Jump to content

Schofield


Recommended Posts

3 hours ago, Dave T said:

Which women's teams play a better standard?

Men's and Women's sport is different, why keep comparing them? There can be only one conclusion drawn from this, and it ends up with you being sexist, even though you keep saying it isn't that. What motive do you have for bringing up that some other men's teams are better than these women whenever it is brought up. And you are vocal every time on it.

They are the best women players.

You can compare anything, but it doesn't mean we should.

Yes, (most) men will be better at rugby league and will play it to a much higher standard given the chance. It can't be argued that the handling skills of the women were well off that of the men.

However, if it's all about the actual skill, why are we wasting our time with men's 100m sprints when we could be watching cheetahs doing it? We are watching the best of that section of the game.

There is nothing achieved in comparing it to another section when they have so many disadvantages in comparison to them.

Wells%20Motors%20(Signature)_zps67e534e4.jpg
Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Replies 85
  • Created
  • Last Reply
35 minutes ago, Wellsy4HullFC said:

You can compare anything, but it doesn't mean we should.

Yes, (most) men will be better at rugby league and will play it to a much higher standard given the chance. It can't be argued that the handling skills of the women were well off that of the men.

However, if it's all about the actual skill, why are we wasting our time with men's 100m sprints when we could be watching cheetahs doing it? We are watching the best of that section of the game.

There is nothing achieved in comparing it to another section when they have so many disadvantages in comparison to them.

Indeed. The best Women's teams are competing against the other best women's teams.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, RP London said:

I watched the challenge cup final before the 2 semis, my son was keen to watch it as it was a cup final, didnt care that it was the womens game... 

I say the next bit just because a comparison is useful not that i think it should be compared at all.. I felt it was to the same sort of level as the top level amateur mens game.. The hits were as hard, the handling as good etc.. what i felt it lacked in terms of "top level" is the extra little things that training full time get you, a little cohesion and athleticism but that would come if they were paid full time I am sure. But what both my son and I said was that it was probably the most entertaining match of the day. The Warrington match was better as we had "skin in the game" but for pure entertainment the womens final was superb. We both thoroughly enjoyed it. I would go and pay to watch more of it without an issue. 

To compare does them no favours and for that I apologise for the above but it was to show that I honestly think they are not far off and probably exactly where the mens game would be if it were amateur. But that for entertainment value that does not matter and it was a great game. I didn't see the grand final but was told it was a good game, there are plenty of mens games where pressure tells and mistakes happen. 

I hope it grows and more people get involved, the womens game is another great string to RL's bow and the more people playing the game the better. Its also great to have the positive sporting roll models in more sports that are not "feminine" for people like my daughter to look up to.. she is starting to take an interest now in certain non traditional sports simply because they are getting more exposure.. and that is a good thing!

Sorry RP but you should have just stuck with what you then go on to say - there is no value or point in comparing the men's to the women's game. The highlighted statement is just ridiculous to be honest and I say that in the knowledge of both supporting and coaching in the women's game. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, hunsletgreenandgold said:

Sorry RP but you should have just stuck with what you then go on to say - there is no value or point in comparing the men's to women's game. The highlighted statement is just ridiculous to be honest and I say that in the knowledge of both supporting and coaching in the women's game. 

i thought carefully about whether to use it and felt that, for anyone who hadnt seen it, it was a description of the level the handling, vision etc was at.. ie top level.. what they lack in the mens amateur game vs mens professional game is the same as what is complained about with the women's game IMHO which is why I decided to use it as the example. I do not like the comparisons with the mens game as it is not and would not normally use it. I am sorry you find it ridiculous (i apologised on the original post as well as I dont feel comparisons with the mens game are good) I was hoping some would find it useful as a one off.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Wellsy4HullFC said:

why are we wasting our time with men's 100m sprints when we could be watching cheetahs doing it?

There are whole athletic divisions where the highest quality global tournament is easily the NCAA competition or the US trials.

And yet the BBC still insist on showing the Olympics.

Build a man a fire, and he'll be warm for a day. Set a man on fire, and he'll be warm for the rest of his life. (Terry Pratchett)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, RP London said:

i thought carefully about whether to use it and felt that, for anyone who hadnt seen it, it was a description of the level the handling, vision etc was at.. ie top level.. what they lack in the mens amateur game vs mens professional game is the same as what is complained about with the women's game IMHO which is why I decided to use it as the example. I do not like the comparisons with the mens game as it is not and would not normally use it. I am sorry you find it ridiculous (i apologised on the original post as well as I dont feel comparisons with the mens game are good) I was hoping some would find it useful as a one off.

