Women's World Cup 2015
Discussion
I'm a big fan of women's football. I love football and I love women, so what's not to like and admire about women who play football.
But, no, an international women's team, even the best such as Japan, USA, Germany, and now England, could not compete against a decent well organised men's side. Certainly they would get heavily beaten by a non league side. I doubt they'd get much joy against a university 1st 11.
But I don't care. They aren't playing men, they are against each other, and it's great to watch.
Both my sons ref and I often watch youth football. They're not great compared to fully grown men either, but against each other, I've seen some edge of the seat cracking matches.
But, no, an international women's team, even the best such as Japan, USA, Germany, and now England, could not compete against a decent well organised men's side. Certainly they would get heavily beaten by a non league side. I doubt they'd get much joy against a university 1st 11.
But I don't care. They aren't playing men, they are against each other, and it's great to watch.
Both my sons ref and I often watch youth football. They're not great compared to fully grown men either, but against each other, I've seen some edge of the seat cracking matches.
People are seriously suggesting that the woman's USA team would get beaten by a men's University team? Really? What's next, they would be beaten by an under 11's?
I agree the standard is not as high as the top of the men's game, but to say that it is non-league is ridiculous.
Edit: what I am comparing is the level of financial investment between the two. Until that is the same then I think it is unfair to compare them. Technical ability wise their is no reason whatsoever that the women should not be as skilled as the men, given the same level of training.
I agree the standard is not as high as the top of the men's game, but to say that it is non-league is ridiculous.
Edit: what I am comparing is the level of financial investment between the two. Until that is the same then I think it is unfair to compare them. Technical ability wise their is no reason whatsoever that the women should not be as skilled as the men, given the same level of training.
vonuber said:
People are seriously suggesting that the woman's USA team would get beaten by a men's University team? Really? What's next, they would be beaten by an under 11's?
I agree the standard is not as high as the top of the men's game, but to say that it is non-league is ridiculous.
Edit: what I am comparing is the level of financial investment between the two. Until that is the same then I think it is unfair to compare them. Technical ability wise their is no reason whatsoever that the women should not be as skilled as the men, given the same level of training.
Its not ridiculous to say it's non-league, it's just being realistic.I agree the standard is not as high as the top of the men's game, but to say that it is non-league is ridiculous.
Edit: what I am comparing is the level of financial investment between the two. Until that is the same then I think it is unfair to compare them. Technical ability wise their is no reason whatsoever that the women should not be as skilled as the men, given the same level of training.
I'm not sure why you think it's even comparable. Have you watched/played much/any non-league football?
You can talk about technical ability as much as you like but you can't get around physiology I'm afraid.
London424 said:
I'm not sure why you think it's even comparable. Have you watched/played much/any non-league football?
It's a fair question but I was trying to avoid the "have you ever played football?" question, else we get into the I played at a higher level than you did bickering. However like you, I do wonder. 
For what it is worth, my personal standard is strictly Sunday league - and not a particularly great one at that, I know my limits. Regarding watching football - yes I used to be regular Macclesfield Town - Conference, Division 4 and 3. So you can all you like, just because I have not played professionally doesn't mean I cannot appreciate different levels of football.
In my opinion, the USA women's team - to use an example - is technically better than non-league by a long way. Of course when it comes to shear strength the women will lose out - but football is not merely a test of strength is it.
Anyway, the final is tonight - should be a good watch.
all you like, just because I have not played professionally doesn't mean I cannot appreciate different levels of football.In my opinion, the USA women's team - to use an example - is technically better than non-league by a long way. Of course when it comes to shear strength the women will lose out - but football is not merely a test of strength is it.
Anyway, the final is tonight - should be a good watch.
vonuber said:
For what it is worth, my personal standard is strictly Sunday league - and not a particularly great one at that, I know my limits. Regarding watching football - yes I used to be regular Macclesfield Town - Conference, Division 4 and 3. So you can all you like, just because I have not played professionally doesn't mean I cannot appreciate different levels of football.
In my opinion, the USA women's team - to use an example - is technically better than non-league by a long way. Of course when it comes to shear strength the women will lose out - but football is not merely a test of strength is it.
Anyway, the final is tonight - should be a good watch.
What do you mean by technically better? all you like, just because I have not played professionally doesn't mean I cannot appreciate different levels of football.In my opinion, the USA women's team - to use an example - is technically better than non-league by a long way. Of course when it comes to shear strength the women will lose out - but football is not merely a test of strength is it.
Anyway, the final is tonight - should be a good watch.
Let's take Macclesfield as an example. I've never seen them play but I'm guessing like many teams at that sort of level they play fairly direct.
Now, the women's teams are pretty much 5'4 - 5'8 and the majority of that Macclesfield team will be at or around 6'. They are also faster, stronger and can jump higher.
There is literally nothing a women's team can do about that. Every set piece, every long ball they will get destroyed.
So yes, the women will try and pass the ball more but wouldn't get out of their half.
vonuber said:
People are seriously suggesting that the woman's USA team would get beaten by a men's University team?
As said, I'm a fan of women's football. But yes, a university men's first 11 would beat the current USA women's team, imho. They would have no answer to the speed, power, height and strength. Technical ability is one thing, but it's no good if you can't get the ball. But as I've said, who cares. This world cup has been great, and the women's England team have been a revelation.
RichB said:
I have 
Fulham vs Macclesfield in the FA Cup back in 1968. Fulham won 4:2 seem to remember it was a good game. I expect either side would have knocked 10 past any of the ladies teams 
Macc are s Fulham vs Macclesfield in the FA Cup back in 1968. Fulham won 4:2 seem to remember it was a good game. I expect either side would have knocked 10 past any of the ladies teams 
t 
Anyway, I guess we won't agree on this, I just think you are doing them a disservice.
We should be celebrating the women's achievement, it's a shame the FA have thrown their toys out the pram and they won't be at the Olympics which they have automatically qualified for.
London424 said:
They really aren't. They are between 5'4 and 5'7.
It's just schoolboy stuff...and the less said about the GK's the better.
Hope Solo is 5' 9.It's just schoolboy stuff...and the less said about the GK's the better.
Abby Wambach is 5' 11
Lauren Holiday is 5' 8
Shannon Boxx is 5' 8
Etc.
And regard the schoolboy stuff, I assume you were saying the same when Brazil were stuffed, or England, or whoever.
Japan were very poor to start with and the US made the most of it. Catching the keeper off her line was a rather audacious bit of skill.
Edit: the tallest Japanese player I could find was 5' 6. The US has a massive average height advantage, and with it probably size and power. Incidentally, the England team was almost physically much bigger than the Japanese - they are relying on ball retention, passing and skill to score. A bit like Spain used to.
Edit #2:
Spain's world cup winning squad of 2010 contained such giants as Iniesta (5' 7), Xavi (5' 7), Mata (5' 7), Silva (5' 7), Navas (5' 7).. just as well they didn't meet some non-league opposition eh.
Edited by vonuber on Monday 6th July 00:57
Edited by vonuber on Monday 6th July 01:10
Gassing Station | Football | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff