Missing it Already.

grecIAN Harris

Very well known Exeweb poster
Joined
Mar 9, 2004
Messages
24,676
Location
Back home in the village
Basically you're saying that because you
don't value women's football then women's matches should not be broadcast and even if they are broadcast they shouldn't be publicised because that is being politically correct. And what about the hundreds of thousands of fans (if not more) that do like women's football? Don't they have the right to be informed of upcoming matches, schedules, important players etc?
You're not very good at second guessing me today Mike. I haven't said it shouldn't be on or that it shouldn't be advertised anywhere, have I? I have quite clearly said that the product does not live up to the hype around it. As for some of the figure you are quoting about people watching the womens game, I would suggest you are a very, very long way off. I'll give you an example with some vague comparisons; Chelsea v Manchester United in the WPL was a little deciding match with Chelsea and you know all about our very own match last weekend with regards our own title ambitions. We had 8147 in fourth tier football. Chelsea in top flight football had 4378. The TV viewing figures would have struggled to trouble 1 million given that the record for a WSL match is 1.1 million for the Manchester derby.
 

grecIAN Harris

Very well known Exeweb poster
Joined
Mar 9, 2004
Messages
24,676
Location
Back home in the village
You're not very good at second guessing me today Mike. I haven't said it shouldn't be on or that it shouldn't be advertised anywhere, have I? I have quite clearly said that the product does not live up to the hype around it. As for some of the figure you are quoting about people watching the womens game, I would suggest you are a very, very long way off. I'll give you an example with some vague comparisons; Chelsea v Manchester United in the WPL was a little deciding match with Chelsea and you know all about our very own match last weekend with regards our own title ambitions. We had 8147 in fourth tier football. Chelsea in top flight football had 4378. The TV viewing figures would have struggled to trouble 1 million given that the record for a WSL match is 1.1 million for the Manchester derby.
Sorry, continuing on because I ran out of time editing............
Our play-off final against Northampton two seasons had 650000 for it but I can almost guarantee you that it didn't get the same sort of advertising that the Chelsea- United game did, first and foremost because it was on Sky and not the BBC and BBC not only advertise on TV but across their national radio stations also which instantly gives it a wider platform and more diverse platform to advertise to. In general terms Sky have said they're averaging 125000 per game this season with the peak being 550000 for Manchester City - Tottenham.
I have said before it is a growing sport and it will get better but it's probably still probably 8-10 years away before it really gets there because the women that are going to turn it into something a decent product are still girls at school and a lot haven't even taken their GCSE's yet. Then you will have a large influx of good players coming through to fill the vast gaps in standard and, therefore, improve womens football from grassroots to WSL. I say vast gaps because the gaps between each level are like going from League 1 to Premier League at every step.
 

IndoMike

Very well known Exeweb poster
Joined
May 9, 2010
Messages
33,612
Location
Touring Central Java...
Sorry, continuing on because I ran out of time editing............
Our play-off final against Northampton two seasons had 650000 for it but I can almost guarantee you that it didn't get the same sort of advertising that the Chelsea- United game did, first and foremost because it was on Sky and not the BBC and BBC not only advertise on TV but across their national radio stations also which instantly gives it a wider platform and more diverse platform to advertise to. In general terms Sky have said they're averaging 125000 per game this season with the peak being 550000 for Manchester City - Tottenham.
I have said before it is a growing sport and it will get better but it's probably still probably 8-10 years away before it really gets there because the women that are going to turn it into something a decent product are still girls at school and a lot haven't even taken their GCSE's yet. Then you will have a large influx of good players coming through to fill the vast gaps in standard and, therefore, improve womens football from grassroots to WSL. I say vast gaps because the gaps between each level are like going from League 1 to Premier League at every step.
So I don't know how we quantify "hype", because that's what seems to be annoying you, i.e. too much attention given to the women's game or some kind of exaggeration of the quality of the women's game. How do we measure that?
Obviously in recent years women's football has been promoted more intensely, but I guess that encourages far more girls to take up the sport, which surely is a good thing.
Yes, I know attendances are not high, but there are 4 or 5 teams in League 2 that average less than 3k per match, yet they still get quite a lot of publicity.
I get your point totally, Harris, but we're in the age of inclusivity: is that political correctness?
The simple response to you is if you're not interested in the woman's game or think it is hyped up too much then just ignore it all and reach for the remote
 
