The “ I’ve got something to say, but it doesn’t warrant its own thread “ thread.

[Jon the Hat]

6 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

Fair enough.

 

I just think that appearing to care far more about these well-meaning but not-all-that-effective folks rather than the much bigger issue, is a mistake. A fatal one, in fact.

Fatal for someone.  Probably not for the people in question.  Much like a millions other issues people ignore on a day to day basis, and which previous generations knew nothing about.

[leicsmac]

17 minutes ago, Jon the Hat said:

Fatal for someone.  Probably not for the people in question.  Much like a millions other issues people ignore on a day to day basis, and which previous generations knew nothing about.

I disagree.

 

Overlooking this issue will end up affecting almost everyone in drastic fashion, either directly or indirectly, and it will do so in the lifetime of most of the contributors to this forum.

[foxile5]

I'm still sick of the weird agenda'd reporting of women's football.

 

All too often female records are presented as "England's top scorer" or whatever completely overwriting the men's records. Fair enough, Ellen White is Englands top scorer of all time or whatever. The records are, when slanted in the favour of women's football, couched as absolute fact. And fair enough - if we're mixing disciplinary records fine.

 

However, the game yesterday is being reported as being "in front of a European Championship record crowd". This is patently untrue. Old Trafford wasn't even full. It comes nowhere close to the male finals. Touching 80,000 is the European Championship record attendance. 

 

I'm so fed up with this hyperbolic reporting of women's football and the need to conflate men's and women's football only when there's some marginal victory to be had for women's football. It frustrates me. It's not fooling anyone and just becomes tedious.

[kingkisnorbo]

1 hour ago, foxile5 said:

I'm still sick of the weird agenda'd reporting of women's football.

 

All too often female records are presented as "England's top scorer" or whatever completely overwriting the men's records. Fair enough, Ellen White is Englands top scorer of all time or whatever. The records are, when slanted in the favour of women's football, couched as absolute fact. And fair enough - if we're mixing disciplinary records fine.

 

However, the game yesterday is being reported as being "in front of a European Championship record crowd". This is patently untrue. Old Trafford wasn't even full. It comes nowhere close to the male finals. Touching 80,000 is the European Championship record attendance. 

 

I'm so fed up with this hyperbolic reporting of women's football and the need to conflate men's and women's football only when there's some marginal victory to be had for women's football. It frustrates me. It's not fooling anyone and just becomes tedious.

So she is the top English goal scorer of all time internationally? 

[foxile5]

32 minutes ago, kingkisnorbo said:

So she is the top English goal scorer of all time internationally? 

I think she's up there - maybe I'm slightly wrong. I was using it as an example.

 

And if she's the top English goal scorer internationally, and we're reporting mixed records as such, why is it suddenly a 'record crowd' when that only pertains for the women's game?

 

Either report both or separate. Not a blend designed to artificially inflate the worth of women's football. It's tedious.

[leicsmac]

3 minutes ago, foxile5 said:

I think she's up there - maybe I'm slightly wrong. I was using it as an example.

 

And if she's the top English goal scorer internationally, and we're reporting mixed records as such, why is it suddenly a 'record crowd' when that only pertains for the women's game?

 

Either report both or separate. Not a blend designed to artificially inflate the worth of women's football. It's tedious.

That's fair enough... however, would this same argument apply to "affirmative action" programs and suchlike?

 

The point being that sometimes, when an institution or attitudes in general are so ingrained towards the status quo where a demographic is overlooked...a little pushfrom the powers that be is sometimes needed to allow equality of opportunity (as opposed to equality of outcome), even if it appears deceptive or, as you say, tedious.

[foxile5]

4 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

That's fair enough... however, would this same argument apply to "affirmative action" programs and suchlike?

 

The point being that sometimes, when an institution or attitudes in general are so ingrained towards the status quo where a demographic is overlooked...a little pushfrom the powers that be is sometimes needed to allow equality of opportunity (as opposed to equality of outcome), even if it appears deceptive or, as you say, tedious.

