- Print Topic - Archive

The national women's side lost a pre-Olympics training game to a team of under-15 boys by 7 goals to nil.

Admittedly this was not the Matildas first choice eleven but it says something about the true standard of women's football and why it cannot be compared to the men's game. Australia are apparently still amongst the favourites for gold in Rio.

[url]http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-3609949/Matildas-lose-7-0-Newcastle-Jets-15s-Rio-Olympics-warm-up.html[/url]

'Pay us the same money'

'Give us the same coverage'

Yeah, right....

Quoted from TheRonRaffertyFanClub

The national women's side lost a pre-Olympics training game to a team of under-15 boys by 7 goals to nil.

Admittedly this was not the Matildas first choice eleven but it says something about the true standard of women's football and why it cannot be compared to the men's game. Australia are apparently still amongst the favourites for gold in Rio.

[url]http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-3609949/Matildas-lose-7-0-Newcastle-Jets-15s-Rio-Olympics-warm-up.html[/url]

It is only one isolated result but the point is still pretty valid.

Nothing against the Women's game at all but suggesting its anywhere even close to the standard of the men's is frankly laughable.

Most men do not go to watch womens football for the standard of play,

Sorry :B

Bit like when Bobby Riggs (1939 Wimbledon Champion) thrashed Billie Jean King in the 70s despite having been an old codger whose pomp was before the war.

As long as there's a physical element, women will struggle against men on purely physiological grounds.

Nothing wrong with ladies' footy; enjoy it in its own right and let's have as many girls and boys playing football as possible, but on a professional level let's not go along with this charade that they're somehow equal to the top-level men's game.

I enjoy watching women playing sport but they will never be on par with men,

Any contact or physical game would be won every time by the men,

The only sport where women play against men is when they are sat on a horse,

BUT

Watching top class women compete is just as exciting as watching men,

Well maybe not quite as exciting. ;)

It was never intended or expected that women's football would compete with men. Their game has developed well and the quality has improved, unfortunately they cannot seem to find goalkeepers, they are often too easily beaten.

Quoted from oldun

It was never intended or expected that women's football would compete with men. Their game has developed well and the quality has improved, unfortunately they cannot seem to find goalkeepers, they are often too easily beaten.

...especially if Stan Collymore's also playing.

Who's compared the men's and women's games or asked for the same pay or coverage? TV is hardly deluged with women's football so if you don't like it don't watch it.

What a load of BS on this thread.

So if Andy Murray played and thrashed Serena Williams, does that mean Serena isn't a great tennis player?

If Jessica Ennis enters the men's decathlon at the Olympics and came last, does that mean she isn't a great athlete?

Paula Radcliffe was the world record holder in the marathon and possibly the greatest GB distance runner of all time but her time was still slower than some top club runners.

In case you hadn't noticed, women are physically different from men. It is stupid to say a women's sport is lesser than the male version just because men will invariably win vs women.

I was always led to believe Australian women were men......... 8)

As an elite level coach of girls I can give a bit of perspective to this. I also coach elite level boys.

First of all you have to put a bit of perspective on the comparison.

Physically boys and men will always have a physical advantage over girls and women. We are however doing lots of work to improve the physical side of the girls game. Not least of all in that from next season, elite level younger age group girls teams have to play in their local boys grassroots charter standard leagues, against the same age group.

Technically girls and women are every bit as good as boys/men. This is more prevalent in the most recent younger age groups in foundation stage and development stage. There are still some technically good girls at u15 u16 onwards. However less so than the younger age groups who are benefitting from all of the efforts and investment that is being put into the girls game recently. In other words, when these younger age groups become the older age groups, they are going to be so much better than the u15's and u16's girls of today.

Psychologically and Socially the girls are probably ahead of the boys. They mature quicker and are tuned into learning.

It's difficult to comment on the Aussie Olympic team you have referred to as I don't know how good or bad they are in the world of female football. But I can tell you about a recent FA pilot scheme I was involved in which pitched our girls against good quality grassroots boys teams.

Girls U11's 3 v 2 Boys U10's
Girls U13's 6 v 3 Boys U12's
Girls U15's 2 v 5 Boys U14's
Girls U17's 1 v 1 Boys U15's

Female football isn't everyone's cup of tea. That's fair enough. But there are also a lot of blind old fashioned views amongst men towards it too.

