Nobby
-
Posts
504 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Tartan Army Message Board News
Media Demo
Posts posted by Nobby
-
-
3 minutes ago, Parklife said:
That's just a remarkably silly comment. The match of the tournament so far was played on Court 2 yesterday. World Number 1 vs former Wimbledon finalist. An outstanding match of great quality. The fact it's not shown to a big audience makes it much more difficult for the womens game to compete with the mens, which is always given the bigger stage!
To characterise the whole of the womens game as "typical womens match 6-2 6-2 over in 45 minutes." is just downright ignorant. Symptomatic of a middle-aged guy who watches tennis for 2 weeks a year, to be fair.
Nonsense argument which we've had pretty convincingly dismissed years ago. Are we awarding titles based on time on court or sets played? Should we time the players? Longer you spend on court, more money you get? Might as well just make every match best of 7, or 9, or 11. After all, playing more tennis = worth more money.
Ostapenko actually played as many sets as Nadal did at the French Open btw...
To be fair most people in this country only watch tennis for two weeks a year. There's a reason mens tennis is given the bigger stage that's because its more popular.
"After all, playing more tennis = worth more money" , you may not like it but that would appear to currently be the case.
Happy to hear your views on other sports, not just the downtrodden female tennis players
-
47 minutes ago, vanderark14 said:
I get why wimbledon don't have the women on at centre court so much until the later rounds. You just have to look at the courts at the french open when the women play, you have been there as have I and you can see how low the crowd gets on the show courts when the women play. They are getting exposure on show courts elsewhere but nobody watches it.
I personally enjoy watching the womens matches, the final of the french was awesome but the fact is its just not as popular as the mens game.
That's the case for plenty of other sports, I'm not saying it will never change but ultimately its popularity that drives the financial rewards. Women footballers, cricketers, golfers etc earn nowhere near the equivalent men. If you want to highlight a sport where women are treated significantly worse than their male counterparts there are plenty of better examples imho.
-
12 minutes ago, Parklife said:
It is not "inferior" at all. Total nonsense. It is less popular, definitely. However, that is partly due to the fact that it is shamefully relegated by Wimbledon time and again (Wimbledon is the only one of the 4 slams to treat the Woman's game this way) to outside courts and poor time slots. If the man's game is the only one given prime time slots and men are always shown more, then of course more people are going to be interested in that over the woman's.
They don't get parity. They get equal pay in the 4 slams, the tournaments over the course of the year are nowhere near close to doing this though. Men will earn far more than the women just about every single week of the season.
In your opinion, which is fair enough. In my opinion, given a choice Id rather pay money to see a mens game and a Nadal epic like yesterday than your typical womens match 6-2 6-2 over in 45 minutes. Not saying either happens all the time but just my choice. Same typically applies to womens football, rugby etc the mens game is at another level, otherwise why arent they all competing alongside each other ? As for pay at the slams women earn considerably more than the men for the actual tennis played.
-
14 hours ago, Parklife said:
Tennis is wonderful. Kerber vs Muguruza and Rafa vs Muller were wonderful spectacles.
An absolute disgrace that the former was relegated to court two. Wimbledon's continual disrespect for the woman's game is saddening.
14 hours ago, Parklife said:Tennis is wonderful. Kerber vs Muguruza and Rafa vs Muller were wonderful spectacles.
An absolute disgrace that the former was relegated to court two. Wimbledon's continual disrespect for the woman's game is saddening.
Womens tennis is almost a different sport from the mens the power difference is so big. As such, it is at the moment generally considered inferior to mens in popularity, as is football rugby and most other sports. I doubt that will change anytime soon. Women tennis players are about the only sport that get parity with the men (arguably they get paid more) just the way it is.
-
49 minutes ago, exile said:
"this deal shakes the pillars that uphold not just the politics of Britain but the politics of Ireland and Northern Ireland too... The price May has paid for it...will far exceed the £1bn price tag "
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/jun/26/shoddy-dup-deal-cost-theresa-may-more-1bn
This deal is no different to any other deal that political parties make when needs must. The fact that people are bleating about a deal where an extra 1bn is being spent on public services is priceless. oh the irony ! Sturgeon wouldve done just the same to Corbyn if the situation allowed,
As for claims that the deal is risking the good friday agreement again, really ! more money being pumped into northern ireland is going to cause a return to the troubles !!!!!
-
19 minutes ago, thplinth said:
The thing that is fhucked up here is the swing should have been to Labour and not the Tories. Corbyn was the one doing well and May having a shocker. That is how the swing went down south... To see this weird swing to the Tories in Scotland is counter intuitive and it is across the country. It is very odd.
And see if if had gone to Labour I suspect the SNP might have lost far more seats. In a way we are again lucky that it went to the tories.
