Too many "white guys" talking about footy on TV?

[Ron The Bear]

She's the first name that came to mind. What's stopping a female working her way up the ranks the same way as Anthony Hudson, Tim Lane, Gerard Whateley, Hamish McLachlan, Clinton Grybas and countless other male commentators, whose actual playing experience is/was limited to some moderate standard local league footy at best?

This won't go down well, but there are very few women who understand nuance in male sport. There may actually be none.

If you just want someone to beat you over the head with the bleeding obvious, sure, there are probably plenty of capable women. With the proliferation of televised sport and not enough genuine talent to go around, that seems to be the way the industry's going. But if you're after insight into the game itself, you're down to half the population before you start.

Find me a female Richie Benaud or even a female Dermott Brereton and I'll recant.

 

[ZingerB]

Again, no problem. Out of curiosity, why don't you like her commentary here?

[Not trying to be rude or anything, generally interested]

She is essentially having to scream into the mike to convey excitement and literally losing her voice in the clip. She is genuinely terrible. Ellyse Perry makes a reasonable cricket commentator, but it is a different sport, and personally I would rather not have someone like Bill Lawry going berserk. Football however requires a far more dynamic style of commentary, which many women are going to struggle with due to not having a deep voice. If we want diversity ... Dennis Haysbert would rock that s**t.

 

[Sydney Bloods]

Who cares? The AFL is a not-for-profit organisation - their focus should be investing into development of the game. Investing into a national women's league is a wonderful idea.

don't mention the AFL being a non profit on big footy, there's a strong push to morph the AFL into the English premier league.
seats at the grand final for less then $300? * off peasant.
distribute funds back into growing footy and engaging more of the community by establishing a women's league? what are you a trade unionist!
cap footy department spending to close the cap between the big and small clubs? Russia's that way Stalin.

and these are the same people that bitch about paying $3.50 for some hot chips.

 

[domus]

OMFG, do you read your posts. You seem to be suggesting that female commentators only point of difference would be a desire to discuss hairstyles and fashion. Your female colleagues wanting serious footy commentary would prefer male commentators discuss serious matters over a female commentator, who would obviously want to talk about trivialities? Really? Have you asked them? I would suggest you ask your female colleagues if they would prefer the current all male panels, or if they would like a women bought on so she could discuss hairstyles, and cuticles, and how well the boots are colour coordinated with the uniforms, but I would fear for your safety.

Has it occurred to you that if your female friends want serious footy commentary, that a female commentator would be interested in providing serious footy commentary?

Do you think it is possible that life experience informs commentary and opinion, and that a commentary panel with a women, would have a wider range of life experiences and a wider range of opinions than the standard middle aged white boys club.

Is it possible that including a women cuts down some of the unconsciously patronising s**t the all male panels come up with, and make it more likely that the women who currently do not watch, might just sit down and watch?

You are seriously challenged when it comes to comprehension. Are you just pretending to misunderstand what I wrote or are you simply incapable of understanding plain English? I very clearly wrote that female footy fans DON'T want to hear about hairstyles and relationships and they do care very much about the actual game.

What part of this quote confused you?

When I talk about the footy at work with my female colleagues they want to discuss the same issues as me-our teams performance, lack of heart, poor tactics or the performance of a gun player.

You are the one who spoke about different perspectives from a female and I am still waiting to hear just what they would be. You say a female commentator would be interested in providing serious footy commentary and you back up the very point I made. We already have serious footy commentary. Having serious footy commentary in a higher pitched voice doesn't enhance the commentary or bring new insights and perspectives, therefore the only reason for bringing in female commentators is simply to be able to say "look -we have female commentators!" This is hardly a credible reason for doing it.

You wrote:

Is it possible that including a women cuts down some of the unconsciously patronising s**t the all male panels come up with, and make it more likely that the women who currently do not watch, might just sit down and watch?

Are you suggesting that the tens of thousands of passionate female fans who watch the Footy Show every week are simply not aware of the patronising s**t being thrown at them each week?

 

[Smooth Banana]

Just ask yourself, what would Jacko do?

 

[jatz14]

You are seriously challenged when it comes to comprehension. Are you just pretending to misunderstand what I wrote or are you simply incapable of understanding plain English? I very clearly wrote that female footy fans DON'T want to hear about hairstyles and relationships and they do care very much about the actual game.

