Women's World Cup
- Thread starter 6TimesaRed
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Status
That's an idea for a thread we can all get behind.
Time is not a factor for me on this behalf, dear Sir.
Watch out, Mystic might kick off.
One of the English women's footballers came out and said they shouldn't be paid the same. It was refreshing and honest.
I watched bits, intrigued to see if many others are.. The women's game cleary has developed in recent years, but the standard is very poor...
I always find the goal keeping is worse than Sunday League..
This means that either a] you've never had one and never going to or b] you're constantly having one
Either way, sort out your act!
Aye. Since we've been able to watch every LFC game live I've almost completely stopped watching other footy. The international tournaments and the big CL games and that's about it for me.
What standard is women's football, in terms of actual footballing quality? Probably not even conference, right? I'd never watch a conference game either, so...
I don’t get the outrage regarding the discussion about making the goals smaller.
It’s simple biology.
I’d love to see smaller goals and smaller pitches which would improve the pace of the game imo.
Some great games so far. Optus sport have every game
It’s simple biology.
I’d love to see smaller goals and smaller pitches which would improve the pace of the game imo.
Some great games so far. Optus sport have every game
They have improved over the last decade. It feel long time ago since a Norwegian TV reporter wondered why they called it Womens Football as it was neither women nor football.
The thing is, women can jump perfectly well in other sports, but in football the keepers look like ten year olds as really soft shots loop over their heads. Hit the ball above them or to either side and they move like they've got lead in their boots. And if they face a strong shot they look like they're trying to evade a cannonball. There are some very good players in outfield positions, but the keepers haven't improved much at all. The LFC women's team is the same - fast, technically impressive players in midfield and attack, but the keeper is awful.
You know what, I thought this. But I've just been told that the USA women's team got beat 5-2 by Dallas under 15s a year or so ago. I googled it and it's true. Aren't the USA one of the best in the world?
The top women's side wouldn't beat a decent semi-pro side over here. Can't say that, though.
Of course there is zero doubt that any decent men's side would hammer them... I flicked from England Switzerland match to the Brazil women's match the other day and as I say, the pace is so different... you don't notice it as much until you do that... Sterling bombing it everywhere, it looked like fast forward in comparison... but technically they're very good. Passing, movement, control, all that stuff. Some of the through balls by the Chinese the other day were Alonso style. Ten years ago it looked like a load of kids legging after a ball in a school yard, now it looks like an old Milan derby or something.
Yeah, technically it's extremely good.it's almost like it's a different game, the technical side of the game we all know with less pace & less physicality (although not as dramatically less physical as you may expect), some of the skills on show are actually very good.
It's kinda like playing fifa & never using the pace buttons. If both players agree it becomes all about skill.
It's actually watchable, just nowhere near as enjoyable as the men's game.
It's kinda like playing fifa & never using the pace buttons. If both players agree it becomes all about skill.
It's actually watchable, just nowhere near as enjoyable as the men's game.
But my point is, how can they expect to be paid anywhere near the same as the men when they're not even as good as a bunch of 14 year old boys in America?
Physicality is just as much a part of the game as the technical aspect. We're getting this world cup rammed down our throats a bit with the underlying message being they're approaching equality. They're nowhere near.
Physicality is just as much a part of the game as the technical aspect. We're getting this world cup rammed down our throats a bit with the underlying message being they're approaching equality. They're nowhere near.
The pay thing is surely down to how much revenue you can generate. I'm not arsed either way, but the captain of the US women is gonna be a poster girl for Nike and make zillions, fair play to her. She couldn't get a game for the Rose and Crown Sunday league side but that's got fuck all to do with it. Similarly she's not about to get paid anywhere near a premier league footy player because hardly anyone is paying to watch her. It's simple market forces innit.
If the debate is that they should get paid the same amount for international appearances, I ain't got no problem with that.
If the debate is that they should get paid the same amount for international appearances, I ain't got no problem with that.
I have some sympathy for them as the English FA banned them from playing for 50 years. They used to get large crowds in the early 1900s and then they FA halted all their momentum. Who knows where the game would be if it had been allowed to develop during that time.
Yeah the pay should be in line with the revenue the women's game generates, and I suspect it is.
I just don't need a load of people in the media pretending it's a good standard because they're all scared of what the feminists on Twitter will say. Just be realistic.
