A refined intellectual such as him will probably be signed up for GB News Sports.
Joey Barton - ex manager - wannabe podcaster
- Thread starter kentafuji
- Start date
Joey Barton has long passed the point where we should stop sharing his bullshit on here. We know he's a scumbag.
I knew he was a scumbag, but he seems like a few sandwiches short of a picnic recently. His twitter feed in the last 24hrs or so is just insane. Many, many tweets about women in football punditry, and anyone who disagrees with him is a eunuch. Has he taken a few too many blows to the head?
Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
Lambert, Le Tissier, Barton….Sessions!
Tbf to him, women were saying this a few years ago about men commenting on the womens game because it wasn't comparable to mens football, however no uproar.
Joey Barton is still a fecking moron though.
Joey Barton is still a fecking moron though.
Joey Barton and his racist murderer brother. Disgusting bunch.
Just put him down. The guy is a waste of oxygen.
I can’t think of any examples but if true I can’t imagine it was said in the same tone as this gobshite
Which women?
Nah, not the same tone, he's just a sexist, and up his own arse piece of shit.
But when there was a lot of discussion around womens goalkeeping and womens football being slower it was a bit of a weird thing for a while. Quite a bit of a thing between some of the female players against the punditry against them, felt it was harsh criticism.
Since then the womens game has closed the gap quite a lot and their game isn't as different to the mens game as it once was, so it's a weird time for him to even open his mouth. He's probably trying to figure out his next job after he gets sacked and hoping there aren't any women to challenge him for a punditry/commentator position.
Instead he's hopefully committed career suicide.
I don't remember specific player names, I barely remember the names of current male footballers. It was around the time that England defender scored a beauty own goal in a WC or Euro? Pretty much the same time the womens coverage was becoming easier to access.
Edit: Potentially that gobshite Rapinoe, but she's a massive twat too.
Last edited:
The sentiment isnt wrong really, except he lacks any nuance and defintely the whole 'knitting' stuff shows him up as an imbecile. In Barton's case here, there is of course an extra layer of sexism. But making the distinction between presenters, and those who are there to offer the opinions on the gameplay itself - women aren't 'not qualified', but certainly immediately fall behind the 4-5000 or so male footballers who have played in the premier league when it comes to the 'authority' with which one can speak on it.
I'd suggest a few deep breaths, lowering the outrage detector and appreciating that for what it is without emotion- a simple fact. If you've pulled on a shirt, and stepped onto a premier league pitch, with all the pressure that goes with it, and played among the intensity of the peak of the male game, even for 10 minutes, and trained among a premier league side, then you can speak with more 'authority' than anybody who hasnt, male or female.
I'd suggest a few deep breaths, lowering the outrage detector and appreciating that for what it is without emotion- a simple fact. If you've pulled on a shirt, and stepped onto a premier league pitch, with all the pressure that goes with it, and played among the intensity of the peak of the male game, even for 10 minutes, and trained among a premier league side, then you can speak with more 'authority' than anybody who hasnt, male or female.
Just because you played football though at the top level doesn't make you 1) a good communicator 2) have anything particularly interesting to say. It's like management and the Sacchi quote "I never realised that to become a jockey you needed to be a horse first". It can help but it's not a prerequisite. I find a lot of journalists are more interesting to listen to and read than former footballers, and they've never played. You could be the best footballer in the world but be a poor communicator or nutjob like Joey Barton/Matt Le Tissier, or lazy like a lot of pundits.
I remember Nesta was asked for some Guardian top 100 players once and he had a lot of erratic picks. Then it emerged that he said he didn't actually have time to watch much football this year and had only watched a handful of matches. Would you trust Nesta's opinion on the best footballers that year because it's Nesta, or would you trust say a football fan or journalist that watched thousands of matches in detail and had researched every stat in detail to back up their opinions?
It really is. His whole point boils down to "they didn't play at the highest level so don't understand".
Make a list of your favourite commentators. Now think about how good they were at football.
Do the same with your favourite sports writers, how many of them were any good?
How good was Jeff Stelling at playing?
Ex-pros can offer a lot of insight (but let's be honest, they normally don't) but when it comes to broadcasting and commentating, having been really good at football is way down the list of what is important. Having tits or not matters zero.
