2018 Black Ferns
-
I tried to watch it but within 5 minutes my wife was bored out of her mind and demanded we change the channel. She's so sexist.
-
@no-quarter Good on her.
-
@stargazer said in 2018 Black Ferns:
@no-quarter Good on her.
Tongue-in-cheek comment
In seriousness I think the Black Ferns will really struggle to attract large audiences given the saturated coverage of the men's game and the fact people don't have a lot of time to invest these days. None of that is due to any sexism or prejudice, just the reality of the situation. Sky and NZR must bleed money covering them as well - playing them at the same time as the men's helps cut costs but there's no way they make a profit. -
@no-quarter said in 2018 Black Ferns:
I tried to watch it but within 5 minutes my wife was bored out of her mind and demanded we change the channel. She's so sexist.
That's what my mum did!
So I ran into the garden shed, poured pink weed killer over my hair, traipsed back into the lounge, screamed "sexist" profanities at her and finished off with "you have no idea how much oppression women have faced from the likes of you!!"
And immediately went online to shame her.
(then quietly asked if she'd made tea for me)
But at least I stopped sexism and made the world a better place.
You're all very welcome
-
Re kicking.
The BF7s girl doing the kick offs was excellent. Can't recall her name. As good or better than many blokes. Huge hang time dropping it on a dime on the 10m.
It can be done.
-
@stargazer that's her
-
-
@bones The Wallaroos have actually improved a lot in the last couple of years. They lost 67-3 to the Black Ferns at Eden Park before Bledisloe 3 in 2016. I believe their new Super W comp (Aussie Super rugby based female sides playing in a domestic comp) has helped.
-
@kiwimurph And that's exactly why NZ franchises need to join the Super-W competition as well. To stay ahead of the rest. There was talk of 4 teams (Crusaders-W would be a combined South Island squad) earlier this year, but it has become very quiet on that front, so I'm not so confident it's going to happen in 2019.
-
If you compare rugby with RL, the Kiwi Ferns used to be stronger than the Jillaroos, winning the first 3 WCs, but since than it is Aust that has dominated in the last 2 WCs.
I don't think that Aust has the crossover of players between sevens and XVs like NZ because they would have a decent backline with the injection of some of their stars.
-
@bovidae That fast fullback, Mahalia Murphy, comes from Aussie 7s. Maybe some of the Aussie 7s squad made themselves unavailable, just like Goss, Woodman and Brazier. Sharni Williams and Shannon Parry, for example, were in the Wallaroos World Cup squad last year, but not in this test squad.
-
@siam said in 2018 Black Ferns:
@stargazer yeah the kicking one is strange because I wonder about coaching efforts and use of resources in getting them up to speed in some "low hanging fruit" skills.
Contrast those skills on display with women cricketers, not much more historical advantage, and their throwing catching and especially reverse sweeping and the women cricketers only really lack the power of males.
I do like your point about watching female sports without a comparison in mind but that'll fall short when financial viability trumps diversity politics.
I'd happily wager that provincial under 16 teams would beat the black ferns, as an objective statement.
Going to the marketplace with a charitable outlook as a unique selling point ain't going to cut it for long
Good schoolboy Under 15s would beat them. HBHS would I reckon.
Our school fielded an U15 front row a while back that was heavier than the ABs that year. They would have murdered a women's team.
The women would be a lot more organised and determined, and far fitter, but otherwise physically it would be all the boys by miles.
There's examples of U15 boys soccer teams beating international women, and that is in a sport where the level of physicality is much lower.
I am happy to watch women's rugby, but there's no pretending its close to men's.
Then again, I watch large amounts of rubbish Under 55 and Under 65 kgs, so it's way better than that.
-
@chester-draws Although it's not wrong what you are saying, you make the classic mistakes of comparing apples and oranges. I don't blame you, because a lot of people make that mistake. To assess and appreciate women's rugby, that's exactly what you shouldn't do. Whether they'd beat an U15s boys team is entirely irrelevant. Boys' or men's teams aren't who they will ever play against in any competition. Compare them with their peers.
But if you compare, you should also factor in that boys have often played from primary school age. For comparison: a large number of Black Ferns only started playing a few years ago and come from sports like netball, basketball, athletics and football. Primary school age rugby only recently started growing among girls. Also, school girls competitions are very limited because there are far fewer teams (that may change in future); facilities at those schools are very limited. For example, many girls schools don't have rugby fields and equipment, and they have to use those of other (boys') schools. They don't have rugby programmes, adequate rugby coaches. It's not much different for club rugby. The differences continue and become more significant at NPC level and higher.