 

I'd argue the fact that there were 69,000 in attendance provides its own argument as to the ingrained status quo. It's not a considerable overlooking, is it?

 

Quite simply, it's a game. Let it live, or die, on its own merits. This isn't social policy or racial segregation. It's women playing football; it's a game. The need to twist truth in reporting is just frustrating and disingenuous. It isn't winning over anybody and does plenty to put folk off. 

 

For me, I'd like a total separation of reporting for the men's and women's games as I feel they both have their own cultures, merits, and development needs. I'm perfectly fine with the England Men's top scorer being Wayne Rooney and The England Women's top scorer being Ellen White. If, however, we're conflating the two then fair enough but it needs to be consistent. 

 

That wasn't a 'record European Championship crowd'. Conflating the two games and their standards and markers that should be reported as a game played 'in front of a disappointing crowd for an English home game in the European championships despite thousands of free tickets being released'. Similarly, we shouldn't hear about record female signings until they surpass £200m+ mark. Which will be some time.

 

Of course, this type of competition isn't going to develop a healthy game and as such I wouldn't want to see it. So it really does irk me when the reporting is selective in comparison. Who, exactly, is it supposed to be winning over?

[Paninistickers]

7 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

That's fair enough... however, would this same argument apply to "affirmative action" programs and suchlike?

 

The point being that sometimes, when an institution or attitudes in general are so ingrained towards the status quo where a demographic is overlooked...a little pushfrom the powers that be is sometimes needed to allow equality of opportunity (as opposed to equality of outcome), even if it appears deceptive or, as you say, tedious.

Any normal member of the public admires elite women's sport. Jess Ennis. Emma Radacanu. Dina Asher Smith. Becky Adlington. Gymnasts. Cyclists. Skeleton Bob medallists. Darts even. There's a demand for those sportspeople and as such, a commercial value. 

 

But the BBC are pushing a form.of sport that patently isn't elite. Even the absolute pinnacle of international football is loosely equivalent to national league North standard (at best). City's professional team would be mullered by overweight, unfit, hungover Sunday pub team. Affirmative action can be necessary at times but passing water off as wine is deceitful and patronising. 

[leicsmac]

1 minute ago, foxile5 said:

 

I'd argue the fact that there were 69,000 in attendance provides its own argument as to the ingrained status quo. It's not a considerable overlooking, is it?

 

Quite simply, it's a game. Let it live, or die, on its own merits. This isn't social policy or racial segregation. It's women playing football; it's a game. The need to twist truth in reporting is just frustrating and disingenuous. It isn't winning over anybody and does plenty to put folk off. 

 

For me, I'd like a total separation of reporting for the men's and women's games as I feel they both have their own cultures, merits, and development needs. I'm perfectly fine with the England Men's top scorer being Wayne Rooney and The England Women's top scorer being Ellen White. If, however, we're conflating the two then fair enough but it needs to be consistent. 

 

That wasn't a 'record European Championship crowd'. Conflating the two games and their standards and markers that should be reported as a game played 'in front of a disappointing crowd for an English home game in the European championships despite thousands of free tickets being released'. Similarly, we shouldn't hear about record female signings until they surpass £200m+ mark. Which will be some time.

 

Of course, this type of competition isn't going to develop a healthy game and as such I wouldn't want to see it. So it really does irk me when the reporting is selective in comparison. Who, exactly, is it supposed to be winning over?

Fair enough, you make a reasonable argument and the fact that the women's game is now drawing in considerable crowds (or at least this particular competition is) makes me lean towards the idea of it being able to stand on its own merit in terms of viewershipand interest.

 

I just hope that it can, because the women's game has been in the shadows for too long since the FA put in there for entirely sexist reasons a century ago.

 

2 minutes ago, Paninistickers said:

Any normal member of the public admires elite women's sport. Jess Ennis. Emma Radacanu. Dina Asher Smith. Becky Adlington. Gymnasts. Cyclists. Skeleton Bob medallists. Darts even. There's a demand for those sportspeople and as such, a commercial value. 

