Women's World Cup 2019

[villalad21]

The keepers are seriously struggling.

After watching some more games i just feel bad for them. Not their fault really, the goals are simply too big.

[Mic09]

2 minutes ago, villalad21 said:

The keepers are seriously struggling.

After watching some more games i just feel bad for them. Not their fault really, the goals are simply too big.

Some goals are down to the fact keepers female aren't as big as men, but most mistakes are just down to low skill. 

Most of these athletes have not been playing football since the age of 4 like men professionals have. Hence the poor level. 

[colhint]

couple of things,

In England we are watching the cricket world cup, The Womens cricket world cup started before the Mens. So should it be the cricket world cup and the Mens cricket world cup.

2 France and the US. Neither have had to play a really,  tough team yet possibly France v Norway . France had their first tonight and looked a bit iffy. England are in the group of death by comparison.

England favourites in the group. Japan lost in the final last time, Scotland in the top 2 or 3 of third Favourites and Argentina in the top 2 or three 4th placed teams. I guess there will be much more competitve games in the last 16.

[LakotaDakota]

So as things stand Thailand have lost 13-0 & 5-1.

Should a miracle happen & they beat Chile in their final game there is a very real chance that they could qualify for the next round as one of the "best" third place teams and end up playing England

[Stevo985]

Bloody hell when will people drop the "goals are too big" nonsense?

They're not "too big". They're comparatively bigger vs the mens game because men are generally bigger. 

But stop talking like it's some sort of serious handicap.

 

A tennis court is bigger for a woman than it is for a man. A hockey goal is bigger for a woman than it is for a man. A **** running track is bigger for a woman than it is for a man.
It means the sport is slightly different for the different sexes. That's it.

But stop with the patronising stuff about women not being able to cope because the goals are too big. it's nonsense.

[sne]

Then again the hurdles in athletics are lower for women than for men for that exact reason.

The baskeball is smaller for women than for men because they have smaller hands, same with handball

[Stevo985]

44 minutes ago, sne said:

Then again the hurdles in athletics are lower for women than for men for that exact reason.

The baskeball is smaller for women than for men because they have smaller hands, same with handball

Which is fine. Discuses and shotputs and javelins are lighter too.

 

It's the patronising nature of the point from some quarters that's bothering me. 

 

[sne]

1 minute ago, Stevo985 said:

Which is fine. Discuses and shotputs and javelins are lighter too.

 

It's the patronising nature of the point from some quarters that's bothering me. 

 

True.

This is a good piece on it.

Quote

The debate on 'smaller goals' in women's game cannot simply be cast aside

It has been curious to watch the almost universal opposition, intensifying this week, to the Chelsea Women manager Emma Hayes’s suggestion that football goals are “just a little too big” for female goalkeepers.

It was easy to react with a double-take. Most people did. Emma Hayes, capping women’s potential? “The goal size does not need to be changed,” tweeted Wales midfielder Jess Fishlock, with an eye-roll emoji. “If a keeper makes a mistake, it’s a mistake – not because of the goal size.”

“What are the social implications?” asked Karen Bardsley, the England goalkeeper. “We have fought so hard to change the perception of female athletes across the planet and I am not sure that would be beneficial. We are trying to keep it on a par and drive equality.”

Is Bardsley asking the wrong question? Only recently, for example, we have realised we need to approach children’s football with a little more intelligence. To be 10 years old in 2007 and playing 11-a-side could be a joyless experience. Teachers have long spoken of the disadvantages to children born in the fourth quarter of the academic year compared to those born in September and November, and nowhere is this more pronounced than in 22 11-year-olds playing on a pitch that is almost comically big.

To be a scrawny full-back up against a spindly-legged winger who has hit puberty early was to spend hours ostracised on the flank. Kick and rush thrives because children have no choice but to make the ball do the work on a pitch that dwarfs them. One of my memories is of a league reduced to a flurry of 16-2 scorelines in favour of whoever could hit the ball hardest. It’s the closest you get to the grass-roots equivalent of the Serengeti.

