[Closed] Women's world cup .

I'm watching it. US look better in the second half.

Everyday sexism.

Tis proving thus far to be better than watching the men play. Germany were awesome the other night.

Genuine question as someone who watches little to no football - is it as good a spectator sport as the men's (in general - I know the current England team produced a dull games at the weekend)? If you watched the best game in the champions league this year and the best game of the women's world cup would one be a better spectacle than the other?

I guess you could say the same about most sports - this weekend, was the women's final at the french open any better/worse to watch than the mens, was the women's downhill at Fort William better, worse or the same to watch as the men's? Is it just sexism or does the extra physical strength men tend to have and (in general) extra depth in numbers of active participants translate to better a viewing experience?

pffft - needs shorter shorts

Sepp knew the way forwards

Look at the joke goalkeeping in the womens game though !

England v France 18.00 tonight [url= http://m.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/33044255 ]BBC 2[/url]. Should be good!! 🙂

Look at the joke goalkeeping in the womens game though !

To answer the original question, because I'm not interested. @Convert some womens sports are comparable and good viewing, football isn't one of them the gulf in standard is enormous.

Skill levels and technique for outfield players are quite high. Power and strength are lower so it isn't as physical as the men's game. From the (relatively) little that I've watched, there seems to be a lack of defensive nouse; attacks tend to dominate. So when there is a mismatch in quality between two teams, whereas in the men's game teams are adept at defending in depth and 'parking the bus' to keep the game tight and maybe within reach of a breakaway / set-piece; in the women's game the lesser team gets overwhelmed.

To the goalkeeping - simply put the goals are too big. The average keeper in the men's game is now probably 6.3, 6.4? In the women's game probably 5-6" shorter, and with less power to be able to jump as high / far. Even if technique was as good (and frankly it isn't at this stage) it's just impossible to cover the 192 square feet. Goals should be scaled down accordingly.

So all together - less know-how at defending equals more chances, and comparatively weaker goalkeeping and sheer physical size means less chances are saved. Overall therefore more goals, particularly as i say when teams are mismatched.

Is that a bad thing? People like goals, don't they? I'm not convinced, in the modern era we average about 2.6 goals per game in the major leagues and hence a goal is something that doesn't happen often and hence is to be very highly prized. If they get too commonplace they start to lose that rarity value.

It's a different game to the men's game - closely related by rules and tactics, but if you expect to see the men's game played by women, IMHO you won't, it's a variant of it.

Oh thought this was going to be about Armitstead winning the Philly Classic World Cup race. A good ride!

Goals should be scaled down accordingly.

No need. Same size at both ends. Just means moar goalz.

The lack of speed and power I think is made up for by the number of great long range shots I seem to be seeing.

It's on here just now, OH is watching. I have, generously, no interest in football.

England player just just chased the ball down, French player hoyed her in the back knocking the ball out of play. Is that really allowed?

Also,

Whoever turned up with a tuba needs stabbing.

Apparently I've missed a headbutt and an elbow to the face. Can't be like the men's game or they'd still be on the floor now crying.

I played in goal. Goals need to be properly earned. They shouldn't be too easy to get.

Hey wait,

America are competing in the World Cup?

Has anyone notified the baseball guys?

Goals should be scaled down accordingly.

I always wondered why they didn't do that in [s]Murderball[/s] the Paralympics' basketball. Kinda hard to slam-dunk a ten foot basket from a wheelchair. Seems a bit disparate.

Can no one do a decent throw in?

Women playing football? Next they'll be wanting the vote and then where will we be......

I always wondered why they didn't do that in Murderball the Paralympics' basketball. Kinda hard to slam-dunk a ten foot basket from a wheelchair. Seems a bit disparate.

As to the women's footy the standard is pretty low which makes for a dull watch. Probay ok if you follow the team but really doesn't work for neutral games which is where the men's world cup really comes to life. Not a diss at the women or their athleticism, just stems from selecting talent from a much smaller pool of players.

Is that really allowed?

@ cougar:

[img] [/img]

Been looking for the panini/playboy sticker album on line. No joy yet!