The pro side of the game is getting better. It's huge in the USA and Germany. The English national and pro side of the game is getting better. But the real big jump in improvement is about 6 - 10 years away when the current foundation stage crop start to emerge.

Still stand by this
http://thefishy.co.uk/cgi-bin/forum/Blah.pl?m-1460147363/s-0/

Quoted from grimsby pete

I enjoy watching women playing sport but they will never be on par with men,

Any contact or physical game would be won every time by the men,

The only sport where women play against men is when they are sat on a horse,

BUT

Watching top class women compete is just as exciting as watching men,

Well maybe not quite as exciting. ;)

Long distance open water swimming is one sport where women are catching up with and may exceed men's performance.

Quoted from KingstonMariner

Long distance open water swimming is one sport where women are catching up with and may exceed men's performance.

What channel is that on?

I find it funny as fook that they were thrashed by some schoolkids and apparently, it has happened before to them but not been reported.

Quoted from ginnywings

What channel is that on?

English?

Quoted from TheRonRaffertyFanClub

English?

Very good. :)

Quoted from LondonMariner43

What a load of Bexcrement on this thread.

Paula Radcliffe was the world record holder in the marathon and possibly the greatest GB distance runner of all time but her time was still slower than some top club runners.

Isn't that what Paula Radcliffe used to stop and do half way round?

Quoted from LondonMariner43

What a load of BS on this thread.

So if Andy Murray played and thrashed Serena Williams, does that mean Serena isn't a great tennis player?

If Jessica Ennis enters the men's decathlon at the Olympics and came last, does that mean she isn't a great athlete?

Paula Radcliffe was the world record holder in the marathon and possibly the greatest GB distance runner of all time but her time was still slower than some top club runners.

In case you hadn't noticed, women are physically different from men. It is stupid to say a women's sport is lesser than the male version just because men will invariably win vs women.

It's more stupid to ask for equal pay between the two sports.

Everybody is fully aware of the differences between them, there is an ability gap, an absolutely huge one. It doesn't mean the women aren't talented, they're just not on the same level as their male peers.

So when they scream sexism when they don't get paid the same, it is absolutely flipping infuriating.

Quoted from pontoonlew

It's more stupid to ask for equal pay between the two sports.

Everybody is fully aware of the differences between them, there is an ability gap, an absolutely huge one. It doesn't mean the women aren't talented, they're just not on the same level as their male peers.

So when they scream sexism when they don't get paid the same, it is absolutely flipping infuriating.

Nothing to do with ability. It's to do with commercial demand.

But incidentally, Chelsea women's wage bill is now in excess of £1.5 million per year.

How does that compare to GTFC men's ?

Quoted from pontoonlew

It's more stupid to ask for equal pay between the two sports.

Everybody is fully aware of the differences between them, there is an ability gap, an absolutely huge one. It doesn't mean the women aren't talented, they're just not on the same level as their male peers.

So when they scream sexism when they don't get paid the same, it is absolutely flipping infuriating.

Again, who's said there should be pay equality between male and female footballers? I'm sure there's been the odd isolated suggestion but when you say 'they' who do you mean? I genuinely haven't heard anybody suggest women footballers in the Premier League should be on 6 or even 5 figure weekly salaries, let alone scream sexism over it.

OOps I thought this was a misguided thread from a totally different website! :P 8)

Quoted from Rodley Mariner

Again, who's said there should be pay equality between male and female footballers? I'm sure there's been the odd isolated suggestion but when you say 'they' who do you mean? I genuinely haven't heard anybody suggest women footballers in the Premier League should be on 6 or even 5 figure weekly salaries, let alone scream sexism over it.

I've seen a few news pieces picking up on it questioning the gender pay gap in football, particularly during the women's World Cup.

The women's tennis debate crops up numerous times too.

It's a closed debate, the fact people even suggest it is ridiculous. It's completely obvious why they're not paid the same, because they don't bring in the same revenue and i doubt they ever will.

Quoted from TheRonRaffertyFanClub

The national women's side lost a pre-Olympics training game to a team of under-15 boys by 7 goals to nil.

Admittedly this was not the Matildas first choice eleven but it says something about the true standard of women's football and why it cannot be compared to the men's game. Australia are apparently still amongst the favourites for gold in Rio.

