The 'quality' of Womens Football (12 Viewers)

[chiefdave]

Decent turnout and attendances will continue to pick up but I think it was £6 in and £3 for kids, cracking day and no mens football. Not knocking it but there were other factors behind that size of crowd

this is something that really bugs me with womens sport. its great that the popularity is increasing but they're setting themselves up for a fall when they start making claims about attendances and viewing figures that don't stack up.

couple of examples. there was an England Womens game on prime time BBC from the knockout stages of a major tournament, around the same time England men played basically a reserve team against a lowly ranked opposition in a game that was on Sky - there was then reports of how more people watched the women than the men, of course they did! and of course that gets blown out the water when the England men get to the knockout stages of the Euros and the viewing figures are huge.

Similarly with the Hundred there were claims of huge attendances for womens game that then had to be walked back when people pointed out the games were on TV and we could all see the numbers didn't stack up. The women played before the men and they were using the peak figure (ie the number at the last ball of the womens game) of people in the ground, most were in the bars and not watching play.

it just makes it an easy target, but the real good news front and centre, not stuff that can easily be pulled apart.

 

---

[Skyblueweeman]

Must admit I had no idea women’s football was banned in this country until 1971! Pretty mental.

Which is why the quality will always be behind the mens game. But there was some good football in the Utd Everton game today.

 

[Skyblueweeman]

there were 40,000 to watch saracans yesterday - it’s over exposed for the support it gets

Continued exposure will lead to an increased support.

Its not going away and will only continue to get more exposure.

That's a good thing.

 

[TomRad85]

Which is why the quality will always be behind the mens game. But there was some good football in the Utd Everton game today.

Genuinely has nothing to do with why the quality will always be behind the mens game. It's just the physical differences between men and women, that's the reason.

Sent from my SM-G973F using Tapatalk

 

[Skyblueweeman]

Genuinely has nothing to do with why the quality will always be behind the mens game. It's just the physical differences between men and women, that's the reason.

Sent from my SM-G973F using Tapatalk

If Women had been playing as long as men, the quality would be much better.

 

[Grendel]

If Women had been playing as long as men, the quality would be much better.

so it’s better in other countries?

 

[SkyBlueCharlie9]

Teams can be mixed in grassroots football up until under16s level. I coach u14s and we have had a girl in our team for several seasons. She is faster, stronger, calmer, better focused and technically better than almost the whole team and she is of average height and slight build. Sadly there are the occasional chavy coach who like to make obnoxious mysogonistic comments - which hugely affects her confidence.

 

[Blind-Faith]

Teams can be mixed in grassroots football up until under16s level. I coach u14s and we have had a girl in our team for several seasons. She is faster, stronger, calmer, better focused and technically better than almost the whole team and she is of average height and slight build. Sadly there are the occasional chavy coach who like to make obnoxious mysogonistic comments - which hugely affects her confidence.

As much as I can’t stand watching womens football and also dislike the fact it is plastered all over the football apps, I also coach my local under 10s team. We haven’t got any female players on our team , but we have played a few teams with girls in it.

One in particular tore us a new arse hole when we played them and scored a hatful against us. That I do enjoy seeing and think it’s a good thing they play with the boys up until a certain level.

 

[Wyken Sky Blue]

I'm all for the emergence for women's football but I would never be a follower and would plead the BBC et al not to shove it down our throats a strategy to something think if I see it daily I'm going to suddenly be a supporter

Things like changing 'man of the match' to 'player of the match', saying 'Arsenal sack their manager' giving the impression Arteta has been sacked, articles with the title 'Man City ready for UCL tie' and it's not the men's Man City, putting the WSL between the Premier League and Championship when searching for articles on a team etc

If they created a tab called 'womens football' on the respective websites then those that want to follow it can do. That would still be a big step compared to a few years ago

Sent from my Pixel 6 using Tapatalk

 

[Moff]

My daughter played for Rugby and then Leicester’s academy for several seasons.

There’s some very good players, but the physicality as they get older isn’t a match for the men’s game, and that’s a reason they should never be mixed.

