Yeah, I'm truly devastated.

Biggus wrote:

Ingmar Bergman Max Von Sydow Greta Garbo Bjorn Benny Anna-Frid & Agnetha Gustav Adolphus Alfred Nobel Bjorn Borg Anders Limpar Freddie Ljunberg Klaus & Rex- Your girls really took a beating.

Thought you'd like that one Jens.

Lol One of the Colombians is named Ospina, any relation?

The Arsenal players involved aren't playing particularly well.

As I type though Sanderson nearly pulls off a great goal.

[video=dailymotion]

take a bow luv!

That keeper is ridiculously short, 5'8" according to wikipedia.

For a man maybe. Pretty tall for a woman though.

Are their goals the same size?

Are their x chromosomes the same?

It was a genuine question, Lulz. The answer appears to be yes, the goals are the same size in male and female football. Bit stupid when a 5'8" keeper is considered "tall" in women's football.

Oh ok sorry. Thought you were being sarcastic. Dunno if their goals are the same but for any female being 5"8' is considered pretty tall and very far from being absurdly short. Maybe absurdly short in goalkeeping terms for men but even for women I don't think most goalkeepers are 6". She might be slightly on the short side for a female goalkeeper but I doubt it's by more than 1 or 2 inches.

Edit: By the way I find it insulting to be called stupid for insinuating that a 5"8' woman is tall.

No, I'm not calling you stupid! I mean that it's stupid to use the same size of goal when all of the female keepers are way smaller than their male counterparts. She is too short to effectively cover that goal frame, that goal was mostly scored because she's too short (not taking anything away from the shot or the placement, which were excellent). That's why I looked up her height straight away, it's the first thing I noticed when I watched the clip.

Fair enough. Are you sure though that the size of the goals are the same as for the men's game. If so then maybe there is a problem. But I doubt it's that big of a deal seeing as everyone is subject to the same rules. Not sure but if children and young people now are anything to go by then I think generation by generation people are becoming taller.

No facts to back this up, just my impression when I compare how tall everyone I knew when I was young compared to the teenagers and early 20 something's I see running around now. If that is the case then the goalkeepers of the past must have found it harder than the 6"5 monsters we see in goal nowadays.

Think I'm just saying that as long as the rules and equipment is the same regardless of opponent then whatever disadvantage against one team also works to their advantage when attacking the other.

IG has a point. After all, increasing the size of goals for the men's game would probably be unjustifiable even though you can use the same argument that the effects would be symmetrically applied.

That said, it's clear the women's game is far from a mature stage. It might not have gotten to the point where keeper size is much more significant in consideration, as basic skill-sets might not be great for women's keepers overall.

Everything is the same, even as I said before the 90 minutes.
I think 80 minutes is enough for them they fade badly at the end.

Edit: @Lulz, Btw I find it insulting to be called a monster.

banduan wrote:

[video=dailymotion]

take a bow luv!

Is their Henry the same as our Henry?

Biggus wrote:

Everything is the same, even as I said before the 90 minutes.
I think 80 minutes is enough for them they fade badly at the end.

Women have no problem competing in much more physically demanding marathons and triathlons.
It's just that the footballers fitness levels are low because of their game is not rich enough to fully support professionals.
A bigger issue for me is the size of the goals.
The keepers have almost no chance if the shot is well placed.

Nah women don't have the same stamina and endurance as men.

It's science.

banduan wrote:

IG has a point. After all, increasing the size of goals for the men's game would probably be unjustifiable even though you can use the same argument that the effects would be symmetrically applied.

That said, it's clear the women's game is far from a mature stage. It might not have gotten to the point where keeper size is much more significant in consideration, as basic skill-sets might not be great for women's keepers overall.

I agree that goals should be smaller for the women's game to match their height. I'm just saying that until they do so both teams are disadvantaged in the same way defensively whilst both being in an advantageous position whilst attacking. Difference would be if women were playing against men, in which case there will be many more problems.

Oh and for reference the game was created over a century and a half ago when men were considerably shorter than they are now. According to this BBC article in the century up to 1975 men's average height has increased by almost 4 inches. As such maybe there is a case that the goal sizes for women now are how it was for men back then.

That it's become easier for men to defend their goal due to this increase in height is moot because the advantage applies to all the teams now whilst also being disadvantaged because goals that could have been scored way back when against little keepers are now uncommon.

Edit: @[deleted], monster in a good way. Don't worry, it's a compliment.

Edit 2: Don't even know why the need for this argument. Are the goals too big for the women? Yes, probably. Will they benefit from reducing the size of the goal? Definitely. Will they also find it as a disadvantage to reduce the size of the goal given it will be a lot harder for them to score? Of course. I guess as long as the rules and standards are the same across the board then it will be both beneficial and disadvantageous to both teams so the authorities in the women's game probably need to meet with the teams in the women's game and then come to a decision on what they all feel is in their best interests.

Women's football... It's not women and it's not football.

You're more of an LFL fan then.

Maybe if Blatter decides to stay.....

Kel Varnsen wrote:

Women's football... It's not women and it's not football.

What are they and what is it then?

Was thinking the same thing.

Had no idea there was such a thing as LFL. Unfortunately, it is another example of how far away we are from anything resembling equality between men and women, in sports as well.

Kel Varnsen wrote:

Women's football... It's not women and it's not football.

Don't be a tool Kel.

Disagree about the first jibe but he's right in that a lot of times you can barely call it football. Couple years ago when Germany's women were world champions they played a friendly against Stuttgart's U-16s over 45 minutes and lost 3-0. The technical level from some is pretty decent actually but the inconsistency and performance gaps are incredible and the regular 10-0 routs make it painful to watch at times.