 

But the BBC are pushing a form.of sport that patently isn't elite. Even the absolute pinnacle of international football is loosely equivalent to national league North standard (at best). City's professional team would be mullered by overweight, unfit, hungover Sunday pub team. Affirmative action can be necessary at times but passing water off as wine is deceitful and patronising. 

Then perhaps some additional help to breed interest, revenue and therefore standard is merited, rather than just letting the vagaries of the market sideline a demographic because they aren't given the time and opportunity to improve?

[foxile5]

1 minute ago, leicsmac said:

 

 

I just hope that it can, because the women's game has been in the shadows for too long since the FA put in there for entirely sexist reasons a century ago.

 

 

Agreed. 

 

There's obviously a public appetite for the sport, too. Witness the interest in the ladies game on this website alone. It just needs to exist on its own. Any attempts of comparison or merger with the men's game and it'll fall flat. This is because of decades of over-funding and the public spotlight of the men's game. 

 

 

[whoareyaaa]

They should tag articles or anything referring to women's football with WFA when referring to women's football like the men do with EPL.

 

That way everyone will know what's what.

 

Instead of trying to be sligh and misguide people, pathetic.

Edited 7 July 2022 by whoareyaaa

[SemperEadem]

Play to be different

Forever Fearless 

Create Iconic

 

Hate all these marketing slogans football clubs now have.

[Unabomber]

7 minutes ago, SemperEadem said:

Play to be different

Forever Fearless 

Create Iconic

 

Hate all these marketing slogans football clubs now have.

That last one is by far the worst. Doesn’t make any sense 

[SemperEadem]

 

[CosbehFox]

On 07/07/2022 at 11:40, foxile5 said:

I'm still sick of the weird agenda'd reporting of women's football.

 

All too often female records are presented as "England's top scorer" or whatever completely overwriting the men's records. Fair enough, Ellen White is Englands top scorer of all time or whatever. The records are, when slanted in the favour of women's football, couched as absolute fact. And fair enough - if we're mixing disciplinary records fine.

 

However, the game yesterday is being reported as being "in front of a European Championship record crowd". This is patently untrue. Old Trafford wasn't even full. It comes nowhere close to the male finals. Touching 80,000 is the European Championship record attendance. 

 

I'm so fed up with this hyperbolic reporting of women's football and the need to conflate men's and women's football only when there's some marginal victory to be had for women's football. It frustrates me. It's not fooling anyone and just becomes tedious.

I don’t get it either and I’m supportive of how female football has moved forward. They should genuinely try to set themselves apart and step away from emulating the male game (all this WSL and CL arms race). 
 

They should keep it accessible (ie the right type of stadium), avoid the pitfalls of tribalism and concentrate on being unique. Keep it relaxed amongst your support, so children can feel

comfortable attending and keep the level of discipline high as it appears to be when I watch. 
 

I enjoyed yesterday evening because I didn’t have the frustrations of the male game. Just don’t chase over something which isn’t that good of an end goal. Look to implement salary caps and try to create an equal footing within your top flight. Be unique. 

Edited 8 July 2022 by Cardiff_Fox

[Julian Joachim Jr Shabadoo]

This almost does warrant its own thread. I tried Phat Buns (Loughborough) last night at the recommendation of some mates, burger was good (sort of Five Guys type deal), tater tots were nice, but fvck me - mango habanero hot wings.. not only the nicest wings I've ever had, but I'd put it up there with the nicest things I've ever eaten full stop

 

I ate that 14 hours ago and am still in awe of how nice they were

 

If I can get one other person to try them and appreciate them then I class that a success. They are outstanding

[Innovindil]

5 minutes ago, Julian Joachim Jr Shabadoo said:

This almost does warrant its own thread. I tried Phat Buns (Loughborough) last night at the recommendation of some mates, burger was good (sort of Five Guys type deal), tater tots were nice, but fvck me - mango habanero hot wings.. not only the nicest wings I've ever had, but I'd put it up there with the nicest things I've ever eaten full stop

 

I ate that 14 hours ago and am still in awe of how nice they were

 

If I can get one other person to try them and appreciate them then I class that a success. They are outstanding

I'll try this place next week. 

