Football hiding given by U15 side

Frank

Very disappointed Stuff didn't provide a comments section for that article. A brilliant trolling opportunity gone to waste.
 
Surprised it was reported at all because it doesn't fit the SJW narrative.

Stargazer

With respect to rugby, there goes a lot more funding towards boys rep teams than girls rep teams, if girls rep teams even exist (there are 9 provinces with NPC teams, and - as far as I know - no age grade rep teams in all or most provinces).
Boys age grades start at about U11 or U12, then U13/14, U16, U18/19, U20, NPC, Super Rugby. For girls, it's straight from school/club to NPC. None of them get paid. Academies are often reluctant to admit girls, even if they are very talented, because they're basically developing a player without professional prospects. For the same reason, girls teams don't always have the best coaches, often have to play at the worst fields, play not as many games as boys etc etc. As they get older, they will focus more than boys on education and work, again because there are hardly professional prospects.
 
So it's quite unfair to compare boys/men's and girls/women's rugby for that reason alone. It speaks for itself that for physical reasons (lean muscle/fat ratio for example) there are quite a lot of differences, too.
 
I am all for more women's sports on tv, especially rugby. After all, they're 50% of the population and the number of female rugby players are growing steadily. I don't get people who say women's rugby/sport is shit or think it's not worth watching? Do you compare a boxing match between fly weight boxers with a match between heavy weights? Do you compare an amateur basketball game with a pro game? I think you should assess each sport/game in its own category. A boys secondary school game is also shit compared to a Super Rugby game. They still get broadcasted. So why not broadcast women's rugby more? Because there is no professional pathway? They still train as hard as their school/work schedule allows, with the limited facilities they get. As to the lack of sponsors & viewers for women's sport/rugby: that's a vicious circle. Broadcasters don't get sponsorship for these games because sponsors expect nobody wants to watch these games; nobody watches these games, because they're not broadcasted and they basically don't know anything about the teams/players; and so it continues. If nobody watches "because the product sucks", then NZ rugby and the provinces are more to blame than anyone else, for not providing better training & facilities to female players.
 
I think the NZ women's 7s team is a good example that shows that if you invest more money in women's rugby, you WILL get a better product. They built a women's 7s team out of nothing during how many years? A core group of these players do get paid; it may not be as much as the men, but I assume it's good enough to live from for the duration of their rugby career (not sure about off-season). I find the NZ women's sevens team just as good a watch as the men's team.
 
I don't know about football, but my guess is that an U15 side from an A-League team has already had a lot of high level training via their academy. They've probably had more quality training, coaches & facilities than the Aussi women's team. The women's players, how many are pros? How many have to juggle work/school with football? How do they compare physically to that U15s side? 
 
Oh, and feminists scare me, but sometimes they have point.

antipodean

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="Stargazer" data-cid="582998" data-time="1464247812">
<div>
I am all for more women's sports on tv, especially rugby. After all, they're 50% of the population and the number of female rugby players are growing steadily. I don't get people who say women's rugby/sport is shit or think it's not worth watching? Do you compare a boxing match between fly weight boxers with a match between heavy weights? Do you compare an amateur basketball game with a pro game? I think you should assess each sport/game in its own category. A boys secondary school game is also shit compared to a Super Rugby game. They still get broadcasted. So why not broadcast women's rugby more? Because there is no professional pathway? They still train as hard as their school/work schedule allows, with the limited facilities they get. As to the lack of sponsors & viewers for women's sport/rugby: that's a vicious circle. Broadcasters don't get sponsorship for these games because sponsors expect nobody wants to watch these games; nobody watches these games, because they're not broadcasted and they basically don't know anything about the teams/players; and so it continues. If nobody watches "because the product sucks", then NZ rugby and the provinces are more to blame than anyone else, for not providing better training & facilities to female players.
</div>
</blockquote>
 
Just because they comprise half the population doesn't mean broadcasters should be forced to include it. A boxing match between flyweights, particularly over the last 20 years, is going to be better because technically they are better boxers. Heavyweight is a joke. I don't compare it, I just prefer the technically better, more skilled version.
 