Last edited:
There are also a load of managers who didn't play at the highest level or play at all but still won stuff at a good level and more so than Barton ever did.
He's just a sexist racist pig.
I think you're both missing the point of what im saying. If its all good i dont want a big back and forth on this, ive done it before and it tends to attract a predictable range of posts (not from you both, but it seems to be a very triggering topic for people who just go 0 to 100).
Duffer, Jeff Stelling is a presenter, commentators are commentators. I am not talking about these, and there are good female presenters (though ive yet to hear a good female commentator.) I am specifically talking about the pundit in the studio who is there to offer the viewer an insight from a players point of view. Many of those currently arent very good at it - thats not what im arguing either - but take for example Daniel Sturridge, an abysmal pundit - he can still speak with more 'authority' on the mens game than a woman, or me. This leads on to KeanoMagicHat point - the existence of countless awful pundits who arre male ex players, doesnt disprove anything. Just that TV hires some terrible pundits. But where authority is concerned, Im going to listen to Nesta's opinion on how a PL defender might have prevented a goal, before I'll listen to the latest 'Lioness' that's hauled on. I'll listen to Shay Given talking about a goalkeeper stuggling for form one million times before I'll want Mary Earps opinion on it. I do not want to hear Alex Scott telling us how an international mens defender should be doing something better.
The thing that seems to muddy waters is that plenty of men, myself included, like to sit around in pubs and stadiums talking like we know what we're talking about - and some of them might well be insightful, articulate and engaging. But they still shouldnt be near a television screen above even, yes even, daniel sturridge. They shouldnt be there above a woman whos played professional womens football either, and she shouldnt be there above D Studge. Sturridge for example, shouldnt be on television in that capacity, but thats not really relevant to the point.
Well we're all talking about what Joey Barton said, not about a very specific role in sports broadcasting.
Well, I’m fairly confident that Joey Barton has never caved in an innocent stranger’s skull with a mountaineering axe, but he seemed to think he was perfectly qualified to talk about that with absolute authority.
Sounds like he is on Piers Morgan's Talk TV show tonight
Your reasoning seems arbitrary.. I'd rather listen to the better pundit, whoever that may be
But you understand the idea of how a forum works? I gave my opinion, that critcisied what Barton said, but argued that the sentiment has some truth to it. I'm not sure what this latest post of yours means?
Thats also up to you. But the pundit will still have less 'authority' to speak on the topic where analysing the mens game and its players are concerned. I prefer listen to plenty of friends in the pub than most pundits on tv. they'd make far better pundits, but jimmy hasselbaink has more authority to analyse a PL striker.
He kept contradicting himself on the show. I get his point about women pundits not having the correct pedigree to comment on men's physical side of the game, but I don't get his point on why women can't report or present men's football matches. He said commentators such as John Motson (who never played the game) deserved to commentate, because they worked hard getting their, but women who did the same shouldn't be able to do the same job. A bit confusing to be honest.
I would say that a less 'talented' footballer is probably be a better analysts as a lot of the top top level rely on instinct a lot more, whereas a less technically skilled player has to be more of an expert of a game
I dont think he did though? Or he at least said that there are indeed women who have worked their way up, but declined to name a name when pressed. admittedly ive only seen clips. He's not an articulate or a smart man, but there's no point in people pretending he's some crazy outlier. He's brave enough to speak his mind, but not smart enough to have a more reflective or refined view.
There is a hypocrisy between the punditry selection and coverage for mens and womens game. Its undeniable and was abundantly clear in the broadcasting teams for the mens and womens world cup. Somebody once shared the group photographs of the broadcast teams for the same station, and the statistical likelihood of them ending up with the demographics is pretty much impossible. A minority of people in left leaning media are deciding how the majority should consume sport and the average viewer doesnt like being patronised - thats probably what rubs people up more than female pundits in many cases.
Brave? He torched his potential punditry career by calling a racist murder a "scrap", was that brave? He is now playing the grifting path to money, is that brave?
