Here’s proof we absolutely do want to watch women’s sport

[deltablues]

Your views are based on 2 false assumptions:-

(1) You think it is valid to compare men's & women's sport on the basis that the latter is "unworthy", & should be denigrated- since a women's AF team women will never defeat an U16 boy's team.
Who cares! Everyone who enjoys watching women's sport is aware of this obvious fact that average U16 boys are much stronger, can kick further, are taller/can jump higher, & can run faster. Your criterion is not valid- it is myopic & ridiculous.

We value the AFLW because of its context ie it is women's sport. The AFLW is generally a good spectacle. The skills are ok, will get better every year, & many games are an enthralling & exciting contest, with the women showing great courage in their attack on the ball. Some games have had superb ratings, & attracted very good crowds. C.Wilson said the first 2017 game, peaking at c. 1,200,000, would have been worth c. $1,000,000 to advertisers.

(2) You have recognised that some people want to use the AFLW for ideological/political purposes -but it is a very small minority. You should simply ignore those, if you disapprove.

The vast majority who support female AF/AFLW do so because they accept that playing AF is a lot of fun -and females have been denied this opportunity of playing/experiencing this fun for far too long. This is not fair.
Also, the growth of female AF provides crucially important short & long term strategic benefits for the AFL, & for GR clubs.
The AFLW also offers, since it is played in the summer, a much needed "footy fix" for many neutrals/passive supporters of female AF.

It is a great success now. It will only become much more popular, particularly when:-

. big clubs Richmond, Essendon (at Windy Hill!), West Coast etc. join (& Collingwood plays its matches at the mighty 14,000 Vic. Park!).
. the skills inevitably improve each year.
. As more AFLW players inevitably become full time professionals, their skills will very closely compare to the AFL.

The knockers, such as yourself, will sadly become bitter & twisted as the AFLW continues to go from strength to strength. I suggest you look away, if the AFLW juggernaut displeases you so much.

You have a text comprehension problem, bud.

My comment was in a political and financial context.

Your response was nobly emotional [proving my point], but irrelevant.

 

[BringBackTorps]

Bud,
You seem to have a problem with text comprehension, bud[Weak]
My comment is in a political and financial context.[It was more than that- it included the AFLW skills/spectacle]
Accordingly, your rejoinder is nobly partisan, but irrelevant.[Sporting interest is often very partisan]

You quoted, & strongly approved, the comments of Owen87 at post 36 above- who unfairly & unreasonably denigrated the standard/skills of the AFLW; & you referenced an U16 male AF team. Both you & Owen87, & some others, want to compare the attractiveness of women's sport with men's.

Your assumptions are fundamentally flawed, so your argument is irrelevant -men are, obviously, physically stronger, will always kick longer- & thus, usually, kick more goals. A fair context of the AFLW should only be a comparison with other women's sports, one should never compare men's & women's -due to the physical differences.

We know the average AFLW skills (at the moment, but they will greatly improve) are inferior to the AFL. If someone is uninterested/doesn't like watching the AFLW due to the inferior skills at the moment, I don't have any problem with that view- but it should not be denigrated unfairly.

I note you haven't rebutted my comments to you that:-

. one is free to ignore/reject the AFLW social engineering agenda of a very small minority (but one can still enjoy & support the AFLW -the two are NOT mutually inclusive)
. Caroline Wilson wrote in The Age that some AFLW games, which peaked at c.1,200,000 Ratings, would be worth c. $1,000,000 to advertisers.
. the AFLW & female AF have HUGE strategic, short term & long term significance for the AFL; & GR AF Clubs (that's why the latter are clambering to form female teams now).
.females have, until c.2014, been denied the full opportunity & fun of playing AF. Female AF was once legally banned; and/or females were ignored/ discouraged/ mocked if they wanted to play. This was not fair.

 

[owen87]

You quoted, & strongly approved, the comments of Owen87 at post 36 above- who unfairly & unreasonably denigrated the standard/skills of the AFLW; & you referenced an U16 male AF team. Both you & Owen87, & some others, want to compare the attractiveness of women's sport with men's.

