NRLW stars reveal huge issue no one speaks about
Millie Elliott — formerly known as Millie Boyle — is currently expecting her first child with fellow NRL star husband Adam Elliott.
The 27-year-old rugby league star, who typically plays for the Sydney Roosters, was speaking to The Jimmy and Nath Show with Emma ahead of Wednesday's State of Origin game two when she revealed a unique experience only female players have to deal with.
Elliott, who has played at the Origin level in the past, was asked what it was like to play the sport at an elite level while experiencing her menstrual cycle off the back of fellow NRLW star Jasmin Strange speaking publicly about it.
'It bloody sucks,' Elliott said.
'Especially because there are some days that are worse than others and if you wake up on one of those and it's not timed properly … even training on your period, let alone when you have a game.
'Surely there is something we can do.'
Emma Chow, a host on the show, pointed out it wasn't just the physical side of things when it came to a person's period. It was also pointed out the physical toll of taking birth control and even skipping a period.
Elliott said one small change that has been made is that women play in darker colour shorts.
Appearing on the podcast Burro's Backyard, fellow Roosters player Jasmin Strange asked why nobody talked about the fact that NRLW players would play every fourth game while menstruating.
'That is a lot — 25 per cent of the games we play, we are on our period,' she said.
'You know how you talk about me being in the fight in the grand final? Guess what I was on?
'My period.'
She said a lot of women take the pill in order to be able to 'skip' their period, but this can only be done a certain amount of times.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
News.com.au
27 minutes ago
- News.com.au
England's only tour game ahead of the Ashes will be against England A
England have opted against a suite of tour games to prepare for the Ashes and will instead play against themselves in Perth to prepare for November's opening Test. The only official practice match for the tourists in their quest to regain the urn will be against an England A side at Lilac Hill in a three-day red-ball match. Touring teams have long abandoned multiple matches against state teams given the packed nature of the cricket schedule. Last summer India played a single intra-squad match, behind closed doors and amid much secrecy, at the WACA. No media or outside viewers were allowed in, although the public parkland at Lilac Hill won't afford England the same privacy. There is potential for the tourists to play a two-day fixture in Canberra against the Prime Minister's XI in between the first Test and the second match at the Gabba, but that will be the extent of games outside the five-match international series. The news cames as Cricket Australia confirmed the Lions would play three fixtures on their tour of Australia will run a the same time as the Ashes, giving England a larger cohort of player in Australia at the same time. England could also choose to play some unused Test squad members if they are not selected in the XIs for the first two Tests. 'The reciprocal A series against the England Lions is important for Australian cricket giving our players the chance to perform against high calibre opposition,' CA head of cricket operations and scheduling Peter Roach said. 'We're confident this series will complement what should be a fiercely contested Ashes series and have strong benefits for both countries. 'It is a big year of Australia A cricket opportunities with the recently completed series against Sri Lanka A and tour of India in September before the Lions series.' Australian selectors will have four full rounds of Sheffield Shield cricket to get players tuned up for the Ashes, offering the chance for batters to seize an opening spot with Sam Konstas no lock to keep his spot after failing in the West Indies.
News.com.au
27 minutes ago
- News.com.au
The Demons will appeal the Steven May ban that has left players confused
AFL players have already begun to 'hesitate slightly', knowing the 'margins' between a fair contest and a lengthy ban are slim as the impact of a three-match suspension handed to Melbourne defender Steven May reverberates through the game. The Demons on Thursday confirmed they would appeal the ban, adamant May's 'sole intention was to win the ball'. FOX FOOTY, available on Kayo Sports, is the only place to watch every match of every round in the 2025 Toyota AFL Premiership Season LIVE in 4K, with no ad-breaks during play. New to Kayo? Join now and get your first month for just $1. Western Bulldogs coach Luke Beveridge weighed in, saying he didn't agree with the suspension, but was adamant talk of it changing the fabric of the game was misplaced. May was suspended despite the AFL tribunal conceding his collision with Carlton's Francis Evans last Saturday night was not a bump. In the final minutes of his defence, May's legal counsel Adrian Anderson declared 'there was not much more he could do', but after more than 90 minutes of deliberation, the three-man tribunal panel determined he should have slowed down or changed his path to avoid Evans. Debate has raged since the incident, with some pundits adamant the game could no longer allow players to charge headlong towards opponents, whether the ball was in play or not. That's the grounds on which Melbourne will appeal with a hearing next week. 'We felt we presented a really strong case and Steven's sole intention was to win the ball, and we believe he provided a contest in a reasonable way given the circumstances.' Melbourne football boss, Alan Richardson said. 'After reviewing the outcome and seeking further expert legal advice this morning, we have decided to appeal the Tribunal's decision.' Evans, who lost a tooth and was left bloodied and bruised, conceded to the tribunal that he didn't think he was going to get to the ball before May, adding to the confusion over the ban. Essendon vice-captain Andy McGrath conceded the incident was a 'tricky' one for the tribunal but said over the course of his career his on-field attitude had changed, and he now asked himself questions despite the 'split second' nature of making calls. 'They are split-second decisions, there are so many in game, and the longer I play – this is my ninth season – those split-second contests have changed a lot,' he said. 'If you are second to the ball, you have a big responsibility to not make contact with your opponent's head. 'It definitely comes through your mind, whether that causes us to hesitate slightly, I am questioning that more and more in the game to protect the opposition player's head.' Beveridge said talk of the May ban setting any sort of 'precedent' was unfounded and it purely determined that the outcome of this collision was a suspension. 'One of the things that has never happened in our tribunal system is there's never really been any precedent established, so I don't think anyone should be talking about precedents and how it affects the game into the future,' he said. 'Each one on their own terms is assessed. 'Do I agree with it? Probably not. When there is eyes for the ball and for all intents and purposes the players are trying to win the ball … that's where the debate rages.' Carlton captain and Brownlow medallist Patrick Cripps said he wasn't sure what May could have done and McGrath agreed. 'It didn't look great but it's really hard to pull out of that contest at the last second,' he told SEN. 'As players, it's pretty tricky to know what penalty lies based on the act and we know that's margins between a fair play and a pretty significant sanction.' Prior to their announcement, Demons great Garry Lyon believed the club would appeal. Lyon did not agree with the AFL tribunal's argument that May 'had sufficient time with an unimpeded view of what was before him to determine what he could and should do in the likely event that he did not reach the ball either first or at the same time'. 'That's nonsense, which is why I've lost a bit of faith in this and why I think they'll appeal,' Lyon told SEN Breakfast. 'No-one could reasonably think that they weren't going to get to that football. (Evans) thought Steven May was going to get there first.'