When they are younger it’s not a problem. I remember my daughter and another girl regularly played for their junior school team, and boys teams mocking them, and her team regularly beating them all.

Technically there are some very good players, but generally there are a lot less like this than in men’s football. This is partly down to coaching, as in exposure to coaching time, quality of coaches etc.
Sadly my daughter gave it up after being exposed to an absolute c*nt of a coach at Leicester who bullied her and put her off the game for life. Sadly he’s still in the game, after being sacked by Leicester and a previous academy. We decided it was better for her to leave than me deck him and get an assault charge.

 

[chiefdave]

Genuinely has nothing to do with why the quality will always be behind the mens game. It's just the physical differences between men and women, that's the reason.

Hopefully at some point the womens game develops different to the men and you see a different style of play & tactics which factor in the physical differences. If the womens game continues trying to be a direct copy of the mens game its going to incredibly tough for them to catch up

saying 'Arsenal sack their manager' giving the impression Arteta has been sacked, articles with the title 'Man City ready for UCL tie' and it's not the men's Man City, putting the WSL between the Premier League and Championship when searching for articles on a team etc

If they created a tab called 'womens football' on the respective websites then those that want to follow it can do. That would still be a big step compared to a few years ago

drives me mad, surely not that hard to differentiate. Woke up one Saturday to Manchester Derby trending and grabbed the remote thinking I'd not realised it was on and was missing a big game, it was the women.

 

[Skyblueweeman]

so it’s better in other countries?

I'm based in the UK and work with 3 professional womens teams in the FAWSL and the FAWC - I don't know about other countries womans leagues.

The skill levels of mens football is ahead of where it was 50 years ago because of the advances of training methods, training facilities, coaching standards, nutrition, preparation etc. The womens game could not just come in on a level playing field when the ban was lifted so it was always going to be 2nd best to the mens game. No one disputes that.

But like with any type of evolution, the womens game will continue to get better over time. For someone so 'intelligent', to think otherwise is again, a weird flex.

 

[Skyblueweeman]

I'm all for the emergence for women's football but I would never be a follower and would plead the BBC et al not to shove it down our throats a strategy to something think if I see it daily I'm going to suddenly be a supporter

Things like changing 'man of the match' to 'player of the match', saying 'Arsenal sack their manager' giving the impression Arteta has been sacked, articles with the title 'Man City ready for UCL tie' and it's not the men's Man City, putting the WSL between the Premier League and Championship when searching for articles on a team etc

If they created a tab called 'womens football' on the respective websites then those that want to follow it can do. That would still be a big step compared to a few years ago

Sent from my Pixel 6 using Tapatalk

See, this 'shoving it down your throat' is a pretty lame term - not just directed at you SB1991. No one forces you read anything about the womens game - it's merely there to show that it's there and give the game more exposure than it previously has done.

So what if a phone pings about the Manchester Derby and it's about the womens game? Christ, first world problems that you were tricked into thinking it was a different game to the other.

The BBC does have a womens tab when you click into football but yes, some stories appear on their home page.

 

[Grendel]

I'm based in the UK and work with 3 professional womens teams in the FAWSL and the FAWC - I don't know about other countries womans leagues.

The skill levels of mens football is ahead of where it was 50 years ago because of the advances of training methods, training facilities, coaching standards, nutrition, preparation etc. The womens game could not just come in on a level playing field when the ban was lifted so it was always going to be 2nd best to the mens game. No one disputes that.

But like with any type of evolution, the womens game will continue to get better over time. For someone so 'intelligent', to think otherwise is again, a weird flex.

it’s hardly a weird flex.

for everything to improve it needs heavy financial resources. It’s currently just a cash cow which is yielding no benefit. Womens cricket - certainly England - if anything is going backwards

The media are desperate to create a market that’s not there. Was mens football that bad 50 years ago? 1977 was the best season I watched from a Coventry perspective

As for this desperation to overblow it’s importance when the Chelsea issue with its owner blew up some five live guy said it could mean withdrawal of funds for the woman’s game as the men are priority. He was soon slapped down and the woman expert said Chelsea’s brand growth is as much down to the womens success as the mens. Ok

 

[Nick]

The thing is, all of the media blowing smoke makes it all a bit delusional.