Im not all that surprised to be honest. Thatcher is dead, a lot of unionist people who didnt want a referendum and are right of centre politically looked at the options and voted Conservative. for the past 20/30 years the tories and labour have been two sides of the same coin. Now you have a a socialist labour and a right of centre Tory party so people can make a choice. Prior to this voting labour or tory really made feck all difference and pissed off with thatcher and the tories scotland could vote labour in protest and the outcome was effectively the same. I would also argue form what I have seen Ruth davidson did a good job campaigning. If she keeps it up. we could have a Scottish, female PM. How feckin odd would that be !
-
You've made your bed ......
-
On 30/05/2017 at 4:33 PM, Huddersfield said:
Cheers for the good wishes. That was a day out & a half.
I saw so many lads that I've stood on terraces with, in every division in the league over decades. I was 7 the last time Town were top flight & have never seen a Premier League match in my life (English that is - I've seen the odd couple of Scottish ones).
Most of all though, my son. He has travelled up & down with me to places like Dagenham (on a Tuesday night), Macclesfield (to see us lose 4-0). We once travelled over 1200 miles in 5 days to see us concede 8 & score nil. He has been with me virtually every game since he was barely out of nappies. We were there when we went bust & only had 8 players on the books with a week to go before the season & thought were going to end up in the local pub league.
After I finished going ballistic & realised I needed to reduce my blood pressure & heart rate if I didn't want to spend the night in intensive care, he gave me a massive, sweat soaked hug & I burst into tears.
I cancelled a holiday for that match & it was worth every lost penny.
Great story, well pleased for you. Let me know if youre going to wembley next season and i'll buy you and your son a beer ;-)
-
16 hours ago, Ally Bongo said:
As a seven year old
Fabulous story
-
1 hour ago, PapofGlencoe said:
hmmmm. i'm sure David Cameron's great great great fuedal lord ancestor probably paid a tax at some point. Very true.
Currently the top 1% of earners pay just over 25% of the total income tax take in this country. Now I'll agree that wages are piss poor in loads of jobs but that's a whole other debate. Just clobbering the people that earn the most isn't the answer Either . Imho ?
-
1 hour ago, thplinth said:
I find peoples attitude to folk who have some money very interesting...
Wealth at some point was income and as such it will have been taxed when it was earned. To go back and tax it again is double taxation.
A house if it is sold at a profit would be subject to capital gains tax. Your primary residence is exempt from it for good reason. You always need somewhere to live and if you sell your own home you typically have to buy another one and house prices tend to go up or down in unison. If they clobber you for tax on your home you'd struggle to buy a comparable home to the one you just sold.
It is just this constant let's shaft rich people attitude come across loud and clear.
And it does seem to be SNP supporters in particular.
This.
Some people have more money than you. Life isn't fair never has been never will be.
-
3 hours ago, Regenmann said:
Apologies mispost
-
8 minutes ago, PapofGlencoe said:
It wasn't necessarily the policy. It was the democratic deficit that was the issue.
Although did it not show that wealthy people would pay less than the poor in many ways?
A tax system that takes into account more than income to ascertain wealth is a good thing. I totally agree with some rates being based on property value. Wealth is not just income.
Whats wealth got to do with it thats income tax. this is about paying for local services etc. Why should a retired couple pay extra because they bought their house 50 years ago and its now worth a few quid ? Presumably now the democratic deficit has gone the SNP given their socialist leaning will introduce something similar to the poll tax ? Everyone over 18 in gainful employment pays their fair share, seems fair enough to me.
-
Just now, Caledonian Craig said:
All I know it is criminal that rape victims are being forced into re-accounting a psychologically crushing event in their lives which is wrong however those in power want to spin at.
Nope rape is criminal. I suspect we are talking about an extremely low number of cases here and this clause has become a stick to bash someone with. a better solution is needed granted but if a solution isn't in place I suspect the number of third child "rape" claims would spike significantly as people play the system.
-
3 minutes ago, Caledonian Craig said:
Really? It rallied the whole of the UK against the government and ended up seeing Thatcher quit. There were riots in the streets over this and so much adverse reaction that it was axed by John Major immediately.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-38382416
Hey ho though if you believe it to be fair then fair enough that is your opinion.
Just because people objected to paying it doesn't make it abhorrent. I would've thought left leaning individuals would've had no objection to paying their share towards the community cost. One of thatchers more socialist policies. Oh the irony !!!
-
On 4/16/2017 at 1:53 PM, Caledonian Craig said:
All I know is that the Tories will NEVER get my vote. A party with abhorrent policies such as Poll Tax, YTS and more bidding to throttle the NHS and ensuring a Hard Brexit. Also intent on taking unions out of the equation for employees to be treated like dirt by employers. No thanks.
All right i'll bite on the Poll tax. Why was it abhorrent that everyone over the age of 18 pays towards their community. Presumably they use the same street lights, refuse collection etc as everyone else ? why should a house owner /tenant be responsible for everyone that lives there ? Probably one of the fairest taxes there was !
-
38 minutes ago, wellyman said:
Its called a "Blackwash" in kiwi land and i will check with Willy Hill to see what the odds are !!!
In my opinion when you have the same points the league should be adjusted on a head to head basis and in that way we are above Ireland as we beat them.
