[Albion] Women"s FA Cup Quarter-Final Brighton V Charlton

[Swansman]

Perhaps they should make the goals in the women's game slightly smaller then? Although I'm sure some naughty men would then go on the internet and claim that the shooting was less powerful and accurate

Many, many years ago I played for our work 5-a-side team and we used to play once a year in an open tournament in Kent. It was as much a jolly as a sporting contest and usually only men's teams but one year a team entered made up of the Welsh University Ladies - essentially the best female players from any university in Wales.

These young, fit (as in athletically) and properly coached girls had the misfortune of drawing us first up - a team of variously sized office workers who had spent the previous night drinking till 4am in a nightclub called "Bonkers" and the hotel bar.

They played us off the pitch and we barely got near them, yet we won 1-0 (and got booed off). They had a number of shots, all very weak and straight at our keeper. We had one shot and it went straight through their keeper.

Women's football is a different game to men's just as the poster you quote says about tennis (and I agree, women's tennis is FAR better to watch than men's). If you choose to play on a pitch and using equipment that doesn't quite suit that different game, people are going to point out the deficiencies.

If you dont compare, then what indicates it doesnt suit that different game?

If we are doing the comparison thing: when the goal was invented, men were on average somewhere around the same height (167 cm back in 1900) as women are today (165 cm in the UK), so maybe the goals in the mens game should be expanded rather than decreasing the size of the goals in womens football?

 

[Guinness Boy]

If you dont compare, then what indicates it doesnt suit that different game?

If we are doing the comparison thing:

Your comment about reaching the top shelves suggested you were doing the comparison thing already. I've no idea why else you'd use that analogy

 

[Swansman]

Your comment about reaching the top shelves suggested you were doing the comparison thing already. I've no idea why else you'd use that analogy

What I meant with that, and I thought that was obvious because of the context but maybe not, was that being frustrated with female goalkeepers not reaching certain shots is the same as being frustrated with females not reaching top shelves: a frustration with the biological reality, and my point was that instead of "struggling with it", perhaps you can just accept it for what it is and look at it in the light of reality rather then the light of a desired reality.

 

[Guinness Boy]

What I meant with that, and I thought that was obvious because of the context but maybe not, was that being frustrated with female goalkeepers not reaching certain shots is the same as being frustrated with females not reaching top shelves: a frustration with the biological reality, and my point was that instead of "struggling with it", perhaps you can just accept it for what it is and look at it in the light of reality rather then the light of a desired reality.

And wouldn't making the goal slightly smaller make them easier to reach?

 

[Swansman]

And wouldn't making the goal slightly smaller make them easier to reach?

Yes. It would also be slightly more difficult to score.

Was football less fun to watch when the average height of men was that of a woman these days?

Or is it simply fine and acceptable that a PL game averages 2.69 goals per game with a WSL game averaging 3.17 goals per game? Does it need to change?

 

[Pavilionaire]

Yes. It would also be slightly more difficult to score.

Was football less fun to watch when the average height of men was that of a woman these days?

Or is it simply fine and acceptable that a PL game averages 2.69 goals per game with a WSL game averaging 3.17 goals per game? Does it need to change?

I'd venture that the extra 0.48 goals per match is down to poor keeping rather than better attacking.

Goalkeeping is the Achilles Heel of the woman's game, no doubt about it.

 

[Guinness Boy]

Yes. It would also be slightly more difficult to score.

As I said in the first paragraph of my post that you replied to.

Was football less fun to watch when the average height of men was that of a woman these days?

No idea, I wasn't alive. The fact that the rules have been almost continuously changed since then to make scoring easier, attacking more beneficial and tackles less dangerous would suggest that, yes, it was a lot less fun, but not because of how tall anyone was.

Or is it simply fine and acceptable that a PL game averages 2.69 goals per game with a WSL game averaging 3.17 goals per game? Does it need to change?

No it doesn't so long as you can accept that one of the reasons is that the goalkeepers are not very good.

Stat Bro has your number utterly. You're a victim lover. Were NSC awash with the sort of gushing praise for the women's game that's hard to escape from on the MSM you'd be taking the contrary position.

 

[Swansman]

As I said in the first paragraph of my post that you replied to.



No idea, I wasn't alive. The fact that the rules have been almost continuously changed since then to make scoring easier, attacking more beneficial and tackles less dangerous would suggest that, yes, it was a lot less fun, but not because of how tall anyone was.



No it doesn't so long as you can accept that one of the reasons is that the goalkeepers are not very good.

Stat Bro has your number utterly. You're a victim lover. Were NSC awash with the sort of gushing praise for the women's game that's hard to escape from on the MSM you'd be taking the contrary position.

I'd venture that the extra 0.48 goals per match is down to poor keeping rather than better attacking.