Your assumptions are fundamentally flawed, so your argument is irrelevant -men are, obviously, physically stronger, will always kick longer- & thus, usually, kick more goals. A fair context of the AFLW should only be a comparison with other women's sports, one should never compare men's & women's -due to the physical differences.

We know the average AFLW skills (at the moment, but they will greatly improve) are inferior to the AFL. If someone is uninterested/doesn't like watching the AFLW due to the inferior skills at the moment, I don't have any problem with that view- but it should not be denigrated unfairly.

I note you haven't rebutted my comments to you that:-

. one is free to ignore/reject the AFLW social engineering agenda of a very small minority (but one can still enjoy & support the AFLW -the two are NOT mutually inclusive)
. Caroline Wilson wrote in The Age that some AFLW games, which peaked at c.1,200,000 Ratings, would be worth c. $1,000,000 to advertisers.
. the AFLW & female AF have HUGE strategic, short term & long term significance for the AFL; & GR AF Clubs (that's why the latter are clambering to form female teams now).
.females have, until c.2014, have been denied the opportunity & fun of playing AF. Female AF was either legally banned; and/or females were ignored/ discouraged/ mocked if they wanted to play. This was not fair.

Don't drag me in to your diatribes thanks.

 

[deltablues]

You quoted, & strongly approved, the comments of Owen87 at post 36 above- who unfairly & unreasonably denigrated the standard/skills of the AFLW; & you referenced an U16 male AF team. Both you & Owen87, & some others, want to compare the attractiveness of women's sport with men's.

Your assumptions are fundamentally flawed, so your argument is irrelevant -men are, obviously, physically stronger, will always kick longer- & thus, usually, kick more goals. A fair context of the AFLW should only be a comparison with other women's sports, one should never compare men's & women's -due to the physical differences.

We know the average AFLW skills (at the moment, but they will greatly improve) are inferior to the AFL. If someone is uninterested/doesn't like watching the AFLW due to the inferior skills at the moment, I don't have any problem with that view- but it should not be denigrated unfairly.

I note you haven't rebutted my comments to you that:-

. one is free to ignore/reject the AFLW social engineering agenda of a very small minority (but one can still enjoy & support the AFLW -the two are NOT mutually inclusive)
. Caroline Wilson wrote in The Age that some AFLW games, which peaked at c.1,200,000 Ratings, would be worth c. $1,000,000 to advertisers.
. the AFLW & female AF have HUGE strategic, short term & long term significance for the AFL; & GR AF Clubs (that's why the latter are clambering to form female teams now).
.females have, until c.2014, have been denied the opportunity & fun of playing AF. Female AF was either legally banned; and/or females were ignored/ discouraged/ mocked if they wanted to play. This was not fair.

Nice projection, bud.

You haven't actually rebutted any of my points, but have tried to set up some special pleadings in mitigation becuz, hey, women's footy.

Good luck with that.

 

[The_Wookie]

What! no game at Optus Stadium. Weird.

 

[Turnover]

Your views are based on 2 false assumptions:-

(1) You think it is valid to compare men's & women's sport on the basis that the latter is "unworthy", & should be denigrated- since a women's AF team will never defeat an U16 boy's team.
Who cares! Everyone who enjoys watching women's sport is aware of this obvious fact that average U16 boys are much stronger, can kick further, are taller/can jump higher, & can run faster. Your criterion is not valid- it is myopic & ridiculous.

We value the AFLW because of its context ie it is women's sport. The AFLW is generally a good spectacle. The skills are ok, will get better every year, & many games are an enthralling & exciting contest, with the women showing great courage in their attack on the ball. Some games have had superb ratings, & attracted very good crowds. C.Wilson said the first 2017 game, peaking at c. 1,200,000, would have been worth c. $1,000,000 to advertisers.

(2) You have recognised that some people want to use the AFLW for ideological/political purposes -but it is a very small minority. You should simply ignore those, if you disapprove.

The vast majority who support female AF/AFLW do so because they accept that playing AF is a lot of fun -and females have been denied this opportunity of playing/experiencing this fun for far too long. This is not fair.
Also, the growth of female AF provides crucially important short & long term strategic benefits for the AFL, & for GR clubs.
The AFLW also offers, since it is played in the summer, a much needed "footy fix" for many neutrals/passive supporters of female AF.