The reason boys secondary schools have rugby broadcast is for two reasons as I see it;
<ol><li>sports stars of the future, and</li>
<li>the quality is still miles ahead of women's rugby.</li>
</ol>

Frank

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="Stargazer" data-cid="582998" data-time="1464247812">
<div>
With respect to rugby, there goes a lot more funding towards boys rep teams than girls rep teams, if girls rep teams even exist (there are 9 provinces with NPC teams, and - as far as I know - no age grade rep teams in all or most provinces).
Boys age grades start at about U11 or U12, then U13/14, U16, U18/19, U20, NPC, Super Rugby. For girls, it's straight from school/club to NPC. None of them get paid. Academies are often reluctant to admit girls, even if they are very talented, because they're basically developing a player without professional prospects. For the same reason, girls teams don't always have the best coaches, often have to play at the worst fields, play not as many games as boys etc etc. As they get older, they will focus more than boys on education and work, again because there are hardly professional prospects.
 
So it's quite unfair to compare boys/men's and girls/women's rugby for that reason alone. It speaks for itself that for physical reasons (lean muscle/fat ratio for example) there are quite a lot of differences, too.
 
I am all for more women's sports on tv, especially rugby. After all, they're 50% of the population and the number of female rugby players are growing steadily. I don't get people who say women's rugby/sport is shit or think it's not worth watching? Do you compare a boxing match between fly weight boxers with a match between heavy weights? Do you compare an amateur basketball game with a pro game? I think you should assess each sport/game in its own category. A boys secondary school game is also shit compared to a Super Rugby game. They still get broadcasted. So why not broadcast women's rugby more? Because there is no professional pathway? They still train as hard as their school/work schedule allows, with the limited facilities they get. As to the lack of sponsors & viewers for women's sport/rugby: that's a vicious circle. Broadcasters don't get sponsorship for these games because sponsors expect nobody wants to watch these games; nobody watches these games, because they're not broadcasted and they basically don't know anything about the teams/players; and so it continues. If nobody watches "because the product sucks", then NZ rugby and the provinces are more to blame than anyone else, for not providing better training & facilities to female players.
 
I think the NZ women's 7s team is a good example that shows that if you invest more money in women's rugby, you WILL get a better product. They built a women's 7s team out of nothing during how many years? A core group of these players do get paid; it may not be as much as the men, but I assume it's good enough to live from for the duration of their rugby career (not sure about off-season). I find the NZ women's sevens team just as good a watch as the men's team.
 
I don't know about football, but my guess is that an U15 side from an A-League team has already had a lot of high level training via their academy. They've probably had more quality training, coaches & facilities than the Aussi women's team. The women's players, how many are pros? How many have to juggle work/school with football? How do they compare physically to that U15s side? 
 
Oh, and feminists scare me, but sometimes they have point.
</div>
</blockquote>
 
Nah, men are waaaaay better at sport.

Stargazer

If school boy games are broadcasted because they're the stars of the future, then that just proves my point. Favouritism for boys sports because there's a professional pathway. To me that's just plain wrong. Sport is about a lot more than the select few who get to play for money.
 
You're missing a far more important point: girls'/women's rugby is growing. More and more girls are playing the sport. The NPC, Black Ferns and NZ women 7s players are THEIR role models. They are entitled to see their role models play now and then on tv. I mean, it's not that we're talking about many games, are we?
 
My mate's 9 year old plays rugby. She plays mostly at halfback. Yes, she loves Aaron Smith, but she LOVES Kendra Cocksedge, the Black Ferns halfback and 2015 world women's player of the year. Kendra is her role model, her example. Why can't my mate's girl see her role model on tv? Because only a few NPC games per year are televised. Black Ferns games are often not televised and it seems they're not even getting any matches this year. She can only see the women's 7s team when they play a final because rights-holder Sky only broadcasts the women's finals and has WorldRugby geo-block the livestream, also of the pool games, QF and SF that are not broadcasted. My mate lives in Taranaki, which doesn't have a NPC team. He takes his girl to Wellington and Waikato games if they play Canterbury (Kendra's team) at home. That's all she gets to see from her role models. His son on the other hand ...

Stargazer

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="Frank" data-cid="583006" data-time="1464249691">
<div>
Nah, men are waaaaay better at sport.
</div>
</blockquote>
 
I'd love to watch if you ever get the chance to say that to Valerie Adams :biggrin:

SammyC

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="Stargazer" data-cid="583010" data-time="1464250947">
I'd love to watch if you ever get the chance to say that to Valerie Adams :biggrin:</blockquote>
 
Valerie would probably agree with him 
She throws a lighter shot, and still doesn't throw it as far as the men

taniwharugby

Pretty sure there was a women golfer that got a shot at the PGA 5 or 10 years ago? 
 