I already know how you are going to answer this, so it's not really worth it. But just know, this isn't about bravery or once again fighting the odds against some imaginary crowd, it's a brainless fool who has spent all day deliberately whipping up attention and ending up with exactly what he wanted, another grifting wanker with an audience giving him an audition.
One thing that is certain, whether you agree with his overall point or not (and that's fair as I get what you are saying there, whether I personally agree or not) and that's someone like this should have no place in the game.
sorry this is where i genuinely stopped reading. Its like what i said above, this topic seems to get some people so pent up that reason goes out the window. Id suggest waiting a day to reply, then recognising that my post, led you, to leap to asking me about a racist murder and whether or not his comments on it are brave. It's a truly crazy transition. You need space for separate issues to exist in your head. Im not engaging further, asking what end of the spectrum i lie on where racist murder apology is concerned is a leap too far for me to continue with.
I think the only valid point he makes is there shouldn't be quotas, but when I have to listen to Andy Hinchcliffe and Jamie redknapps opinions on sky with no uproar about "journalistic standards", it's clear his real problem is just with women.
Yep, you have overshot and done exactly what was expected. You have missed the reason for that rhetorical and are now acting all offended as if I suggested that's what you thought. I'll give you a hint: this isn't about you, it's about him and why he has done this today.
A leads to B.
Two of the better pundits on TV nowadays are Alex Scott ans Karen Carney IMO. Although Scott is more of a presenter
"Do you accept your language can view viewed as a little incendary?"
"That's what those platforms are used for".
Right there. That's exactly what he's doing since he burned himself badly by being himself and uttering those scumbag words the other day. "He has a point" "He is brave"...is he feck, he's simply doing what a lot of these guys do and looking to make money off of being the persecuted black sheep and saying increasingly volatile things.
It's almost genius in it's simplicity. It works so well.
mental gymnastics to justify a hysterical opening line. Im not remotely 'offended' for the record, my stance is on the quality of your logic/reason/engagement, and your opening sentence was just terrible - just awful, and can only be polished now by revising and revising and recontextualising. such a poor post.
agree to hugely disagree here.
That's because you can't accept that you overshot and didn't think about what I said. You went straight to the twitter style arguing of "oh they all are going to go at me for having a different opinion", which is exactly why I said I know what you'd say, because that is what every post you've made about this has underpinning it. And now you are doing a Barton and going on the attack. It's quite something.
Nothing I've said is wrong. If you actually watch that interview, as I said above, he is telling you what this is really about himself.
And it's not bravery.
I do think he had half a point. There's a way of saying things though, and there's adding on stupid shit that needn't be there too.
If a pundit is being hired to give their expert opinion on Premier League football, and their credentials are that they were an ex footballer then it helps that they played in the Premier League. They would be able to draw on their experiences, bring them up in conversation and relay that to the audience.
That doesn't mean that all ex Premier League players would make good pundits.
To me, that doesn't mean that an ex player who never played in the PL couldn't be a good pundit on PL games, being engaging, sounding insightful etc. either. That could include someone who only played lower league, played top flight football in other big leagues, or women who have played at the highest level of their game. They won't be able to draw on that specific PL playing experience though, and for some that could make them question if they really know what it's like for the players out there.
We could even in theory have pundits who never played at all. They could very well know their stuff and come across well. Usually that's just the realm of commentators and presenters though. If they were pundits I think a lot of people would question them.
You could arguably be over qualified as a pundit too. I don't particularly rate him anyway, but what would Paul Scholes know about a Premier League relegation scrap? He's not been there. Matches involving 2 teams near the bottom might be better off having someone with experience of that particular situation on punditry.
If a pundit is being hired to give their expert opinion on Premier League football, and their credentials are that they were an ex footballer then it helps that they played in the Premier League. They would be able to draw on their experiences, bring them up in conversation and relay that to the audience.
That doesn't mean that all ex Premier League players would make good pundits.
To me, that doesn't mean that an ex player who never played in the PL couldn't be a good pundit on PL games, being engaging, sounding insightful etc. either. That could include someone who only played lower league, played top flight football in other big leagues, or women who have played at the highest level of their game. They won't be able to draw on that specific PL playing experience though, and for some that could make them question if they really know what it's like for the players out there.
