Attention: Please take a moment to consider our terms and conditions before posting.
England women
Comments
-
I wasn't really referring to volume of goals though? You shouldn't be able to score a goal just because a goalie physically cannot reach an area of the goalRothko said:The goal/pitch size argument is at best patronising, look at results in WSL over the last couple of months, there aren't any more big scores than you would see in pro men's football.
https://womenscompetitions.thefa.com/en/Fixtures-Results1 -
That's kind of the point, you put the ball where the keeper can't save itPelling1993 said:
I wasn't really referring to volume of goals though? You shouldn't be able to score a goal just because a goalie physically cannot reach an area of the goalRothko said:The goal/pitch size argument is at best patronising, look at results in WSL over the last couple of months, there aren't any more big scores than you would see in pro men's football.
https://womenscompetitions.thefa.com/en/Fixtures-Results3 -
Strongly disagree. Women play 3 sets in tennis, not 5 - they’re still top athletes but the shortened format helps keep their performances at a high and entertaining level. Women cricketers play with smaller boundaries and don’t play long 5 day test matches. Some of the best wicketkeepers in the last 10-15 years have been women imo.Rothko said:The goal/pitch size argument is at best patronising, look at results in WSL over the last couple of months, there aren't any more big scores than you would see in pro men's football.
https://womenscompetitions.thefa.com/en/Fixtures-Resultsmy argument for smaller pitches and goals - it would make it a much better spectator sport imo. If you increased men’s football pitches by another 30% and made the goals 30% bigger you’d probably have a similar awkward looking sport.2 -
Exactly- Whilst the goalies are shorter the women also struggle to kick the ball that high anywayRothko said:The goal/pitch size argument is at best patronising, look at results in WSL over the last couple of months, there aren't any more big scores than you would see in pro men's football.
https://womenscompetitions.thefa.com/en/Fixtures-Results0 -
Most women tennis pros want to play 5-set tennis last time I checked, and women cricketers want to play with men's boundaries too (and are now capable of clearing them)1
-
There are lots of sports that adjust between men and women
Shot puts and javelins are different weights for women to men to make a better spectacle.100/110m hurdles to take into account different stride lengthsTennis - set numbers
Gymnastics - totally different disciplines
Golf - different tees
Road Cycling - women can only race half as far as men in a day
Decathlon vs Heptathlon
etc etc1 -
Yeah, that's right. The way to make women's football 'better' for men to watch is to make the goals smaller, so the players have far fewer pitches to play on.
I dunno, maybe this is looking through the wrong end of the telescope.5 -
kentaddick said:
Strongly disagree. Women play 3 sets in tennis, not 5 - they’re still top athletes but the shortened format helps keep their performances at a high and entertaining level. Women cricketers play with smaller boundaries and don’t play long 5 day test matches. Some of the best wicketkeepers in the last 10-15 years have been women imo.Rothko said:The goal/pitch size argument is at best patronising, look at results in WSL over the last couple of months, there aren't any more big scores than you would see in pro men's football.
https://womenscompetitions.thefa.com/en/Fixtures-Resultsmy argument for smaller pitches and goals - it would make it a much better spectator sport imo. If you increased men’s football pitches by another 30% and made the goals 30% bigger you’d probably have a similar awkward looking sport.
If the pitches or goal posts were going to be smaller, that needed to be done 100 years ago after the first world war just before the Preston ladies were so successful in front of big crowds before the woman's game was banned by Misogynist blazers in the FA.
The WSL is a good League though a massive gulf between the top 3 teams and the rest and between the Premier and the championship. 🤦🏻♂️🤦🏻♀️
3 -
There are also sports that stay the same dimensions and duration: Hockey, Darts, Badminton, squash, table tennis.*
In horse racing, equestrian etc where you would think strength was a factor men compete against woman.
Any one on here wouldn't back Hollie Doyle because she's a female ?
* Hope I'm correct on some of these
0 -
Exactly, where do you play WSL games then? back to the park for you girls, be lucky if the council puts the lines on properlyChizz said:Yeah, that's right. The way to make women's football 'better' for men to watch is to make the goals smaller, so the players have far fewer pitched to play on.
I dunno, maybe this is looking through the wrong end of the telescope.1 - Sponsored links:
-
Fabio Capello suggested that women should have smaller goals and pitches and got a right earful for his trouble.
As a serious football player, it’s so difficult for me to hear comments like these – especially when the women’s game already comes under so much scrutiny. For as long as I can remember we’ve had to put up with ridiculous stereotypes and casual sexism suggesting the game is a male-only sport or the quality of women’s football is rubbish.While I respect Mr Capello, I wholeheartedly disagree with him on this occasion.
The simple fact is, by changing the size of the equipment or pitch used in football, it undermines a game that female professionals have grown up with and trained for.
These footballers train day in, day out with the same size goals and same size pitch. If these components were to be altered now, female footballers would have to change their innate abilities to play the game – they’d need to adapt to smaller targets to shoot at and less space for them to play.
It seems crazy to modify something that already works or ask players to adapt their game in order to accommodate someone’s ill-thought-out suggestion.
Women in football have been fighting for equality for far too many years already, so this suggestion would not only require us to take a step backwards, but is also hugely disrespectful to simply expect us to do it. It’s damaging to the game and the players.
