|
Post by medwaypotter on Jun 8, 2019 19:33:49 GMT
Germany - China was pretty enjoyable except the fact the Germans are jammy gits in women's football as well! china had the better chances, although a lot less possesion
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 8, 2019 21:26:07 GMT
The Chinese women's team could get quite stronger over the next decade, they played well.
|
|
|
Post by Pugsley on Jun 8, 2019 21:41:02 GMT
I play but thanks for the heads up. I could name you the last line up in the 0-1 defeat v NZ off the top off my head rather than just look up on Wiki where they are ranked and this team will NOT win the World Cup. Anyone who has seen them this last 6 months can see that. Those that look up who they have played of late and check the current ranking simply on line won't. Yes, regular watcher. Way to make yourself look stupid Thanks for biting duck The last thing you want is a woman biting...
|
|
|
Post by medwaypotter on Jun 8, 2019 22:23:12 GMT
Thanks for biting duck The last thing you want is a woman biting... speak for yourself
|
|
|
Post by madnellie on Jun 8, 2019 22:42:15 GMT
The last thing you want is a woman biting... speak for yourself Beat me to it 😁
|
|
|
Post by PotterLog on Jun 8, 2019 23:07:44 GMT
If Amir Khan fought Deontay Wilder he'd get twatted. Does that make lightweight boxing not worth watching? Terrible analogy. Both were/are at the top of their relevant discipline. The standard of women's football is, on the whole, pretty poor. But you’re literally comparing it to men’s teams. The standard of women’s tennis is “pretty poor” compared to the men’s game as well. Silly argument really
|
|
|
Post by Gods on Jun 8, 2019 23:14:12 GMT
Can't help thinking we missed a trick by not investing properly in the Stoke City women's team while we were on the Premier League gravy train.
We could have had an FA Women's super league team for the price of an Imbula, crikey we could even have won the fecking thing for the price of a Kev Wimmer too!
Enlightened teams like Man City and Chelsea and Arsenal and Liverpool are now fully on board with this rocket ship and so sadly the moment has gone.
But it's as plain as the nose on your face that commercially on the world stage women's football is going to steam roller not only all other women's sport, it probably already has, but most men's sports too.
|
|
|
Post by stokie223 on Jun 8, 2019 23:25:37 GMT
Terrible analogy. Both were/are at the top of their relevant discipline. The standard of women's football is, on the whole, pretty poor. But you’re literally comparing it to men’s teams. The standard of women’s tennis is “pretty poor” compared to the men’s game as well. Silly argument really It's not silly. The OP asked if people would be watching - I'm simply saying personally I won't be, because the standard is pretty poor.
|
|
|
Post by stokie223 on Jun 8, 2019 23:38:01 GMT
Terrible analogy. Both were/are at the top of their relevant discipline. The standard of women's football is, on the whole, pretty poor. If an amateur boxer fought Deontay Wilder he'd get twatted. Does that make amateur boxing not worth watching? Yes, yes it does. Please yourself - however if you base your choice of what football to watch on it's quality then I can only assume you haven't bothered with Stoke over the past 2 to 3 years while further - if you had chosen to go and wstch 'quality' at Anfield or The Etihad instead you eould be tarred as a Gloryhunter. The OP asked who would be watching and many responses were negative due to their opinion of the quality. Well we didn't all troop down to Wembley for two Autoglass finals to watch quality football. We went because we supported oir team and there was a chsnce of einning something. The current world cup tournament has two home nations participating so something to get behind, and althoigh the games may not have the pace and athleticism of top mens football that doesn't necessarily diminish in terms if excitement or as an event. If people don't want to watch it that's entirely up to them but I don't necessarily buy the quality arguement as quite a lot of men's football both watched and televised is pretty poor as well. Unfortunately I've been a Stoke fan since birth. Family are all Stoke fans. I've been going for 20+ years & have seen quality, and complete lack of quality - as we all have - and still continue to put myself through the turmoil year on year. I didn't, at any point, say I only watch 'quality' football. I said the standard of the women's game is way behind the men's - and it is (USA women's team getting beat by an U15's boys side, Sweden women's side lost 3-0 to AIK junior boys team, Australia women's team lost 7-0 to Newcastle Jets U16's) which to me, just renders it unwatchable. Again, I wouldn't watch an amateur side if they were on TV either. It's the same thing. I completely agree with you there - would be great to see them do well. I have no issue with women playing football, nor with the coverage it's getting, or the fact it's encouraging so many girls/women to start playing football; that's all fantastic. I just don't want to watch it. Nothing sinister. Again, I agree with your last point that lots of televised men's games are lacking in genuine quality... but when a bunch of kids can comfortably beat a team of internationals then I'm sorry but you can't really put up any argument that it's not, being honest, pretty crap.
