They hit the corners and lines with precision while belting the skin off the ball.

I've seen the Matildas/Perth Glory Women play on TV and the pace/power in the game is noticeably slower. What surprises me is the scoring rate and number of 4s and 6s hit in the WBBL. I don't know how far the ropes are brought in or the field sizes (they often play at different venues) but I swear 5-10 years ago women's teams weren't hitting 180+ off 20 overs and not long ago Alyssa Healy hit 148 off 61 balls which is AB de Villiers pace scoring.

 

[Wallaby]

I had a look at the Manhattan swim records. I had a fiddle with a spreadsheet and came up with some interesting results. Took a while to get all results the same (start points differed - distances varied). I only used results from the 1980s on - that seems to be when it became an event rather than solo swimmers.

I also read that there are huge differences in times due to the presence of currents and tides in the 3 rivers that enter and swirl around Manhattan.

P.S. - there are a lot of sites out there relating to the Manhattan swim - it seems like there have been several organisational changes etc. (I spent far too long on this coming up with my data, and, yes, it could still be a load of incomplete bollocks. ) Anyway........................

1. There were 686 men and 383 women times recorded (those that fit same criteria for starts, course etc)
2. The overall average time for women is better than the average time for men.
3. The average time of the Top 100 fastest men vs the Top 100 fastest women - the men are faster. - by about 3-4%. Not as much as I thought.
4. The average of the slowest 100 men is significantly slower than the slowest 100 women.
5. There were 8 women who recorded a time of greater than 9 hours. There were 156 men who recorded a time greater than 9 hours.

This backs up what I wrote before where I basically said 'If you use overall averages, there will be a lot more have-a-go dud athletes in the men that will blow up the average time'.

So I will say that my data appears to show men are still faster than women - but not by as much as I thought.

P.P.S. - you are correct, I have no life.................................................................................

 

[adammania9]

It’s popular to hate Kurt Tippett and label him a spud but he was a gun ruck and a gun forward, one of the few to be so good in both positions. Perhaps he wasn’t worth as much as he was getting but he was a top contributor in a very good side and he’s not given enough credit

 

[Power Raid]

It’s popular to hate Kurt Tippett and label him a spud but he was a gun ruck and a gun forward, one of the few so good to be in both positions. Perhaps he wasn’t worth as much as he was getting but he was a top contributor in a very good side and he’s not given enough credit

his stats fair quite well with paddy ryder and Brad Ottens. Two guys that most AFL fans respect for the forward/ ruck role

Kurt Tippett and Patrick Ryder AFL Stats Comparison

Kurt Tippett and Patrick Ryder AFL Stats Comparison.

www.footywire.com

Kurt Tippett and Brad Ottens AFL Stats Comparison

Kurt Tippett and Brad Ottens AFL Stats Comparison.

www.footywire.com