Quantcast
Women's World Cup - Page 34 - FF - Football Forum - The Liverpool Way Jump to content
The Woolster

Women's World Cup

Recommended Posts

Back to football, a quick search about the popularity of women's football outside the USA, World Cup and occasional record breaking attendance.

 

https://www.bbc.com/s

 

"In the Women's Super League, Europe's only fully professional women's division, Chelsea and Manchester City enjoy the biggest crowds, averaging 1,864 and 1,409 respectively last season.
 

In France, newly-crowned champions Lyon are a dominant force, and their success makes them the best-supported team in France with an average of 1,428 fans last season, while second-placed Paris St-Germain averaged 1,010.


In Germany, two-time Champions League winners Wolfsburg are the best supported team with 1,689 fans on average last season, but there are also four other teams whose average is more than 1,000."

 

I mean, really.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Carvalho Diablo said:

Never said that. Was posing a very fair question, that's all. I've stated very clearly several times throughout this thread that I am all  for people - and that includes  women ! - getting paid as handsomely as possible.

Just not as much as the men, though, right?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, SasaS said:

They should separate associations into men's and women's football and problem solved.

 

5 hours ago, TheHowieLama said:

The US has two

The United States has one soccer association, called the United States Soccer Federation.  

 

Glad that has been resolved.  

 

Try not to spread "kind of truths" in future.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Carvalho Diablo said:

Maybe so, but not entirely convenced tbh mate.

 

I remember a few years back watching my nephew's under 9's taking on my niece's under 13's team. The girls were obviously older and physically more developed but the boy's team fucking slaughtered them regardless.

 

Personally I think a lot of it stems from some of the risible coaching of girls and women's teams. From the little I've seen that coaching is fucking pathetic.

 

My guess is that the boys on the U9 team have probably played more football than most of the girls in the U13 team despite being quite a lot younger. Boys on average are much more likely to have been introduced to football at a younger age and to have spent more of their time playing it. Also not all girls want to play with boys, and those ones are less likely to be able to find a team to play with as there are just less girls playing.

 

I coach my daughter's team at what will be U10 next season, and she is the only girl in the team. Her main issue is that she is an August baby, so will very often be the youngest in a given match, and she is small for her relative age as well, and add to that she does not have the fearlessness of some of the boys, so she struggles with the physicality of it at times. But technically, she is as good as a lot of the boys she plays with. We come up against some teams which also have girls, and they are bigger, and a fearless with it, and they are the equal of a lot of boys. We are in one of the lower divisions, but still. If you put together a team of all the girls playing in the league, I think they would probably be pretty good.

 

My son is at a Chelsea Development Centre, so perhaps a relatively high standard, playing with U7s and U6s. By far and away the best player in the group is a girl, she is outstanding.

 

Pre-puberty, the girls can be the equal of the boys, but after puberty, the girls will struggle against guys physically, and the physicality can outweigh the quality.

 

 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Carvalho Diablo said:

I think that Dallas boys 5-2 hammering of USNWT, Newcastle NSW under 15 boys 7-0 drubbing of the Australian Matildas, Real Salt Lake boys, Swedish boys teams triumphs and several others all point to the lack of quality in the women's game is NOT subjective on my part.

 

I think it's apparent that some of the ladies teams have improved but really the standard is still sub Sunday League.

 

As I said earlier though, for all of the embarrassment it might bring them, women would improve their game if they tested themselves against superior opposition, ie men's pub teams. And in no way am I aking the piss by saying that. Along the way they would be walloped, but they should learn and improve as a result of  the better competition.

 

Serena Williams would probably lose to most of the men in top 300. She is undoubtedly a better tennis player then the majority of them, in my opinion, but they are able to hit the ball harder and run around faster, so would beat her. I would say that quality is very subjective.

 

 

 

 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Carvalho Diablo said:

As I said earlier though, for all of the embarrassment it might bring them, women would improve their game if they tested themselves against superior opposition, ie men's pub teams. And in no way am I aking the piss by saying that. Along the way they would be walloped, but they should learn and improve as a result of  the better competition.

 

Oh, and as it stands in England, girls can only play with/against boys until U18 level. The women aren't allowed to test themselves against the men.

 

There was a Canadian goalkeeper a year or 2 ago who tried to join a men's team, but the league wouldn't allow it even though the team thought her good enough to warrant a place in the squad

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, The Woolster said:

 

Serena Williams would probably lose to most of the men in top 300. She is undoubtedly a better tennis player then the majority of them, in my opinion, but they are able to hit the ball harder and run around faster, so would beat her. I would say that quality is very subjective.