|
|
|
Post by lawrieleslie on Jun 9, 2019 7:14:56 GMT
Few years ago I used to really enjoy women’s football and the breath of fresh air brought by it's naivety. Not any more, the cynical cheating, cliches, post match bollox by the managers has quickly degenerated it into the men’s game. Shame really.
|
|
|
Post by adi on Jun 9, 2019 7:15:52 GMT
I think that women’s football should be encouraged, but the standard isn’t very good (I’ve seen better quality on a Sunday at the park), but people shouldn’t complain that it’s not getting the same revenue as the men’s game. The people pay for entertainment and wow factor which the women’s game simply does not deliver, because let’s face it if it did we wouldn’t be discussing the matter on here! End of story.
|
|
|
Post by olimje on Jun 9, 2019 8:34:15 GMT
Well if watching the England men’s team is a demonstration of skilful, elite play you obviously have no idea of what utter shit really is !!!
|
|
|
Post by musik on Jun 9, 2019 8:43:03 GMT
Football is such an interesting phenomena because it doesn't matter what gender, age, skin colour, beliefs in religion or politics the individuals on the pitch have. It can always be thrilling games, especially if the teams are just as good.
|
|
|
Post by musik on Jun 9, 2019 8:48:59 GMT
Today, apart from Schweiz-England and Portugal-The Netherlands in the Nations League, we have ...
Australia-Italy (within 2 hours) and England-Scotland
from the Women's World Cup on tv.
|
|
|
Post by Gods on Jun 9, 2019 8:54:37 GMT
I think the 'standards' argument is a nuanced one.
Would a top team of men beat a top team of women? Of course they would, they have copious quantities of testosterone coursing through their veins and far more of them have been at this thing for far longer.
But that doesn't mean the women's game is not increasingly of interest. What you are watching is talented and fit young fillies at the top of their game.
I mean take Dina Asher-Smith at the 100 metres. There is a hairy arsed bloke with half a beer belly from from Leytonstone who is men's #257 in the world and can run faster than Dina but you won't get a 90,000 people in the Olympic Stadium rhythmic clapping as he climbs in to the starting blocks and you won't see his hefty frame plastered all over the pages of the nationals the next day.
People watch sport for many reasons, and they look for an emotional attachment too, they want heroes, people they might one day be, and girls need that just as much and not necessarily all models, hangers on or pop singers.
And let's face it there are lots of football teams serving up a 'better' product than Stoke City but hopefully we're not all jumping ship, although a few always will, and indeed have.
|
|
|
Post by Cast no shadow on Jun 9, 2019 9:02:53 GMT
Sunday league football is better. Televise that.
|
|
|
Post by str8outtahampton on Jun 9, 2019 9:13:38 GMT
I think the 'standards' argument is a nuanced one. Would a top team of men beat a top team of women? Of course they would, they have copious quantities of testosterone coursing through their veins and far more of them have been at this thing for far longer. But that doesn't mean the women's game is not increasingly of interest. What you are watching is talented and fit young fillies at the top of their game. I mean take Dina Asher-Smith at the 100 metres. There is a hairy arsed bloke with half a beer belly from from Leytonstone who is men's #257 in the world and can run faster than Dina but you won't get a 90,000 people in the Olympic Stadium rhythmic clapping as he climbs in to the starting blocks and you won't see his hefty frame plastered all over the pages of the nationals the next day. People watch sport for many reasons, and they look for an emotional attachment too, they want heroes, people they might one day be, and girls need that just as much and not necessarily all models, hangers on or pop singers. And let's face it there are lots of football teams serving up a 'better' product than Stoke City but hopefully we're not all jumping ship, although a few always will, and indeed have. This bloke from Leytonstone. It's not Brian Harvey from East 17, is it? If so, I think I might pay.
