[Football] Women’s football, do you watch it?

[cunning fergus]

It's growing in popularity and importance (that's the way of the world) and I think our club beat many others in establishing a decent setup which, as has been mentioned above, is punching above its weight against much bigger clubs chucking much more money the way of their women's teams - as you can't just create a good women's side overnight. Talking to a colleague who follows them today, she pointed out that our women use the same training facility as the men and are generally regarded as being treated much more as professionals and part of the club than at many other teams - which has attracted some decent players.

I have watched the odd game on TV but not attended a game, although I have no objection to going. If they'd made the cup final last year I think I'd have gone.

For me a big step would be regularly having double-headers at the Amex. If you look at the most obvious sports where women and men are more equal in terms of prestige (I'm thinking tennis and athletics), it's because punters don't have to choose between them - you get both on the same ticket. I couldn't possibly give up more time to start attending women's games as well as the men, but if it was a case of "I'll be home 2 hours later than usual as there's the women's game on after", then I'd definitely stay and watch, and I think lots of others would as well.

If the “way of the world” was consistent we would not have gender apartheid in sports and this half baked indulgence of women’s sport. There is clear evidence that women are as physically capable as men………..

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news...ers-close-combat-ground-role-ban-to-be-lifted

No doubt some of the old fashion traditionalists would like to keep the men’s and women’s game separate but the progressive way forward would be to allow women to compete with men.

If we need set quotas of women in football teams and “positive” discrimination to install women managers (or a Colleen Rule) so be it.

The non essence on trans would be dealt with at a stroke too.

 

[dazzer6666]

What are you benchmarking your standard against to arrive at "appalling". The mens Premier League? Of course it is going to be of a lower standard. Do you benchmark Raducanu against Nadal? Do you benchmark Savannah Marshall against Golovkin?

The English Roses are absolute standouts in world rugby. Why? Because we have 30 fulltime professionals which no other country has. They are strolling through the six nations but they are never going to beat a top Premiership mens team.

Just because the standard is lower it doesn't necessarily mean that games aren't competetive and exciting. Nobody goes to watch a county league side expecting to get the same standard that you see in the EPL.

Correct. Also need to take into account the speed at which the standard is improving…….I’ve been watching live games regularly in T2 for 3-4 seasons and the rate of improvement (technical ability, fitness, tactics) is rapid. It’s 50 years behind the men’s game in terms of development, of course the standards will be worlds apart (for now) and it’s still easy for anyone that wants to take a cheap shot to find a few bloopers. Incidentally England’s group game at the Amex in July has sold out.

 

[carlzeiss]

Congratulations to Blair Hamilton for her call up to the women's England international University football team

https://www.theargus.co.uk/news/200...otball-receives-england-universities-call-up/

Transgender woman who used to play men's football receives England Universities call-up

 

[Surf's Up]

I know the “it’s a different game” argument but comparisons with the mens game are inevitable and unavoidable and, with the exception of one or two of the top players, the current standard is pretty poor. Bizarrely and in particular the standard of goalkeeping is shocking.

 

[strings]

Not so much women's football - but Women's rugby (the 6 nations at on at the moment) is worth a watch - and Women's rugby sevens is absolutely worth a watch. The standard (especially now sevens has been in the last two olympics) is outstanding - it has come a long way in a short time.

 

[Official Old Man]

I too have tickets for the Euros at the Amex. But that is more because it's the Euros and it's at the Amex. Wouldn't go out of my way to watch a league game.

 

[Garry Nelson's teacher]

Not so much women's football - but Women's rugby (the 6 nations at on at the moment) is worth a watch - and Women's rugby sevens is absolutely worth a watch. The standard (especially now sevens has been in the last two olympics) is outstanding - it has come a long way in a short time.

Agree with this. I'd also throw in women's cricket as being pretty watchable (shorter boundaries help).

 

[rippleman]

If the “way of the world” was consistent we would not have gender apartheid in sports and this half baked indulgence of women’s sport. There is clear evidence that women are as physically capable as men………..