I get the comparison you're making, about the fact the women's game is amateur and the further progress that could be made if it was pro - I agree by the way. I just think the comments about 'the hits were as hard, the handling as good etc' as top level men's amateur (so the NCL essentially) doesn't help the argument that the women's game is a great spectacle on it's own merits, as many (including myself) know that not to be the case. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, hunsletgreenandgold said:

I get the comparison you're making, about the fact the women's game is amateur and the further progress that could be made if it was pro - I agree by the way. I just think the comments about 'the hits were as hard, the handling as good etc' as top level men's amateur (so the NCL essentially) doesn't help the argument that the women's game is a great spectacle on it's own merits, as many (including myself) know that not to be the case. 

Fair enough, point taken.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You've almost got to treat them as different sports. 

Look at it like boxing. If Tyson Fury fought Floyd Mayweather it would be a farce. Fury would utterly destroy him. But does anyone consider Fury to be the better boxer of the two?

It's unfair to compare different sets of people with completely different make ups. You can only be the best in your own class amongst your peers. 

The odd occasion that I have watched women's RL I have found it to be very entertaining. The men's team would run a cricket score past them. But that is irrelevant.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Dave T said:

You will see the top of the mens game get the funding and coverage.

You are now starting to see the top of the womens game get some attention. 

It really is very very simple.

Not sure why you are banging on about 6th tier mens or kids RL, it literally makes no sense.

Why are you so against the women getting some attention? It's no good keep saying you are not.

Exactly right.  The women's game being shown on TV is a great thing, there should be no 'instead of' conversation here.

We shouldn't be having a conversation about which Rugby League should be taken off air to allow others to be added or which form of the game 'deserves' to be on... the more the better surely.

"The history of the world is the history of the triumph of the heartless over the mindless." — Sir Humphrey Appleby.

"If someone doesn't value evidence, what evidence are you going to provide to prove that they should value it? If someone doesn't value logic, what logical argument could you provide to show the importance of logic?" — Sam Harris

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, Dunbar said:

Exactly right.  The women's game being shown on TV is a great thing, there should be no 'instead of' conversation here.

We shouldn't be having a conversation about which Rugby League should be taken off air to allow others to be added or which form of the game 'deserves' to be on... the more the better surely.

Like I say, the only conclusion you can come to here is that this poster wants the clubs to stop supporting womens RL and this increase in coverage to stop. 

They are not taking anyone else's coverage or support, it's a really odd viewpoint.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There are a few red flags to watch for in conversations like this, they include...

What about equality for men, it goes both ways?

What about equality for straight people, it goes both ways (if you will pardon the pun!)?

What about equality for white people, it goes both ways?

And my personal favourite....

Straight, white men are now the most persecuted in society, what about equality for us?

As a straight, white man, can I say I have had all the equality I can handle.  Any more and it may even be a touch unfair on everyone else. 

"The history of the world is the history of the triumph of the heartless over the mindless." — Sir Humphrey Appleby.

"If someone doesn't value evidence, what evidence are you going to provide to prove that they should value it? If someone doesn't value logic, what logical argument could you provide to show the importance of logic?" — Sam Harris

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, Dave T said:

Of course. 

I assume you have a history of posts here that criticised FreeSports when they used to show the amateur stuff, or Sky when they show lower division stuff when we don't get all SL games televised?

It's the highly paid professionals I'm thinking about. Only once they get equality of opportunity to show their talents - so London on as often as Wigan - should we even think about the Championship.

Build a man a fire, and he'll be warm for a day. Set a man on fire, and he'll be warm for the rest of his life. (Terry Pratchett)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, Dunbar said:

There are a few red flags to watch for in conversations like this, they include...

What about equality for men, it goes both ways?

What about equality for straight people, it goes both ways (if you will pardon the pun!)?

What about equality for white people, it goes both ways?

And my personal favourite....

Straight, white men are now the most persecuted in society, what about equality for us?

As a straight, white man, can I say I have had all the equality I can handle.  Any more and it may even be a touch unfair on everyone else. 