Probably mainly because it's played socially in gyms all over the country that have regulation basketball hoops. Would be inconvenient if it required special mods to the hall.

Ah. Good point, well made.

Top level football should be played on grass, not synthetics IMO.

love the gif above.. pretty sure she would give a few of the premier League pansies a run for their money .. yep I'm looking at you Sterling! 🙂

The last thing the women's game needs is smaller goals, they'd be seen as a bit of a joke and every pitch where you wanted to play womens football would need smaller goals, just not practical. Same reason as for the basket ball (FYI Cougar some schools/halls have basketball hoops which articulate lower for kids, to be honest as a youngster we always wanted to play with the "big boys" hoops even if sometimes we struggled to get the ball to the basket from the free throw line 😳 Also on America women's football is very popular there, past world champs I think? They are one of the most consistently successful nations)

Goals too big ? Seriously, what next, ban them from playing if they are having their period ?

Surely more goals is a good thing ?

Or perhaps they should make the goals bigger in the men's game - or is it always the women who have to compromise.

Getting good coverage can only help the game improve. I hate soccer, but I feel I should watch on principle now, to police and punish any sexist comments.

Surely more goals is a good thing ?

No, as said above , goals need to be relatively rare to maintain them being special. I can't imagine anyone wanting football to look like basketball with scoring almost being the norm every time someone heads towards it. Football goals are the size they are as it was the right size to make a fair competition between keeper and striker for the people playing the sport at the time - i.e. men. If you have slightly smaller goals to maintain that balance with smaller of stature women in goal, I can't see that as sexist - surely the other way around is sexist and compromised.

My Mrs has never watched a football match in her life, but now Women are playing all of a sudden she wants to watch. Sexist.

I saw the tail end of the England game last night and thought it was alright.

I watched quite a bit of the women's football at the 2012 Olympics and enjoyed the games much more than most men's matches I watched.
There was less of the pantomime diving & rolling around at the slightest touch, so the game flowed better, even if it was perhaps a bit slower overall.

Top level football should be played on grass, not synthetics IMO.

Is there a difference in the play when comparing grass to a 3G synthetic surface?

It's on here just now, OH is watching. I have, generously, no interest in football.

[... snipped ...]

Whoever turned up with a tuba needs stabbing.

Goals too big ? Seriously, what next, ban them from playing if they are having their period ?

I feel I should watch on principle now, to police and punish any sexist comments.

Sorry if you feel my comments are being sexist, it has nothing to do with sex and all to do with size. As said earlier, I don't want to see a different balance in how easy / valuable a goal is in the womens vs the mens game. Children play on reduced size pitches and in reduced sized goals for that reason. Maybe the answer IS to increase the size of the goal in the men's game instead? But there is a pure and simple correlation between physical size and the ability to cover or not cover the area of a goal, and hence how easy or hard it is to score goals.

It's not unheard of. Women's cricket uses a smaller ball, and boundaries are brought in so that 4's and 6's are equally easy / hard to score with reduced strength. It's not sexist, part of the spectacle is seeing 6's. Should we insist on 'full sized' balls and boundaries? Better we don't have such a good game, for fear of being sexist?

There is a move in basketball, my daughter's sport, to get children playing on smaller courts with lower hoops, exactly as said above because to even reach a 10 ft hoop, you lose technique at the expense of having to heave the ball up there. 8 ft hoops are being mooted wherever possible. We don't have the infrastructure but if we want to be serious about being good at sports, we have to invest in that. No coincidence we're good at cycling because we put money into it. But also in basketball, women use a smaller ball (size 6 vs size 7). It's lighter, hence doesn't require as much strength to pass or shoot from distance, and it also is better sized to suit a smaller hand. That's not sexist, it's realistic and improves the game for players and spectators. The question of hoop height in the women's game is often raised too.

Hurdlers use a lower height hurdle with different stride spacing..... need I go on?

Being sexist would be to say that women can't play simply because they are women. In all the examples above I have watched top level men's and women's variants of the game and enjoyed them, and where appropriate enjoyment would have been diminished without the adjustments that enabled the game to continue to be played with skill and physicality suited to the players playing.