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news...ers-close-combat-ground-role-ban-to-be-lifted

No doubt some of the old fashion traditionalists would like to keep the men’s and women’s game separate but the progressive way forward would be to allow women to compete with men.

If we need set quotas of women in football teams and “positive” discrimination to install women managers (or a Colleen Rule) so be it.

The non essence on trans would be dealt with at a stroke too.

If your premise is correct then why are all the mens athletic / swimming / weightlifting etc world records faster / longer / higher than the womens?

You really believe that a woman boxing world champion would beat the male equivalent at the same weight?

You believe that the European Solheim Cup team could beat the Ryder Cup team?

The more I think about it, the dafter your proposition becomes. There is plenty of information out there that explains the physiological differences between males and females and why it is not, and never will be, the case that men and women can compete against each other in the vast majority of sports.

(Anything that involves riding horses, lawn bowls, croquet are excepted. There are probably a few more). Why women aren't competetive against men in non physical sports eg snooker, darts and the like does baffle me. There shouldn't be any disparity between the sexes.

 

[amexer]

If your premise is correct then why are all the mens athletic / swimming / weightlifting etc world records faster / longer / higher than the womens?

You really believe that a woman boxing world champion would beat the male equivalent at the same weight?

You believe that the European Solheim Cup team could beat the Ryder Cup team?

The more I think about it, the dafter your proposition becomes. There is plenty of information out there that explains the physiological differences between males and females and why it is not, and never will be, the case that men and women can compete against each other in the vast majority of sports.

(Anything that involves riding horses, lawn bowls, croquet are excepted. There are probably a few more). Why women aren't competetive against men in non physical sports eg snooker, darts and the like does baffle me. There shouldn't be any disparity between the sexes.

I see the trans cyclist that wants to ride for for the womens team I see competed for England under 18s mens team just 2 years ago in a 25 mile race. Won it with a time of 2mins better than the womens race. No wonder they dont welcome her/him on board

 

[cunning fergus]

If your premise is correct then why are all the mens athletic / swimming / weightlifting etc world records faster / longer / higher than the womens?

You really believe that a woman boxing world champion would beat the male equivalent at the same weight?

You believe that the European Solheim Cup team could beat the Ryder Cup team?

The more I think about it, the dafter your proposition becomes. There is plenty of information out there that explains the physiological differences between males and females and why it is not, and never will be, the case that men and women can compete against each other in the vast majority of sports.

(Anything that involves riding horses, lawn bowls, croquet are excepted. There are probably a few more). Why women aren't competetive against men in non physical sports eg snooker, darts and the like does baffle me. There shouldn't be any disparity between the sexes.

If the MoD and its peer counterparts in NATO etc. have concluded after years of research that women trained as infantry are as capable as males (physically and mentally) then that’s good enough for me.

On the face of it I accept your points, however allowing women to compete in male sport would provide a) access to the unrivalled riches of male sports, and b) the opportunity to advance in a more competitive environment.

This approach is already well established in other areas of society, and if done legally, quotas of women and men in football teams could work. If people genuinely cared enough about womens sport then this will happen, if not they can continue to patronise sports women.

 

[hans kraay fan club]

If the MoD and its peer counterparts in NATO etc. have concluded after years of research that women trained as infantry are as capable as males (physically and mentally) then that’s good enough for me.

On the face of it I accept your points, however allowing women to compete in male sport would provide a) access to the unrivalled riches of male sports, and b) the opportunity to advance in a more competitive environment.

This approach is already well established in other areas of society, and if done legally, quotas of women and men in football teams could work. If people genuinely cared enough about womens' sport then this will happen, if not they can continue to patronise sports women.

As ever, your attempts to be edgy or cleverer than the rest of us, make it hard to dissect your genuine points from the nonsense added for sake of argument.