Whilst I can see the logic in changing some of the parameters, great age has taught me that it is never a good idea to tell women what to do.0 -
Its a very good point that its too late to change things to be fair. I wasn't attempting to be sexist in the slightest (perhaps I was through naivety)1
-
Genuine question - is it sexist that women only play best of 3 sets matches in tennis grand slams?0
-
I think we might have this debate for ever.
As I've said before on this site, I coached womens' football for some years and I learned a number of things.
One of the most important is not to compare to the mens' game. Yes, the basic elements are the same ... but just as two novels differ even though they both use words ... so the womens' and mens' games differ.
Using common facilities makes huge sense, but we should recognise that, while some aspects and some tactics apply to both games, there will always be basic differences.
The 20-0, 11-0, 10-0 recent results reflect that. Don't overanalyse it, and don't expect it to change too much in the near future.4 -
I was at Wembley for the Eng v NI womens game and NI looked like an absolute pub side - christ knows how bad North Macedonia must be0
-
I trained with one of their top sides last year. They have a great set up but lack of funding and proper opposition restricts them. Obviously the Charlton shirt got an outing.Elthamaddick said:I was at Wembley for the Eng v NI womens game and NI looked like an absolute pub side - christ knows how bad North Macedonia must be
2 -
I must first admit that I’ve not played darts for donkeys years but I seem to recall that the oche had a different marker for women to throw their arrows. Has this changed since 1979?soapboxsam said:There are also sports that stay the same dimensions and duration: Hockey, Darts, Badminton, squash, table tennis.*
In horse racing, equestrian etc where you would think strength was a factor men compete against woman.
Any one on here wouldn't back Hollie Doyle because she's a female ?
* Hope I'm correct on some of these0 -
It’s not the quality compared to men that’s the issue (I watch women’s football and cricket and enjoy it) but the way organisations like the BBC push it as equal. Why for instance do they think WSL fixtures are more important than League 1? How many Charlton players or any League 1 players are interviewed on main stream tv? Etc etc.Dave Rudd said:I think we might have this debate for ever.
As I've said before on this site, I coached womens' football for some years and I learned a number of things.
One of the most important is not to compare to the mens' game. Yes, the basic elements are the same ... but just as two novels differ even though they both use words ... so the womens' and mens' games differ.
Using common facilities makes huge sense, but we should recognise that, while some aspects and some tactics apply to both games, there will always be basic differences.
The 20-0, 11-0, 10-0 recent results reflect that. Don't overanalyse it, and don't expect it to change too much in the near future.
Also in cricket the England team is now called the England Men’s team, which it clearly is not as good women could play for it.0 -
What I find remarkable is that nobody has pointed out that Neville might have sneaked a 2-1 victory 😂😂0
- Sponsored links:
-
kentred2 said:
It’s not the quality compared to men that’s the issue (I watch women’s football and cricket and enjoy it) but the way organisations like the BBC push it as equal. Why for instance do they think WSL fixtures are more important than League 1? How many Charlton players or any League 1 players are interviewed on main stream tv? Etc etc.Dave Rudd said:I think we might have this debate for ever.
As I've said before on this site, I coached womens' football for some years and I learned a number of things.
One of the most important is not to compare to the mens' game. Yes, the basic elements are the same ... but just as two novels differ even though they both use words ... so the womens' and mens' games differ.
Using common facilities makes huge sense, but we should recognise that, while some aspects and some tactics apply to both games, there will always be basic differences.
The 20-0, 11-0, 10-0 recent results reflect that. Don't overanalyse it, and don't expect it to change too much in the near future.
Also in cricket the England team is now called the England Men’s team, which it clearly is not as good women could play for it.
Well, without going too much off topic, what you have highlighted is the common misconception that 'equality' means 'identical'.
When a set of things are identical to another, then clearly they are equal. But that's a special case. There are many other situations where two sets of things can be equal to each other without being identical.
In mathematical terms, x + y = x + y. No-one would argue with that.
But a + b can equal c + d. For example, 4 + 2 = 5 + 1. No problem with equality there, but the two sets of numbers are not identical.
In the modern world, it seems that things need to be identical for equality to prevail. Only the special case seems acceptable.
2 -
Beaten Austria 0-2
World Cup qualification secured.
⚽️👏🏻👏🏻👏🏻👏🏻👏🏻👏🏻👏🏻👏🏻🏴🏴🏴🏴🏴🏴3 -
-
10-0 against Luxembourg.
Some cracking goals.
I have to say, I have become increasingly impressed with their corners. Rarely get it wrong.
Fabulous 👏🏻👏🏻👏🏻👏🏻👏🏻🏴🏴🏴🏴🌹♥️0 -
80-0 GD 🤣0
-
The results in the WC qualifying are farcical - there are so many poor teams. Too many one sided games.0
-
Looking forward to the USA friendly1
-
I'm not sure it makes the poorer nations stronger. Maybe in Europe they could look at qualification groups which just have the decent teams plus one poorer side and have a relegation/promotion system so the poorer sides are the best of the poorer sides if that makes sense.
There is still a path that way but you don't get so many total mis-matches. It would mean most of the decent teams in a group would probably qualify but that happens now anyway.0 -
hoof_it_up_to_benty said:The results in the WC qualifying are farcical - there are so many poor teams. Too many one sided games.
They need to have a nations League so we don't get rugby scores and it will be better for the part time nations.
England v USA should be a good contest and a good guide to England's chances in WC.
1 -
Good win tonight in the Finalissima!
Another title.3