What part of this quote confused you?

When I talk about the footy at work with my female colleagues they want to discuss the same issues as me-our teams performance, lack of heart, poor tactics or the performance of a gun player.

You are the one who spoke about different perspectives from a female and I am still waiting to hear just what they would be. You say a female commentator would be interested in providing serious footy commentary and you back up the very point I made. We already have serious footy commentary. Having serious footy commentary in a higher pitched voice doesn't enhance the commentary or bring new insights and perspectives, therefore the only reason for bringing in female commentators is simply to be able to say "look -we have female commentators!" This is hardly a credible reason for doing it.

You wrote:

Is it possible that including a women cuts down some of the unconsciously patronising s**t the all male panels come up with, and make it more likely that the women who currently do not watch, might just sit down and watch?

Are you suggesting that the tens of thousands of passionate female fans who watch the Footy Show every week are simply not aware of the patronising s**t being thrown at them each week?

Wow, it gets better.

Let me unpack it for you. Firstly, I have had to explain my posts to people in the past, but I dont have to explain their own posts to them, so we have a first, congrats.

Firstly, you juxtaposed these 2 statements in the one paragraph.
I think it is the height of patronisation to suggest women want a "female" perspective on footy
and
insinuating the girls would rather talk about the players hairstyles or love lives.

By suggesting that people were patronising women by wanting a "female" perspective, and then suggesting that this meant people were insinuating this meant talking about hairstyles and love lives, you drew a direct connection between the two. Female perspective = hairstyles and love lives.

In this entire thread I think you are the first person to directly or indirectly link female commentators to hairstyles and love lives, again, congrats.

You then made this statement on behalf of female work colleagues.
When I talk about the footy at work with my female colleagues they want to discuss the same issues as me-our teams performance, lack of heart, poor tactics or the performance of a gun player.

Again, the juxtaposition of an argument that female footy fans want serious footy discussions, embedded in an argument against female commentators explicitly links female commentators to non serious commentary.

I strongly, strongly, suspect your female colleagues would be horrified by this juxtaposition, and even if they were happy to have all male commentary (many women are fine with it), would still recognise it as the unconscious misogyny it is. I tried to point this out in a tongue in cheek way, was not trying for subtlety, apologies.

Then this for what its worth.
Are you suggesting that the tens of thousands of passionate female fans who watch the Footy Show every week are simply not aware of the patronising s**t being thrown at them each week
You seem confused. The footy show is entertainment, not footy commentary. It is known for what it is, juvenile, blokey humour, light smut, smattering of casual sexism. I have no problem with it, I have no problem with women who have no problem with it. Women who do not like it can not watch, quite a few do like it. When the patronising attitude is embedded in footy commentary, that is a different issue, because there are women who like footy, but not patronising attitudes. They shouldn't have to decide whether to watch the footy and cop the attitude, or turn it off.

And this, which simply beggars believe
You are the one who spoke about different perspectives from a female and I am still waiting to hear just what they would be. You say a female commentator would be interested in providing serious footy commentary and you back up the very point I made. We already have serious footy commentary. Having serious footy commentary in a higher pitched voice doesn't enhance the commentary or bring new insights and perspectives, therefore the only reason for bringing in female commentators is simply to be able to say "look -we have female commentators!" This is hardly a credible reason for doing it
I am not talking about a uniquely female way of calling a mark, or describing a passage of pay for gods sake. During the Adam Goodes saga, might having a respected Aboriginal commentator have introduced a different perspective? Could the whole discussion have been deeper and more balanced and nuanced if that was the case? Could the current commentators have bounced ideas and thoughts on the issue of this commentator, and produced better and more thoughtful discussions as a result? The reality it might have helped and couldnt hurt. It has been suggested that seeing Brereton, Darcy, King etc sit around talking about whether they consider something is racist or not did not help the AFL one bit.

AFL exists in a world not composed of just middle aged white men, having people in commentary teams who have experience of not being middle aged white men gives the commentary more substance, and more relevance to a lot of people.
Having serious footy commentary in a higher pitched voice doesn't enhance the commentary or bring new insights and perspectives
Seriously, you see a good female commentator as being just like a male commentator, but with a high pitched voice, and without a different perspective?
Your mother is just like your father, just squeakier, right?