Its not on. Methinks the day job may have blinded him somewhat. I have a feeling the lions are going to get tonked !
-
3 minutes ago, Ormond said:
I wasn't attributing the British army being s solely to Ireland.
No army British or otherwise has an impeccable record and the victor generally writes the history book. What I see is that when called upon over the last few centuries the poor British "cvnt" when called upon has stepped up and delivered, probably from your family and mine. Judging history by today's standards is generally not a good idea. Granted we had bastards in charge, I'm just glad for a poxy little island our bastards were better than theirs. History tells me that every now and then having a nasty in charge isn't necessarily a bad thing. That's not to say we shouldn't strive for nirvana but I'd rather have Theresa may speaking to Putin than Corbyn for example. I would also add that I'd rather Mickey Mouse spoke to putin than trump ?
-
1 hour ago, Ormond said:
Spot on. Cvnts.
No I suspect they were of their time like those in the IRA were. No one gets covered in glory from this whole episode. Your perspective changes depending upon which side you thought was in the right. To label the British army as "cvnts" is perhaps a tad harsh its like labelling all Irish nationalists "cvnts" the truth as always is somewhere in between.
-
46 minutes ago, hunchy said:
I do wonder how much of a choice he had from going from freedom fighter/terrorist to politician. I just get the feeling that he was in a corner and it was his only way out. By all reports he was high up in the IRA and those who looked up to him would have respected his turn to politics without looking to hard into why.
For me the IRA were fecked the day 9/11 happened and the so called "war on terror" commenced. As for what he was, I suspect he was a scumbag that did a lot of shitty things. However "one mans terrorist " and all that. You're going to get one of two responses about him and each are perfectly valid opinions !
-
4 hours ago, Barney Rubble said:
Has vacated the premises at the age of 66.
Somewhere in Manchester Pistonbroke has cracked open the bubbly
-
1 hour ago, Reevesy said:
Aye the talk to Frank think might be an idea but I would be a but embarrassed speaking out loud to someone I think.
I probably sound like a right shady cvnt but I'm a pretty normal person most of the time lol.
Speak to someone there's plenty of places you can go and it will be a stranger. Mentioned my mate, he was about your age and a had a successful business and north of 7 figures in the bank. Went out one night and had a nose full, battered some teenager half to death and got 6 years for gbh with intent. By the time he got out his family, business and money were gone . That's embarrassing , speaking to someone and getting yourself sorted isn't !! I'm not saying your headed for that but with two kids and a great Mrs you need to have a think about where your priorities lie. Don't mean to preach but I think you've worked them out for yourself now you just need to do something about it! Good luck ?
-
26 minutes ago, Reevesy said:
Anyone ever had a problem with Cocaine?
Starting to worry about myself. Not sure if addiction is the correct term because I can go months without it but when I do take it I binge for days and don't know when to call it a night. Had some left over yesterday and found myself taking it during work. Pretty embarrassed about it and worried that it's become a problem.
Would like to stop taking it completely but it's everywhere in my social circle so it's easier said than done. Don't really know why I am starting a thread about it tbh but I don't want to talk to my family about it as they'll just worry.
Do I have an addiction or am I just full of the fear due to my come down and being dramatic ? lol.
Marching powder at work, and binges for days would seem to imply you've gone past he casual user stage !!. Im sure on here will be more useful but get yourself some help if you cant jack it in on your own.
With the best will in the world I would also suggest changing your social circle, one of my best friends lost everything because of that shite and is still trying to piece his life back years later.
Listen to Zammo ;-)
-
On 3/1/2017 at 3:28 AM, Scotty CTA said:
Donny 'The Gatekeeper'?
He just puts a 'superior' slant on what the lost want to hear and it gets eaten up.
Worked a treat on admin when they banned Jude.
He is the vampire that you foolishly welcomed into your home.
His purpose is obvious to me. I just skip over his stuff.
(Don't say you weren't warned.)
"Coloured lights can hypnotise
Sparkle someone else's eyes...
Scotty you are madder than a box of frogs. Is Prince William still due to whip his pitchfork in in the near future ? I will say this though you do brighten this place up its been right boring of late so keep up the good work
Tennis 2017
in Other Sports
Posted
They get the bigger stage because people (two week a year merchants like me) generally prefer it. Overall its a much better spectacle. you as a purist disagree. Be boring if everyone agreed
Agreed its not what happens, in general at grand slams women get paid more for less tennis. I have no issue with that. As previous posters have alluded to. The names in womens tennis currently dont inspire people as much as they do with the men. Outside of Sharapova, Williams (S&V) your average tennis fan (two weeks a year) hasnt heard of anyone else. The men have an established elite. Throw in most of us currently disagree with you and thats why the womens world number one was on an outside court. I suppose my main reason for posting was that you appeared to be highlighting that the women are being badly treated by wimbledon. In my opinion theyre not. Would Serena Williams have been put on an outside court ? I dont know but I doubt it.