|
|
|
Post by Seymour Beaver on Jun 9, 2019 9:50:02 GMT
Please yourself - however if you base your choice of what football to watch on it's quality then I can only assume you haven't bothered with Stoke over the past 2 to 3 years while further - if you had chosen to go and wstch 'quality' at Anfield or The Etihad instead you eould be tarred as a Gloryhunter. The OP asked who would be watching and many responses were negative due to their opinion of the quality. Well we didn't all troop down to Wembley for two Autoglass finals to watch quality football. We went because we supported oir team and there was a chsnce of einning something. The current world cup tournament has two home nations participating so something to get behind, and althoigh the games may not have the pace and athleticism of top mens football that doesn't necessarily diminish in terms if excitement or as an event. If people don't want to watch it that's entirely up to them but I don't necessarily buy the quality arguement as quite a lot of men's football both watched and televised is pretty poor as well. Unfortunately I've been a Stoke fan since birth. Family are all Stoke fans. I've been going for 20+ years & have seen quality, and complete lack of quality - as we all have - and still continue to put myself through the turmoil year on year. I didn't, at any point, say I only watch 'quality' football. I said the standard of the women's game is way behind the men's - and it is (USA women's team getting beat by an U15's boys side, Sweden women's side lost 3-0 to AIK junior boys team, Australia women's team lost 7-0 to Newcastle Jets U16's) which to me, just renders it unwatchable. Again, I wouldn't watch an amateur side if they were on TV either. It's the same thing. I completely agree with you there - would be great to see them do well. I have no issue with women playing football, nor with the coverage it's getting, or the fact it's encouraging so many girls/women to start playing football; that's all fantastic. I just don't want to watch it. Nothing sinister. Again, I agree with your last point that lots of televised men's games are lacking in genuine quality... but when a bunch of kids can comfortably beat a team of internationals then I'm sorry but you can't really put up any argument that it's not, being honest, pretty crap. Women's football, like the men's game will have their good and bad matches. At a national level what you are seeing in the women's game is what you saw in the men's some 40 years ago - when - for example - African nations would turn up and put in "laughable" performances against European or South American teams. At that time women's football - in the UK at least - was still ostracised by the FA. Today African nations - while yet to win a world cup - are formidable opponents and the African Cup of Nations is an event of global interest. Hopefully the next 40 years will see similar developments in the women's game. So as as sport there's undoubtedly some catching up to do. Nevertheless I'm willing to bet that in this current tournament there will be far more watchable games than last week's men's Champions League Final. However my main point was that pitching women against men at any level is a pointless exercise. Paricuallrly as in the instance we are referring to they weren't a "bunch of kids" but a coached, select, academy team from a professional football club. My own playing experience is more in Rugby Union than football. From that I can quite confidently say that - for example - Wasps academy would comfortably beat a full England Roses side through sheer physicality alone and neither side would particularly learn anything from the experience. All the USA women would appear to gave got out of it is a stick to be beaten with. To all intents and purposes it's a different gaem.
|
|
|
Post by Seymour Beaver on Jun 9, 2019 9:59:56 GMT
Sunday league football is better. Televise that. On Friday night the France women's team had 86% pass accuracy. What Sunday League do you get that in??