Goalkeeping is the Achilles Heel of the woman's game, no doubt about it.

So why is there significantly less goals scored today than say 50 years ago?

Okay, the goalkeepers are "poor". Poor compared to what?

 

[Pavilionaire]

Anyway, regardless of goalkeeping standard the women's game IS improving year on year, and I will be hoping the Albion girls can upset Arsenal later this afternoon.

 

[1066familyman]

If you dont compare, then what indicates it doesnt suit that different game?

If we are doing the comparison thing: when the goal was invented, men were on average somewhere around the same height (167 cm back in 1900) as women are today (165 cm in the UK), so maybe the goals in the mens game should be expanded rather than decreasing the size of the goals in womens football?

Well Berger has just shot down a lot of arguments with a quality save for Chelsea there in the dying moments But I'll continue nonetheless.

When I coached kids football we had a big philosophy of playing out from the back, pass and move, all the basic stuff that's thankfully just second nature now. However, at Under 11's our kids were expected to play 11 side on 3/4 pitches in 3/4 size goals. It was fecking ridiculous! We met many a team that just stuck a big lad up front, hope he got on the end of a punt up field then shoot from distance where the tiny keeper (in relation to the goals) had next to no chance. It was soul destroying. Matches were now more and more a physical battle and less and less about technical ability and player development.

What made it worse was that I was at the time doing FA Youth Module coaching courses, which were brilliant. Yet every time I brought up the issue of 11 aside too early they would shrug their shoulders and say the County FA's left the local leagues decide the format. I got interested in the GUBOG movement and thankfully, over time, the FA finally got their act together and forced change for the better.

In any physical sport, simple facts shouldn't be ignored and rules and regulations should be altered where needed. Kids are not adults (see cycling rules on gear restrictions for juniors). Women are not men. See every single track and field record going. Without exception, the World Records between men and women just don't compare. Like for like, men are stronger and faster than women.

Nine a side, 3/4 size pitches and goals for the women's game seems to make sense to me. Technically, like for like, women can easily match men. But physically, women and men don't compare, hence why girls have to go off into their own leagues from 12 years old ( I think that's the age the split starts?, I've not been involved for a long time). Emma Hayes is, I believe in support of a different format for the women's game. I'd listen to her all day talk football personally. Easily one of the best pundits during the Euro's, and as honest as they come. I'll leave the post with this:

https://www.rte.ie/sport/soccer/201...als-in-womens-football-a-debate-worth-having/

 

[Guinness Boy]

So why is there significantly less goals scored today than say 50 years ago?

Okay, the goalkeepers are "poor". Poor compared to what?

Derby won the First Division in 1971/2, the season 50 years ago and scored 69 goals in 42 games. Man City won last season's Premier League, scoring 83 in 38. Second team Man United scored 73.

Poor compared to the standard I'd expect of a professional sportsperson.

 

[Swansman]

Well Berger has just shot down a lot of arguments with a quality save for Chelsea there in the dying moments But I'll continue nonetheless.

When I coached kids football we had a big philosophy of playing out from the back, pass and move, all the basic stuff that's thankfully just second nature now. However, at Under 11's our kids were expected to play 11 side on 3/4 pitches in 3/4 size goals. It was fecking ridiculous! We met many a team that just stuck a big lad up front, hope he got on the end of a punt up field then shoot from distance where the tiny keeper (in relation to the goals) had next to no chance. It was soul destroying. Matches were now more and more a physical battle and less and less about technical ability and player development.

What made it worse was that I was at the time doing FA Youth Module coaching courses, which were brilliant. Yet every time I brought up the issue of 11 aside too early they would shrug their shoulders and say the County FA's left the local leagues decide the format. I got interested in the GUBOG movement and thankfully, over time, the FA finally got their act together and forced change for the better.

In any physical sport, simple facts shouldn't be ignored and rules and regulations should be altered where needed. Kids are not adults (see cycling rules on gear restrictions for juniors). Women are not men. See every single track and field record going. Without exception, the World Records between men and women just don't compare. Like for like, men are stronger and faster than women.

Nine a side, 3/4 size pitches and goals for the women's game seems to make sense to me. Technically, like for like, women can easily match men. But physically, women and men don't compare, hence why girls have to go off into their own leagues from 12 years old ( I think that's the age the split starts?, I've not been involved for a long time). Emma Hayes is, I believe in support of a different format for the women's game. I'd listen to her all day talk football personally. Easily one of the best pundits during the Euro's, and as honest as they come. I'll leave the post with this:

https://www.rte.ie/sport/soccer/201...als-in-womens-football-a-debate-worth-having/

I know they are not comparable, so why change the playing fields to make mens and womens football comparable? I just dont see the purpose. As it stands the playing field is the same but the differences between men and women makes it played in slightly different ways. Is there really any harm in that? Why does it need to be adapted to more resemble mens football (in terms of intensity and number of goals etc).?

