Surely the point about Women's football is if it entertains then it is OK. Clearly not enough people are going to watch at the moment to form an opinion. From what we saw during the Olympics, the excitement level on the pitch wasn't matched by the crowd. So even though slower, England were far more attack minded and entertaining than their male counterparts but the crowd noise didn't reflect that. But at lest I don't remember heaing that bloody band! I think football can cross the sexual boundaries and prove successful but it will not hapen in my lifetime but maybe some of you younger guys might see the elite women's leagues televised.
on the crowd thing at the olympics, because it was 'team gb', there weren't really any songs other than shouting that! the atmosphere was poor at all the games, mens and womens. if the bbc showed the elite league highlights on tv, say on a sunday afternoon, i'd watch it. and i'd enjoy it.
I'm really disappointed that the BBC haven't tried to capitalise more on the success of the olympics. The rights to the women's league coverage probably cost peanuts, and they'd get a lot of credit for showing it. It would also help to generate interest in the womens game, and if sponsors know their logos will get on tv, the price to be on the shirts will probably increase.
women's football was once played in front of enormous crowds, in the early 20th century. here are some more thoughts on the debate with some interesting points... http://www.thehullfire.com/index.ph...ave-a-level-playing-field-with-the-men-s-game
I remember watching a women's game at Carrow Road a few years a go now, England v Nigeria. Large crowd but the quality of the football was poor. It was so slow, which made it boring.
I guess you could say the gulf in class/skill/control etc is similar to Prem vs League 2 (Bradford apart ) As long as people take that on board and don't continually compare it to the mens' game it will prosper and grow - albeit slowly. Exactly the same as cricket, they can't hit the ball as far as Chris Gayle or bowl as quickly as Shaun Tait, but take that as read and it can be almost as enjoyable to watch. Here's proof please log in to view this image
It simply comes down to genetics and hormones. Woman aren't as naturally physically strong as men. Men have a higher level of testosterone which helps strength significantly. However, while women don't have strength it does not mean they suffer in terms of technical ability, therefore in that area they're as good as men.
Oh matron! Ahem, back on topic. I played five-a-side when I was at school but I can't say I've watched a great deal of women's football. It sounds like the biggest complaint is it not being physical enough, rather than not competitive enough--which you have to agree is a complaint found in all areas of football at the moment. I did martial arts for several years, and it was us women that were more likely to get disqualified in light-to-no-contact sparring for being too aggressive, than the men. Of course there is always the alternative. I remember Sepp Blatter's remarks a few years ago about wanting the players to wear shorter shorts and tighter tops to get men more interested in the women's game. To fair, I can kind of see where he's coming from--not that I agree with it--but I'm sure it would get male bums on seats. Half-time mud wrestling, anyone?
For me what it lacks is any kind of league structure.I'm sure that if every one of the 92 clubs had an equivalent female team with promotion,relegation and their own cup competitions that would add immensely to the interest. At the moment the games just seem to lack any real point, a bit like the Charity Shield.
Not many of the women's clubs get much support from the parent club as I understand it. I know Arsenal Ladies used to but I don't know if they still do. Assuming we call it a minority sport for the sake of the argument, they are going to need SKY coverage to get any money into the game. And if enough people tune in to watch it, then the interest would grow. Although berated by many, SKY has brought sport to many people who had never been intersted before. As an example, when there was no internet coverage of our games, rather than just listen to CanaryWorld, I was going to watch Truro City. And then they were getting crowds of nearly 1000. Now, because you can watch any sport and especially Prem football, on the internet, they get 300. SKY now broadcasts sports which would be in trouble without the money (yes so would the Prem). Speedway, Rugby League are two that immediately come to mind as having small crowds and competing with sports of a similar nature.
Haha, should probably have reread that before sending Yellow Interesting topic, I pretty much agree with most the points about comparing it to the men's game, it's pretty pointless because they will be played differently in the sense of them being physically weaker. Seriously Kim Little who played in Team GB, I remember her actually being an intelligent player, I would definitely watch her again, technically pretty good. Also hats off to Luka Modric who crossed over into mens football successfully.
For what it's worth, England Ladies have secured an increase in their central contracts to £20k a year.
It is a minority sport and like most minority sports I have little interest. I have watched it and found it boring and now ignore it if it is on the tele. Quite clearly most people agree with me otherwise it would not be a ' minority ' sport. Like all minority sports in the Olympics there was hype at the time but all the talk of a ' legacy ' was always going to be pie in the sky. See the report the other day - the majority of associations involved have not seen an increase in participants or helpers. There is a place in our sporting world for Womans Football and other minority sports but none of them will ever attract large amounts of interest from Joe Public.
My grandson informs that his school team has to include a girl if she wants to play. So that's clever, ruin it for the boys who don't want girls in their team. Why can't they just leave things alone.
It is trying to force equality on us and it doesn't work and causes resentment. It is turning into an industry. When I listen to a sports bulletin I expect it to be delivered by somebody who knows what they talking about not a pretty little female who is reading a script but doesn't know a right hook from a 9 iron. If I listen to a ' spokesperson ' for the Banking Industry I expect to hear from an expert on Banking not the only middle age, middle class, well spoken woman who was the only female who applied for the job despite having never worked in the sector before. If the lady concerned knows what she is talking about - Alex Hammond for example - then fair enough but forced quota driven equality that is now being forced upon us is as wrong as the previous discrimination it is trying to replace.
Of course it never was discrimination, it was just the natural belief that there is a difference between men and women.