Girls and women's rugby has the potential for significant improvements and, therefore, become more attractive to watch. But the physiological differences alone, should be enough to assess women's rugby on its own merits instead of comparing it with boys/men's rugby. Look at it as a similar but different code (you don't compare football and rugby players either as it comes to strength and rugby skills). It could reach an equivalent level as the men's (note: I'm not saying "identical" or the "same"), that is - similar, but relative to the physical differences. But again, it's not about whether they could beat boys' or men's teams. It is about how they compare to other women's teams.
To illustrate this, think of our national sevens teams. Even if you ignore differences like number of years in the sport; facilities, coaches etc they had at a younger age etc, the BF7s are definitely at an - what I call - equivalent level as the AB7s, although they'll never beat them. But everyone can see how exciting the BF7s game has become and how successful they are. A lot of people enjoy watching them play. That's all a relatively recent development. Maybe women's XVs will never become as attractive to watch as men's XVs, but if they would get the same training opportunities (by being fully professional) and facilities, it would become much better than it's now and come closer to the men's game, even if they'll never beat them.
-
@stargazer said in 2018 Black Ferns:
@chester-draws Although it's not wrong what you are saying, you make the classic mistakes of comparing apples and oranges. I don't blame you, because a lot of people make that mistake. To assess and appreciate women's rugby, that's exactly what you shouldn't do. Whether they'd beat an U15s boys team is entirely irrelevant. Boys' or men's teams aren't who they will ever play against in any competition. Compare them with their peers.
But if you compare, you should also factor in that boys have often played from primary school age. For comparison: a large number of Black Ferns only started playing a few years ago and come from sports like netball, basketball, athletics and football. Primary school age rugby only recently started growing among girls. Also, school girls competitions are very limited because there are far fewer teams (that may change in future); facilities at those schools are very limited. For example, many girls schools don't have rugby fields and equipment, and they have to use those of other (boys') schools. They don't have rugby programmes, adequate rugby coaches. It's not much different for club rugby. The differences continue and become more significant at NPC level and higher.
Girls and women's rugby has the potential for significant improvements and, therefore, become more attractive to watch. But the physiological differences alone, should be enough to assess women's rugby on its own merits instead of comparing it with boys/men's rugby. Look at it as a similar but different code (you don't compare football and rugby players either as it comes to strength and rugby skills). It could reach an equivalent level as the men's (note: I'm not saying "identical" or the "same"), that is - similar, but relative to the physical differences. But again, it's not about whether they could beat boys' or men's teams. It is about how they compare to other women's teams.
To illustrate this, think of our national sevens teams. Even if you ignore differences like number of years in the sport; facilities, coaches etc they had at a younger age etc, the BF7s are definitely at an - what I call - equivalent level as the AB7s, although they'll never beat them. But everyone can see how exciting the BF7s game has become and how successful they are. A lot of people enjoy watching them play. That's all a relatively recent development. Maybe women's XVs will never become as attractive to watch as men's XVs, but if they would get the same training opportunities (by being fully professional) and facilities, it would become much better than it's now and come closer to the men's game, even if they'll never beat them.
Rubbish. He is comparing a tasty apple with a undersized tasteless apple.
Sure our undersized tasteless apples are better than other countries tasteless undersized apples .. big woopdy doo.
So much virtue signalling on this topic, but just about nobody puts their money where there mouth is. Of course that inconvenient fact is just pushed under the carpet.
My daughters team has 5 girls in it, guess what.. they arent as good as the boys. But so what? They have fun. This stupid push to try and convince the public that womens rugby is awesome, is bound for failure.. because mens rugby is just better and more entertaining. That isnt opinion, that is fact as evidenced by the situation where womens rugby is not supported by people through gates and eyes on screens. from a financial perspective it is always going to be on sporting social welfare.
I am sick of it being over hyped and told it is really great if you just watched it more or were not so sexist. It si great for the women playing and those that care about it (fuck all). Al power to them, I am involved in a few grass roots spots and would LOVE to be able to piggy back on the backs of the AB's. Be able to be full time pros whilst not being a massive net loss for the organizers. Great lark.You aresaying lots of people enjoy watching the BF7's play? Define lots. Because I think it would be a fraction of those that watch the men.. which in turn is not a large amount.
