There’s baggage with women being called emotional, too emotional to handle certain jobs, ‘Wouldn’t want a female president with her finger on the button when it’s her time of the month’ kind of jokes that I’m sure Andy Grey finds gutbusting, so it’s a clumsy statement, but that’s about all it is.
I even prefer emotion in my football, when possible.
Norn Iron
Always said after being banned from football for 60 years women are playing catch up, some expect some glorious style of play when they watch women play and yet will put up with so many dud matches at the mens level.
As for the comments, they are not “woke” or “workiesh” look up that word before you use it as it makes you look dumb using it out of context.
They are a bit silly, he has apologised and the players stand by him. There is a stigma and like the point I made earlier so many things need to be addressed with the attitude towards women and Womens football.
Guessing you’re not married?
Emotions running high in this thread.
Fucken right. Walshy’s obviously never had cheddar cheese and pineapple on a stick.
Regardless of the truth of the matter, what an idiot.
1 - obviously it wasn’t going to be well received.
2 - he’s the coach of a women’s football team. It’s his job to solve the problem if it indeed exists.
First off, with regard to emotions there isn’t even an agreed upon list of what constitutes an emotion. But some of the more commonly accepted might be: Anger, Sadness, Fear, Happiness, Strong, Energized. There are others, and one might care to debate the ins and out of it, and certainly there are whole professions more adept at identifying this stuff, but I’m just trying to say there are a lot of emotions! It won’t do to conflate being emotional with just one of the emotions.
With that said, it seems clear to me that men and women are equally emotional. What emotions they feel more acutely, and how they process them internally and then express them externally, will obviously vary, and we can all share our experiences with that.
Now moving onto Shiels.
First thing I noticed was he is 65 years old. It is par for the course that slightly older people will sometimes say stuff that seems out of date. His comment wasn’t the most polished way he could have said it. It probably reinforced an unhelpful stereotype, but it wasn’t mean or nasty, or anything like that. Which brings me to the second point about Shiels.
He is obviously a good man. The people close to him, who work with him and known him, stood up for him. If they don’t like you, they will use this sort of thing as a reason to knife you in the back. But they didn’t do that, which is telling. Now the media tried to make a big of a thing of it, but there’s no surprise in that.
The third thing about Shiels is that he should show his data. If he has a hypothesis I.e. women footballers are more prone to conceding a second goal once the first one goes in - then he should produce data to support the hypothesis.
Then finally, if there is data to support it, there is a subsequent and interesting discussion to be had, along the lines of “Why do women footballers concede a second goal more readily than their male counterparts?”
If it is indeed proven to be the case, I’m confident that the conclusion is much bigger than the one Shiels has suggested, and there will be other factors, besides emotions, in play, not least coaching, experience, relative talent of the opponent, etc.
I’m not an expert on the women’s game, but I would imagine England has a bigger talent pool than Northern Ireland, so if one goes in, then 2, 3, 4, 5, it is probably more to do with how good the teams are, rather than one of them being especially emotional, whatever he means by that.
Maybe it’s because the women’s game has to put up with all the second rate coaches who can’t get a gig in the men’s game? Maybe one for Shiels to muse on.
Thats plain nasty.
Second rate coaches? Or people who have dedicated their careers to a part of the sport that is underfunded and hasn’t received due respect.
His comments would have a different context five years ago, and I imagine they were made without the intervention of a media savvy aide. His opinion may not be scientifically correct, but the players he has contact with routinely didn’t take it as an insult. They know him. And I doubt from their reaction that they see him as anything like second rate.
I hope that’s a Harry Enfield reference? If so, well played 
[quote=“Mascot, post:29, topic:2705, full:true”]
Aye, presumably coaching is part of it.
Ok!
It is also par for the course that slightly younger people would be offended by generalisations!!
What did you think of my post in its entirety, rather than this small part?
I agree with the majority of it. He made comments after a heavy defeat, maybe looking for answers himself?
Seems plausible.
Aye, it is, aye.
No need to end the thread from my opinion. I started the thread after the NI woman’s team had issued their statement.
The point(s) still exists, someone whom has the respect of their colleagues, has been held to account by people who don’t know him and have taken offence on behalf of others.
What is your point of view? Are his words offensive?
Whether right or wrong… He may see it as a flaw with the bunch of players he has and probably was sending the message out to them and them alone as an area for improvement and nothing more… Probably not meant to generalise it and spread it across the red tops…
the thread?