 

I tried "the burger man" takeout on Maidstone Road last night and it was probably the worst take out I've ever had in my life. Genuinely dreadful for food that's priced at a premium. 

[Julian Joachim Jr Shabadoo]

2 minutes ago, Innovindil said:

I'll try this place next week. 

 

I tried "the burger man" takeout on Maidstone Road last night and it was probably the worst take out I've ever had in my life. Genuinely dreadful for food that's priced at a premium. 

 

Hope you enjoy it - I can't stress enough just how good those wings were though, next time I go I might do away with the burger and just get a tonne of the wings, or try the chicken burger with wings. Oh god I can't stop thinking about it

 

 

If you are getting a burger I'd recommend checking out the paid toppings (macaroni cheese, onion rings, cheese curds etc) - as good quality as the meat was, I had mine just with the standard cheese, salad and whatever sauce they put in and it was a little on the bland side. Nice enough and good quality, but just lacking something. It had a flavour more like a roast beef sandwich compared to other takeaway burgers you'd normally get

 

[The Bear]

Chicken wings are crap, unless they're the drumsticks. Flats have almost no meat on them. 

 

Chicken thighs are much better meat and value. Great for casseroles or a chasseur.

[Julian Joachim Jr Shabadoo]

1 hour ago, The Bear said:

Chicken wings are crap, unless they're the drumsticks. Flats have almost no meat on them. 

 

Chicken thighs are much better meat and value. Great for casseroles or a chasseur.

 

Depends what you do with them. Good meaty wings cooked properly have better surface area and more skin/meat ratio. Thighs are good if you want a meatier dinner (and they are good value) but if you want hot wings then thighs aren't as good, with less surface area vs meat

 

Good hot wings can't be beaten. But shit wings (the flats or ones with very little meat) with no decent seasoning or coating are pointless

 

Ps casserole is just about the worst dinner going. They take ages to cook, all the vegetables go limp and tasteless, everything just becomes one bland lumpy soup

Edited 8 July 2022 by Julian Joachim Jr Shabadoo

[Pliskin]

Why does the new VW T-roc advert have a woman driving it with an eye patch? Can only pirates drive them? 

[Julian Joachim Jr Shabadoo]

1 minute ago, Pliskin said:

Why does the new VW T-roc advert have a woman driving it with an eye patch? Can only pirates drive them? 

 

"Inclusivity"? I don't know what the rules are driving with only one eye though, surely with no depth perception it's pretty dangerous

[tom27111]

I will never slate another sportsperson who says theyre injured, or withdraws from an event due to blisters.

 

Im in absolute agony with a huge blister on the sole of my right foot. I have to walk on the side of my foot, which is now causing issues with my knee, hip and lower back.

 

Last time I do anything for charity 

 

[The Bear]

1 hour ago, Julian Joachim Jr Shabadoo said:

 

Depends what you do with them. Good meaty wings cooked properly have better surface area and more skin/meat ratio. Thighs are good if you want a meatier dinner (and they are good value) but if you want hot wings then thighs aren't as good, with less surface area vs meat

 

Good hot wings can't be beaten. But shit wings (the flats or ones with very little meat) with no decent seasoning or coating are pointless

 

Ps casserole is just about the worst dinner going. They take ages to cook, all the vegetables go limp and tasteless, everything just becomes one bland lumpy soup

I prefer veg when it's nice and soft (years of eating tinned veg since I was young), so I always really like casseroles and stews. 

[The Bear]

5 minutes ago, pmcla26 said:

Personally don't really like thighs, much prefer wings, but agree they can be disappointing at times in terms of how much meat is on them. 

 

Chicken breast trumps all, IMO. 

Thighs are good because they're cheap, you get the plenty of meat and dark meat too which is the best bit. 

 

Breasts can be too thick and dry out really easily. They're only good for chopping up into curries IMO. 

Edited 8 July 2022 by The Bear