Question remains: if you can't call it football what do you call it?
If I understand correctly the reasoning behind not calling it football is that the technical level is inconsistent and performance gaps are huge?

The reasoning is the same as behind calling the likes of Lee Cattermole or Charlie Adam barely footballers, cavemen etc. I was just pointing out that while I (and most people I know) enjoy watching most football matches the same does not hold true for most women's football matches.

Kel Varnsen wrote:

Women's football... It's not women and it's not football.

Fucking idiot. Come on then - cite a shit paper that backs you up. 

Personally I don't enjoy watching women's football all that much, mainly because I haven't gotten hooked on the competition or rivalry elements, and the atmosphere surrounding games doesn't draw me in.
I would consider describing the women's game as "barely football" an insult though.

jones wrote:

Disagree about the first jibe but he's right in that a lot of times you can barely call it football. Couple years ago when Germany's women were world champions they played a friendly against Stuttgart's U-16s over 45 minutes and lost 3-0. The technical level from some is pretty decent actually but the inconsistency and performance gaps are incredible and the regular 10-0 routs make it painful to watch at times.

I played against a womens top division team myself when I was 16. They are all technically sound, well trained, smart players, they have to be to make it to that level. Where they lose out is explosive strength, such as ten yard sprints or scrappy battles for the ball, which happen all the time in a game. They aren't bad players at all, but their weaknesses in that one are costs them massively when playing against a boys team, even if they are U16, and makes the game look like a trouncing.

y va marquer wrote:

Personally I don't enjoy watching women's football all that much, mainly because I haven't gotten hooked on the competition or rivalry elements, and the atmosphere surrounding games doesn't draw me in.
I would consider describing the women's game as "barely football" an insult though.

I'm sure Lee Cattermole would take exception to my remark as well.

Aside from that, I meant no offence to you or women in general, I'm just being honest about my assessment of the quality of women's football.

Jens wrote:

jones wrote:

Disagree about the first jibe but he's right in that a lot of times you can barely call it football. Couple years ago when Germany's women were world champions they played a friendly against Stuttgart's U-16s over 45 minutes and lost 3-0. The technical level from some is pretty decent actually but the inconsistency and performance gaps are incredible and the regular 10-0 routs make it painful to watch at times.

I played against a womens top division team myself when I was 16. They are all technically sound, well trained, smart players, they have to be to make it to that level. Where they lose out is explosive strength, such as ten yard sprints or scrappy battles for the ball, which happen all the time in a game. They aren't bad players at all, but their weaknesses in that one are costs them massively when playing against a boys team, even if they are U16, and makes the game look like a trouncing.

They regularly do get trounced whenever they play male teams though, USWNT vs male U17 US team was 8-2 for example. That's humiliating.

Irish gunner wrote:

Jens wrote:

I played against a womens top division team myself when I was 16. They are all technically sound, well trained, smart players, they have to be to make it to that level. Where they lose out is explosive strength, such as ten yard sprints or scrappy battles for the ball, which happen all the time in a game. They aren't bad players at all, but their weaknesses in that one are costs them massively when playing against a boys team, even if they are U16, and makes the game look like a trouncing.

They regularly do get trounced whenever they play male teams though, USWNT vs male U17 US team was 8-2 for example. That's humiliating.

Yes, they get smashed, but not because the boys are necessarily better at everything, they just push them off the ball very easily. 

jones wrote:

y va marquer wrote:

Personally I don't enjoy watching women's football all that much, mainly because I haven't gotten hooked on the competition or rivalry elements, and the atmosphere surrounding games doesn't draw me in.
I would consider describing the women's game as "barely football" an insult though.

I'm sure Lee Cattermole would take exception to my remark as well.

Aside from that, I meant no offence to you or women in general, I'm just being honest about my assessment of the quality of women's football.

I'm not offended.
I just pointed out that it was an insult.

Jens wrote:

jones wrote:

Disagree about the first jibe but he's right in that a lot of times you can barely call it football. Couple years ago when Germany's women were world champions they played a friendly against Stuttgart's U-16s over 45 minutes and lost 3-0. The technical level from some is pretty decent actually but the inconsistency and performance gaps are incredible and the regular 10-0 routs make it painful to watch at times.

I played against a womens top division team myself when I was 16. They are all technically sound, well trained, smart players, they have to be to make it to that level. Where they lose out is explosive strength, such as ten yard sprints or scrappy battles for the ball, which happen all the time in a game. They aren't bad players at all, but their weaknesses in that one are costs them massively when playing against a boys team, even if they are U16, and makes the game look like a trouncing.

I've watched my youth team play against the then-reigning Bundesliga champions (who didn't play all of their best performers tbh) when I was 14 or 15 myself and we won 7-0. The most obvious difference of course is the strength in duels, but I strongly disagree with the notion that often comes up that they are generally technically on the same level. A lot of them were better on the ball than what you would expect just reading the scoreline but overall there was a very notable difference. It's only to be expected given the level of competition they have had, in my (professional) U-13 team I already trained a lot more hours every week than they did at the top level.

Patters wrote:

Kel Varnsen wrote:

Women's football... It's not women and it's not football.

Fucking idiot. Come on then - cite a shit paper that backs you up. 

From what I've seen the main thing the women's game lack is practice. There's simply not enough hours put into the game. Everything is rough around the edges, whether tactics, technique, physical attributes or any other footballing characteristic.

You don't need to play a women's team off against men to see the difference.

I wouldn't call it 'barely football' though, that's just snobbish.