 

[Docker Alyssa]

This is so pathetic. Politically correct/feminist agenda from this cowardly female reporter. Should hang her head in shame that she tries to induct herself the arbiter of what should and shouldn't happen in the sport.

I really hated the female caller back in the 2000's. I thought she was bad and didn't fit atmospherically to the game! She was a caricature of "classic" radio calling.

This "boys club" narrative also is such a language policing agenda that might play in politics discussions or board room dynamics, this is totally different! It's the mans version of Aussie Rules.... Of course it's almost exclusively male! The women that want to make it badly enough have and can. Like all the AFL players who played the game they worked for the spot in the media by having amazing playing careers. The women in the admin/club staff, media roles and in AFL house can't do that obviously, so they need to prove and work hard to climb to the positions they end up at.

Quotas and mandates are stupidity! Earn the position ladies.

 

[Scotland]

If the broadcasters want to experiment with female commentators they should start with someone that's nice to listen to. With all due respect to Kelli Underwood, she isn't.

But I don't think footy would be any better with female commentary. If anything it needs less commentary full stop.

 

[thejester]

Not this s**t again. Equality should see the best person get the job, not people getting the job for the sake of it.

Surveying the field as it stands, would you say that standard is currently being applied?

 

[MC Extra Dollop]

This won't go down well, but there are very few women who understand nuance in male sport. There may actually be none.

If you just want someone to beat you over the head with the bleeding obvious, sure, there are probably plenty of capable women. With the proliferation of televised sport and not enough genuine talent to go around, that seems to be the way the industry's going. But if you're after insight into the game itself, you're down to half the population before you start.

Find me a female Richie Benaud or even a female Dermott Brereton and I'll recant.

Well, that will be a worthwhile discussion. Obviously, there isn't a female AFL caller with any sort of national profile. If there was, it would be pretty silly to start a thread about. So, I'll say there's a female that I watch AFL games with, or someone from my footy club and you'll say that you've never heard of her and that will be that. Stimulating debate.

There are some points that I think are worth reinforcing though:

• Champion players don't necessarily make champion commentators. I will say that I think a trail blazer female commentator would probably have to be a pretty recognisable to earn that initial respect that she'd need to get a fair go from the public as she got used to the caper, which is why I mentioned someone like Pearce, or someone like Meg Lanning for cricket. Someone that's actually better at that sport than the vast majority of people that would like to rubbish them, saying: "What would they know about it?"
• Many great commentators, like many great coaches, didn't play at the highest level and many were just s**t kickers in their local league, if that.
• I think, deep down, many of us think that we could do a better job than a lot of the current sports commentators (especially AFL). And again, I think most of the people that are regular contributors on Big Footy might have played a bit of senior footy at local level and many would have never played at open age level.
• There are females that have played sports like cricket at a higher level than, say, Jim Maxwell (whom I'd say would be one of the most widely respected Australian voices in cricket today). And that will soon be the case with females and football, as the sport gets more and more exposure and attracts more of our best young female athletes to play it. So I find it hard to see how you can say that few if any women understand the nuances in male sport. They've played it, been coached in it, trained as elite athletes, made state and national representative teams and toured with them, played on some of the most famous sporting arenas in the world.

As far as I'm concerned, if females understand the game well enough to umpire in the AFL, they can commentate it.

 

[Underdog]

I wish people would consider the actual roles within a commentary team rather than making sweeping statements.

The fact someone has played a higher higher level than Anthony Hudson is irrelevant. He's a caller, not a special commentator. His background is in journalism, he then moved into radio calling and then finally TV.

There are very few female sports journalists around and no callers that I'm aware of.

So when we say "Huddo didn't play the game at a high level", it's not relevant to the role and there seems to be very few, if any, females with the background in the aspects that ARE relevant.

 

[Underdog]

FWIW, I'm not against female commentators in the slightest, I just don't think it's realistic for the national AFL media to hire suitably experienced candidates right now.

 

[MC Extra Dollop]

I wish people would consider the actual roles within a commentary team rather than making sweeping statements.