Joined
Apr 19, 2005
Messages
363
You're not very good at second guessing me today Mike. I haven't said it shouldn't be on or that it shouldn't be advertised anywhere, have I? I have quite clearly said that the product does not live up to the hype around it. As for some of the figure you are quoting about people watching the womens game, I would suggest you are a very, very long way off. I'll give you an example with some vague comparisons; Chelsea v Manchester United in the WPL was a little deciding match with Chelsea and you know all about our very own match last weekend with regards our own title ambitions. We had 8147 in fourth tier football. Chelsea in top flight football had 4378. The TV viewing figures would have struggled to trouble 1 million given that the record for a WSL match is 1.1 million for the Manchester derby.
I know where your coming from, the "interest" shown by pay paying customers at the games ought to be an indication of how popular it is likely to be for the television audience. Despite the apparent disinterest, it is presented as the best thing since the Premier League was invented, quite frankly it isn't. Top WSL fixtures played at the partially filled Hive and at Dagenham and Redbridge really do sum up where the game is at the moment.
 

grecIAN Harris

Very well known Exeweb poster
Joined
Mar 9, 2004
Messages
24,676
Location
Back home in the village
So I don't know how we quantify "hype", because that's what seems to be annoying you, i.e. too much attention given to the women's game or some kind of exaggeration of the quality of the women's game. How do we measure that?
Obviously in recent years women's football has been promoted more intensely, but I guess that encourages far more girls to take up the sport, which surely is a good thing.
Yes, I know attendances are not high, but there are 4 or 5 teams in League 2 that average less than 3k per match, yet they still get quite a lot of publicity.
I get your point totally, Harris, but we're in the age of inclusivity: is that political correctness?
The simple response to you is if you're not interested in the woman's game or think it is hyped up too much then just ignore it all and reach for the remote
I do reach for the remote when it comes to games but I can't control the adverts or the build up in general programmes, ie SSN.
As for the four or five teams you mention, I thinks it's only two or three that get the attention. To be to Village Green, most of that has been built on their success this season which leaves Salford run by Sky Sports, see the connection already, very own Gary Neville. Neville has exploited his position in a way that Jeff Selling hasn't. Moreover they are fourth tier clubs and that is what people expect to see not top tier clubs in the case of women's teams producing little better standard than fourth tier men's sides. Gary Nelson has probably summed up what I'm getting at though.
 
Last edited:

Antony Moxey

Very well known Exeweb poster
Joined
Jun 24, 2004
Messages
41,332
Location
Exmuff
I know where your coming from, the "interest" shown by pay paying customers at the games ought to be an indication of how popular it is likely to be for the television audience. Despite the apparent disinterest, it is presented as the best thing since the Premier League was invented, quite frankly it isn't. Top WSL fixtures played at the partially filled Hive and at Dagenham and Redbridge really do sum up where the game is at the moment.
Agree. I have no axe to grind with women’s football however had you never seen a TV before and suddenly tuned into Sky Sports you’d think in order of importance to the viewing public it went Premier League, WSL, Rangers v Celtic, men’s boxing, women’s boxing, international cricket, international rugby, rugby league, Championship, L1, L2, the rest of football, the rest of sport, the rest of women’s sport.

I think as far as the viewing public goes, for both live and TV audiences, women’s sport is very much the poor relation to men’s.
 

Rosencrantz

Well-known Exeweb poster
Joined
Jul 12, 2019
Messages
7,738
Location
Tiverton
It comes down to expectations. There are sports that women traditionally compete in that have less pace and power than the men's equivalent but I don't see anyone moaning about the coverage given to Women's Tennis and Athletics and saying they should be given less exposure and promoting. But when it comes to sports that are more traditionally men only, even though women have been playing football and cricket for over a century, some have a hang up when it comes to watching and promoting.