 

 

I think she would almost certainly lose to a 1000. I seem to recall reading an interview with a tennis pro and she said there is no comparison, she couldn't dream of beating her own brother who wasn't even on the tour, because men just hit the ball that much harder.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Carvalho Diablo said:

Fair enough.

 

Some other things I think would benefit women's footy would include:

 

Cut the pitch sizes by 2/3rds. This would speed up the game, and allow for better, more accurate passing.

 

Make goal sizes smaller. Maybe 6x6 rather then 8x8 ? It seems very apparent that the very weakest part of the women's game are their goalies. Perhaps not surprising when some of them barely 5 foot tall. Smaller goal sizes would obviously assist them.

 

Coaching. Get rid of the grass roots moms who turn up and teach the girls how to head a ball...without a ball! Believe me, I've seen it happen. Replace them with qualified / experienced coaches who know what the fuck they're doing.

 

1. Less time and space would probably mean less accurate passing I'd have thought.

 

2. Goals per game in the women's world cup were 2 decimal points higher per game than the mens. Same difference between the WSL and Premier League. Such bad keepers, but not significantly more goals, so I think its fine.

I'd dare say that the average goal keeper when the size of goals was decided back in the day was significantly smaller than now, perhaps in line with the average women keeper now even. Perhaps we should actually make men's goals bigger!

 

3. Are we talking at grass roots kids level? Think you can make that arguement for boys and girls football, in England anyway.

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, TK421 said:

Does this happen in other sports?  

 

3 hours ago, TheHowieLama said:

Yes, yardages for womens golf are shorter - thats why there are Ladies tees.

 

 

While we are here -- the ball in womens basketball is smaller, the three point line is closer and I think the key is smaller as well.

 

The shining beacon in mixed gender is none other than good old 'Murican NASCAR, there are a number of women competing weekly here -- and prior Drag (no pun intended) Racing.

 

Shirley Muldowney and Danica Patrick are good examples of women competing successfully directly against men. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Reanne Evans recently won her 12th world snooker title. She wouldn't touch the top 50 in Snooker. A sport that needs no real physical advantage to be better than someone else. 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, TheHowieLama said:

Yes, yardages for womens golf are shorter - thats why there are Ladies tees.

 

 

Uh oh.  You done another sexist blunder.

 

https://www.liveabout.com/ladies-tees-1564199

 

Should They Be Called the 'Ladies Tees'?

No! Let's repeat: No! It's long past time to stop referring to those tees as the "ladies tees." It's a term we wish would disappear from golf.

 

The term really isn't appropriate anymore, because, of course, not all women play from the "ladies tees" and not only women play from the "ladies tees." A low-handicap female golfer is going to play from middle or rearward tees; a mid-handicap woman might choose a longer set of tees, too.

 

It's entirely appropriate for beginner golfers and junior golfers of both genders to start out playing the forward tees, and many senior men play the forward tees.

 

Ladies can play any set of tees they want, and anyone — male, female, young, old, beginner, experienced — can play the "ladies tees" if they want. So the more appropriate way to refer to the forward tees is ... forward tees.

 

And calling them "ladies tees" discourages male golfers who should consider playing from the forward tees (such as beginners, juniors, short-hitting high-handicappers, older golfers, or anyone else who would have more fun and a better score playing from a skill-appropriate set of tees) from doing so.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, TheHowieLama said:

EDIT:

 

Pretty sure womens bowling balls are lighter as well. Checking now...

Yes, I accept that there are physical discrepancies.  That's why I asked the question.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, TheHowieLama said:

You are of course wrong again, and have missed the point.

 

Big day for you on here though - a solid 10 hours of truthtelling.

Sexist.

 

I bet Trump still calls them "ladies tees". 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Carvalho Diablo said:

I utterly rejected the notion that it's in anyway sexist to call a woman a lady. Good manners.

It sounds outdated to me.  You don't hear the men being referred to by their equivalent as "gentlemen" quite as often.  When you were describing "ladies" earlier in this thread, it did make me ponder.  But then I'm a snowflake who always gets things wrong.

 

"Ladies tees" just sounds fucking stupid, in my humble opinion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, TK421 said:

Does this happen in other sports?  

Pretty sure there has been an edit here -- when first posted there was a snide comment about cricket measurements -- which we all know are different in the mens game than they are the womens.

 

We all do know that right?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, TheHowieLama said:

Pretty sure there has been an edit here -- when first posted there was a snide comment about cricket measurements -- which we all know are different in the mens game than they are the womens.

 

We all do know that right?

Fake news.  The cricket comment is still there.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×