Yup, well aware of Hayes opinion. Also well aware of the dozens of female football players who said they dont agree with her and I've yet to hear one single female goalkeeper agree with Hayes.

Perhaps the players should get to decide the future of the sport, rather than any of us in here. Maybe they would vote for smaller goals and smaller pitches, but I dont think so seeing how they voted on "adaptions" in the past. After the first Womens World Cup FIFA asked all the teams "so... you sure you dont want to play with a size four football instead of the size five?". They all said they wanted the size five. They also asked "so... you sure you can handle 90 minutes or is 80 fine with you?". Most said 90. Back in 95 when the corrupt old men running football still worried about football being dangerous to women, they experimented with each team being able to call for a "team talk", with the mention that it would allow the players "some rest". Did they want to keep it? No. **** the teamtalks, was the verdict.

 

[Swansman]

Derby won the First Division in 1971/2, the season 50 years ago and scored 69 goals in 42 games. Man City won last season's Premier League, scoring 83 in 38. Second team Man United scored 73.

Poor compared to the standard I'd expect of a professional sportsperson.

You are right, 50 years ago isnt as long ago as it used to be. But lets go back 70 years then: despite all "rule changes to make it easier to attack", the 1966 World Cup was the first one with less than 3 goals or more per game.

Maybe your expectations are based on the performances of male goalkeepers.

 

[1066familyman]

I know they are not comparable, so why change the playing fields to make mens and womens football comparable? I just dont see the purpose. As it stands the playing field is the same but the differences between men and women makes it played in slightly different ways. Is there really any harm in that? Why does it need to be adapted to more resemble mens football (in terms of intensity and number of goals etc).?

Yup, well aware of Hayes opinion. Also well aware of the dozens of female football players who said they dont agree with her and I've yet to hear one single female goalkeeper agree with Hayes.

Perhaps the players should get to decide the future of the sport, rather than any of us in here. Maybe they would vote for smaller goals and smaller pitches, but I dont think so seeing how they voted on "adaptions" in the past. After the first Womens World Cup FIFA asked all the teams "so... you sure you dont want to play with a size four football instead of the size five?". They all said they wanted the size five. They also asked "so... you sure you can handle 90 minutes or is 80 fine with you?". Most said 90. Back in 95 when the corrupt old men running football still worried about football being dangerous to women, they experimented with each team being able to call for a "team talk", with the mention that it would allow the players "some rest". Did they want to keep it? No. **** the teamtalks, was the verdict.

There's a nuance here on the word comparable. You argue that the outcomes shouldn't be made to be comparable, whilst wanting to stick to comparable rules and regulations. I believe that in keeping the rules and regulations comparable, the very different outcomes opens the women's game up for needless scrutiny and arguably ridicule from many football fans. Although ultimately, you argue it shouldn't matter what fans think, only the what the players think. I'd disagree with that if the aim of the women's game now is to bring it to a much wider audience.

I agree that the players themselves should really have a say on any proposed changes. I know vocal members in the women's peloton are sick and tired of the shorter/easier parcours they are often given for example. In fact, in endurance sports, differences between men and women often reduce as distance increases. I personally see no value in reducing women's football to 80 minutes. And breaks for team talks would be bollox. Both those ideas feel very patronising to me.

Elite sport as entertainment that has to be 'marketed' to an audience tends not to consult the players much when it comes to changes to rules and regulations, rightly or wrongly. And whilst I'd agree that it's not us on here that should be deciding, it probably is the likes of us on here as well that they're trying to attract as supporters of women's football. Any changes are likely to hopefully be to see more 'exciting' outcomes, and right now, watching the women's game as it is doesn't feel as exciting to me as I feel it could be.

 

[Guinness Boy]

You are right, 50 years ago isnt as long ago as it used to be. But lets go back 70 years then: despite all "rule changes to make it easier to attack", the 1966 World Cup was the first one with less than 3 goals or more per game.

Maybe your expectations are based on the performances of male goalkeepers.

World Cups are nothing like what they were back then now. The players these days could play in an elite league anywhere, are all professional without the need for second jobs and have sports nutrition and coaches for pretty much everything. The difference in goals per game has little to do with height at all and the quality is exponentially higher.

And you also appear to be equating goals to quality and entertainment. I've seen some very entertaining and high quality 0-0s in my time. Good defending is appreciated by lots of football fans.

And, ultimately, that's what it comes down to. The women's game currently has a growing but limited audience. It'll never appeal to a certain section of fan, not because they're sexist, but because they like to see powerful shots, reflex saves and full on challenges.

 

[andy1980]

We lost by the way. But a 3-0 defeat isnt outrageous.