Congratulations to Peta Searle

[binman 38,831]

Jazza i have said already your initial post on this issue made no mention of the likelihood of a woman becoming a senior/head coach. The thrust of that post was men would not accept a female coach - perhaps to be kind to you, you meant as a senior/head coach but if so that was not clear. As many subsequently noted Peta has already been accepted as an assistant coach by men playing at a high level.

Two questions Jazza. First if you are honest what would have been your response 20 years ago if you were asked what the chances of a woman being appointed as an assistant coach at an AFL club? If you asked 100 people that question 20 years ago a fair proportion would have said no chance whatsoever/not a snow flakes chance in hell/ not possible etc. Well it's happened.

Secondly, a question i have asked already when you say woman won't coach a 'senior' side what do you mean? Any senior Australian rules football side anywhere in the country? If so then as i have said there is a fair chance Peta Searle will be a head coach of a senior side given her skill set and experience let alone any other woman who might progress through the ranks. The AFL is a different matter but as far as i can see you have not narrowed it down to AFL only.

If you are offering a wager it helps to be clear what you actually want to bet on

[jazza 1,323]

Jazza i have said already your initial post on this issue made no mention of the likelihood of a woman becoming a senior/head coach. The thrust of that post was men would not accept a female coach - perhaps to be kind to you, you meant as a senior/head coach but if so that was not clear. As many subsequently noted Peta has already been accepted as an assistant coach by men playing at a high level.

Two questions Jazza. First if you are honest what would have been your response 20 years ago if you were asked what the chances of a woman being appointed as an assistant coach at an AFL club? If you asked 100 people that question 20 years ago a fair proportion would have said no chance whatsoever/not a snow flakes chance in hell/ not possible etc. Well it's happened.

Secondly, a question i have asked already when you say woman won't coach a 'senior' side what do you mean? Any senior Australian rules football side anywhere in the country? If so then as i have said there is a fair chance Peta Searle will be a head coach of a senior side given her skill set and experience let alone any other woman who might progress through the ranks. The AFL is a different matter but as far as i can see you have not narrowed it down to AFL only.

If you are offering a wager it helps to be clear what you actually want to bet on

Q/1 not really a question but agree with that comment.

Q/2 |AFL

It might happen ala clarkson.but not fully appointed it wont.

To see the growth without afl help in female footy has been enormous,but they still get kicked out of local footy at 16{down here}

Would prefer the afl throw 500,000 at womens footy rather than at drooling over 1 afl appointment.{pause and wait for comments}

This has been wonderfull discussion.common sense can prevail.

[binman 38,831]

Q/1 not really a question but agree with that comment.

Q/2 |AFL

It might happen ala clarkson.but not fully appointed it wont.

To see the growth without afl help in female footy has been enormous,but they still get kicked out of local footy at 16{down here}

Would prefer the afl throw 500,000 at womens footy rather than at drooling over 1 afl appointment.{pause and wait for comments}

This has been wonderfull discussion.common sense can prevail.

Ok, perhaps you missed it. Question 1 was what your response would have been if you were asked 20 years ago if a women would be appointed as an assistant coach at an AFL club? Don't worry about answering that one as it is probably a rhetorical question.

As to the second question of course it is unlikely a woman won't be a senior coach at AFL level in the next 20 years. Unlikely but not impossible (just as 20 years ago it was unlikely but not impossible that a woman would become an AFL assistant coach).

A couple more questions. What odds are you offering on your bet?

And secondly do you think a woman will become a head coach of senior Australian rules football side anywhere in Australia in the next 20 years?

[jazza 1,323]

A couple more questions. What odds are you offering on your bet?

And secondly do you think a woman will become a head coach of senior Australian rules football side anywhere in Australia in the next 20 years?

Q1 no odds big boy,simple equation we both put 5,000 into a bank account and in 20 years time if no fully appointed senior female coach,my grandkids pick up the money.

Q2 yes.

So now i have a question for you.have you been to your local footy club and asked players if they would want a female coach?