On the infantry bit - I'm completely certain, that they are concluding that both sexes are equally capable of of reaching a set bar, that would deem them 'capable' of performing the required infantry roles. It doesn't follow that they would be capable of going above and beyond that mark, to the same degree - as would be relevant in endurance / strength / speed elements of competitive sports. The test might for example say that all recruits must be able to run 100m in 16 seconds, and lift 30kgs. If a man can run it in 13s and lift 70kg, and a woman can run it in 15s and lift 45kg, then they are equally (ie 100%) 'capable' of reaching the dictated targets.

In terms of mixing men and women in (professional) football or other similar contact sports, where they are directly competing physically against each other - it is a non-starter. The imbalance would make it unworkable, and probably unsafe.

Of course mixed-sex teams can work in non-contact sports - mixed doubles tennis the most obvious example. There are mixed relays in athletics and cycling, in Olympic triathlon, and in some skiing events at the recent Winter Olympics. In each of those though, the premise is that your team will consist of x number of male, and x number of female members, so essentially the woman athlete is competing against her counterpart in the opposing teams.

There's nothing inherently 'patronising' in the slightest about supporting or enjoying women's sporting endeavours in single-sex competition. Its a preposterous suggestion.

 

[cunning fergus]

As ever, your attempts to be edgy or cleverer than the rest of us, make it hard to dissect your genuine points from the nonsense added for sake of argument.

On the infantry bit - I'm completely certain, that they are concluding that both sexes are equally capable of of reaching a set bar, that would deem them 'capable' of performing the required infantry roles. It doesn't follow that they would be capable of going above and beyond that mark, to the same degree - as would be relevant in endurance / strength / speed elements of competitive sports. The test might for example say that all recruits must be able to run 100m in 16 seconds, and lift 30kgs. If a man can run it in 13s and lift 70kg, and a woman can run it in 15s and lift 45kg, then they are equally (ie 100%) 'capable' of reaching the dictated targets.

In terms of mixing men and women in (professional) football or other similar contact sports, where they are directly competing physically against each other - it is a non-starter. The imbalance would make it unworkable, and probably unsafe.

Of course mixed-sex teams can work in non-contact sports - mixed doubles tennis the most obvious example. There are mixed relays in athletics and cycling, in Olympic triathlon, and in some skiing events at the recent Winter Olympics. In each of those though, the premise is that your team will consist of x number of male, and x number of female members, so essentially the woman athlete is competing against her counterpart in the opposing teams.

There's nothing inherently 'patronising' in the slightest about supporting or enjoying women's sporting endeavours in single-sex competition. Its a preposterous suggestion.

I am struggling to understand your point, if the MOD, after years of analysis, have concluded that women can operate in front line roles, including Marines and special forces, then those women that pass the required tests will operate in equal terms with their male comrades.

There are no half measures I am aware of here, but that appears to be your suggestion? Do women firefighters or women police officers operate in their role in exactly the same way as their male counterparts? I think they do?

The world has turned Grandad, and women are no doing things that were closed to them years ago.

If they are in the front line whether in the Fire service, Police Service or infantry, earning the same as their male counterparts why should sport be different.

Quotas to introduce 2-3 women into football teams would be a start, in time it can be up to 5 or 6. They would be earning similar money to the male players and we deal with unequal pay and trans issues at a stroke.

Progress is there if only we want to make it happen………anything less is patronising women sports stars.

 

[WATFORD zero]

If the “way of the world” was consistent we would not have gender apartheid in sports and this half baked indulgence of women’s sport. There is clear evidence that women are as physically capable as men………..

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news...ers-close-combat-ground-role-ban-to-be-lifted

No doubt some of the old fashion traditionalists would like to keep the men’s and women’s game separate but the progressive way forward would be to allow women to compete with men.

If we need set quotas of women in football teams and “positive” discrimination to install women managers (or a Colleen Rule) so be it.

The non essence on trans would be dealt with at a stroke too.