The fact someone has played a higher higher level than Anthony Hudson is irrelevant. He's a caller, not a special commentator. His background is in journalism, he then moved into radio calling and then finally TV.

There are very few female sports journalists around and no callers that I'm aware of.

So when we say "Huddo didn't play the game at a high level", it's not relevant to the role and there seems to be very few, if any, females with the background in the aspects that ARE relevant.

But that's the point, isn't it? Why aren't there? Inevitably, the response is something like "They just don't understand the game." Which gets back to the point that if they were/are women that are better at the sport than many of the men that call the game, wouldn't it be logical that they probably understand it at least as well as the male counterpart?

FWIW, I'm not against female commentators in the slightest, I just don't think it's realistic for the national AFL media to hire suitably experienced candidates right now.

The landscape is changing. Women's AFL has the opportunity to be one of the biggest female sports going around and from what I can see, broadcasters are pretty keen to show it, which means they will probably start to get as much, if not more exposure than almost any other team women's sport. The sport is getting much more respect now than I'd say it was ten years ago, which I think is also the case in cricket and soccer.

 

[domus]

Wow, it gets better.

Let me unpack it for you. Firstly, I have had to explain my posts to people in the past, but I dont have to explain their own posts to them, so we have a first, congrats.

Firstly, you juxtaposed these 2 statements in the one paragraph.
I think it is the height of patronisation to suggest women want a "female" perspective on footy
and
insinuating the girls would rather talk about the players hairstyles or love lives.

By suggesting that people were patronising women by wanting a "female" perspective, and then suggesting that this meant people were insinuating this meant talking about hairstyles and love lives, you drew a direct connection between the two. Female perspective = hairstyles and love lives.

In this entire thread I think you are the first person to directly or indirectly link female commentators to hairstyles and love lives, again, congrats.

You then made this statement on behalf of female work colleagues.
When I talk about the footy at work with my female colleagues they want to discuss the same issues as me-our teams performance, lack of heart, poor tactics or the performance of a gun player.

Again, the juxtaposition of an argument that female footy fans want serious footy discussions, embedded in an argument against female commentators explicitly links female commentators to non serious commentary.

I strongly, strongly, suspect your female colleagues would be horrified by this juxtaposition, and even if they were happy to have all male commentary (many women are fine with it), would still recognise it as the unconscious misogyny it is. I tried to point this out in a tongue in cheek way, was not trying for subtlety, apologies.

Then this for what its worth.
Are you suggesting that the tens of thousands of passionate female fans who watch the Footy Show every week are simply not aware of the patronising s**t being thrown at them each week
You seem confused. The footy show is entertainment, not footy commentary. It is known for what it is, juvenile, blokey humour, light smut, smattering of casual sexism. I have no problem with it, I have no problem with women who have no problem with it. Women who do not like it can not watch, quite a few do like it. When the patronising attitude is embedded in footy commentary, that is a different issue, because there are women who like footy, but not patronising attitudes. They shouldn't have to decide whether to watch the footy and cop the attitude, or turn it off.

And this, which simply beggars believe
You are the one who spoke about different perspectives from a female and I am still waiting to hear just what they would be. You say a female commentator would be interested in providing serious footy commentary and you back up the very point I made. We already have serious footy commentary. Having serious footy commentary in a higher pitched voice doesn't enhance the commentary or bring new insights and perspectives, therefore the only reason for bringing in female commentators is simply to be able to say "look -we have female commentators!" This is hardly a credible reason for doing it
I am not talking about a uniquely female way of calling a mark, or describing a passage of pay for gods sake. During the Adam Goodes saga, might having a respected Aboriginal commentator have introduced a different perspective? Could the whole discussion have been deeper and more balanced and nuanced if that was the case? Could the current commentators have bounced ideas and thoughts on the issue of this commentator, and produced better and more thoughtful discussions as a result? The reality it might have helped and couldnt hurt. It has been suggested that seeing Brereton, Darcy, King etc sit around talking about whether they consider something is racist or not did not help the AFL one bit.