I like boxing and for me the fight of the year so far has been Katie Taylor v Amanda Serrano which was top billing at a sold out and incredibly noisy Madison Square Garden and certainly lived up to all the "hype". There are still arguments that women's pro boxing should be allowed three minute rounds and lighter gloves like the men, but promoter's follow the money and even those who were doubtful are getting on board now because there is a demand from boxing fans to have women's boxing on the fight cards.

It is a developing sport much like women's football and cricket and the pool of talent needs to be wider. You only get that by promoting it and highlighting the best in the sport to give girls the inspiration and examples to want to take the sports up and follow in their footsteps. Whether that's the Women's FA Cup Final or Euro's, The Hundred in cricket or (rightly) hyping the likes of Katie Taylor, Savannah Marshall and Nicola Adams in boxing, if you can see it, you can be it. If you don't promote it, it stays underground and the quality stagnates.
 

grecIAN Harris

Very well known Exeweb poster
Joined
Mar 9, 2004
Messages
24,676
Location
Back home in the village
It comes down to expectations. There are sports that women traditionally compete in that have less pace and power than the men's equivalent but I don't see anyone moaning about the coverage given to Women's Tennis and Athletics and saying they should be given less exposure and promoting. But when it comes to sports that are more traditionally men only, even though women have been playing football and cricket for over a century, some have a hang up when it comes to watching and promoting.
Have you ever seen an athletics meeting where it's one sex only? No. How many of the major tennis tournaments ( Wimbledon, the national opens) are single sex? Not many, if any at all. So maybe there's a way to start getting the kind of exposure it needs to build by, where possible, piggy backing the men's games/tournaments. It might not always be logistically possible, particularly during the depths of winter, but at least it will give the women's game chance to get to audiences it might not necessarily do so.
 

Spoonz Red E

Very well known Exeweb poster
Joined
Apr 21, 2004
Messages
10,278
Location
On the table
Have you ever seen an athletics meeting where it's one sex only? No. How many of the major tennis tournaments ( Wimbledon, the national opens) are single sex? Not many, if any at all. So maybe there's a way to start getting the kind of exposure it needs to build by, where possible, piggy backing the men's games/tournaments. It might not always be logistically possible, particularly during the depths of winter, but at least it will give the women's game chance to get to audiences it might not necessarily do so.
Apologies if I'm missing something.

The two sports you mention are set up with either a multidiscipline arena or multiple courts venue.
I'm not sure how the logistics would work on this with single pitch stadiums.
 

Rosencrantz

Well-known Exeweb poster
Joined
Jul 12, 2019
Messages
7,738
Location
Tiverton
Have you ever seen an athletics meeting where it's one sex only? No. How many of the major tennis tournaments ( Wimbledon, the national opens) are single sex? Not many, if any at all. So maybe there's a way to start getting the kind of exposure it needs to build by, where possible, piggy backing the men's games/tournaments. It might not always be logistically possible, particularly during the depths of winter, but at least it will give the women's game chance to get to audiences it might not necessarily do so.
Women's and Men's boxing are on the same cards. But that's the way boxing works by having a number of fights on the card. Now we are seeing some Women's fights top the bill and drag in good attendances as their profile rises and so does their support. That is much like Athletics in having mixed meetings. The Women's Hundred runs alongside the Men's. But that

The danger though of running tournaments together is obviously the danger of being overshadowed by the more established tournament. Any World Cup or Euro's tend to have three live games a day as it is. I doubt there would be the necessary bandwidth to double that output across four weeks with the TV companies, let alone the audience.

I thought this was all about over promoting or hyping anyway? It's the biggest competitions in Women's football, they are going to get promoted by the TV companies that have the rights as they do for the Men's. That's not really anything to do with the sport. It is TV's demand.
 
Top