We could even in theory have pundits who never played at all. They could very well know their stuff and come across well. Usually that's just the realm of commentators and presenters though. If they were pundits I think a lot of people would question them.
You could arguably be over qualified as a pundit too. I don't particularly rate him anyway, but what would Paul Scholes know about a Premier League relegation scrap? He's not been there. Matches involving 2 teams near the bottom might be better off having someone with experience of that particular situation on punditry.
Last edited:
If you watch it again, he actually starts off saying that isn't a criteria until Morgan pushes him. He then says the Women haven't worked their way up because the game has only been about for "30 or 40" years...trying to look smart and failing badly again
He's all over the place. The only point he has is that it shouldn't be a "box ticking exercise" in the way he means, and should be on merit. The problem there is, the women commentators by and large ARE there on merit, they have worked up. I personally think most are bad, but then I think most of the men are too. But Barton here is purely upset that he's now not going to get those jobs and instead of looking at why he's throwing blame at the easiest way to get a following.
It's nothing more than "they are taking our jobs" when you strip it back to the truth of it. If it was deeper, he'd at least be consistent.
The "knitting" comment though, pure accidental genius
When someone criticises or calls the woman’s game a bit crap or not as good as the men’s I’ve seen it be said that it shouldn’t be compared to the men’s game as it’s different, same sport but different. It can’t then be called the same to win an argument.
joey Barton is a massive bellend but it was funny when he asked that one woman her honest opinion whether she thinks is the men’s and women’s game the same and you could see her cogs turning as she could well have said they’re different in the past so just comes back with they’re both 11 aside with the same rules instead of being truthful and acknowledging that they are indeed different.
Ive got no issue at all with female presenters etc, gabby Logan has been around years for example, but some of the women pundits I’ve seen have been quite laughable, and it’s true they haven’t played at an elite level of the sport.
joey Barton is a massive bellend but it was funny when he asked that one woman her honest opinion whether she thinks is the men’s and women’s game the same and you could see her cogs turning as she could well have said they’re different in the past so just comes back with they’re both 11 aside with the same rules instead of being truthful and acknowledging that they are indeed different.
Ive got no issue at all with female presenters etc, gabby Logan has been around years for example, but some of the women pundits I’ve seen have been quite laughable, and it’s true they haven’t played at an elite level of the sport.
Watch it again? I'd have to watch it once first. I'm not qualified on this topic.If you watch it again, he actually starts off saying that isn't a criteria until Morgan pushes him. He then says the Women haven't worked their way up because the game has only been about for "30 or 40" years...trying to look smart and failing badly again
He's all over the place. The only point he has is that it shouldn't be a "box ticking exercise" in the way he means, and should be on merit. The problem there is, the women commentators by and large ARE there on merit, they have worked up. I personally think most are bad, but then I think most of the men are too. But Barton here is purely upset that he's now not going to get those jobs and instead of looking at why he's throwing blame at the easiest way to get a following.
It's nothing more than "they are taking our jobs" when you strip it back to the truth of it. If it was deeper, he'd at least be consistent.
The "knitting" comment though, pure accidental genius
I just caught the synopsis of what I assume was his main point in the media this morning. Didn't know anything about the knitting bit until I'd already waded in! Wasn't a fan of the tone of his tweet which I had seen, and that's where I thought he had a half a point but he could have said it in a much less incendiary way.
Incendiary sounds like exactly what he was going for though. I don't know where he think it will lead, obviously not on to many jobs in the mainstream media now. Some sort of niche football podcast where the bad boy of football "isn't afraid to give you the views other pundits wouldn't", and he "tells it like it is"?
Might finally watch it now!
Watch it again? I'd have to watch it once first. I'm not qualified on this topic.
He actually changes his point numerous times, which is hilarious when the women come in. Piers all along is smirking at him and then they get some American woman who is labelled as "anti-feminist" involved, it's comedy gold! Worth a watch, it won't make you angry it will just make you feel bad for the people who clearly can't see through this but it's still very amusing at the same time.
He has lost those jobs because of his true thoughts in that interview a couple of days ago. Now he has gone full LeTiss mental to carve out a market for people who kind of agree but won't admit they have issues themselves. It's a tale as old as time