AFL exists in a world not composed of just middle aged white men, having people in commentary teams who have experience of not being middle aged white men gives the commentary more substance, and more relevance to a lot of people.
Having serious footy commentary in a higher pitched voice doesn't enhance the commentary or bring new insights and perspectives
Seriously, you see a good female commentator as being just like a male commentator, but with a high pitched voice, and without a different perspective?
Your mother is just like your father, just squeakier, right?

Your complete misrepresentation of my initial post is almost funny. I never said what you say I did. I made it clear that the women who love footy love it for the same reason males do-love of the game. I then posited the notion that those who suggest we need a female voice to provide a different perspective must be suggesting females are seeking something other than the usual footy talk about tactics, form and individual performances which is already provided. I then (as an example)..suggested that people like you may think female supporters are after stories on relationships and hairstyles. Not for one moment did I say that is what a female commentator would bring or what female supporters want. Hence my comments on your comprehension skills.

I am also confused by the suggestion that a female perspective is somehow radically different from a mans. We are constantly told by the same people who demand gender parity in some areas that gender is a social construct and women can do anything a man can do or women are not more emotional or more intuitive than males. We are told women are just as tough when to comes to leadership etc... so how can we then say they are bringing a different perspective? Can you tell me what difference Rebecca Maddern has made to the Footy Show with her line of questioning and insights on footy? I think she has done well and she clearly knows her stuff, but she has not said or done anything a male commentator couldn't have said or done.

When I asked you to provide examples of the different perspective a female voice would bring to footy you again failed to provide even one example. You went off on a tangent about the Goodes affair-an entirely different matter as having an indigenous perspective on that issue is relevant as an indigenous man was at the centre of the incidents being discussed. If a female ever plays for Collingwood it might be good to hear the perspectives of other hopeful female players but until that happens you seem to be conceding the fact that a female commentator brings nothing to the table that isn't already there. Hence my comment about the pitch of their voice and genitalia being the only reason she has been given the position.

When this call for diversity extends to all areas of society I will take it seriously. The call is only ever made with regard to areas of life where men are the majority. If diversity is the key to an improved performance whether it be footy commentary or the board room then that very same principle should be applied to the education system,modeling, nursing and any area of life dominated by women. Why is it that feminists only want parity or female majorities in the areas they cherry pick? Why are they not expressing outrage over the fact that a woman is hardly sighted on an oil rig, or laying tiles on a roof? It's all or nothing if they have any integrity. Sadly, they don't.

 

[jatz14]

Your complete misrepresentation of my initial post is almost funny. I never said what you say I did. I made it clear that the women who love footy love it for the same reason males do-love of the game. I then posited the notion that those who suggest we need a female voice to provide a different perspective must be suggesting females are seeking something other than the usual footy talk about tactics, form and individual performances which is already provided. I then (as an example)..suggested that people like you may think female supporters are after stories on relationships and hairstyles. Not for one moment did I say that is what a female commentator would bring or what female supporters want. Hence my comments on your comprehension skills.

I am also confused by the suggestion that a female perspective is somehow radically different from a mans. We are constantly told by the same people who demand gender parity in some areas that gender is a social construct and women can do anything a man can do or women are not more emotional or more intuitive than males. We are told women are just as tough when to comes to leadership etc... so how can we then say they are bringing a different perspective? Can you tell me what difference Rebecca Maddern has made to the Footy Show with her line of questioning and insights on footy? I think she has done well and she clearly knows her stuff, but she has not said or done anything a male commentator couldn't have said or done.

When I asked you to provide examples of the different perspective a female voice would bring to footy you again failed to provide even one example. You went off on a tangent about the Goodes affair-an entirely different matter as having an indigenous perspective on that issue is relevant as an indigenous man was at the centre of the incidents being discussed. If a female ever plays for Collingwood it might be good to hear the perspectives of other hopeful female players but until that happens you seem to be conceding the fact that a female commentator brings nothing to the table that isn't already there. Hence my comment about the pitch of their voice and genitalia being the only reason she has been given the position.

When this call for diversity extends to all areas of society I will take it seriously. The call is only ever made with regard to areas of life where men are the majority. If diversity is the key to an improved performance whether it be footy commentary or the board room then that very same principle should be applied to the education system,modeling, nursing and any area of life dominated by women. Why is it that feminists only want parity or female majorities in the areas they cherry pick? Why are they not expressing outrage over the fact that a woman is hardly sighted on an oil rig, or laying tiles on a roof? It's all or nothing if they have any integrity. Sadly, they don't.