|
|
|
Post by Cast no shadow on Jun 9, 2019 10:13:10 GMT
Sunday league football is better. Televise that. On Friday night the France women's team had 86% pass accuracy. What Sunday League do you get that in?? Coors prem
|
|
|
Post by stokie223 on Jun 9, 2019 10:46:21 GMT
Unfortunately I've been a Stoke fan since birth. Family are all Stoke fans. I've been going for 20+ years & have seen quality, and complete lack of quality - as we all have - and still continue to put myself through the turmoil year on year. I didn't, at any point, say I only watch 'quality' football. I said the standard of the women's game is way behind the men's - and it is (USA women's team getting beat by an U15's boys side, Sweden women's side lost 3-0 to AIK junior boys team, Australia women's team lost 7-0 to Newcastle Jets U16's) which to me, just renders it unwatchable. Again, I wouldn't watch an amateur side if they were on TV either. It's the same thing. I completely agree with you there - would be great to see them do well. I have no issue with women playing football, nor with the coverage it's getting, or the fact it's encouraging so many girls/women to start playing football; that's all fantastic. I just don't want to watch it. Nothing sinister. Again, I agree with your last point that lots of televised men's games are lacking in genuine quality... but when a bunch of kids can comfortably beat a team of internationals then I'm sorry but you can't really put up any argument that it's not, being honest, pretty crap. Women's football, like the men's game will have their good and bad matches. At a national level what you are seeing in the women's game is what you saw in the men's some 40 years ago - when - for example - African nations would turn up and put in "laughable" performances against European or South American teams. At that time women's football - in the UK at least - was still ostracised by the FA. Today African nations - while yet to win a world cup - are formidable opponents and the African Cup of Nations is an event of global interest. Hopefully the next 40 years will see similar developments in the women's game. So as as sport there's undoubtedly some catching up to do. Nevertheless I'm willing to bet that in this current tournament there will be far more watchable games than last week's men's Champions League Final. However my main point was that pitching women against men at any level is a pointless exercise. Paricuallrly as in the instance we are referring to they weren't a "bunch of kids" but a coached, select, academy team from a professional football club. My own playing experience is more in Rugby Union than football. From that I can quite confidently say that - for example - Wasps academy would comfortably beat a full England Roses side through sheer physicality alone and neither side would particularly learn anything from the experience. All the USA women would appear to gave got out of it is a stick to be beaten with. To all intents and purposes it's a different gaem. But still, my point stands, that overall the quality of football is generally pretty poor. I'm really not trying to belittle or demean women's football. I think it's great how inclusive it is & the fact it's growing in popularity, I just don't find it watchable. I've tried 3 or 4 times & I just think it is like watching amateur men's - which again - I wouldn't be in a rush to watch either. I get your point that these weren't just 'a bunch of kids', of course. But they were children, and they comfortably beat a team of full internationals. This has happened on several occasions as listed above, and although strength is obviously a factor in football - it's nowhere near as important as it is in rugby. A team of good footballers *should* be able to knock it around a team full of bruisers with relative ease (save for Arsenal when they used to come to Stoke) so the junior teams being more physical shouldn't really play too much of a part. It's just not for me personally. Different strokes for different folks.
|
|
|
Post by JoeinOz on Jun 9, 2019 11:09:46 GMT
VAR disallows an Italy goal v Australia. 0-0.