She didnt fare too well, obviously better than joe hackers like us, but didnt make an impact.
 
Assume golf courses are set up differently when they have mens and womens events, but on a normal course, womens tees are invariably in fornt of the mens, or if behind usually made it a harder rated or higher par.
 
Golf is prett y sexist, not to mention Muirfield wont allow women....

Tordah

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="Stargazer" data-cid="583009" data-time="1464250589">
<div>
If school boy games are broadcasted because they're the stars of the future, then that just proves my point. Favouritism for boys sports because there's a professional pathway. To me that's just plain wrong. Sport is about a lot more than the select few who get to play for money.
 
You're missing a far more important point: girls'/women's rugby is growing. More and more girls are playing the sport. The NPC, Black Ferns and NZ women 7s players are THEIR role models. They are entitled to see their role models play now and then on tv. I mean, it's not that we're talking about many games, are we?
 
My mate's 9 year old plays rugby. She plays mostly at halfback. Yes, she loves Aaron Smith, but she LOVES Kendra Cocksedge, the Black Ferns halfback and 2015 world women's player of the year. Kendra is her role model, her example. Why can't my mate's girl see her role model on tv? Because only a few NPC games per year are televised. Black Ferns games are often not televised and it seems they're not even getting any matches this year. She can only see the women's 7s team when they play a final because rights-holder Sky only broadcasts the women's finals and has WorldRugby geo-block the livestream, also of the pool games, QF and SF that are not broadcasted. My mate lives in Taranaki, which doesn't have a NPC team. He takes his girl to Wellington and Waikato games if they play Canterbury (Kendra's team) at home. That's all she gets to see from her role models. His son on the other hand ...
</div>
</blockquote>
 
you could say the exact same thing about boys wanting to become male models, where are their role models? It's just silly using biological sex as the defining factor in what ought to be a role model, sexes are different and that's no problem, as long as any person is allowed to do the same stuff as anyone else (based on sex, certainly). Forcing equity through silly quotas or whatever is never the right way, when there's not enough demand for a thing, there's usually a reason for that. Imagine your mate had a little boy who wants to play netball, do you want to force netball teams to build male squads so he can have role models of the same sex?
 
topic: same thing happened in Germany a couple of years ago, U17 side (Borussia Dortmund) thrashed the national team 7-0. Women's football is horrible to watch (IMO).

Stargazer

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="SammyC" data-cid="583012" data-time="1464251314">
<div>
Valerie would probably agree with him 
She throws a lighter shot, and still doesn't throw it as far as the men
</div>
</blockquote>
 
Also if you calculate the difference in lean mucle to fat ratio? Because if you compare male and female in the same sport, you should take into account ALL confounding factors of course!

antipodean

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="Stargazer" data-cid="583009" data-time="1464250589">If school boy games are broadcasted because they're the stars of the future, then that just proves my point. Favouritism for boys sports because there's a professional pathway. To me that's just plain wrong. Sport is about a lot more than the select few who get to play for money. You're missing a far more important point: girls'/women's rugby is growing. More and more girls are playing the sport. The NPC, Black Ferns and NZ women 7s players are THEIR role models. They are entitled to see their role models play now and then on tv. I mean, it's not that we're talking about many games, are we?</blockquote>It's not about professional pathway, it's about seeing players so much better than their peers. Also, you're not entitled to watch anything. BTW, I'm aware women's rugby is growing. I actually coached a women's team.

Stargazer

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="Tordah" data-cid="583015" data-time="1464252021">
<div>
you could say the exact same thing about boys wanting to become male models, where are their role models? It's just silly using biological sex as the defining factor in what ought to be a role model, sexes are different and that's no problem, as long as any person is allowed to do the same stuff as anyone else (based on sex, certainly). Forcing equity through silly quotas or whatever is never the right way, when there's not enough demand for a thing, there's usually a reason for that. Imagine your mate had a little boy who wants to play netball, do you want to force netball teams to build male squads so he can have rolemodels of the same sex?
</div>
</blockquote>
 
Actually, the son of another mate of mine does play netball at school. In a mixed team. Not sure what he's going to do when he goes to intermediate. Is there a male national netball team? If so, then they should be shown on tv now and then! I'm not suggesting setting up something that doesn't exist. The point is, for girls playing rugby there ARE female role models at NPC and national level; they just don't get to see them play. 
 
