The other thing is how they chest the ball, I notice they're not as stacked as normal women but it still must be sensitive and hurt, I mean it's a bit like controlling the ball with your bollocks.
Women's World Cup
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.
As snobbish as calling Stoke players orcs. It's not exactly polite but then football discussion shouldn't have to be.
What have I just read
Of course its football, much like kids play football down the street in the park.
The biggest issue in my opinion is that there isn't a serious women's league in the world. So in between world cups these players are spread around the world plying their trade in essentially amateur leagues. None of the teams look like they have played together routinely, and it hurts the game as everything is so forced.
I'm also at loss as to why there aren't any freak athletes in the mold of Theo out there. Have yet to see any next level speed (for women) that lets them separate themselves from defenders. They all look the same 5'8 almost stocky player.
Probably because anyone who is truly rapid would just go into athletics, they'd earn more money (I'd imagine).
jones wrote:As snobbish as calling Stoke players orcs. It's not exactly polite but then football discussion shouldn't have to be.
You've pretty much dismissed the whole women's game as being "barely football".
That's not footy banter, it's not your regular feud driven insult, it's not the same as picking on a few Stoke players, particularly given our history with Stoke.
Nothing to do with our history with Stoke, I and many others say the same about Sunderland Burnley and the likes.
Think you're trying to find an angle here when there is none. I'm not one for comments like "they aren't women", I said the quality even at the highest level is shocking at times, hence "barely football".
I'm not trying to find an angle.
As I've said twice before, referring to the women's game as "barely football" is an insult.
For me it's an insult that's not on the same level as the insults we cast around against individual players and rival teams.
It always amazes me how dudes seem to glorify other dudes who devote their lives to supporting two-bob local teams who'll never be good enough to even qualify for league football, and yet they somehow reserve the right to categorically reject and belittle female footballers.
Norway is a piece of shit country in football terms when they line up next to Brazil or Germany. It's barely schoolyard level compared to the European powerhouses. I'm pretty sure people over there would still argue that they don't "barely play football", and that it still matters to them. Just like Dagenham & Redbridge matters every bit as much to their supporters as Arsenal does to us.
If football was only about top quality then nothing outside the two Spanish giants and the 3 major imperialist nations would be relevant.
Sounds like Jones needs to watch Bend It Like Beckham.
Sweden is arguably one of the most advanced countries in the world when it comes to equality between men and women. Despite that, girls in their teens have nowhere near the same resources available to them regarding training, money, facilities and good, experienced coaches when compared to boys the same age. As they grow older, the differences in resources grow exponentially. Even at top level most women footballers are, at best, semi professionals.
I think it is just silly to compare men and women in sports. Top level women teams play 15-17 year old boys because it is better competition for them than to play lower league women's sides, and that's it. No one in their right mind watches an Olympic women's 100 meter final and goes "yeah, but there are thousands of men who would beat them all". No one watches a tennis game, a basketball game, alpine skiing and another thousand sports with that mindset either. To say 'it's barely a sport' is extremely insulting and derogatory.
On a different note, someone in Camp Sweden needs to get fired. Apparently, someone came up with the slogan 'Clap for Sweden' for this tournament. Lots of North Americans find it very amusing... 
Klaus wrote:It always amazes me how dudes seem to glorify other dudes who devote their lives to supporting two-bob local teams who'll never be good enough to even qualify for league football, and yet they somehow reserve the right to categorically reject and belittle female footballers.
Norway is a piece of shit country in football terms when they line up next to Brazil or Germany. It's barely schoolyard level compared to the European powerhouses. I'm pretty sure people over there would still argue that they don't "barely play football", and that it still matters to them. Just like Dagenham & Redbridge matters every bit as much to their supporters as Arsenal does to us.
If football was only about top quality then nothing outside the two Spanish giants and the 3 major imperialist nations would be relevant.
Alright steady on Klaus, the last time we faced Brazil in the World Cup we gave them a right bollocking.
Goal!
Rucks wrote:Sweden is arguably one of the most advanced countries in the world when it comes to equality between men and women. Despite that, girls in their teens have nowhere near the same resources available to them regarding training, money, facilities and good, experienced coaches when compared to boys the same age. As they grow older, the differences in resources grow exponentially. Even at top level most women footballers are, at best, semi professionals.
I think it is just silly to compare men and women in sports. Top level women teams play 15-17 year old boys because it is better competition for them than to play lower league women's sides, and that's it. No one in their right mind watches an Olympic women's 100 meter final and goes "yeah, but there are thousands of men who would beat them all". No one watches a tennis game, a basketball game, alpine skiing and another thousand sports with that mindset either. To say 'it's barely a sport' is extremely insulting and derogatory.
Good thing then nobody said it. Way to go off on a tangent.
Rucks wrote:Sweden is arguably one of the most advanced countries in the world when it comes to equality between men and women. Despite that, girls in their teens have nowhere near the same resources available to them regarding training, money, facilities and good, experienced coaches when compared to boys the same age. As they grow older, the differences in resources grow exponentially. Even at top level most women footballers are, at best, semi professionals.
I think it is just silly to compare men and women in sports. Top level women teams play 15-17 year old boys because it is better competition for them than to play lower league women's sides, and that's it. No one in their right mind watches an Olympic women's 100 meter final and goes "yeah, but there are thousands of men who would beat them all". No one watches a tennis game, a basketball game, alpine skiing and another thousand sports with that mindset either. To say 'it's barely a sport' is extremely insulting and derogatory.
Exactly. My daughter has played at a high level in Australia and there are no way near the resources or supports in place in comparison to what the boys get.
I also don't get the need to compare men's and women's football, nor the analogy with Cattermole/Stoke. The women's game is of course different to men's, and in some ways I find it more enjoyable (less theatrics and carry on for instance...interestingly!). Cattermole/Stoke get stick because a) it's banter; and b) they play at the highest level/same level as our team so the comparisons are valid (but obviously somewhat biased).
Don't see why women's football can't just be enjoyed without the need for such meaningless comparisons.
And go Matildas!
jones wrote:Rucks wrote:Sweden is arguably one of the most advanced countries in the world when it comes to equality between men and women. Despite that, girls in their teens have nowhere near the same resources available to them regarding training, money, facilities and good, experienced coaches when compared to boys the same age. As they grow older, the differences in resources grow exponentially. Even at top level most women footballers are, at best, semi professionals.
I think it is just silly to compare men and women in sports. Top level women teams play 15-17 year old boys because it is better competition for them than to play lower league women's sides, and that's it. No one in their right mind watches an Olympic women's 100 meter final and goes "yeah, but there are thousands of men who would beat them all". No one watches a tennis game, a basketball game, alpine skiing and another thousand sports with that mindset either. To say 'it's barely a sport' is extremely insulting and derogatory.
Good thing then nobody said it. Way to go off on a tangent.
No but it was pretty clearly inferred in Kel's post that sparked the discussion. You don't have to scratch too far below the surface of such comments to unearth the latent sexism.
"It's not women."
Gotta love Kel.
Or not.
Kel. You never go full dickhead.
Kel trolled you all in one post.
Personally I only see a problem with half Kel's post.
If you asked me to watch the Scottish Premier League or the Kenayn Premier League, I might turn my nose up at it and say "it's not football".
The second part of Kel's statement though... only he can explain