There is what you mean, and what you said. Learn to use your words good.

Sent from my XT1068 using Tapatalk

 

[domus]

There is what you mean, and what you said. Learn to use your words good.

Sent from my XT1068 using Tapatalk

I accept your concession which you have attempted to disguise with humor. Have a great night.

 

[Bluez Rule]

Samuel L Jackson would make for good listening (especially in 'R' mode al la his narration of the book 'Go the F%$# to Sleep')
"Hell no he did not just kick that" etc

 

[Ron The Bear]

• There are females that have played sports like cricket at a higher level than, say, Jim Maxwell (whom I'd say would be one of the most widely respected Australian voices in cricket today). And that will soon be the case with females and football, as the sport gets more and more exposure and attracts more of our best young female athletes to play it. So I find it hard to see how you can say that few if any women understand the nuances in male sport. They've played it, been coached in it, trained as elite athletes, made state and national representative teams and toured with them, played on some of the most famous sporting arenas in the world.

Not disputing your other points, but how can women understand something such as the courage that is expected of footballers (and men generally)? They can't and don't.

 

[jatz14]

Not disputing your other points, but how can women understand something such as the courage that is expected of footballers (and men generally)? They can't and don't.

Lets see. Hayley Miller fractured her Fibula in the first minute of the womens WA derby, played the whole game, kicked 2 goals. Net pay for this $0. Tayla Harris played the womens Q Clash, dislocated her shoulder which was put back in on the field, kept playing, then dislocated her finger, kept playing. In just the Western derby, there was a broken nose, concussion *2, the already mentioned fractured fibula, a bad knee hyper extension, and another leg injury I haven't heard anything about. When interviewed about the toughness, players said it was about normal standard for the WAWFL. All these players will be back just as hard at it. So if female players are getting knocked out, breaking legs, noses, doing knees, ribs, ankles, breaking jaws, etc etc. In short, if they suffer all the injuries and damage that male players do, suffer all the pains male players suffer, where does this fantastical male courage you speak of come into it?

 

[jatz14]

For a humorous, balanced and considered female perspective on this, listen to the first 10 minutes of this excellent podcast series, Outer Sanctum (number 5) https://soundcloud.com/outer-sanctum

 

[MC Extra Dollop]

Lets see. Hayley Miller fractured her Fibula in the first minute of the womens WA derby, played the whole game, kicked 2 goals. Net pay for this $0. Tayla Harris played the womens Q Clash, dislocated her shoulder which was put back in on the field, kept playing, then dislocated her finger, kept playing. In just the Western derby, there was a broken nose, concussion *2, the already mentioned fractured fibula, a bad knee hyper extension, and another leg injury I haven't heard anything about. When interviewed about the toughness, players said it was about normal standard for the WAWFL. All these players will be back just as hard at it. So if female players are getting knocked out, breaking legs, noses, doing knees, ribs, ankles, breaking jaws, etc etc. In short, if they suffer all the injuries and damage that male players do, suffer all the pains male players suffer, where does this fantastical male courage you speak of come into it?

I'm glad someone else responded. I was still trying to figure out if he was being serious or not.

 

[Benny78]

Australian households are predominately racist. In this country we have MILLIONS of homes occupied solely by whites. Every household should have at least one black person and one asian to appease the gods.

 

[jatz14]

Australian households are predominately racist. In this country we have MILLIONS of homes occupied solely by whites. Every household should have at least one black person and one asian to appease the gods.

There should also be a law to stop stupid people from breeding.

Sent from my XT1068 using Tapatalk

 

[Benny78]

There should also be a law to stop stupid people from breeding.

Sent from my XT1068 using Tapatalk

Can't stop you and Jessica Halloran having morally warped babies together unfortunately.

 

[BornAPieNowADon]

Interesting article by Jessica Halloran in the Daily Telegraph, who believes that there should be more diversity in the AFL media.

http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/re...v/news-story/9e5f15df5166fe29673c5838262eae41



Thoughts?

Definitely a fair point. Diversity in all media is probably more the point.