Unpopular opinions

I'm With Stupid said:
Not necessarily the most reliable way of measuring it. If you needed to hire 10 of the same type of nurse in a hospital, would you put out 10 adverts? Or would you put out one advert and hope that you get 10 suitable applicants?
Click to expand...

Fair point. There are around 1200 nursing job that contain the word “posts” these vary from typos (single posts) to 2 or more available. Even if we take a very generous 5 posts per ad on these that gets us to a total of 11,500 nursing posts across all settings (community, hospitals etc and all disciplines not just acute care)
 
Sir peace frog said:
i tried women's football i really did, the standard is so low , this shouldn't be getting the attention it gets until there is more quality, sunday league is more entertaining and has more quality
Click to expand...

Less diving, less cheating, less preening, less fake macho bollocks, less disgustingly overpaid prima donas, less homophobia, less old men whinging as paid pundits, less toxic fan behaviour etc.

Not saying that those things don't exist in the women's game but there's a whole lot less of the bullshit. It feels closer to the roots of the working class sport football used to be.

It's also interesting because as much as someone like you might say that the standards are so low, those standards have shot up over the last ten years and it's nice to watch that progression.

I'm not trying to persuade you to watch women's football, just giving you an idea of why it's so appealing to others despite the overall quality of players not being as high as the men's game.
 
Tugay One Cup said:
Less diving, less cheating, less preening, less fake macho bollocks, less disgustingly overpaid prima donas, less homophobia, less old men whinging as paid pundits, less toxic fan behaviour etc.

Not saying that those things don't exist in the women's game but there's a whole lot less of the bullshit. It feels closer to the roots of the working class sport football used to be.

It's also interesting because as much as someone like you might say that the standards are so low, those standards have shot up over the last ten years and it's nice to watch that progression.

I'm not trying to persuade you to watch women's football, just giving you an idea of why it's so appealing to others despite the overall quality of players not being as high as the men's game.
Click to expand...
I’d agree with all of that.
The thing I find difficult to watch at times though, is the gap between those that are good and those that aren’t is very wide. You have players that quite obviously play football in the same side as those that can’t, never mind the same league.
In men’s football, yes there are special players, but the general standard in a league is more uniform.

Also the standard of goalkeeping needs to improve.

Apart from that, I would fully agree that women’s football is more honest and sporting. Still difficult to watch at times.
 
Tugay One Cup said:
Less diving, less cheating, less preening, less fake macho bollocks, less disgustingly overpaid prima donas, less homophobia, less old men whinging as paid pundits, less toxic fan behaviour etc.

Not saying that those things don't exist in the women's game but there's a whole lot less of the bullshit. It feels closer to the roots of the working class sport football used to be.

It's also interesting because as much as someone like you might say that the standards are so low, those standards have shot up over the last ten years and it's nice to watch that progression.

I'm not trying to persuade you to watch women's football, just giving you an idea of why it's so appealing to others despite the overall quality of players not being as high as the men's game.
Click to expand...
You get all that in top quality men’s rugby league (and union, although I watch less of the latter). Top level men’s rugby league and rugby union is on another planet for quality and entertainment standards to women’s football yet women’s footy probably gets more coverage than men’s rugby league does.

If something big happens in Super League (the real Super League - men’s rugby league) it sometimes doesn’t get on BBC News/Sport the next day… but even mundane things that occur in women’s footy do.
 
Psychedelic Casual said:
You get all that in top quality men’s rugby league (and union, although I watch less of the latter). Top level men’s rugby league and rugby union is on another planet for quality and entertainment standards to women’s football yet women’s footy probably gets more coverage than men’s rugby league does.
Click to expand...

That might be the case but you're literally talking about another sport.

Football has a much, much wider appeal. That's why it gets more coverage.
 
Tugay One Cup said:
That might be the case but you're literally talking about another sport.

Football has a much, much wider appeal. That's why it gets more coverage.
Click to expand...
Football does but men’s rugby league compared to women’s footy doesn’t.

The average Super League attendance is 8,441 while the average women’s SL attendance is 3,071 and take out those individual matches like the Manchester derby at the Etihad and the average attendance is closer to the 1,000 mark.
 
Psychedelic Casual said:
Football does but men’s rugby league compared to women’s footy doesn’t.

The average Super League attendance is 8,441 while the average women’s SL attendance is 3,071 and take out those individual matches like the Manchester derby at the Etihad and the average attendance is closer to the 1,000 mark.
Click to expand...


I wanted so much to like it when it first went mainstream but I just couldn't take to it, the quality was/is awful it says it all if people don't even watch it when it's free.
 
Tugay One Cup said:
This I agree with completely. Some of the keeping is absolutely shocking.
Click to expand...
Women are smaller than men so why do they play in full size goals ?
If only the forwards were able to kick the ball quite hard they could aim for the top corner and score every time.
 
I don’t know if it’s an unpopular opinion but….


We need to spend about a third more on the NHS annually…

In the top countries per capita spending we were about 15th globally in 2020. In todays money we spend around £153 Billion in England, which works out about £223 per month for every man, woman, and child……

This isn’t meant to conflate the separate issue of NHS reform…..that must surely follow too though.
 
I don’t get what all the fuss is about with Jude Bellingham and wouldn’t be mithered either way if he ended up at Liverpool or United.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Unread Posts

Don't have an account? Register now and see fewer ads!

SIGN UP
Back
Top