I know you weren't saying that. I don't understand why you have to have played at the highest level to understand the game to a great depth. As has been said there's loads of top managers who have never played at the highest level. So there's no reason why Mary Bloggs can't be as clued up as Arsene Wenger. Unless you're saying women aren't as intelligent as men. And I don't believe you are.
I’d hazard a guess that if they had brought in a player/manager from the conference or below as a pundit then you’d be asking Why haven’t they brought in a female that’s played at the highest level possible rather than a player/manager that’s never played above conference level.
I think your points right. It’s got ridiculous. It all stems from the BBC a couple of years back putting Jenas & Phil Neville on the women’s World Cup coverage so that there was a couple of familiar faces for viewers. Since then we’ve had it the other way at the World Cup & now regularly on the BBC & Sky. If they actually thought they were doing a better job why isn’t there 2 or 3 women in the studio? It’s just to fill a quota & to look good. It’s daft. Fair enough when it’s someone knowledgeable who gets her point across well like Alex Scott but many of them look like they don’t belong there. It’s a bit like in the 90’s when all these manufactured pop groups, Spice Girls, Blue, S Club etc would all have just one black / mixed race person in the group. What’s annoying to me is that there’s excellent pundits who’d never get a chance doing Super Sunday or big World Cup games, Stephen Warnock, Peter Beagrie, Michael Brown (I know he was a ****** on the pitch but he’s a good pundit) for example yet women can come in who’ve done next to no punditry & get big games
Your point about familiar faces is a good one, but I would have thought the main reason the bigger name players become pundits is that they can give an insight into the game that outsiders can never i.e fans and the media. These players know what is going in the minds of the players and what is being said in the dressing room, on the training ground etc etc. A lower league player may not have the same insight and a female player certainly wouldn't. I think we also say an ex-player is a bad pundit because we didn't like them as players or they said something about our club e.g Mark Lawrenson. If you think about it, it's probably a bit insulting to these female players because they're only on due to more cynical motives. I'm sure this will be a continuing theme.
In all seriousness I would be intrigued to see what level women’s football is at, by that I mean them playing against men in the lower leagues,
Would be a waste of time. If Leyton Orient played the England women's team they would have to abandon it at halftime with Orient 20-0 up.
To be honest I was thinking lower than that, I don’t mean it in a disrespectful way I’d genuinely be interested at what point they would best a mans team, I’ve actually enjoyed watching some of the women’s matches
Come on Conan unless you know the player in person we've all got a fair idea of what's being said on the training ground and in the dressing room. It's basic psychology, it certainly ain't rocket science and there's no shortage of female psychologists either. The fact that women's teams can't compete with men's is a canard, they're not playing football in the studio. I'm very uncomfortable about quotas, I much prefer a meritocracy but there is a case for quotas where there is a barrier in the minds of a lot of people prejudicing against female involvement. I can live with quotas up to the point that that barrier has been broken down then it should be removed and analysts should be drawn from the best available whether they be male or female.