Do you think any player will ever publicy say a female coach is no good?

Edited June 4, 2014 by jazza

[Sir Why You Little 34,703]

Was Peta at Port Melbourne 2 seasons back when they went through undefeated?

[binman 38,831]

Q1 no odds big boy,simple equation we both put 5,000 into a bank account and in 20 years time if no fully appointed senior female coach,my grandkids pick up the money.

Q2 yes.

So now i have a question for you.have you been to your local footy club and asked players if they would want a female coach?

Do you think any player will ever publicy say a female coach is no good?

So, you offering even money that a woman will be be appointed a senior AFL coach in the next 20 years. Right. Unless you think it is actually quite likely (ie even money) you are offering to make a bet whose odds are completely in your favour. You'd have to e pretty stupid to take that bet given the odds are probably up around 200-1. I'll pass.

Have i been to my local footy club and asked players if they would want a female coach? No, why would i and what relevance does it have?

Do i think any player would ever publicy say a female coach is no good? Probably not if they are playing in a side whose coach is a woman as that would be pretty stupid (i don't recall a dees player publicly knocking Neeld while he coached us - despite having good reason). But of course i think a player would publicly criticize a female coach - there are morons everywhere.

Edited June 4, 2014 by binman

[jazza 1,323]

So, you offering even money that a woman will be be appointed a senior AFL coach in the next 20 years. Right. Unless you think it is actually quite likely (ie even money) you are offering to make a bet whose odds are completely in your favour. You'd have to e pretty stupid to take that bet given the odds are probably up around 200-1. I'll pass.

You got out of that well.

NEXT

[bing181 8,200]

You got out of that well.

But you didn't.

[Arrow 1,257]

Q1 no odds big boy,simple equation we both put 5,000 into a bank account and in 20 years time if no fully appointed senior female coach,my grandkids pick up the money.

Q2 yes.

So now i have a question for you.have you been to your local footy club and asked players if they would want a female coach?

Do you think any player will ever publicy say a female coach is no good?

With your sentence structure, I'd say you need to keep the 5,000.

God forbid your job if your next boss is a woman.

[jazza 1,323]

With your sentence structure, I'd say you need to keep the 5,000.

God forbid your job if your next boss is a woman.

Would doubt that very much.

A woman would pick on writing skills and forget the important bit.

Youve fallen for the dixie marshall trick.but you will live and learn,

[jazza 1,323]

But you didn't.

Can see you not wading in with any cash?

[Binmans PA 26,301]

Would doubt that very much.

A woman would pick on writing skills and forget the important bit.

Youve fallen for the dixie marshall trick.but you will live and learn,

I haven't worked out if you're trolling yet. You seem kind of serious. Pity.

[Binmans PA 26,301]

Yep,your right.

So on a side note aaaahhh dont bother.

On ya.

[autocol 448]

MODS:

The letters "g", "a", and "y" in a row should NOT be censored on this site. That is not a derogatory term. The fact that you're censoring f-l-o-g is rather laughable, but censoring the word "g-a-y" is DOWNRIGHT OFFENSIVE.

I am not kidding. That is totally unacceptable.

[Binmans PA 26,301]

There's nothing wrong with censoring the word 'g a y'. It's used by unintelligent dills to describe anything negative. It's used so indiscriminately, that I can completely understand it being censored. Not so sure about the term 'f l o g' though.

[Little Goffy 12,727]

Would doubt that very much.

A woman would pick on writing skills and forget the important bit.

Youve fallen for the dixie marshall trick.but you will live and learn,

Boy oh boy wowee. This is the 'not sexist' guy, apparently. The champion of respect.

"Women behave in the following way and it shows how they don't know what they are doing"

It's nice when the prejudiced dummies provide the plain, unambiguous evidence that it is ok to write off their opinions.

[KingDingAling 3,614]

She speaks really well, I think she is a great fit for the game.

[autocol 448]

There's nothing wrong with censoring the word 'g a y'. It's used by unintelligent dills to describe anything negative. It's used so indiscriminately, that I can completely understand it being censored. Not so sure about the term 'f l o g' though.