I don't know where your quota comment comes from. I haven't suggested any quotas and I'm also not suggesting that an equal number of women's games should be televised. I'm merely saying that there's not enough girls/women's rugby on tv. Sky used to broadcast the secondary schools girls final a few years back. That was the only girls game they broadcasted. They could have broadcasted a few more (for example, the semis), but now they don't broadcast one single game.
 
To give another example. A few years ago, the Black Ferns played Samoa and, I think, Oz in NZ. The games were not broadcasted or streamed live. Sky promised delayed broadcasts. The broadcast was moved three times ... to make way for the 3rd replay of the World Cup freakin' Darts and the fourth replay of some boring Golf tournament! Sorry, but that's just plain ridiculous!
 
Yes, I'm a rugby nerd who watches as much rugby as possible, including school boys, women's and club games (Toyota grassroots). I don't compare these games with each other because everyone knows that the level is different. I watch each category on its own merits and I think women's rugby has improved a lot over the years and is very underrated.

hydro11

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="Stargazer" data-cid="582998" data-time="1464247812">
<div>
With respect to rugby, there goes a lot more funding towards boys rep teams than girls rep teams, if girls rep teams even exist (there are 9 provinces with NPC teams, and - as far as I know - no age grade rep teams in all or most provinces).
Boys age grades start at about U11 or U12, then U13/14, U16, U18/19, U20, NPC, Super Rugby. For girls, it's straight from school/club to NPC. None of them get paid. Academies are often reluctant to admit girls, even if they are very talented, because they're basically developing a player without professional prospects. For the same reason, girls teams don't always have the best coaches, often have to play at the worst fields, play not as many games as boys etc etc. As they get older, they will focus more than boys on education and work, again because there are hardly professional prospects.
 
So it's quite unfair to compare boys/men's and girls/women's rugby for that reason alone. It speaks for itself that for physical reasons (lean muscle/fat ratio for example) there are quite a lot of differences, too.
 
I am all for more women's sports on tv, especially rugby. After all, they're 50% of the population and the number of female rugby players are growing steadily. I don't get people who say women's rugby/sport is shit or think it's not worth watching? Do you compare a boxing match between fly weight boxers with a match between heavy weights? Do you compare an amateur basketball game with a pro game? I think you should assess each sport/game in its own category. A boys secondary school game is also shit compared to a Super Rugby game. They still get broadcasted. So why not broadcast women's rugby more? Because there is no professional pathway? They still train as hard as their school/work schedule allows, with the limited facilities they get. As to the lack of sponsors & viewers for women's sport/rugby: that's a vicious circle. Broadcasters don't get sponsorship for these games because sponsors expect nobody wants to watch these games; nobody watches these games, because they're not broadcasted and they basically don't know anything about the teams/players; and so it continues. If nobody watches "because the product sucks", then NZ rugby and the provinces are more to blame than anyone else, for not providing better training & facilities to female players.
 
I think the NZ women's 7s team is a good example that shows that if you invest more money in women's rugby, you WILL get a better product. They built a women's 7s team out of nothing during how many years? A core group of these players do get paid; it may not be as much as the men, but I assume it's good enough to live from for the duration of their rugby career (not sure about off-season). I find the NZ women's sevens team just as good a watch as the men's team.
 
I don't know about football, but my guess is that an U15 side from an A-League team has already had a lot of high level training via their academy. They've probably had more quality training, coaches & facilities than the Aussi women's team. The women's players, how many are pros? How many have to juggle work/school with football? How do they compare physically to that U15s side? 
 
Oh, and feminists scare me, but sometimes they have point.
</div>
</blockquote>
 
I gave you a like because you make some good points.
 
I don't really care about women's sport. If other people want to watch it then all power to them. I just hope no man is called sexist because they don't want to watch an inferior product. Women would also rather watch men's sport. It is a bit shit if you have a daughter who may be very good at their sport but you know that no matter how good they get, they have no chance to really make it.

hydro11

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="Stargazer" data-cid="583009" data-time="1464250589">
<div>
If school boy games are broadcasted because they're the stars of the future, then that just proves my point. Favouritism for boys sports because there's a professional pathway. To me that's just plain wrong. Sport is about a lot more than the select few who get to play for money.
 