Bit of a Freudian slip, but I do think that having been banned for racism multiple times on NSC, sexism is probably a better target (for now)

 

[hans kraay fan club]

I am struggling to understand your point, if the MOD, after years of analysis, have concluded that women can operate in front line roles, including Marines and special forces, then those women that pass the required tests will operate in equal terms with their male comrades.

There are no half measures I am aware of here, but that appears to be your suggestion? Do women firefighters or women police officers operate in their role in exactly the same way as their male counterparts? I think they do?

The world has turned Grandad, and women are no doing things that were closed to them years ago.

If they are in the front line whether in the Fire service, Police Service or infantry, earning the same as their male counterparts why should sport be different.

Quotas to introduce 2-3 women into football teams would be a start, in time it can be up to 5 or 6. They would be earning similar money to the male players and we deal with unequal pay and trans issues at a stroke.

Progress is there if only we want to make it happen………anything less is patronising women sports stars.

Disingenuous as ever.

You’re not ‘struggling’ to understand anything. You’re choosing to pretend not to.

Happy to spell it out again in as simple terms as possible for you, though. If the MOD, fire service, or police, set minimum physical standards, that prospective recruits need to meet, and have concluded that women are equally capable of meeting those, it proves only that - that they can equally meet those set criteria. It does not mean their maximum physical capabilities are equal (as well you understand).

Your quota theory - let’s make every football side be forced to include two, three, four female players - is probably the idea most patronising of female athletes that I’ve ever heard. They’d inevitably, and naturally, be the smallest, weakest, slowest players on the side, and the management of the game would be how best to ‘hide’ them.

Nor would it ‘deal with trans issues at a stroke’. Quite the opposite. Does your trans player count towards the quota of female players, or as a male player? If the former you’re allowing a team to play one less physically weaker, slower team member than dictated by your new rules. The exact same arguments persist.

 

[cunning fergus]

Disingenuous as ever.

You’re not ‘struggling’ to understand anything. You’re choosing to pretend not to.

Happy to spell it out again in as simple terms as possible for you, though. If the MOD, fire service, or police, set minimum physical standards, that prospective recruits need to meet, and have concluded that women are equally capable of meeting those, it proves only that - that they can equally meet those set criteria. It does not mean their maximum physical capabilities are equal (as well you understand).

Your quota theory - let’s make every football side be forced to include two, three, four female players - is probably the idea most patronising of female athletes that I’ve ever heard. They’d inevitably, and naturally, be the smallest, weakest, slowest players on the side, and the management of the game would be how best to ‘hide’ them.

Nor would it ‘deal with trans issues at a stroke’. Quite the opposite. Does your trans player count towards the quota of female players, or as a male player? If the former you’re allowing a team to play one less physically weaker, slower team member than dictated by your new rules. The exact same arguments persist.

You can spell out your point as many times as you want, once a woman has passed the test to undertake a front line role, then she is undertaking a front line role. She will not be treated any differently from her male comrades, she will do exactly what the men are expected to do and she will be paid the same as men. That is at it should be, and as it is in the fire and police service.

Women working with men in all of these roles provide the platform for sports to adopt a similar approach, and especially in team sports like football. Separating the women’s game from the men’s game denies equal opportunity for women, and the wage gap will never be realistically closed unless a) the men’s game financially offsets the women’s game or b) like the armed forces, teams recruit from both genders…….and quotas will be needed to start this.

You are wrong about the trans issue too, the authorities simply need to make the choice on policy as to whether on not trans men or trans women can be in the their respective quota. I can understand why you are struggling with the concept of equal opportunity, your mind isn’t as open as you think it is.

Unless radical steps are taken to address gender apartheid threads of well meaning supporters of the women’s game are simply maintaining the status quo. If they were serious about the advancement of women in sport they would be asking for the WSL to be disbanded……….they can play with the men.

 

[dazzer6666]

You can spell out your point as many times as you want, once a woman has passed the test to undertake a front line role, then she is undertaking a front line role. She will not be treated any differently from her male comrades, she will do exactly what the men are expected to do and she will be paid the same as men. That is at it should be, and as it is in the fire and police service.