[url]http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-3609949/Matildas-lose-7-0-Newcastle-Jets-15s-Rio-Olympics-warm-up.html[/url]

Technically not that much between the players but the men are bigger,stronger and faster and that makes all the difference I wonder how many of those goals were set pieces or headers that the ladies could not defend against?

The only woman I have seen who may have been able to play albeit at lower level was the Yank Mia Hamm from years ago.Possibly more since but they are few and far between and even with bags of ability how would they compete against the likes of Pearson and Gowling who would simply overpower them?

The pay issue is not down to ability or strength etc, it's about what money there is in the game through ticket sales, TV, sponsorship etc. That is when male footballers are paid more than females-it has nothing to do with ability.

Re entertainment the most exciting sportsperson I like watching is Laura Trott in track cycling, always great value. So what if she's not as fast as Bradley Wiggins!

Quoted from 1mickylyons

Technically not that much between the players but the men are bigger,stronger and faster and that makes all the difference I wonder how many of those goals were set pieces or headers that the ladies could not defend against?

This was an under-15 boys side remember. So physique might not be as much of an issue. The comment in the article from one of the women's coaches I think was that the boys moved the ball around extremely well. Which again gives the impression they were out-footballed rather than out-muscled.

In answer to Ascend, there is no doubt the quality of the women's game has improved in recent years. My point in starting this thread is to illustrate that the improvement is good but it is from a very low level to a not very high level, relative to the men's game.

Women's football and tennis are popular with the sponsors and the media not because they are high quality but because they retain femininity. The actual activity itself is not as important as the females taking part. US television would not be so interested in showing a giant women's basketball team or American football team. But a fit average size blonde bouncing along down the wing in a sports bra is OK for obvious reasons. If Jessica Wahatsit and Victoria Pendlethingy were shot putters there is no way they would have got the air time they did. Women's sport is still sexist first and ability driven second.

There's plenty of feminist morons complaining about pay gaps etc. but what you get paid is relative to what you bring in, simple. Men are physically more powerful; faster, stronger, jump higher etc etc holding pretty much all the records for any human -man or woman best ever.

So at the pinnacle of whatever discipline it is they command most the attention.

Quoted from HackneyHaddock

Bit like when Bobby Riggs (1939 Wimbledon Champion) thrashed Billie Jean King in the 70s despite having been an old codger whose pomp was before the war.

Billie Jean beat him in straight sets but don't let the facts get in the way of your anti-women tirade.

Quoted from tanga_the_indestructible

Billie Jean beat him in straight sets but don't let the facts get in the way of your anti-women tirade.

Correct . He beat Margaret Court in an erlier battle and Jimmy Connors beat Martina Navratilova in 1993

Women's sport is great in its own right and the competitive nature is just as good as the men's in most sports but there are some sports that it just doesn't wash and I think football is one of them. It's not good to watch. Athletics, tennis and golf are great. When it comes to men v women i don't think there is a sport that I would rather watch the women's version than the men's (beach volleyball excepted). Top Women's sport is great but put them against the top men and they are some distance behind. The worlds best female will always slot in somewhere in the top few hundred men I guess in most individual sports but in general I say keep men v men and women v women and the pay relative. I wonder if most women prefer to watch women's sport or men's?

Quoted from TheRonRaffertyFanClub

This was an under-15 boys side remember. So physique might not be as much of an issue. The comment in the article from one of the women's coaches I think was that the boys moved the ball around extremely well. Which again gives the impression they were out-footballed rather than out-muscled.

Have you seen the size of some kids these days? Some of them are well over six feet tall in their early teens and extremely athletic. Heck, I weighed 12 stone when I was 14 (and I wasn't tubby!). This was 30 years ago. I doubt that many women could have coped physically against me back then. On the football field, that is. :P

The newer generation is generally taller and then also tend to go to the gym in the way that my generation rarely did so it wouldn't surprise me to see some of the most capable Under-15s teams physically overpower a women's national team. That said, it's as much about pace as anything.

I think the standard of the women's football I've seen on TV has improved a great deal over the past 10 years, but the real weakness remains the goalkeepers who really aren't very good at all, even at the international level. I think the issue there seems to be a lack of 'spring' when they are trying to reach shots and, of course, they aren't nearly as tall as the average modern keeper. If they could sort out this position, the teams would be greatly improved as the rest of the play is at a pretty decent standard these days.