You listen when they have the female ex footballers on covering games and they give it the "And this is why I used to love playing in the magic of the FA cup". Let's face it, it's absolutely nothing the same.

It's a completely different game, of course some women pundits know their stuff just as much as the men. However they are in a completely different sport.

You only have to look at that pretentious Cov Utd nonsense.

 

[CCFCSteve]

Things like changing 'man of the match' to 'player of the match', saying 'Arsenal sack their manager' giving the impression Arteta has been sacked, articles with the title 'Man City ready for UCL tie' and it's not the men's Man City, putting the WSL between the Premier League and Championship when searching for articles on a team etc
Sent from my Pixel 6 using Tapatalk

drives me mad, surely not that hard to differentiate. Woke up one Saturday to Manchester Derby trending and grabbed the remote thinking I'd not realised it was on and was missing a big game, it was the women.

Agree with these. The amount of times this has happened to me with scores and news is ridiculous (probably says as much for my lack of intelligence !!!) but how hard would it be to put a (W) next to stuff ?! It’s not downgrading it, it’s just differentiating the info to save confusion for men and women

 

[Skyblueweeman]

it’s hardly a weird flex.

for everything to improve it needs heavy financial resources. It’s currently just a cash cow which is yielding no benefit. Womens cricket - certainly England - if anything is going backwards

The media are desperate to create a market that’s not there. Was mens football that bad 50 years ago? 1977 was the best season I watched from a Coventry perspective

As for this desperation to overblow it’s importance when the Chelsea issue with its owner blew up some five live guy said it could mean withdrawal of funds for the woman’s game as the men are priority. He was soon slapped down and the woman expert said Chelsea’s brand growth is as much down to the womens success as the mens. Ok

Well, it is. To insinuate that the womens game wouldn't be further forward if they hadn't been banned until 50 years ago is weird.

Womens football is only starting to see real investment - with the TV deal that started this season. The benefit isn't going to happen overnight. As for womens cricket - I confess that I know less about this than the mens but aren't England current world champions and in the semis of the current world cup? Haven't they been champions or runners up in 4 of the last 7 T20 WCs? Domestically, The Hundred was largely a success for both men and women (regardless on whether the format is good for the test arena). The fact that Cricket overall is in a transitional period as well, doesn't really make it a great yard stick either for comparison with football.

I didn't say mens football was bad in the 70s and I'm glad you enjoyed yourself in 77. But football now, is more advanced that it was 50 years ago. Womens football would be more advanced, had they not been banned. If I banned you from walking from the age of 5 until you were 35, would you walk as well as someone who walked all 35 years? Weird example granted, but you get my point.

Whether the media are 'desperate' to create a market is open to debate. What they are doing is giving it more attention that it's ever had - without that, it won't grow and it won't get better. Why shouldn't it be allowed to grow? Why shouldn't it be allowed to get better? Because loads of middle aged white men get upset that it's taking up screen space on BBC.com or they're getting pinged on their phones about the Manchester Derby and they've wasted 3.4 seconds finding out that it's the Womens Manchester Derby and the Mens? Christ alive...total 1st world problems.

Times are-a-changing. Womens football (and sport in general) is increasing in coverage and skill level and it'll continue to go that way, regardless of all the moaning.

Oh, as for the Chelsea comment - their womans team are arguably one of the best sides on the planet - as are the mens. It might be overblowing it to say the success of Emma Hayes's team is driving the overall Chelsea brand - but going forward, womans teams are going to make a bigger contribution to clubs brands than they've done before.

 

[Skyblueweeman]

Women’s football is shite and shouldn’t be shoved down our throats like it is.

Seen a load of Sunday league womens football and it’s quite enjoyable. Shite though and you see some mad goals because the keepers don’t have a clue.

It's not shoved down your throat FFS...stop being melodramatic.

 

[skyblueinBaku]

I'm based in the UK and work with 3 professional womens teams in the FAWSL and the FAWC - I don't know about other countries womans leagues.

