Women’s World Cup 2023

[bobzy]

Just now, jimmygreaves said:

Tin hat on.... I believe a lot of these challenging conversations are due to the sports which have recently been adopted by women (bad choice of words perhaps) like football and cricket have had their profile artificially boosted by the media etc... When the skill/quality of these sports doesn't yet match the profile.

Look at female golf or tennis. The skill level of the participants at the top is off the scale. You can watch these sports and marvel at the skill and appreciate what talented sportswoman they are. 

This doesn't seem the be the same yet in women's football but people are jumped for commenting as such.

A male scratch club golfer isn't beating Charlie Hull for example.

The difference in strength and power will obviously always be a differentiator but you'd like to think in time the skill level in women's football will develop to the point that these conversations go away.

I remember Serena Williams (might have been Venus?) challenged any lower ranked male tennis player and got comprehensively beaten by some guy ranked 300 odd in the World - but then this seemed to put an end to female/male comparisons in tennis.  People can view the women's draw and men's draw as entertaining in their own rights without the need to comment on whether or not Swiatek beats a retired Federer or something.

I don't follow women's golf at all, but is there the same comparison between whoever Charlie Hull is and lower ranked male counterparts?  Your post would imply that it's not a thing and the women's tour and men's tour are seen as different beasts (altered yardage etc of course).  I've also never heard of it in cricket, but maybe this same discourse happens across the sporting spectrum.

[blandy]

25 minutes ago, jimmygreaves said:

The difference in strength and power will obviously always be a differentiator but you'd like to think in time the skill level in women's football will develop to the point that these conversations go away.

It’s funny, I was watching the women’s hundred game yesterday and was thinking “because of strength, the women have to rely more on technique, perhaps”. Now with togger and the World Cup, there’s a huge variation in the different national teams resources and whether they’re full time, part time and so on. So there’s more variation in levels of individual skills because of the amount of time they’re able to spend on training and practice and coaching, but the full time teams with good infrastructure are miles better than they were even a few years ago, so I think skill levels have developed rapidly and will continue to do so.

[LondonLax]

33 minutes ago, jimmygreaves said:

Tin hat on.... I believe a lot of these challenging conversations are due to the sports which have recently been adopted by women (bad choice of words perhaps) like football and cricket have had their profile artificially boosted by the media etc... When the skill/quality of these sports doesn't yet match the profile.

 

I think this is point is worth looking at because it has been made a few times. 

I don’t see the media as ‘pushing’ anything. They are commercial enterprises trying to make money, they report on what people will engage with. 

I think there is a genuine demand from sections of the public to watch women’s sport and the coverage reflects that. 

Opinions on the quality of the product is not really the point, if people were not interested in hearing about it then it would quickly be dropped from the media coverage.

However, the Australian match on Monday was the highest rated sports broadcast this year in Australia. The media will surely follow that interest with their respective coverage.

 

[Mic09]

1 hour ago, useless said:

I don't know why people are just going along with the idea that a Sunday League Mens team would beat an international women's team, they most probably would not, the women players would be far more technical, skilful, fitter, better stamina, better coached, and have much better in game tactical awareness, I don't think it would be even close, the women's team would win comfortably against that level of oppositon.

Our (Aston Villa) girls academy teams play boys teams and often win, the boys they're playing might not be from professional academies, but they will still be pretty good, point being, male teams don't beat top female teams just by virtue of being male, when it happens it's because the male players are of a high standard, not just any male team can beat a top women's side.

Not that it matters, women's football teams should be judged on how good they are relative to other women's teams, I don't watch Aston Villa U16s and think they're rubbish because they would get comfortably beat by a National League side, they're judged on how good they are compared to other U16 teams..

I think that sex should play no role in the conversation. I don't care what body parts one footballer might have against the other - and that goes for any other profession, an accountant, an F1 driver, a scientist etc.

Let's think a little outside these parameters and stop judging performance based on sex. 

With this in mind, I am more than happy to compare one football tournament to another. It's the same sport. In my eyes, it's exactly like comparing the Champions League to the championship. Comparisons can be made. It's different levels of an exact same thing. 

Women's world cup is very entertaining, they are top athletes at the peak of their game. But the quality of skill isn't as high, even comparing to league 2 in men's game. There is no sexism in accepting that. As a football fan I can only watch so much, and unfortunately Women's game isn't that high on my priority list. 

It's got it's perks and it's definitely fun to watch - but I think that if I spend 90mins in front of a TV a couple of times a week, I enjoy a different type of football too much. And I think that is the Women's game biggest downfall - football fans can only watch so much, and there is a lot to choose from. 

I am really interested if you think that is a fair view on it. 

[HanoiVillan]

44 minutes ago, Mic09 said:

[...]I think that is the Women's game biggest downfall - football fans can only watch so much, and there is a lot to choose from. 