|
|
|
Post by Seymour Beaver on Jun 9, 2019 11:40:24 GMT
Women's football, like the men's game will have their good and bad matches. At a national level what you are seeing in the women's game is what you saw in the men's some 40 years ago - when - for example - African nations would turn up and put in "laughable" performances against European or South American teams. At that time women's football - in the UK at least - was still ostracised by the FA. Today African nations - while yet to win a world cup - are formidable opponents and the African Cup of Nations is an event of global interest. Hopefully the next 40 years will see similar developments in the women's game. So as as sport there's undoubtedly some catching up to do. Nevertheless I'm willing to bet that in this current tournament there will be far more watchable games than last week's men's Champions League Final. However my main point was that pitching women against men at any level is a pointless exercise. Paricuallrly as in the instance we are referring to they weren't a "bunch of kids" but a coached, select, academy team from a professional football club. My own playing experience is more in Rugby Union than football. From that I can quite confidently say that - for example - Wasps academy would comfortably beat a full England Roses side through sheer physicality alone and neither side would particularly learn anything from the experience. All the USA women would appear to gave got out of it is a stick to be beaten with. To all intents and purposes it's a different gaem. But still, my point stands, that overall the quality of football is generally pretty poor. I'm really not trying to belittle or demean women's football. I think it's great how inclusive it is & the fact it's growing in popularity, I just don't find it watchable. I've tried 3 or 4 times & I just think it is like watching amateur men's - which again - I wouldn't be in a rush to watch either. I get your point that these weren't just 'a bunch of kids', of course. But they were children, and they comfortably beat a team of full internationals. This has happened on several occasions as listed above, and although strength is obviously a factor in football - it's nowhere near as important as it is in rugby. A team of good footballers *should* be able to knock it around a team full of bruisers with relative ease (save for Arsenal when they used to come to Stoke) so the junior teams being more physical shouldn't really play too much of a part. It's just not for me personally. Different strokes for different folks. Well they do say if you haven't tried it don't knock it. If you have tried it and it don't float your boat then fair dinkum - can't argue with that As for children well Wayne Rooney was a child when he made his premier league debut. Testosterone makes you stronger and faster (see the rather sad case of Caster Semenya) - so even if less skillful your ability to recover, hold the ball up or compete in a footrace etc is greater. So unless that particular playing field can be levelled ethically they are and always will be- as I say - different competitions and pitching one against the other an irrelevance.
|
|
|
Post by JoeinOz on Jun 9, 2019 12:09:08 GMT
Australia 1 up now.
|
|
|
Post by JoeinOz on Jun 9, 2019 12:14:29 GMT
Aussie defender thinks she's John Stones. 1-1
|
|
|
Post by Lakeland Potter on Jun 9, 2019 12:36:33 GMT
Well I will be watching the England Scotland game in a few hours time. The argument that a men's team will always beat a women's team is just pointless. There are very few sports where men and women could theoretically compete on a level playing field apart from, sometimes, horse riding and motor sport - and then it is the horse or the vehicle which provides most of the "grunt" and the rider/driver the skill. I quite understand if some people (many people?) don't enjoy the women's game as much as the men's game. Some people feel that way about tennis although personally I regard the women's tennis game as watchable as the men's game BECAUSE it is often less a power game and more a nuanced game where finesse often compensates for power. Years ago when women's football first appeared on TV there were a few highly skillful players and a lot of lesser players in most of the teams. Things have improved and now the top teams tend to have decent players in most areas of the pitch. I do accept as someone said earlier in the thread that many teams (but not all) have a weakness in the goal keeping position. I do wonder if it is something to do with the fact that as women tend to be shorter than men. The women keepers have a harder job as the goals are the same size, and I wonder if this puts more women off the idea of playing in goal so managers have a smaller pool of talent to choose from? Anyway - speaking purely personally, I hope the women's game continues to improve - it is a great sport for anyone, man or woman, boy or girl, to take up. When I lived in Plymouth the family over the road had two daughters at school. The older one was really confident and the younger one was a shrinking violet. Until, 2 years into secondary school, the younger daughter started to play football at school and proved to be good enough to play for the school girls team. She was transformed almost over night. She gained strength mentally and physically and soon became one of the leaders of her peer group. Anyway back to tonight's game. England Scotland has always had a bit of an "edge" to it in the men's game. Will this still apply in the women's game and will the Scots supporters wreck the goals afterwards as they once did after a men's game at Wembley many years ago?
|
|
|
Post by JoeinOz on Jun 9, 2019 12:40:26 GMT
Australia hanging on for a draw. They might be disappointed.
|
|
|
Post by telfordstoke on Jun 9, 2019 12:54:32 GMT
Great game, enjoyed that and drama at the death
|
|
|
Post by JoeinOz on Jun 9, 2019 12:57:26 GMT
Great game, enjoyed that and drama at the death Shyte keeping won it for Italy
|
|
|
Post by medwaypotter on Jun 9, 2019 13:05:06 GMT
Great game, enjoyed that and drama at the death Shyte keeping won it for Italy And defending
|
|