Women's football does it have a future?

[technodup]

Challo said:

Must be a troll or someone with attitudes to women stuck in the dark ages.

Because I think women's football is ste?

It is ste. It's pretty universally agreed it's ste. The only bad attitude here is wanting it promoted (at public cost via the BBC) purely because it's women, and therefore 'deserving'. Even though it's patently ste.

[amgmcqueen]

technodup said:

Challo said:

Must be a troll or someone with attitudes to women stuck in the dark ages.

Because I think women's football is ste?

It is ste. It's pretty universally agreed it's ste. The only bad attitude here is wanting it promoted (at public cost via the BBC) purely because it's women, and therefore 'deserving'. Even though it's patently ste.

+1
Let's be honest it's crap. People like to see the best humans in the world compete at physical sports.

[Challo]

amgmcqueen said:

technodup said:

Challo said:

Must be a troll or someone with attitudes to women stuck in the dark ages.

Because I think women's football is ste?

It is ste. It's pretty universally agreed it's ste. The only bad attitude here is wanting it promoted (at public cost via the BBC) purely because it's women, and therefore 'deserving'. Even though it's patently ste.

+1
Let's be honest it's crap. People like to see the best humans in the world compete at physical sports.

I certainly agree that it's not the same standard of men's football, but just because you think it's crap doesn't mean it shouldn't be covered by the BBC. What about all the other sports they cover? I think they are crap but other people like them so why not should BBC not cover them as well?

[MYOB]

Women's football is st!

And women's football news should not be lumped together with the men's football news. Keep them separate.

[okgo]

The thing is, there are other sports where the womens side has really taken hold. Tennis of course, despite it being far slower than mens is very very popular. How did they achieve that?

I'm a cycling fan and womens cycling (on the road) is given almost no time at all, and its very slow to watch vs mens. Yet womens track cycling is hugely popular, and many armchair fans know all about Laura Trott etc. How did they manage that? It is again much slower than the mens...

[TEKNOPUG]

Challo said:

amgmcqueen said:

technodup said:

Challo said:

Must be a troll or someone with attitudes to women stuck in the dark ages.

Because I think women's football is ste?

It is ste. It's pretty universally agreed it's ste. The only bad attitude here is wanting it promoted (at public cost via the BBC) purely because it's women, and therefore 'deserving'. Even though it's patently ste.

+1
Let's be honest it's crap. People like to see the best humans in the world compete at physical sports.

I certainly agree that it's not the same standard of men's football, but just because you think it's crap doesn't mean it shouldn't be covered by the BBC. What about all the other sports they cover? I think they are crap but other people like them so why not should BBC not cover them as well?

But the BBC do cover football already. Women's football isn't a different a sport. They don't cover Under 9's football or Over 50s football. Or the Redcar District Darts league. Or Essex County Sunday Bowls league. Or Men's Netball.

It's not a new sport or a minority sport. It's just people playing an already very popular sport at a low standard. I'm struggling to think of a sport that women don't play. There are certainly women's rugby union/league teams. They don't seem to be getting publicised anywhere near as much as women's football. It's never going to be as popular as men's football, as is clearly evident by the attendances. But that's not what is important - surely it's more important to become a popular participation sport, than a spectator sport?

Blatter said:

Maybe if they wore smaller shorts and tighter tops?

[London424]

okgo said:

The thing is, there are other sports where the womens side has really taken hold. Tennis of course, despite it being far slower than mens is very very popular. How did they achieve that?

I'm a cycling fan and womens cycling (on the road) is given almost no time at all, and its very slow to watch vs mens. Yet womens track cycling is hugely popular, and many armchair fans know all about Laura Trott etc. How did they manage that? It is again much slower than the mens...

I think I know the tennis one...

[London424]

okgo said:

The thing is, there are other sports where the womens side has really taken hold. Tennis of course, despite it being far slower than mens is very very popular. How did they achieve that?

I'm a cycling fan and womens cycling (on the road) is given almost no time at all, and its very slow to watch vs mens. Yet womens track cycling is hugely popular, and many armchair fans know all about Laura Trott etc. How did they manage that? It is again much slower than the mens...

In all seriousness though I think it's the fact that they are integrated into the men's event's. By that I mean that when you go to Wimbledon you would buy a ticket for Centre Court for the day. You end up watching mens and womens matches. Same for track cycling, same for athletics.

The interesting test would be how many Wimbledon tickets would they sell if the womens event was in the 2 weeks after the mens?

[TEKNOPUG]

London424 said:

okgo said:

The thing is, there are other sports where the womens side has really taken hold. Tennis of course, despite it being far slower than mens is very very popular. How did they achieve that?

I'm a cycling fan and womens cycling (on the road) is given almost no time at all, and its very slow to watch vs mens. Yet womens track cycling is hugely popular, and many armchair fans know all about Laura Trott etc. How did they manage that? It is again much slower than the mens...

