Aly MurtyRoyalBlueAly Murty Blatant fishing trip, but I do think there should be some kind of assessment of their abilities before they are employed (no idea if this is already done, but it isn't evident). The ball boy in the G7 area of the West Stand yesterday was utterly useless, could barely throw the ball 2m and due to his size had to waddle before throwing the ball any further. On average, perhaps boys are better,
And on what evidence do you base that suggestion?!
Since the task involves catching or picking up a ball and then throwing it back to the hands of a player, it might be just as sensible to suggest that, on average, girls might be better than boys, since the skills required are more akin to netball than football and, of course, more girls than boys play netball.
As a girl who has played many sports in my life, I am not saying that girls can't be as good as boys - I reckon I can throw and catch a cricket or football far better than most men. However, I also had many sports lessons with girls and know just how bad the majority of them are at these simple skills. The girls employed by Reading should be better than your average female, but if you took a random selection of both genders, the men would generally be better. Yes, girls do play netball, but the vast majority of netball players would only have a passing interest in football at best and therefore, are unlikely to be at football matches. There is also the fact boys are more physically mature at a younger age and so are stronger and more able to throw the ball.
And Emily Pankhurst did it all for this?!!
As both my kids (a boy and girl) are members of the goalkeeping union, I have a simple and highly effective solution. All ball boys/girls should have to be proven goalkeepers - non of these useless and generally less intelligent outfield players!
Argue with this and you're likely to get a visit from Marcus and his military hardware!!
(tbf Marcus is pretty good when he throws it out).