-
@baron-silas-greenback The word "virtue signalling" is overused and out of place as a reaction to my post. I wasn't signalling anything here.
All I'm saying is that under better training and playing circumstances, in some years from now, women's rugby games will be more attractive to watch than it is currently, and some will watch, and obviously, some won't. That you will be in the latter category, is also very predictable.
What I don't understand is that someone like you, who obviously doesn't like women's rugby and has said so on more than one occasion, constantantly feels the need to barge into a thread about women's rugby (or reply to a post about it) to spew your disgust with your usual ultra-conservative, opiniated lingo, spoiling a discussion between people who - whether they like women's rugby or not - are at least able to hold a sensible discussion, without pouring acid all over the topic. If you're so sick of women's rugby being overhyped, why even read and respond to this thread? Before you accuse me of trying to stop you from expressing your opinion: I'm not. I'm just wondering why you feel the need to come in here without having anything constructive to say and spoil the discussion with your negativity?
-
@stargazer are you new here? That's 99.9% of his posts.
-
@stargazer said in 2018 Black Ferns:
@baron-silas-greenback The word "virtue signalling" is overused and out of place as a reaction to my post. I wasn't signalling anything here.
All I'm saying is that under better training and playing circumstances, in some years from now, women's rugby games will be more attractive to watch than it is currently, and some will watch, and obviously, some won't. That you will be in the latter category, is also very predictable.
What I don't understand is that someone like you, who obviously doesn't like women's rugby and has said so on more than one occasion, constantantly feels the need to barge into a thread about women's rugby (or reply to a post about it) to spew your disgust with your usual ultra-conservative, opinated lingo, spoiling a discussion between people who - whether they like women's rugby or not - are at least able to hold a sensible discussion, without pouring acid all over the topic. If you're so sick of women's rugby being overhyped, why even read and respond to this thread? Before you accuse me of trying to stop you from expressing your opinion: I'm not. I'm just wondering why you feel the need to come in here without having anything constructive to say and spoil the discussion with your negativity?
@Stargazer Ultra conservative?? Because I don't like womens rugby? Does that make you a neo marxist because you do?
This thread is about womens rugby, and you keep making grandiose claims abut it. When you get challenged over your position, you start getting all bolshy. I will continue to comment on women's rugby and the lack of quality to it, and I will talk about womens rugby in the womens rugby thread, so suck it up.
You might think that someone challenging your cheer leading is spoiling the discussion, I think it is improving it. And I think it needed a lot of improving.
Opinionated lingo? err ok? Because you would never indulge in such a thing would you....This thread is just full of virtue signalling.. oh look I used that phrase again... how do I know this.. because womens rugby simply doesn't have support among rugby consumers in any meaningful way... yet here we have a whole bunch of guys who I am willing to bet have done precisely nothing for womens rugby ever.
I have coached a schools girls team and support my daughter when she wants to play it. I have also refereed inter schools girls games for her primary school, which meant I had to take a day off work. (in fact more than 1). She had a great time, she enjoys her sport. I fully support her. But it is simply fact that the standard is lesser than boys, not so bad at primary school age, but the product gets worse and worse as they get older. Now with kids it doesnt matter as they are playing a sport, not sellling a product, but as full pros, being a product matters. And the womens game is a shit product. Is it a shite sport? No. No such thing really as long as the participants enjoy it and support themselves.
So I will continue to comment and I wont be detterred b some middle aged blokes who closest and most intense support of female rugby is to click the 'like' button on a rugby forum on some post by a virtue signalling buffoon.. (oh look I used virtue signalling again.
I have asked you numerous questions, but you just ignore and continue the rhetoric, accusing others of acid attacks, prejudice and ultra conservatism. -
I am happy to watch women's rugby, and know it will improve. I even watch some of their NPC games.
But they're physically at the level of 15 year old boys.
Since I enjoy watching as much for strategy and decision making as simple physicality, that's not a killer for me. Good women's games are at least played as well as can be inside the limits of their size. But we can't pretend those limits don't exist.
It was good to ref women's games. I towered over the lineout and could keep up with play easily. The cute halfback bending over in front of me to put the ball in the scrum was a touch distracting though.
