Tom Hunter gorrnnnn

[spook]

But can't really disagree with any of that. Unfortunately many who hold these views are ridiculously labelled misogynistic despite much common sense evidenced in the views.

C'est la vie.

Yeah, there's a very aggressive strain of feminism perpetrated by the likes of Clementine Ford with the seeming premise that if you don't acknowledge women's superiority, you're a Neanderthal or worse.

Hand in glove with the delusion of female athletes is the depiction of female heroes on screen. We constantly see a 5'6, 55kg woman beat the *smile* out of a dozen 100kg violent thugs, as if that's what equality is.

 

[leon]

Yeah, there's a very aggressive strain of feminism perpetrated by the likes of Clementine Ford with the seeming premise that if you don't acknowledge women's superiority, you're a Neanderthal or worse.

Hand in glove with the delusion of female athletes is the depiction of female heroes on screen. We constantly see a 5'6, 55kg woman beat the **** out of a dozen 100kg violent thugs, as if that's what equality is.

Equality? I just thought it was realism??

 

[jb03]

So, just like her old man.

As others have said, trading away draft picks for players the game had already passed (Frederick, Brennan), and drafting one of the recruiting staff, were massive fails. As was pick 7 on Sophie Molan. Timid, slow, unathletic, average skills. Would not get a kick against under-14 boys.

Ticks for Conti, Monahan, Wakefield, Chuot.

Yeah Molan is a massive disappointment. Miles behind those taken around her in the draft and hard to see too many positive traits- might be our early Oakley-Nicholls.

There is this desire amongst the AFLW and its boosters to call it "elite level sport". It is the highest level a woman can play our game, but it is far from elite at this young stage of its existence. The best female athletes are playing soccer, or tennis, or basketball, or swimming, or athletics, or cricket, or netball. It's great that the game has opened up to the other half of the population, and I fully support it, but I find it entitled and deluded to declare it elite at this point.

(Of course, I find professional sportswomen entitled and deluded in general, but at least some of them actually attract paying customers. And before anyone @s me, by entitled and deluded, I mean when they say they deserve equal pay to the men, when their product isn't as good, and they work less - see: tennis, a victory for women, a defeat for common sense; and soccer: Matildas demand equal pay right before getting flogged 7-0 by an under-14 boys club team.)

Harsh - it was the boys under 16 team.

 

[spook]

They are the best female footballers, therefore they are by definition, elite.

He is the tallest dwarf, therefore he is by definition, tall.

I'd bet my house a TV network does not make the same advertising income from the women's Australian Open final as it does the men's.

 

[MB78]

How do you define elite then?

https://mumbrella.com.au/australian-open-mens-final-watched-by-1-589m-562308

Both huge rating broadcasts, the men 2 million nationally, the women 1.5.

When you take into account Saturday night v Sunday night and the profiles of the finalists it's a pretty fair result. Both would attract top advertising dollar I'd expect.

I’m friends with two lady tennis weekly players and supporters who play ‘A’ grade level. They tell me they like watching the men play more as they play a higher standard of game. They enjoy both, but if they had to pick one to watch it would be the men. They then spoke how the Davis cup means so much more than the Fed cup and in general men through the season play for more money.

Out of interest why can’t Netball attract enough money to be fully professional?

Also I wonder if Richmond could have dual coaches across both competitions. For example skills/development coach for men and AFLW coach?

 

[spook]

How do you define elite then?

https://mumbrella.com.au/australian-open-mens-final-watched-by-1-589m-562308

Both huge rating broadcasts, the men 2 million nationally, the women 1.5.

When you take into account Saturday night v Sunday night and the profiles of the finalists it's a pretty fair result. Both would attract top advertising dollar I'd expect.

Sorry Richo, been meaning to get back to you on this.

On the tennis, you're telling me the men attract 33% more viewers than the women? For what - 2-3 times as long? On the more competitive Sunday night. I'd suggest that translates to roughly a shitload more advertising income. Then multiply that through the rest of the tournament, with longer men's matches providing more product of a higher quality that probably attract more eyeballs than the girls. But equal pay. That is a win for women, a loss for fairness, but what do I care, they're all millionaires.

Having said that, women's tennis players are elite. AFLW players aren't. The eye test tells you that. They have not spent their entire lives working towards being an AFLW player - some will now and that's great, and I look forward to the day when AFLW is elite sport.

Having said that, sportswomen will never be as big, strong, fast, powerful, or as popular as male athletes. That's just economics. To demand equal pay for something they are demonstrably inferior at, in which they generate less income, is not equality, it's entitlement.