I'm all for the standard improving. Would be interesting to see how good it can be given the biological differences. They should definitely make the goals smaller, though.
I just don't need a load of people in the media pretending it's a good standard because they're all scared of what the feminists on Twitter will say. Just be realistic.
I'm all for the standard improving. Would be interesting to see how good it can be given the biological differences. They should definitely make the goals smaller, though.
It surprise me a little that there is a huge amount of people over here that say they enjoy womens handball more than mens handball. I mean, the intensity, pace and power of the mens handball game is really impressive, and when women play it is still a tough game, but the argument seem to be that they can see the technical details better. However, the technicality in the mens game are combined with the pace and power and hence is on a total different Level. I guess it can be down to that Norway has since the 80's been a force in womens handball but only the last years been a force to reckon among the men, but I am still amazed when people compare it.
Heartless bitches them Yanks
That's how we grow them in Texas.
If you're a male international footballer for any half decent team you're going to be a millionaire anyway and it won't be your main source of income so I think the national teams should get paid the same. At club level and in other sports it's a different story.
Interesting.
You'd still think that statistically, there's no way even an international female player would be as technically good as a conference player, right? I mean, there just isn't that big a pool of female players, ultimately. Or maybe the numbers playing the women's sport are just way bigger than I realise.
So maybe it's the increased physicality of conference football that makes the players look worse...
Hang on, now I've got thinking about why men's football gets so much rougher/agricultural down the divisions. Why should it be? Why should physique tend to dominate more and more as skill reduces? Logically you'd think the sport would take a certain shape (as in, technical or physical, possession-based or long ball etc, with some roughly optimal style predominating) and the various types of players - defenders, forwards etc - would reduce in quality proportionally down the divisions (ie you get a constant style, with the most skillful/quickest/strongest/tallest at the top and then reducing proportionally in all criteria as the overall standard declines). Is it me or is it strange that that doesn't seem to happen? The actual style changes...
I mean - I'm presuming (maybe being sexist) that the women's sport isn't physical like a conference game? Because really no reason it shouldn't be given it's women v women.
A few of my thoughts on this topic:
- Physicality. A few years ago I did some reffing in USA rec youth leagues - U12-U14. In the boys league I was constantly having to make calls and would have to show cards for some of the tackles. With the girls I usually did not call a foul all game - and a kick which hit another girl in the stomach would produce apologies! The level of competitiveness was worlds apart.
- Pay levels - suggesting that the women's game should have equal prize money is laughable. It has to revolve around market value. The men earn so much it is distasteful. Women should be commensurate with the appeal of the game though. In tennis I think it is appropriate that the women's prize money is the same - even though their games are shorter.
- Other sports - I have mentioned tennis already. Cricket is one I follow. At international level the top women are very skilled - they play all the shots the men do, and it is entertaining to watch. Fielding is often sub-standard. But I think women's cricket is good to watch. Golf is also a good standard. I am not sure of the pay levels here, but shouldn't be much of a discrepancy. I do re.member being impressed with the women's football World Cup final 4 years ago - Carli Lloyd's goal from halfway, and a quality US display against [bcolor=transparent]Japan[/bcolor].
- One conclusion is that the level of investment in the game is reflected in the standards. Look at the England rugby team - the women are streets ahead of most rivals - because they have more backing. Australian cricketers have been traditionally backed, and England/India are catching up there. Individual sports for men and women are often means-based as to who affords the best training. So maybe the women's gripe should be on investment in the game at the lower levels. Of interest is the West Indies cricket captain Stafanie Taylor speaking recently along these lines.
My sister was an very gifted athlete, in field hockey, lacrosse, and swimming. By the time I could beat her up, I was too old for it to be socially acceptable. She was probably 5'11" at 15. She wasn't actually hyperfocused on sports, she was just very good, and took her ruthless streak into being a lizard multimillionaire instead. She was courted by various D1 schools, and was a standout athlete on very good teams. I'm not entirely certain how we are related.
Anyhow, I watched her break someone's nose with an intentional elbow. Everyone thought she didn't mean it, including the dumb ref. I knew better. I asked her why she did it after the game and she said "that little girl was annoying me."
I saw a fair amount of that watching her play, and it wasn't just her.
The idea that women aren't going to be ruthlesslesly competitive strikes me as odd, as someone with three older sisters.
Definitely more snide about it. Like a good spanish side. Maybe football is different. I doubt it.
- Status