I am really interested if you think that is a fair view on it. 

You're not asking me, but I have never - and will never - demand that people watch women's football or think that it's good. If you want to do something else with your limited free time, that's completely reasonable so go right ahead.

What is aggravating is people going into a thread which is clearly populated by people who enjoy a thing and want to talk about it, only to loudly declare that they think the thing is shit. Just going in to Off Topic, I see threads on the first page about wrestling, DIY and cars. We have whole sub-forums devoted to North American sports and computer games. I care somewhere between 'very little' and 'not at all' about these topics but what I don't do is go into them to talk about how shit and boring they are, or to unfavourably compare the NFL to rugby league, or whatever else. 

Edited August 9, 2023 by HanoiVillan

[Genie]

1 minute ago, HanoiVillan said:

What is aggravating is people going into a thread which is clearly populated by people who enjoy a thing and want to talk about it, only to loudly declare that they think the thing is shit.

This is complete rubbish so it seems you have aggravated yourself unnecessarily.

 

[bobzy]

6 minutes ago, HanoiVillan said:

What is aggravating is people going into a thread which is clearly populated by people who enjoy a thing and want to talk about it, only to loudly declare that they think the thing is shit.

 

4 minutes ago, Genie said:

This is complete rubbish so it seems you have aggravated yourself unnecessarily.

 

Complete rubbish?

 

On 08/08/2023 at 09:45, Genie said:

I’ve watched a few matches and it’s been really poor. If this is the pinnacle then it has a long way to go. I’m sure it’ll keep improving though. 

 

On 08/08/2023 at 09:48, Genie said:

A poor game is one thing, a pitch full of poor players is something else.

 

17 hours ago, Genie said:

Morocco defending was shocking, like Sunday league versus Championship.

 

16 hours ago, Genie said:

Some people are quite defensive about calling a spade a spade. There’s some good players and good teams, but a lot of nations that would get turned over by a good Sunday league side I’m certain.

 

[Genie]

Just now, bobzy said:

 

 

Complete rubbish?

 

 

 

 

 

Yep, what’s wrong with that, and what makes it “loud”? 

There’s plenty of my other posts in this thread and other women’s football threads discussing the games. 

Morocco were completely outclassed by France, they were poor and the game was over before 20 minutes were on the clock. Are we now not allowed to say that, because they are women?

Are you going to completely ban yourself from commenting about any team being poor in future? 

Are you going to quote everyone else who commented that a WC game was a bit rubbish? There’s plenty to choose from.

It’s really weird in here, especially as nobody seems to be disagreeing with the point. 

 

[bobzy]

2 minutes ago, Genie said:

Yep, what’s wrong with that, and what makes it “loud”? 

There’s plenty of my other posts in this thread and other women’s football threads discussing the games. 

Morocco were completely outclassed by France, they were poor and the game was over before 20 minutes were on the clock. Are we now not allowed to say that, because they are women?

Are you going to completely ban yourself from commenting about any team being poor in future? 

Are you going to quote everyone else who commented that a WC game was a bit rubbish? There’s plenty to choose from.

It’s really weird in here, especially as nobody seems to be disagreeing with the point. 

I'm not saying there's anything wrong, but it's not "complete rubbish".

 

I'll also grant you that I haven't gone back and looked over your posts in this thread, so maybe you've been discussing the great play elsewhere.  In which case, fair play.

[Genie]

3 minutes ago, bobzy said:

I'm not saying there's anything wrong, but it's not "complete rubbish".

The bit that is complete rubbish is that someone has come into the thread to loudly declare that the thing people are discussing is shit.

I’ve watched a number of games in this world cup and will watch more going forward. The ban on non-positive posts which is in place solely for women’s football is baffling to me. 

[Mic09]

19 minutes ago, HanoiVillan said:

You're not asking me, but I have never - and will never - demand that people watch women's football or think that it's good. If you want to do something else with your limited free time, that's completely reasonable so go right ahead.

What is aggravating is people going into a thread which is clearly populated by people who enjoy a thing and want to talk about it, only to loudly declare that they think the thing is shit. Just going in to Off Topic, I see threads on the first page about wrestling, DIY and cars. We have whole sub-forums devoted to North American sports and computer games. I care somewhere between 'very little' and 'not at all' about these topics but what I don't do is go into them to talk about how shit and boring they are, or to unfavourably compare the NFL to rugby league, or whatever else. 

You are correct - but I didn't suggest you demanded me to watch it, I said it is entertaining and a fun watch. In fact I was very positive (and I am overall) about Women's football. 

But you could argue that people go into the Manchester United thread to talk about how crap Maguire is. So it's natural that a thread about Women's tournament will get various opinions within it.  

[bobzy]

Just now, Genie said:

The bit that is complete rubbish is that someone has come into the thread to loudly declare that the thing people are discussing is shit.