With no incentive to get the ball down and play, what happens to the late developers who will emerge as the most technically gifted in the long run? You are left secretly wondering if anyone other than the towering forward sporting the first traces of a beard is actually having a good time.

The Football Association, to its credit, clocked this a few years ago. Children are not advised to play 11-a-side until under-13s now, which is an improvement. They do not play with a size-five ball until under-15s and 45-minute halves come in at under-17s. To worry that altering goal sizes might impact grass-roots provision overlooks how children do not play on anything approaching a full-sized pitch until under-17s.

The point is we were once so fixed on frogmarching youngsters into what we perceived as “proper” football that no one stopped to think it was needlessly premature until years down the line. To make allowances for physical differences is just common sense. To bring the touchline in 30 yards at under-15s is not an insult to anyone.

The problem is not women’s bodies – five inches shorter than a man’s or otherwise – but the world’s habit of seeing male bodies as the default setting, particularly in scientific studies.

An article in the British Medical Journal reveals that only 39 per cent of participants in sport and exercise research studies over a two-year timespan were women. There will be players in the Women’s Super League wearing kids’ boots despite differences between the male and female foot.

Alex Scott, the former Arsenal defender, will be able to recall inheriting men’s football kits that were so huge they billowed like a parachute when she ran. It is telling that the first electric guitar designed especially for women was only created in 2016, retails at $2,000 (£1,600) and its USP is that “there is room for a breast. Or two”. It has taken the music industry 700 years to realise women have breasts.

That’s why this idea that smaller goals hinder the fight for equality is missing the point. The world is predicated on the assumption that men’s bodies speak for all of us, just as it was once preoccupied with the assumption that 10-year-olds were able to cover the same ground as fully-grown men. Because who can know, yet, whether Hayes is right or wrong?

It is true, for instance, that the women’s game has neglected its goalkeepers for decades: only recently have they had access to specialist goalkeeper coaches. Carly Telford recalls how, as a young player, her specialist training amounted to “one of the dads volleying it to you”. Siobhan Chamberlain, the Manchester United goalkeeper, met her first specialist coach 12 years into her England career.

The status quo may be damaging. The status quo may be fine. But only through trial and error will we ever really find out. We should at least have this debate, with nuance. To dismiss Hayes’s suggestions out of hand does everyone a huge disservice.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/world-cup/2019/06/15/debate-smaller-goals-womens-game-cannot-simply-cast-aside/

Kathy Whyatt at the Telegraph has a couple of good articles on the women's WC.

[Chindie]

Would it not make sense to just accept that the women's game is more high scoring?

Eventually the game will develop such that goalkeepers get bigger (as more women take up the sport and there's more impetus to have gifted players in goal) and standards of training will kick on, and the size of the goal will become less and less impactful.

Changing the size of the goal would seem to be an attempt to recreate the results of the men's game by changing the game, rather than accepting the game is the game and women's matches play out differently. I'm not sure many female athletes would thank anyone for telling them they're going to change the game for them so they replicate the men's game more closely.

[Genie]

51 minutes ago, Stevo985 said:

Which is fine. Discuses and shotputs and javelins are lighter too.

 

It's the patronising nature of the point from some quarters that's bothering me. 

 

I don't think its people on here, It was raised a few weeks ago by the Chelsea ladies manager.

Quote

Chelsea Women manager Emma Hayes has called for the goals in the women’s game to be made smaller because of ‘physical differences’ between the men’s version of the sport. Hayes was given an MBE in the Queen’s Birthday Honours last year after guiding Chelsea to a league and cup double and is widely regarded as one of the top managers in the women’s game. And the 42-year-old believes women’s football should be adapted to meet the physical expectations of the players. ‘If I took a male player and a female player and I asked them to run 10 yards, more often than not, though that’s changing, the male player would get there quicker than a female player,’ Hayes said on BT Sport’s film State of Play.

https://metro.co.uk/2019/05/22/chelsea-women-manager-emma-hayes-urges-goals-made-smaller-womens-game-9640291/

I don't think there would be a problem with making them say 6 inches lower in height than the standard/mens goal. It should offset the difference between average men and womens height and could easily be switched on a standard pitch using current holes.