You're missing a far more important point: girls'/women's rugby is growing. More and more girls are playing the sport. The NPC, Black Ferns and NZ women 7s players are THEIR role models. They are entitled to see their role models play now and then on tv. I mean, it's not that we're talking about many games, are we?
 
My mate's 9 year old plays rugby. She plays mostly at halfback. Yes, she loves Aaron Smith, but she LOVES Kendra Cocksedge, the Black Ferns halfback and 2015 world women's player of the year. Kendra is her role model, her example. Why can't my mate's girl see her role model on tv? Because only a few NPC games per year are televised. Black Ferns games are often not televised and it seems they're not even getting any matches this year. She can only see the women's 7s team when they play a final because rights-holder Sky only broadcasts the women's finals and has WorldRugby geo-block the livestream, also of the pool games, QF and SF that are not broadcasted. My mate lives in Taranaki, which doesn't have a NPC team. He takes his girl to Wellington and Waikato games if they play Canterbury (Kendra's team) at home. That's all she gets to see from her role models. His son on the other hand ...
</div>
</blockquote>
 
But this is where I start to disagree with you. School boy games are broadcasted because people watch it and allows Sky to charge people money for The Rugby Channel. That is just the preferences of the viewing public. There isn't really a way to change that. As it is, I would imagine that the All Blacks would massively subsidise the Black Ferns and the 7's.

Stargazer

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="hydro11" data-cid="583022" data-time="1464253668">
<div>
But this is where I start to disagree with you. School boy games are broadcasted because people watch it and allows Sky to charge people money for The Rugby Channel. That is just the preferences of the viewing public. There isn't really a way to change that. As it is, I would imagine that the All Blacks would massively subsidise the Black Ferns and the 7's.
</div>
</blockquote>
 
People watch what they know. They won't know and appreciate what they can't watch. I still think that more people would watch a Black Ferns or women's NPC game than the third or fourth replay of a WC Darts or Golf.
 
There's nothing wrong with a heavily sponsored professional rep teams funding amateur rep teams. But you may have noticed that the U20, Maori ABs, Black Ferns and both sevens teams also have the AIG logo on their jersey. Probably also Adidas.
 
What also surprises me that NZRU and Provincial Unions have never discovered and used livestreams without commentary. It basically only requires a camera, one person to operate that camera, a computer with internet connection, some kind of streaming programme and that's it. No need for the whole Sky circus and commentators. Cheap as. Just tweet or post on FB the link to the livestream and whoever wants to watch, can watch.
I have watched a sevens tournament in France that way a few weeks ago. All they showed was the games and the HT and FT scores, and you could hear some background sound (like the ref's whistle).

Gary

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="hydro11" data-cid="583020" data-time="1464253477">
<div>
I gave you a like because you make some good points.
 
I don't really care about women's sport. If other people want to watch it then all power to them. I just hope no man is called sexist because they don't want to watch an inferior product. Women would also rather watch men's sport. It is a bit shit if you have a daughter who may be very good at their sport but you know that no matter how good they get, they have no chance to really make it.
</div>
</blockquote>
What ~. won't make it as a man? Val Adams hasn't made it? Tell you what I bet more kiwis have watched Olympic women shot than mens in the last few years. Lynda Ko hasn't made it?

Bovidae

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="hydro11" data-cid="583020" data-time="1464253477">
<div>
I don't really care about women's sport.
</div>
</blockquote>
 
I enjoy watching women's volleyball and tennis. :)
 
Back to football, we've had a few women playing in my Sunday football league over the years and even occasionally had a couple in my team in the early days. Not very common now as the games are so much more competitive and physical.

hydro11

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="Gary" data-cid="583025" data-time="1464255202">
<div>
What ~. won't make it as a man? Val Adams hasn't made it? Tell you what I bet more kiwis have watched Olympic women shot than mens in the last few years. Lynda Ko hasn't made it?
</div>
</blockquote>
 
Depends on the sport though. Golf you can make heaps of coin. Shot put, not really. Val probably does okay but she is one of the most dominant athletes in the history of the sport. Football, cricket, rugby most of them don't even make a living even if they are the best at the sport in the country.

Stargazer

This topic reminded me of this video I saw on my Twitter feed this week. 
 
[media]

The Silver Fern

Football hiding given by U15 side