BBC Coverage of the Women's World Cup

Exactly this. Conan seems to think that you can't have insight into a game unless you've played at the highest level. Whereas I would argue that you can have a good understanding of the game without doing so. Personally, anyone who offers something which I haven't picked up on during the match and who also presents their views in an engaging manner is a good pundit. There are several pundits who have vast experience who have nothing interesting to say.

 

I would argue it’s more about how well known a player is than the level they played at, when selecting a pundit. It’s also about having people that represent the audience.

Not saying that’s right or wrong, but more people will know female top level players than Unibond players, or at least a more diverse group of people would know them (from all over the country, for example)

 

So why do we only get pundits who have played or participated in the sport at the top level be it football, cricket, cycling, rugby, think it's true for the NFL though I don't watch it, etc etc?

 

You are right about it being (largely) down to how well known you are, disagree that most people would know female players over Unibond players. Most would never have heard of the female players until they became pundits.

 

Apart from the 6.1m who watched the opening England game?

 

Possibly. I’m not sure though. Someone that has played in the Unibond league all their career will only be known to a couple of thousand people, probably only the fans of the teams they played for. Very specific group of people, in very specific, small pockets of the country (most likely)

Taking Alex Scott as the example, over 2 million people watched the opening game in the 2015 women’s World Cup, which she played in.

https://www.theguardian.com/media/2...d-cup-defeat-nets-more-than-2-million-viewers

 

How many watched England vs Panama, Tunisia or Colombia in the last World Cup and couldn't name a single player from those nations?

 

True, but it’s different when they play for England, with the commentators being so biased and focusing on England exclusively.

 

The women pundits have played the sport at the top level. Isn't Paula Radcliffe allowed to comment on the mens marathon? Would you object to Lizzie Deignan being asked an opinion on the tour de France? Or Becky Addlington on Adam Peaty's chances in the world championships? Isa Guha on the test match?

 

About 10% of the country watched one game. How many of that 6m are watching MOTD every week? To go back to my original question, it doesn't really give them the same profile as the average Premier League player who has not been asked to be a pundit does it?

 

Have you thought about being a pundit? I reckon you’d be ace.

 

Well I would not necessarily object but I would give a lot more credit to Bradley Wiggins or Stephen Roche's opinions when discussing the men's Tour de France than I would Lizzie Deignan. I'd also give more credit to their opinions over Malcolm Elliott's.

 

Have you thought about being a political commentator? Or a forum contributor with something to say?

Sorry that last question was absolutely fking stupid.

Edit - just to elaborate let's remind ourselves of the sheer fuckwittery of this thread.

http://barnsleyfc.org.uk/threads/been-a-tory-voter-all-my-life.280398/

 

I imagine there are various factors. I imagine it's partially because many people share similar views to you, partially because TV companies don't want to take risks and also because many viewers want to see familiar faces. I think it's fair to say that if you haven't played football at some level before then yes you probably won't have much to offer. However, I don't see why you have to have played at the top level. Numerous pundits are seemingly employed for this reason and they are terrible (e.g. Owen, Souness, Merson).

 

Ok, Laura Kenny on the mens omnium as a more straightforward comparator

 

Ah, another round of name calling from the safety of your keyboard.
Good luck.

 

I could be wrong, I can’t find any stats online, but believe that female viewership % is on the rise for match of the day, and football in general. The only statistic I can find is that in 2014/15, 25% of Premier League Attendees were female. I don’t think it’s unfair or unrealistic for the BBC to want to represent that demographic with its pundits.

 

Have to admit I'm not a huge track fan but I would still go with Wiggins or Boardman over Laura Kenny.

 

Tedious.