Are you serious? There's everything wrong with censoring the word g a y. G a y people exist, and they have a right to be able to refer to themselves in public. It's not like f a g g o t which is only used to discriminate. G a y is a completely normal word to describe a completely normal thing, and censoring the word just continues to marginalise it.

This site is woefully moderated anyway, so I don't know why I'm acting surprised.

[Sir Why You Little 34,703]

Sad this topic is still going down the same path.

Peta will survive in the industry if she is good at her job.

Like any coach.

We should know.

[Binmans PA 26,301]

Are you serious? There's everything wrong with censoring the word g a y. G a y people exist, and they have a right to be able to refer to themselves in public. It's not like f a g g o t which is only used to discriminate. G a y is a completely normal word to describe a completely normal thing, and censoring the word just continues to marginalise it.

This site is woefully moderated anyway, so I don't know why I'm acting surprised.

Except that the word would rarely (if ever) be used in its correct context on a football forum. Accepted terms for homosexuality are constantly evolving anyway and it's often 'same sex attracted' these days. This I guess is my point. A lot of my same sex attracted friends prefer this term, because the term '[censored]' has a negative connotation. Each to their own, I guess.

And I kinda like the lenient moderation on here.

And rather than merely digressing, I want to reiterate that I think Searle's appointment is incredibly exciting for football. It doesn't just open the door for more gender equality in the sport, it starts to shift attitudes towards this idea that 'you have to have played at senior level to coach at senior level'. I think that's great. Look at Jose Mourinho. One of the great tacticians of world football. He played for minor teams in Portugal. I hope to see more of it.

Edited June 4, 2014 by AdamFarr

[DEE fence 4,535]

Are you serious? There's everything wrong with censoring the word g a y. G a y people exist, and they have a right to be able to refer to themselves in public. It's not like f a g g o t which is only used to discriminate. G a y is a completely normal word to describe a completely normal thing, and censoring the word just continues to marginalise it.

This site is woefully moderated anyway, so I don't know why I'm acting surprised.

I totally get what your trying to say and agree with you about the first, and I often wanted to swear when speaking about a subject I feel so passionately (and I agree G-A-Y is not a swear work per se, context is everything in that case), but to say 'woefully moderated' is unfair. I reckon it's a painful job moderating here, and sadly the lowest common denominators (and I'm NOT referring to you) on this site mean we have a swear filter turned upto '11'. Cut em some slack, when I read PRE or Bomberblitz (or even 'ology when I could be bothered) etc I am less than impressed at the mods and feel DL holds up ok. I would prefer more invective but get why its filtered - context is much harder to filter for.

[Tatu 416]

AFL footballers struggle to listen to a coach that hasnt played seniors before,footy is littered with players who didnt want to give these non AFL blokes a go.

Unfortunately whether people like it or not,there will be an element of no trust or respect.

Im not anti female,but players will be,its dressing unfortunately.until a woman coaches a VFL side and moves through the ranks that way,its just nothing but advertising mush.

Go to your local footy club and ask the players if they would listen to a woman.

Feminists need not attack me,but retort in common sense.

id like to say that its ridiculous that people would think this way... But in reality, your probably spot on...Its a shame really...

Coaching isnt a playing role... so logically anyone with the right knowledge, should be able to perform this role... Id say a female Coach would add a whole other dimension to coaching, kind of like the difference between a father and a mother...

My father was a softly spoken guy, I could get away with a lot more when he was in charge... But jeez... My mother farout!! there was no breaking rules when she was around (the Wooden Spoon)...lol..

So as far as respect from the players, id say the right women would be able to command it...

Women make up a little over 50% of our population... surely out of that, there are some women who know the game well enough to match it with the blokes... Who knows? The greatest AFL coach ever, might be a women...

I can see it really working well, if we can all get passed the silly sexist embarassing primitive notions that a coach of men must be a man... If anything.... Id say mothering figure would command more respect from the players... Just because men have bully there way into the highest positions, over many generations (leadership roles) doesn't mean they are the best for those roles...

