The Woolster's Content - Page 8 - The Liverpool Way Jump to content

The Woolster

Season Ticket Holder
  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Posts posted by The Woolster

  1. 12 hours ago, easytoslip said:

    Was she that dark haired bird from some late 70s show? Looks like one of the guitarists from Lynyrd Skynyrd, what made you think of her !


    I've never heard of quite a few of my nominations, in this case I'd only heard of her a few years ago in doing research for this, but believe she was in the Mary Tyler Moore Show (which was before my time...).

  2. 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.

    • Upvote 1

  3. 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

  4. 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

  5. 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

  6. 5 hours ago, Carvalho Diablo said:

    I'm all for the ladies being paid more, completely agree with you that it would help their game.


    Equal pay though? In the case of the USNWT and women's football generally I don't believe that it's warranted in any way.


    Women's football / USNWT do not generate anywhere near the revenue of their male counterparts and the quality is grotesque.


    It is thought that The US Womens team have generated more money for the US Soccer Federation of the past few years than the men's teams. If that is the case then they should be getting paid more than the men do from the US Soccer Federation, no? What they get paid by their clubs is a different matter of course.


    I guess that this is not the case in most countries though, but if you are playing for the men's England team, you are probably earning enough to afford to forego some of your earning for England to be shared with the women

  7. 22 minutes ago, Tony Moanero said:

    Only seen bits and pieces of the tournament, but from what I have seen, The Dutch are the only team who have played anything resembling good football. Generally speaking, the defending and goalkeeping has been abysmal.


    Holland V Japan was probably my favourite game of the tournament, and Japan played the better football in the 2nd half and were really unlucky to lose

    • Upvote 1

  8. 17 hours ago, Aventus said:

    I'd like "spend what we earn" to apply to what we earn through sponsorships, ticket sales and the TV money. Rather than our budget being based on player sales. 

    From 2013 to 2018 (the last set of published accounts), we had generated £167m of cash (revenues less costs) that could be spent on transfers. We spent a net of £282m on transfers, ergo we spent more than we earnt over those 5 years.


    Maybe there is a bit of book balancing going on, spending more than you earn is not really a sustainable business model.


    The shareholder loan for the Main Stand redevelopment was meant to have been paid off over 5.5 years at roughly £20m a year, over the first 2 years we paid off £10m compared to the expected £40m, that could be one thing that cash is being used for and constraining the budget

    • Upvote 1

  9. 13 hours ago, Paulie Dangerously said:

    Make the pitches a 5th smaller, same with the goals. Would improve the women's game. 


    Currently in the world cup, they are averaging 3 goals a game. Would expect this to fall as the competition progresses and the weaker teams drop out.


    The Premier League averaged 2.8 goals per game, for the world cup in Russia it was 2.6.


    I don't see the issue with the goal sizes if they are scoring roughly the same amount of goals as in the men's game?


    Also, wouldn't this possibly cause issues at the grass roots level, where pitches are increasingly becoming harder to come by? They'd have to play on pitches for U13/14, and my guess is there is less of them than full size pitches.

  10. 16 hours ago, viRdjil said:

    Watching the U21s. No stand-out talent so far, which is a bit disappointing. Especially after all the hype. Demarai Gray probably been the best player for England. France look shit but could’ve scored a couple.


    I'm sure its similar for some of the other teams, but this England team could have had Trent, Gomez, Sancho, Rashford, Hudson-Odoi, Chilwell and even Dele Alli.


    For a look at the potential future stars, probably better off watching the U17 & U19s


    Thought England looked quite good up until the sending off