Women working with men in all of these roles provide the platform for sports to adopt a similar approach, and especially in team sports like football. Separating the women’s game from the men’s game denies equal opportunity for women, and the wage gap will never be realistically closed unless a) the men’s game financially offsets the women’s game or b) like the armed forces, teams recruit from both genders…….and quotas will be needed to start this.

You are wrong about the trans issue too, the authorities simply need to make the choice on policy as to whether on not trans men or trans women can be in the their respective quota. I can understand why you are struggling with the concept of equal opportunity, your mind isn’t as open as you think it is.

Unless radical steps are taken to address gender apartheid threads of well meaning supporters of the women’s game are simply maintaining the status quo. If they were serious about the advancement of women in sport they would be asking for the WSL to be disbanded……….they can play with the men.

Rubbish. The physical attributes of roles differ massively, and the weighting of physical and mental attributes similarly - basically you can’t compare a copper or a soldier with a centre back. It’s not ‘gender apartheid’, it’s a different branch of the same sport.

 

[cunning fergus]

Rubbish. The physical attributes of roles differ massively, and the weighting of physical and mental attributes similarly - basically you can’t compare a copper or a soldier with a centre back. It’s not ‘gender apartheid’, it’s a different branch of the same sport.

I agree you can’t compare the physical and mental demands of a full time copper or front line infantry soldier with that of a professional footballer. One group puts their lives literally on the line, the other runs about a few times a week and shops for Gucci.

Keeping professional footballers separated by gender, when in other facets of society men and women face far more demanding physical and mental challenges day in day out means there is “apartheid”. This is especially toxic in terms of pay.

Women now have the same opportunity as men in the armed forces, if the Government after years of analysis concludes they can close with the Queens enemies (male or female) in the next military adventure we have, then booting a pigs bladder round a park under FA Rules with men is a piece of piss.

If course the conservative old blazer and tie brigade will resist it but sometimes structural problems need radical solutions.

 

[dazzer6666]

I agree you can’t compare the physical and mental demands of a full time copper or front line infantry soldier with that of a professional footballer. One group puts their lives literally on the line, the other runs about a few times a week and shops for Gucci.

Keeping professional footballers separated by gender, when in other facets of society men and women face far more demanding physical and mental challenges day in day out means there is “apartheid”. This is especially toxic in terms of pay.

Women now have the same opportunity as men in the armed forces, if the Government after years of analysis concludes they can close with the Queens enemies (male or female) in the next military adventure we have, then booting a pigs bladder round a park under FA Rules with men is a piece of piss.

If course the conservative old blazer and tie brigade will resist it but sometimes structural problems need radical solutions.

Philosophically yes, but it’s too radical……..…the physical aspects won’t and can’t be equalised. Any top WSL striker trying to head a corner would be easily cleaned out by a L2 CB every single time because the CB will be 6” taller and 30kg heavier, women can’t sprint as fast (fact) etc etc. You also couldn’t have a quota of women in a game dominated by men - they’d still come up against each other in 1-1 situations. A female artillery soldier with a gun has evened up the odds somewhat with a male opponent. I watch a lot of live mens and womens football……the women in T2 couldn’t cope physically with men in T6 or 7

 

[Swansman]

Philosophically yes, but it’s too radical……..…the physical aspects won’t and can’t be equalised. Any top WSL striker trying to head a corner would be easily cleaned out by a L2 CB every single time because the CB will be 6” taller and 30kg heavier, women can’t sprint as fast (fact) etc etc. You also couldn’t have a quota of women in a game dominated by men - they’d still come up against each other in 1-1 situations. A female artillery soldier with a gun has evened up the odds somewhat with a male opponent. I watch a lot of live mens and womens football……the women in T2 couldn’t cope physically with men in T6 or 7

He is 200% trolling and only looking to wind up people.

 

[jackalbion]

Started watching it while ground hopping this season and have really enjoyed it, it’s certainly a different style of play, but still very enjoyable