Edited June 18, 2019 by Genie

[Mic09]

41 minutes ago, Genie said:

I don't think its people on here, It was raised a few weeks ago by the Chelsea ladies manager.

https://metro.co.uk/2019/05/22/chelsea-women-manager-emma-hayes-urges-goals-made-smaller-womens-game-9640291/

I don't think there would be a problem with making them say 6 inches lower in height than the standard/mens goal. It should offset the difference between average men and womens height and could easily be switched on a standard pitch using current holes.

Might it hinder the game at lower levels?

Ladies football will use the same goals as men during Sunday League/lower leagues due to logistics/financials. Why should professionals have it 'easier' ?

[Stevo985]

1 hour ago, Chindie said:

Would it not make sense to just accept that the women's game is more high scoring?

Eventually the game will develop such that goalkeepers get bigger (as more women take up the sport and there's more impetus to have gifted players in goal) and standards of training will kick on, and the size of the goal will become less and less impactful.

Changing the size of the goal would seem to be an attempt to recreate the results of the men's game by changing the game, rather than accepting the game is the game and women's matches play out differently. I'm not sure many female athletes would thank anyone for telling them they're going to change the game for them so they replicate the men's game more closely.

Exactly.

The game is different because of the size of the players. That's it.

It's not an issue.

[Stevo985]

1 hour ago, Genie said:

 

I don't think there would be a problem with making them say 6 inches lower in height than the standard/mens goal. It should offset the difference between average men and womens height and could easily be switched on a standard pitch using current holes.

But why?

[HanoiVillan]

14 minutes ago, Stevo985 said:

Exactly.

The game is different because of the size of the players. That's it.

It's not an issue.

Yes. Women's tennis is different to men's tennis. It's just fine. 

Imagine thinking that football needs fewer goals overall. Bonkers.

[Genie]

1 hour ago, Mic09 said:

Might it hinder the game at lower levels?

Ladies football will use the same goals as men during Sunday League/lower leagues due to logistics/financials. Why should professionals have it 'easier' ?

You can say that about any of the adaptions that are made to women's sports.

[Mic09]

1 minute ago, Genie said:

You can say that about any of the adaptions that are made to women's sports.

You can, but it's still a valid argument

[Genie]

1 hour ago, Stevo985 said:

But why?

hmmm

-> because the goalkeepers are struggling due to the natural difference in size?

-> because the people within the sport are asking for it?

-> because spectators are suggesting it would help?

(all on the last 2 pages so obviously you're on a wind up)

[Stevo985]

7 minutes ago, Genie said:

hmmm

-> because the goalkeepers are struggling due to the natural difference in size?

-> because the people within the sport are asking for it?

-> because spectators are suggesting it would help?

(all on the last 2 pages so obviously you're on a wind up)

Definitely not on a wind up.

 

Goalkeepers are struggling to do what? They let in more goals, sure. But they're not "struggling". They're still playing the game perfectly well, just not as well as their male counterparts.

Second one is legitimate, but I still don't see to what end they're asking for it.

Spectators are suggesting it would help what?

 

The only thing making the goals smaller would do is mean less goals are let in. What I'm struggling with is why that would be a positive.

[StefanAVFC]

Are there really more goals in Women#'s football that justifies the larger goals?

I would argue that, with the quality being so much lower, having a larger target to hit at (with the goalies being smaller) goes someway to bridging the gap and keeping the entertainment quality high.

By making the goals smaller, you'll see less goals, probably than the men's game.

[Mic09]

11 minutes ago, Stevo985 said:

Definitely not on a wind up.

 

Goalkeepers are struggling to do what? They let in more goals, sure. But they're not "struggling". They're still playing the game perfectly well, just not as well as their male counterparts.

 Second one is legitimate, but I still don't see to what end they're asking for it.

Spectators are suggesting it would help what?

  

The only thing making the goals smaller would do is mean less goals are let in. What I'm struggling with is why that would be a positive.

Exactly. You might as well argue for the keepers to wear bigger, specially designed gloves.

Pretty much the same effect.