It is a great success now. It will only become much more popular, particularly when:-

. big clubs Richmond, Essendon (at Windy Hill!), West Coast etc. join (& Collingwood plays its matches at the mighty 14,000 Vic. Park!).
. the skills inevitably improve each year.
. As more AFLW players inevitably become full time professionals, their skills will very closely compare to the AFL.

The knockers, such as yourself, will sadly become bitter & twisted as the AFLW continues to go from strength to strength. I suggest you look away, if the AFLW juggernaut displeases you so much.

Juggernaut???

 

[docks]

When will people actually pay to watch AFLW. Currently AFL supporters are indirectly paying for it.

 

[boltsbabyblues]

i tried to watch the womens t/20 internationals. It was like finishing early on a saturday and coming back to watch the 3s or 4s play lol

 

[TimothyJ23]

i tried to watch the womens t/20 internationals. It was like finishing early on a saturday and coming back to watch the 3s or 4s play lol

I reckon the quality of footy in the 1800's and early 1900's was probably similar.

Imagine if the spectactors decided back then it wasn't worth watching and walked away... we wouldn't have the game we have today.

Expecting men's level elite footy within a handful of seasons is laughable.

 

[sprockets]

I reckon the quality of footy in the 1800's and early 1900's was probably similar.

Imagine if the spectactors decided back then it wasn't worth watching and walked away... we wouldn't have the game we have today.

Expecting men's level elite footy within a handful of seasons is laughable.

Levels [insert pic of Kramer here] No-one's expecting that level. We already have that level. BTW the level it was played at in the 1800s was the highest level at the time. I'm not waiting 120 years for women's football to reach today's level either, especially when the men's level then will be 120 years more advanced. I also doubt I'll be around either, but if women's footy has reached the same level as men's they've probably also invented me a way to live forever, ie, it ain't gonna happen.

 

[TimothyJ23]

Levels [insert pic of Kramer here] No-one's expecting that level. We already have that level. BTW the level it was played at in the 1800s was the highest level at the time. I'm not waiting 120 years for women's football to reach today's level either, especially when the men's level then will be 120 years more advanced. I also doubt I'll be around either, but if women's footy has reached the same level as men's they've probably also invented me a way to live forever, ie, it ain't gonna happen.

Perhaps you've missed my point entirely. It doesn't *need* to, nor should it have to. The point I was illustrating that as the top echelon of the women's version of the game, that it was unreasonable to expect elite performances in the infancy seasons, which we're still in.

The reason I refer to that is because it's the primary tool opponents of AFLW use to talk it down - the quality of the game. Having that level of expectation is silly, IMO.

 

[sprockets]

Perhaps you've missed my point entirely. It doesn't *need* to, nor should it have to. The point I was illustrating that as the top echelon of the women's version of the game, that it was unreasonable to expect elite performances in the infancy seasons, which we're still in.

The reason I refer to that is because it's the primary tool opponents of AFLW use to talk it down - the quality of the game. Having that level of expectation is silly, IMO.

Nah, no-one's expecting it to be at a great level, which is why most of us don't watch it.

 

[TimothyJ23]

Nah, no-one's expecting it to be at a great level, which is why most of us don't watch it.

What I don't understand is why those who don't watch it feel the need to tell everyone and wear it like some kind of badge?

 

[Teen Wolf]

Not for nothing, I've seen enough 3rds cricket to know the average level of catching is at least on par with the most recent MEN'S Big Bash season. Some people use the "standard" excuse only when it suits some irrelevant ideology they wish to impose on the rest of us.

And just on the BBL, its popularity was waning until it got exposure in the way of FTA television every night for two months a year. I guess it would be wrong to say that league has a real audience, people only watch when it's promoted well.

 

[boltsbabyblues]

Perhaps you've missed my point entirely. It doesn't *need* to, nor should it have to. The point I was illustrating that as the top echelon of the women's version of the game, that it was unreasonable to expect elite performances in the infancy seasons, which we're still in.