I’ve watched a number of games in this world cup and will watch more going forward. The ban on non-positive posts which is in place solely for women’s football is baffling to me. 

You've made this up entirely.

[Genie]

7 minutes ago, bobzy said:

You've made this up entirely.

You just quoted a bunch of posts that you disagreed with because they were critical of the football in specific games.

[bobzy]

3 minutes ago, Genie said:

You just quoted a bunch of posts that you disagreed with because they were critical of the football in specific games.

I didn't disagree with them - was just commenting on the whole "complete rubbish" element in reply to @HanoiVillan's post.

 

FWIW, my only dog in this fight is that comparing women's football to men's football is dull and pointless.  It would be beyond bizarre to care about people being critical of football matches and only wanting positive thoughts (and prayers).

Edited August 9, 2023 by bobzy

[HanoiVillan]

21 minutes ago, Genie said:

You just quoted a bunch of posts that you disagreed with because they were critical of the football in specific games.

One of those posts states, 'I've watched a few matches and it's been really poor, If this is the pinnacle then it has a long way to go'; that seems to go beyond being 'critical of the football in specific games'. We all know this is 'the pinnacle' - of course it is, it's the World Cup - and we all also know that elite male athletes are bigger, faster and stronger than elite female ones. They always will be, so men will always run the 100m faster, hit a tennis serve harder, whatever else. If you can't make your peace with 'the pinnacle', then sincerely what is the point in watching?

This brings us back to @bobzy's point that other sports are not discussed in this way. Nobody's saying 'oh this women's sprint has been really poor, if this Shelly-Ann Fraser-Pryce sprint is the pinnacle then they have a long way to go'. We understand that women's sprints and men's are different, that constantly pointing out how much slower female athletes are would be to belittle them. 

[punkiller1981]

3 hours ago, Mic09 said:

I think that sex should play no role in the conversation. I don't care what body parts one footballer might have against the other - and that goes for any other profession, an accountant, an F1 driver, a scientist etc.

Let's think a little outside these parameters and stop judging performance based on sex. 

With this in mind, I am more than happy to compare one football tournament to another. It's the same sport. In my eyes, it's exactly like comparing the Champions League to the championship. Comparisons can be made. It's different levels of an exact same thing. 

Women's world cup is very entertaining, they are top athletes at the peak of their game. But the quality of skill isn't as high, even comparing to league 2 in men's game. There is no sexism in accepting that. As a football fan I can only watch so much, and unfortunately Women's game isn't that high on my priority list. 

It's got it's perks and it's definitely fun to watch - but I think that if I spend 90mins in front of a TV a couple of times a week, I enjoy a different type of football too much. And I think that is the Women's game biggest downfall - football fans can only watch so much, and there is a lot to choose from. 

I am really interested if you think that is a fair view on it. 

I’m kind of in the same place as you with this. I only have so much time to watch football and my priority is Villa (mens) either at VP or on tv Sky, BT or if needed peacock) then maybe one of the Sunday games if I get a chance so women’s football is fairly low down my interest  list for the reason that I just on a personal basis don’t find it that interesting or exciting in the same way as I don’t watch a league 2 or none league game when they are on tv. I think it’s great that these different levels of football are available to those that wish to consume them it’s just not for me

[sne]

I'd say that women's basketball and ice hockey fall in the same category as football in being compared to the men's game and having people complain about the quality while handball for example is so good in quality that it stands up to the men's game even thou the players are obviously no physically comparable.

Not saying it's right but it's definitely not just football that's being watched with overly critical eyes by casual viewers.

[Mic09]

1 hour ago, sne said:

I'd say that women's basketball and ice hockey fall in the same category as football in being compared to the men's game and having people complain about the quality while handball for example is so good in quality that it stands up to the men's game even thou the players are obviously no physically comparable.

Not saying it's right but it's definitely not just football that's being watched with overly critical eyes by casual viewers.

Divisions exist even when you take sex out of it. 

Heavyweight boxing championship fight is going to bring more views than a featherweight category.

[bobzy]

26 minutes ago, Mic09 said:

Divisions exist even when you take sex out of it. 

Heavyweight boxing championship fight is going to bring more views than a featherweight category.

Do people watch featherweight fights and then go “pretty poor, Tyson Fury would beat either of these” though?

Edited August 9, 2023 by bobzy

[jimmygreaves]

1 minute ago, bobzy said:

Do people watch featherweight fights and then go “pretty poor, Tyson Fury would beat either of these” though?

Well no, because of the obvious physical differences. But depending on the quality of the fighters they may make comment on it.

Boxing is interesting right now where you have a small group of "YouTube" fighters. They generally display a clear drop in ability to the pro's but still demand/expect similar levels of respect or profile.

There doesn't seem to be any problem to point this out.