News.com.au
38 minutes ago
- News.com.au
Stranger's offhand comment shows what's wrong with Australian culture
A Sydney woman was doing a classic coffee run with her sister in Bondi before a day of shopping the boutiques in Sydney's Eastern Suburbs. Melanie Quick and her sister Courtney both have a penchant for good style, but as they ordered their matchas and waited for them to arrive, a stranger made a comment to them that caught them off guard. They asked, 'Why are you so dressed up? Where are you going?' Ms Quick was wearing a cream quarter-zip sweater tucked into a slouchy silk maxi skirt and flats, while Courtney wore a faux fur coat and black jeans. While many might consider their outfits 'extra', by Aussie standards, where everyone seems to get around in activewear, it was no ballgown and heels. So it made her wonder, why does it feel so wrong to dress nicely in Australia these days? The 'overdressed' remark 'My mum always encouraged us to wear what makes us feel our best, and always shares stories about how stylish her own mother was, so I guess a sense of self-expression runs in our family,' Ms Quick told 'I always found so much joy in putting together an outfit, even if it's for something simple, like getting a coffee. I don't enjoy wearing activewear unless I'm working out or at home.' So when the stranger asked them that question, with a subtle air of judgment, she responded quite directly and refused to feel embarrassed. 'I just said we were here for coffee and offered no other explanation,' she said. Others agree we have a fashion issue down under After making a TikTok about the encounter, she was met with overwhelming support from others who thought Aussies were far too comfortable dressing down. One comment read: 'Australia is honestly one of the most poorly dressed countries … every other country I've travelled to, people dress to the 10s wherever they go but here we call it a 'day out in town' if it's more than a T-shirt and jeans'. Another noted: 'I found that when I was in Europe, genuinely no one batted an eye at my outfits, everyone was so stylish and put together, especially in Italy. But when I dress like this in Australia, all I get are stares and questions like 'Who are you dressing up for?' Ummm myself? We hate individuality here'. Is Tall Poppy Syndrome at play? Ms Quick believes this has to do with our laid-back, outdoor culture, where wearing athleisure is the unofficial uniform. According to a recent study, 78 per cent of Aussies say they wear activewear as casual wear when they're out and about. Around 40 per cent of people said they wore activewear most days, if not every day. But she also thinks something deeper is at play that contributes to people not wanting to appear as if they're trying too hard. 'When someone dresses a bit differently or is 'overdressed' – Tall Poppy Syndrome comes into play, which affects how we react to confidence and ambition,' she said. Tall Poppy Syndrome is an Australian term that describes the tendency of people to belittle or undermine those who stand out. 'Even something as small as dressing nicely can be seen as being attention-seeking,' she added. Perhaps this is a collective 'cultural cringe' According to Jacob Loaf, an Aussie fashion commentator, this phenomenon is part of our country's collective 'cultural cringe' towards people who take pride in their fashion sense. 'Australians fear dressing up,' he said, adding that this exists for men as well as women. 'When people even want to wear pants and nice shoes as opposed to a Gymshark tee and Kmart pants, it's frowned upon.' 'Why is hyper-casual clothing the societal norm?' he asked. Why people dress better overseas In fashion forums and Reddit communities, this topic is also a common subject of discussion. 'Why do we dress so casually here compared to Americans or the French?' someone asked in the r/AusFemaleFashion forum. Many comments mentioned our climate, citing our year-round warm weather as a reason why people choose less formal, more relaxed clothing. 'Coats, blazers, and jackets that can add polish to an outfit aren't needed much,' said one. Some also pointed out that we don't have many 'walkable' cities, which means people spend a lot of time, often on public transport, getting around, meaning they opt for more comfortable outfits. Another raised the point that it was to do with our limited access to upmarket clothing labels. 'Our mainstream fashion is very basic, and our niche brands can be over-the-top colourful – so if you want something nicer and elegant, it's next to impossible to find,' claimed one. Meanwhile, someone else claimed that it's because Aussies generally don't have many formal events to go to, and our lives revolve more around everyday activities. 'Embrace individual style' Despite all these discussions, Ms Quick says she isn't going to reconsider her fashion choices and will continue to dress in ways that make her feel confident. 'I think it's time we start to embrace individual style and celebrate people who want to express themselves through fashion,' she said. 'At the end of the day, what we wear is an extension of who we are, and I love seeing people feel confident and happy in their clothes. I truly think that deserves to be celebrated.'