Edited June 4, 2014 by tatu

[jazza 1,323]

Boy oh boy wowee. This is the 'not sexist' guy, apparently. The champion of respect.

"Women behave in the following way and it shows how they don't know what they are doing"

It's nice when the prejudiced dummies provide the plain, unambiguous evidence that it is ok to write off their opinions.

fishings good here.hahahahahahhahahha

id like to say that its ridiculous that people would think this way... But in reality, your probably spot on...Its a shame really...

Coaching isnt a playing role... so logically anyone with the right knowledge, should be able to perform this role... Id say a female Coach would add a whole other dimension to coaching, kind of like the difference between a father and a mother...

Women make up a little over 50% of our population... surely out of that, there are some women who know the game well enough to match it with the blokes... Who knows? The greatest AFL coach ever, might be a women...

I can see it really working well, if we can all get passed the silly sexist embarassing primitive notions that a coach of men must be a man... If anything.... Id say mothering figure would command more respect from the players... Just because men have bully there way into the highest positions, over many generations (leadership roles) doesn't mean they are the best for those roles...

Dead right tatu.

The problem is there for all too see,peta in her 360 interview said "i couldnt teach somebody like nick reiwoltd much".

The major setbacks females have is very easy to understand,footballers are generally bigoted nobs and struggle to listen to most let alone somebody thats NEVER played at the highest level.

We can all say its sexist etc etc,but at local level the womens game is suffering due to lack of organisation.Some teams play from 4 to 110 games per year,the growth has been huge but the infrastructure has not caught up to the game.

As i said yesterday the AFL could put 100 grand into administration of the female leagues and it would be a bonus for footy .

If people actually look at any sport they will see that pathways create the next generation and in womans footy the pathway hasnt YET been created.When woman have a full bunch of leagues in vic/sa/wa and they full on for 20 years,the pathway will then be a norm rather than a lipservice appointment.

BTW down this way girls do play boys footy until the age of 16,then the door shuts and they have nowhere to go with there learning and thats where the breakdown is,even in melbourne the 1 league for women thats regarded as there best is only just starting to fill in full seasons.thats not a good breeding ground for future AFL coaches yet.still lots more work to do.

the womans footy leagues need 12 junoir leagues,not teams but leagues in victoria.

they need country footy senior leagues.

they need at least 2 mid tier leagues.

and they need a top tier league.

all of this needs to be structurally right for at least 20 years before the people {woman}involved would start to get follow on coahing steps into the vfl/afl.

Have a look at SA cricket,its been 22 years since apartied finished and they still dont have the structures in place to keep young indigenous kids coming through their system as yet.

Edited June 5, 2014 by jazza

[Bitter but optimistic 21,405]

Are you serious? There's everything wrong with censoring the word g a y. G a y people exist, and they have a right to be able to refer to themselves in public. It's not like f a g g o t which is only used to discriminate. G a y is a completely normal word to describe a completely normal thing, and censoring the word just continues to marginalise it.

This site is woefully moderated anyway, so I don't know why I'm acting surprised.

What a K N O B!

[Nasher 33,133]

This site is woefully moderated anyway, so I don't know why I'm acting surprised.

People thought I was joking when I said "this site is moderated?" last time you complained about the moderation around here, but I wasn't. There is currently not one moderator on the list who is online often enough to be effective. It's bloody hard to find people who are both capable of not getting too involved in the argy-bargy, *and* are present a lot; the two things tend to be mutually exclusive. Are you volunteering?

The reason the 'g' word is censored is because it's used overwhelmingly in an abusive fashion. Same with the 'f' word (the one that ends in 'g'). I don't strictly agree with censoring every word that could be remotely imagined to be offensive, but that's how it is.

For what it's worth, I doubt the angle you've taken on "gay" (I'm assuming my status will by-pass the filter?) had been considered before. I will draw it to Andy and Jack's attention.

Edited June 5, 2014 by Nasher