The reason I refer to that is because it's the primary tool opponents of AFLW use to talk it down - the quality of the game. Having that level of expectation is silly, IMO.

I'm no opponent of womens footy.
I'm just the wrong target market

 

[sprockets]

What I don't understand is why those who don't watch it feel the need to tell everyone and wear it like some kind of badge?

You mean like the OP has made a topic to tell everyone that WE like to watch women's sport and wears it like some kind of badge?

 

[TimothyJ23]

You mean like the OP has made a topic to tell everyone that WE like to watch women's sport and wears it like some kind of badge?

Did the OP include you specifically? If not, then no, he was making a general comment based on the statistics in the article (I'm not here to debate their relevance or accuracy btw). If you know you're not the target market and the statistics don't apply to you and aren't relevant to you, why do you feel compelled to comment? I will never understand that mentality.

 

[The_Wookie]

You mean like the OP has made a topic to tell everyone that WE like to watch women's sport and wears it like some kind of badge?

Thats a somewhat warped perspective of my link posting in a relevant forum. But ok matey.

 

[sprockets]

Did the OP include you specifically? If not, then no, he was making a general comment based on the statistics in the article (I'm not here to debate their relevance or accuracy btw). If you know you're not the target market and the statistics don't apply to you and aren't relevant to you, why do you feel compelled to comment? I will never understand that mentality.

He obviously included anyone - you're here commenting but weren't included specifically. When someone makes a general statement based on flawed 'statistics' it SHOULD be debated. BTW I AM here to debate the accuracy, why are YOU here?

Thats a somewhat warped perspective of my link posting in a relevant forum. But ok matey.

I was only using the other poster's flawed argument against him, but neither your post nor the link proved at all that WE want to watch women's sport.

 

[magpienato]

Well I don't want to watch women's sport so therefore the thread title has been disproven!

Fact of the matter is a lot of us don't care, so don't try to make us care.

 

[The_Wookie]

He obviously included anyone - you're here commenting but weren't included specifically. When someone makes a general statement based on flawed 'statistics' it SHOULD be debated. BTW I AM here to debate the accuracy, why are YOU here?


I was only using the other poster's flawed argument against him, but neither your post nor the link proved at all that WE want to watch women's sport.

not my title, and carried neither my approval or disapproval.

 

[The_Wookie]

Well I don't want to watch women's sport so therefore the thread title has been disproven!

Fact of the matter is a lot of us don't care, so don't try to make us care.

then this particular section of bigfooty really isnt for you then.

 

[sprockets]

not my title, and carried neither my approval or disapproval.

Errr, it is your title. You're the OP and you wrote that title, didn't you? You could have written anything as the title. 'Here's Proof That Some Of Us Absolutely Do Want To Watch Women's Sport', for example. And exactly what didn't carry your approval or disapproval, the title or the content of your post? YOU posted it. Let it go.

 

[magpienato]

Thats a somewhat warped perspective of my link posting in a relevant forum. But ok matey.

Saw it on my news feed for whatever reason, probably bigfooty trying desperately to get people interested in woman's sport.

 

[TimothyJ23]

Well I don't want to watch women's sport so therefore the thread title has been disproven!

Fact of the matter is a lot of us don't care, so don't try to make us care.

The thread title would be disproven if it had said "here's proof everyone wants to watch women's sport", which it didn't say. "We" isn't a cover-all term, it assumes a collective of people which you can opt in or out of at your will.

As for you not caring, you don't have to care and nobody's trying to make you. That said, your presence in this thread is at odds with your suggesting of not caring.

He obviously included anyone - you're here commenting but weren't included specifically. When someone makes a general statement based on flawed 'statistics' it SHOULD be debated. BTW I AM here to debate the accuracy, why are YOU here?

I'm not really sure what you're here to debate then because you've done nothing to dispute the accuracy of the OP - people do want to watch women's sport (and others don't, and that's fine).

The problem it seems is many people thinking the world is this black and white place where everyone fits neatly into one box or another and that statements made by anyone are somehow absolutes, not in any way open to interpretation. There's significant complexity to what the OP posted which is worth discussion and debate but it seems some are more interested in just being contrarian.