I don't want to see a different balance in how easy / valuable a goal is in the womens vs the mens game

I don't think there is. Scorelines look pretty consistent across both genders, don't they?

Or perhaps they should make the goals bigger in the men's game

The best thing they could do to the men's game would be to introduce a second ball. It'd be great.

I don't think there is. Scorelines look pretty consistent across both genders, don't they?

No, from a brief analysis of WSL vs EPL, I reckon there's about 20-25% more goals in the women's game. Doesn't sound a lot, and in itself that may not be reason enough to change, but as i said before

" From the (relatively) little that I've watched, there seems to be a lack of defensive nouse; attacks tend to dominate. So when there is a mismatch in quality between two teams, whereas in the men's game teams are adept at defending in depth and 'parking the bus' to keep the game tight and maybe within reach of a breakaway / set-piece; in the women's game the lesser team gets overwhelmed."

You very rarely see teams get done badly in the men's game, already in the WWC we've seen 10-0, 6-0, 4-0, - once there's a mismatch it quickly becomes a rout, and looking for example at the German game, 17 on target for 10 goals, Norway (9 s.o.t vs 4 goals), even Sweden-Nigeria (3-3, two evenly matched teams; 9 s.o.t vs 6 goals) - to me means it's too easy to score. In the EPL that ratio is more like 3.5-4 shots on target per goal scored.

To reiterate. We like goals but they have to be earned, and goalkeepers need to be treated fairly too.

I reckon there's about 20-25% more goals in the women's game

Still can't see this as a bad thing. Slightly less likely to get a 1-0 result. Good.

You very rarely see teams get done badly in the men's game, already in the WWC we've seen 10-0, 6-0, 4-0

That's probably down to participation in the game. Just like in rugby, fewer countries play it to a high level - not enough to fill a tournament. So there are some minnows in there, hence the results.

goals need to be relatively rare to maintain them being special. I can't imagine anyone wanting football to look like basketball with scoring almost being the norm every time someone heads towards it.

I agree about basketball being a bit ridiculous, but it doesn't seem to have hurt ice hockey. A typical match (back when I used to watch the ISL) might draw a score of 6-4 or some such. Goals are still "special," it's not like basketball where the aim doesn't seem to be to score but rather to not miss, but that sort of scoreline is surely more interesting than sitting there watching someone knock a ball about for an hour and a half and ending up with a no-score draw?

Agree that we don't want to see nil-alls all the time. However, I'm an ex-GK, and a purist, and if a GK plays their socks off they deserve to get a clean sheet. It's that much harder in the women's game, due to the size differential.

Female players have the skills to be every bit as precise as their male counterparts, that is not size or power related. If they shoot the ball 'just inside' the post, they deserve to score. The fact is, a female GK can't cover as much ground and hence you don't need to be 'just inside' any more, the margin for error is higher and they are still rewarded. Conversely, a female GK can be perfectly positioned, anticipate brilliantly, and still be beaten by a 'mediocre' attempt purely because of reach.

Read "The Numbers Game"

http://www.theguardian.com/books/2013/may/24/numbers-game-everything-football-wrong

and appreciate why a goal stopped is every bit as valuable as one scored.

There are more high scoring games as the womens game is not as developed world wide as the mens game and the gulf in team quality can be quite wide. Rugby World Cup 140-0 as teams face NZ who don't usually get to play them

Eng v Mexico KO @ 9pm - BBC3 if anyone interested.

@theotherjonv I read that book about 3 months ago. Some fascinating stuff in it which has made me look at games differently.

I've always enjoyed the technical aspects, both in terms of the skills of the game but also the theoretical side, which players are really valuable. And I can also predict the responses of the traditionalists on here who haven't read it.

I thought the section about corners was good and take a more than is healthy interest in them now. I participate in a football forum and there are normally sensible folk on there who just will not accept it.

Enjoying this match. Worst thing about it is the crowd, who seem to be out for a picnic rather than actual fans.