 

[Tigers of Old]

How do you define elite then?

Reframe it as playing at the elite level of a fledgling competition. Years off making money. Years if ever.

 

[shad]

Sorry Richo, been meaning to get back to you on this.

On the tennis, you're telling me the men attract 33% more viewers than the women? For what - 2-3 times as long? On the more competitive Sunday night. I'd suggest that translates to roughly a shitload more advertising income. Then multiply that through the rest of the tournament, with longer men's matches providing more product of a higher quality that probably attract more eyeballs than the girls. But equal pay. That is a win for women, a loss for fairness, but what do I care, they're all millionaires.

Having said that, women's tennis players are elite. AFLW players aren't. The eye test tells you that. They have not spent their entire lives working towards being an AFLW player - some will now and that's great, and I look forward to the day when AFLW is elite sport.

Having said that, sportswomen will never be as big, strong, fast, powerful, or as popular as male athletes. That's just economics. To demand equal pay for something they are demonstrably inferior at, in which they generate less income, is not equality, it's entitlement.

I'm with you on the footy but I way prefer watching women's tennis to men's. The results are far less predictable and it's not so based on power serving. Watching two tall men hit unplayable serves at each other is pretty boring in my opinion.

 

[spook]

There's a few things with the tennis argument.

The example I used showed two finals, one with two of the best male players in the history of the game and two women I've never heard of. I think a 25% difference in average is pretty decent in those circumstances. If you injected an Ash Barty or a Serena Williams into the womens game the numbers would be pretty close I'd guess.

We need an advertising executive to tell us but I'd imagine the breakdown of viewers for the women's final would be younger and more female, which would be a more attractive and therefore more expensive for sponsors as well.

The crux of you argument is about the time of the game though. Putting aside that fact that no sportperson ever in the history of sport has ever been paid on a time rate, your premise that longer is better or worth more is completely flawed.

Tell me one sport anywhere that is trying to increase the length it goes for?

Universally sport is trying to contract because people don't have the appetite for longer events. Check the article I poster previously, the women's rating go up for the presentation, the men's go down.

It is also not true to say that women in tennis or any other sport get equal pay. They don't. In tennis there are four events where they are paid equally and at those events tickets are sold at the same price, the marketing is the same, the sponsors are the same and the crowds are the same.

At every other event on the tour the men make substantially more and they make substantially more overall. And at all those events the men also play three sets.



So the stuff about not being elite is just an easy way to knock the game.

An elite sport literally means being made up of the best players in that sport. AFLW is the best players in women's football. Therefore it is an elite sport. The sport of women's football. Which is not the same sport as AFL football.

So when people say things like it is inferior or the standard isn't as good they are conducting a flawed analysis. You are comparing things that are similar but not the same. Women are not men. Women's football will never be the same as men's football. Men will always be stronger, faster, kick longer, jump higher and perform every other physical skill at a higher level.

When Cathy Freeman won gold in Sydney I didn't hear anyone say that she wasn't as fast as Michael Johnson so she shouldn't be called elite. No-one ever says AFL is inferior to NBA because the players can't jump as high or cricketers are not elite because they can't throw the ball as fast as baseballers can.

As much as it probably offends people to hear it, most of the criticism of women's sport is born out of the inability to recognise them as individuals in their own right, and more specifically sportspeople in their own right, but instead to denigrate their efforts by holding them accountable to an impossible standard.

My point about the length of men's tennis matches v women's is entirely to do with the amount of revenue they drive. Longer is not necessarily better, otherwise women would be better runners, swimmers etc. But a longer match provides more advertising opportunities and therefore more income.

Let's bend over backwards and say for argument's sake that both the men's and women's final generate $1m per hour in advertising/sponsorship revenue for the broadcasters/venue etc. The men's match lasts four hours and generates $4m, the women's 90 minutes and $1.5m. More eyeballs for longer = more revenue created. You don't think an advertiser is paying more for 10 ads on Sunday night than four on Saturday? Women are being paid a greater share of the revenue they create than the men are.

I'm not offended by your incorrect ascription of my motivations, but you're wrong. Your specious comparisons are flawed because you are comparing established sports that athletes have prepared their entire lives to play to a fledgling and completely subsidised endeavour.

I'm not denigrating AFLW players' efforts or holding them to an impossible standard. I'm sure they'll get there. In time.

 

[Tigers of Old]

Elite.

Men's netball - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Seriously it's got nothing to do with men or women women playing sport. It's got everything to do with what development level the sport is at.

 

[deedee]

Elite or not, call it what you like, I call it unwatchable, but I do look forward to the day I can call it enjoyable to watch.