The skill levels of mens football is ahead of where it was 50 years ago because of the advances of training methods, training facilities, coaching standards, nutrition, preparation etc. The womens game could not just come in on a level playing field when the ban was lifted so it was always going to be 2nd best to the mens game. No one disputes that.

But like with any type of evolution, the womens game will continue to get better over time. For someone so 'intelligent', to think otherwise is again, a weird flex.

What the Hell is a "weird flex"?

 

[SlowerThanPlatt]

What the Hell is a "weird flex"?

Ask David O’Day

 

[Skyblueweeman]

What the Hell is a "weird flex"?

Strange opinion

 

[Skyblueweeman]

Probably haven’t discovered bbc sport in Portsmouth yet

Or maybe I live in the 2020s and don't have views entrenched in the 70s...

 

[Bugsy]

A weird term that internet loners who don’t go outside use

we all know who this Bellend is again don't we

 

[Skyblueweeman]

A weird term that internet loners who don’t go outside use

Ha ha - are you seriously calling me a loner who doesn't go outside?!

Ha ha! My work here with you is done.

 

[Skyblueweeman]

we all know who this Bellend is again don't we

Me? Because I'm sticking up for a bit of equality?

 

[Bugsy]

Me? Because I'm sticking up for a bit of equality?

apologies no not you weeman the gobshite that is warthog, boosh etc his new alt-ego is LMAF.

trolls like that stand out a mile

 

[SlowerThanPlatt]

apologies no not you weeman the gobshite that is warthog, boosh etc his new alt-ego is LMAF.

trolls like that stand out a mile

You have to admire the commitment, my favourite guise of his was when he was the forum representative for Hergametoo

 

[Bugsy]

You have to admire the commitment, my favourite guise of his was when he was the forum representative for Hergametoo

CCFC mollie may or something lol
saying that came up with a good riddle at that time I believed it was someone else and played along lol

I just don't understand how he/she is so desperate to attach himself to this forum on so many accounts, so many times its just plain strange imo

 

[Nick]

It's not shoved down your throat FFS...stop being melodramatic.

It really is, I think that's in part because of the TV deal and the desperation to make it work.

You put Sky on and they are going on about big Derby matches, sky sports news giving it the "Man City sign new striker" and all that. They want the merge the 2.

 

[eastwoodsdustman]

It really is, I think that's in part because of the TV deal and the desperation to make it work.

You put Sky on and they are going on about big Derby matches, sky sports news giving it the "Man City sign new striker" and all that. They want the merge the 2.

No Nick, sky have lost half of their decent games and sports so this is their cheap replacement/filler option and they have to hype it up. The BBC see themselves as in competition with sky so push it as well and it fits very well with their model/agenda.
My daughter plays and has done for many years. I support her wholeheartedly but the standard of football isn’t great at any level and not even close to the mens game in any way. The organisation of womens football at grass roots level leaves a bit to be desired too but thats for another day and another thread.

 

[Grendel]

Well, it is. To insinuate that the womens game wouldn't be further forward if they hadn't been banned until 50 years ago is weird.

Womens football is only starting to see real investment - with the TV deal that started this season. The benefit isn't going to happen overnight. As for womens cricket - I confess that I know less about this than the mens but aren't England current world champions and in the semis of the current world cup? Haven't they been champions or runners up in 4 of the last 7 T20 WCs? Domestically, The Hundred was largely a success for both men and women (regardless on whether the format is good for the test arena). The fact that Cricket overall is in a transitional period as well, doesn't really make it a great yard stick either for comparison with football.

I didn't say mens football was bad in the 70s and I'm glad you enjoyed yourself in 77. But football now, is more advanced that it was 50 years ago. Womens football would be more advanced, had they not been banned. If I banned you from walking from the age of 5 until you were 35, would you walk as well as someone who walked all 35 years? Weird example granted, but you get my point.

Whether the media are 'desperate' to create a market is open to debate. What they are doing is giving it more attention that it's ever had - without that, it won't grow and it won't get better. Why shouldn't it be allowed to grow? Why shouldn't it be allowed to get better? Because loads of middle aged white men get upset that it's taking up screen space on BBC.com or they're getting pinged on their phones about the Manchester Derby and they've wasted 3.4 seconds finding out that it's the Womens Manchester Derby and the Mens? Christ alive...total 1st world problems.