In all seriousness though I think it's the fact that they are integrated into the men's event's. By that I mean that when you go to Wimbledon you would buy a ticket for Centre Court for the day. You end up watching mens and womens matches. Same for track cycling, same for athletics.

The interesting test would be how many Wimbledon tickets would they sell if the womens event was in the 2 weeks after the mens?

It's pretty dire. Stand at the base line and hit it back and forwards until someone hits it into the net/out. The vast majority of points are through un-forced errors, rather than passing shots.

[TEKNOPUG]

anonymous said:

[redacted]

I completely agree. They need to change it in such a way as to make it distinctive from the men's game.

[technodup]

Challo said:

What about all the other sports they cover? I think they are crap but other people like them so why not should BBC not cover them as well?

It's not a crap sport per se. It's the most popular sport on the planet done very badly.

BBC don't cover the Glasgow senior badminton league.

[mko9]

TwigtheWonderkid said:

One of the issues it has is that the gap between the men and the women is much wider than many other sports. A female sprinter isn't that much slower than a man, and the world's best women athletes are better than most amateur men. Serena Williams could walk into any tennis club and thrash the male pro at that club.

Not to sidetrack the discussion of football, but the comment that women sprinters aren't much slower than men is ridiculous. The men's WR in the 100m is almost a full second faster than the women's record - or ~10% faster. For reference, the women's WR is 10.49. When I was in high school we had two boys (16-17yr olds) on my track team who clocked a 10.5. My recollection is that neither even advanced to the State finals.

[okgo]

World class women in most things 'performance' are about as good as a decent level amateur man, though there are exceptions, and there are outliers (Radcliffe Mara) also.

But in cycling that is how it is. Running sounds similar from the above.

[footnote]

I've only watched a few women's matches but I thought they were fine and really very skillful. Probably not when compared to the premier league but then 99% of men's football is less skilled than the premier league.

I liked the fact that they actually relied on skill and not strength.
A lot of men's matches can be decided on whether one team is physically bigger or stronger than the other. Even in just one or two positions.

Equally they spent less time kicking lumps out of each other or shaping up for a headbutt - all in all it made good viewing although the lack of a large crowd probably diluted the atmosphere but then, you get that at lower level men's teams too.

Until girls are given footballs as their first toys, they'll probably struggle to match men.

I'm guessing a lot of the professional female players today still didn't start playing until much later in life than the average boy.

I'm crap at football but would still have played years more of it than most women - just because it was a 'boys' game.

[TwigtheWonderkid]

I'm really not getting the hatred for women's football. The last world cup was great. England made the semis and that was a great game. Were really unlucky to lose that match. Viewing figures were pretty decent as I recall.

I'm all for promoting it. Lots of young girls love football and wear their teams shirts. If they can be encouraged to actually play, even better.

I recall when Gabby Logan (Yorath as she was then) first pitch up on TV covering football, there was similar outrage. The we had the Keys and Gray episode mocking Sian Massey. It's all bks. Anyone who likes football or plays football is OK in my book. Even if they have different genitalia to my own.

[footnote]

anonymous said:

[redacted]

Well, I don't claim to have in-depth knowledge of football at all levels but I can only think you must have a different telly to me - and I don't even have sky.

Even teams as good as Liverpool struggle to counter height and aerial bombardment - so the same problems exist at all levels.

That Costa lad at Chelsea kicks the buggery out of people when he's not being skilful.

There isn't always a technical answer to brutality.

[footnote]

TwigtheWonderkid said:

I'm really not getting the hatred for women's football. The last world cup was great. England made the semis and that was a great game. Were really unlucky to lose that match. Viewing figures were pretty decent as I recall.

I'm all for promoting it. Lots of young girls love football and wear their teams shirts. If they can be encouraged to actually play, even better.

I recall when Gabby Logan (Yorath as she was then) first pitch up on TV covering football, there was similar outrage. The we had the Keys and Gray episode mocking Sian Massey. It's all bks. Anyone who likes football or plays football is OK in my book. Even if they have different genitalia to my own.

Agree - and the idea that all professional men's football is more enjoyable to watch than all women's ... just not true.

[Legacywr]

The woman's FA Cup is live on BBC2 now

[PhilH42]

My daughter plays for club and school (shes 16 now) and I've coached a bit as well. The girls/womens game is slow in comparison but theres plenty of skill and ability out there. Yes it is a very different game in some ways but there's still a market for it and its as enjoyable to watch and be involved with....even more so sometimes as the time they get on the ball can allow for more progressive football....even if I'm telling them FFS close it down half the time.

[joema]

I don't see the point of knocking the quality, with the limited talent pool to draw from and relative lack of experience we already know men's football is of a higher level. It achieves nothing except put people off.

The more girls it gets into sport and keep them involved the better. And more women to support it would be good also.

I have no problem with seeing it on the main page if it gets girls interested.

The trouble is we are fairly saturated with football stuff as it is so it's unlikely there's space for it in our lives if we already support a league team.