The great unspoken is always class. And, to a growing extent, geography.

But that's a debate for another day and doesn't really explain why we should be denied the chance to watch Leeds v Cas women because Kells don't get all their games on the TV.

EDIT

And the Women's Grand Final was only on Mix. It wasn't even visible to anyone just flicking between the regular sports channels. You had to know it was there.

Build a man a fire, and he'll be warm for a day. Set a man on fire, and he'll be warm for the rest of his life. (Terry Pratchett)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It’s not about comparing men’s sport with women’s (it’s a given who would do better). That comparison is a red herring.

The issue is some women’s sport (definitely in football) is poor by women’s standards. When you look at women’s tennis, it’s the optimum standard of women, of what they are capable of, after a century of development. Same with athletics, swimming, gymnastics, ice skating. Steffi Graf (my second favourite tennis player after Federer), Katarina Witt (ice skater), Nadia Comaneci (gymnastics), these were box office performers.

In sports where women’s participation is at its early stages (certainly the case in football), the standard (for women) is weak. I have seen women’s RL and the standard looked pretty good (much better than the women’s football). They haven’t had the century of development (in football’s case they were held back), which is why it’s poor by women’s standards. Because women’s sport has been held back that’s why they get the leg up, such as being shown on tv...more exposure aids development. The sole issue I’d have is their demand for equal pay. If you attract 200 people to watch you, you can’t expect the same as those who attract 20,000. You should be paid the money you generate, and hopefully in time with the increase in standard the sport will generate more.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 13/10/2019 at 07:48, Poower Lad said:

Just to be dDevils Advocate on this . We’re these sexist comments he was making , in fairness to Gary he has always been forthright in his comments and how he compares teams in the men’s game . I didn’t see the game but is the standard poor . 

G Schofield has blocked me on Twitter, what did he say please? I assume it was on twitter.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I remember on the community forum a few years ago, people involved in the amateur game deriding the RFL for spending money on touch/tag rugby, because 'it did nothing to help produce super league players'.  The only participation that mattered was boys/men.  They would point to the increases in RU or athletics participation as examples to hit the RFL with.  Any suggestions that growth in RFU/athletics was driven by female or social activity was dismissed.  Any money spent on tag/touch/female/wheelchair was a waste (LDRL and PDRL weren't around then I don't think.).   Sad that such ideas hold us back.  

With the best, thats a good bit of PR, though I would say the Bedford team, theres, like, you know, 13 blokes who can get together at the weekend to have a game together, which doesnt point to expansion of the game. Point, yeah go on!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The beauty of it being on tv is that girls will watch it and think "I can play that" where as if its not on tv do people know that the game exists for them? 

Participation can rise, girls can become more involved in the game or feel more a part of the game. They may well want to go and watch both the mens and womens game (including amateur mens) because they feel involved.. 

All of this is good.. but may not happen with this exposure... so why is that exposure bad if what it gets us is good? It makes no sense whatsoever.. 

Unless of course you just dont want women playing the sport.. or think it is somehow embarrassing to show them playing   

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Bedford Roughyed said:

I remember on the community forum a few years ago, people involved in the amateur game deriding the RFL for spending money on touch/tag rugby, because 'it did nothing to help produce super league players'.  The only participation that mattered was boys/men.  They would point to the increases in RU or athletics participation as examples to hit the RFL with.  Any suggestions that growth in RFU/athletics was driven by female or social activity was dismissed.  Any money spent on tag/touch/female/wheelchair was a waste (LDRL and PDRL weren't around then I don't think.).   Sad that such ideas hold us back.  

I think I've said before that a friend was very heavily involved in club cricket (he moved so is now less involved) and was integral in turning the committee there from one that couldn't see why they needed a women's team to one that was basically a bunch of middle aged stalkers trying to locate girls who might want to play. The reason for the change was at first they realised they could get more funding from the ECB for basic things like nets and ground improvements if they had more girls participating ... but then they realised you had more parents volunteering, more people connected to the club bringing more money in, and that when the girls'/women's teams won things their trophies looked just as good in the clubhouse. It was, and is, an incredibly virtuous circle.

Build a man a fire, and he'll be warm for a day. Set a man on fire, and he'll be warm for the rest of his life. (Terry Pratchett)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.