Times are-a-changing. Womens football (and sport in general) is increasing in coverage and skill level and it'll continue to go that way, regardless of all the moaning.

Oh, as for the Chelsea comment - their womans team are arguably one of the best sides on the planet - as are the mens. It might be overblowing it to say the success of Emma Hayes's team is driving the overall Chelsea brand - but going forward, womans teams are going to make a bigger contribution to clubs brands than they've done before.

The womens team that are the “best team on the planet” according to attendance websites attract about as many fans as Morecombe

 

[Liquid Gold]

I don't like women football but I don't let it get my knickers in a twist like some do.

I don't like Scottish football but that's plastered all over the MotD page.

 

[Earlsdon_Skyblue1]

Well, it is. To insinuate that the womens game wouldn't be further forward if they hadn't been banned until 50 years ago is weird.

Womens football is only starting to see real investment - with the TV deal that started this season. The benefit isn't going to happen overnight. As for womens cricket - I confess that I know less about this than the mens but aren't England current world champions and in the semis of the current world cup? Haven't they been champions or runners up in 4 of the last 7 T20 WCs? Domestically, The Hundred was largely a success for both men and women (regardless on whether the format is good for the test arena). The fact that Cricket overall is in a transitional period as well, doesn't really make it a great yard stick either for comparison with football.

I didn't say mens football was bad in the 70s and I'm glad you enjoyed yourself in 77. But football now, is more advanced that it was 50 years ago. Womens football would be more advanced, had they not been banned. If I banned you from walking from the age of 5 until you were 35, would you walk as well as someone who walked all 35 years? Weird example granted, but you get my point.

Whether the media are 'desperate' to create a market is open to debate. What they are doing is giving it more attention that it's ever had - without that, it won't grow and it won't get better. Why shouldn't it be allowed to grow? Why shouldn't it be allowed to get better? Because loads of middle aged white men get upset that it's taking up screen space on BBC.com or they're getting pinged on their phones about the Manchester Derby and they've wasted 3.4 seconds finding out that it's the Womens Manchester Derby and the Mens? Christ alive...total 1st world problems.

Times are-a-changing. Womens football (and sport in general) is increasing in coverage and skill level and it'll continue to go that way, regardless of all the moaning.

Oh, as for the Chelsea comment - their womans team are arguably one of the best sides on the planet - as are the mens. It might be overblowing it to say the success of Emma Hayes's team is driving the overall Chelsea brand - but going forward, womans teams are going to make a bigger contribution to clubs brands than they've done before.

I can see that you are a big advocate of women´s football, and that´s great. I used to go and watch Koppaberg´s FC in Sweden when I lived there many years ago. It was really enjoyable and the ability to (unsurprisingly) take Koppabergs into your seat was lovely.

I must say though, I do agree with some of the other comments people are raising. Whilst the awareness and coverage is enhancing, which I support, there is a certain amount of ´over-correcting´ going on, which I think can put people off to a degree. If you want more people to go and support it, I am not always sure that this method is the right way to go. See politics, vaccine drive, etc etc.

I am all for the support of the women´s game, but it is different to what we would watch on a Saturday down the CBS, and whilst I have no doubts the quality will improve, there will be a difference. I would be very happy to see a proper CCFC women´s team, and some sort of concessions and discount to season ticket holders to go and watch etc. That could be a really nice way to bridge the gap. I can understand however, why people get annoyed when links and such are posted with ´get your tickets to the Euro 2022 tournament´, followed by (women´s) in the small print of brackets whatever.

Just my view of course.

 

[Hutch11]

The answer is simple
Don't try and compare it to the men's game as it's like chalk and cheese
Just enjoy it for what it is and you'll be surprised just how good women's football is.

 

[Evo1883]

In say 100 years nobody will bat an eyelid as to why its pushed so much , or talked about often on the news .. it will already be normal in society .

Physical differences between men and women will always mean it's a different game or atleast played at a different pace .. but that doesn't mean it doesn't have its own audience and won't continue to grow for years to come