Women's football.. What level is it at?

[Col city fan]

Myself and the mrs have just watched some of the Arsenal v Bristol Women's FA Cup Final.

We then entered into a debate regarding the comparison level with women's football vis a vis men's football.

My opinion was that Arsenal (The best women's club in the UK) would probably struggle to beat a local Senior League Team eg. Anstey Nomads. Am I miles off here?

Opinions please....

[Webbo]

.

My opinion was that Arsenal (The best women's club in the UK) would probably struggle to beat a local Senior League Team eg. Anstey Nomads. Am I miles off here?

Opinions please....

No.

Edited 26 May 2013 by Webbo

[Guest BlueBrett]

They'd struggle to beat a local U9s.

It's nice that they can play together and have fun but they really shouldn't call themselves pro or expect anyone to turn up and watch

[Facecloth]

I think they're obviously decent footballers and there were some decent touches and passes, but the biggest thing is the lack of pace, they are so slow. Any professional team would just mop up their attacks no problem. Having watched non-league men's teams like Mansfield this season play against Premier League teams, there is no chance they would beat them, they'd be too quick and athletic. I think the level is probably a few leagues below the conference where the ladies passing ability would see them trough.

Edited 26 May 2013 by Facecloth

[Matt]

No. But it's better than Scottish football, just. (Not level wise but entertainment/interest wise)

 

Atleast Arsenal have won something this year though ah?!

[theessexfox]

Technically decent, but because you see a lot fewer players with sheer brilliance and class (like your Messi's or Silva's) combined with the fact that compared to the men they totally lack pace and strength means that they are nowhere near the men.

[kingfox]

I knew two girls who played for Leicester Ladies, and they were both good technically. Could tear most lads apart at my School, plus then they would of only been 15-16. 

 

So if they play for Leicester Ladies, and compare that to the likes of Arsenal plus those players are much older, I think they could beat teams like Anstey Nomads. 

[Leicesterpool]

The Arsenal ladies outclassed Bristol Academy, from what I've seen on the tele Bristol could hardly put a pass together. Though saying that noticed Arsenal made quite a few mistakes.

[Royston.]

A sunday league team would beat the arsenal ladies.

[MPH]

They obviously train a lot and are technically very gifted... but as people have mentioned physicality can let them down,

 

They just are not fast enough or strong enough to be compared to a professional team..

 

 

Although sunday league level might be a little harsh.... Not everyone in my old Sunday league team were speed merchants and a couple of the defenders clearly enjoyed a few pies!!!

[fleckneymike]

It's just not very good.

[Freeman's Wharfer]

I won't ever take it seriously until they either have men in goal or make the goals smaller. The keeping is just terrible and anything vaguely near the top corners is a goal pretty much.

[leicesterisme]

The only side I've seen that would be good enough to play any higher than senior league football are Lyon's women. The rest are terrible. 

[21st Century Fox]

Women's football obviously lacks a lot of the technical ability and it's light years away in many aspects but I'd say the atmosphere and excitement can be pretty close.

 

The USA v Canada match in the Olympics was a good spectacle, due to the rivalry, the stakes and some bizarre officiating. I've mentioned before I happened to be in Frankfurt a few years ago and got dragged to the Women's World Cup final and it was one of the best atmospheres I've ever experienced live. You can turn your nose up at the playing ability but the big games are still sometimes worth watching from a fan's point of view.

[Kitchandro]

I won't ever take it seriously until they either have men in goal or make the goals smaller. The keeping is just terrible and anything vaguely near the top corners is a goal pretty much.

 

Agree with this, but I'd go as far as saying if you loft a ball into the box you've got more than a 50% chance of it going in. It's so funny wathcing it sometimes, the keepers are completely hopeless.

 

As for the teams in general, you could, for arguments sake, take the physical strength aspect out of it and some of the best ones have league standard technical skill, although most of them remind of Lloyd Dyer without the pace. On the other hand, some Premiership footballers make it because they are fast and strong as it is clear they have minimal skill, so it wouldn't make much sense to take physical strength and pace out of the equation.

 

So the answer is, the standard isn't very good at all.

[Vardinhio]

A Sunday League team could beat them comfortably, the goalkeepers are awful and generally the physicality of guys v girls would come out on top.

[Jordan]

After reading some of the posts on this thread, I wonder just how much top-class women's football some of the commenters above have watched. England isn't there yet but they're making big strides (London 2012 provided a lot of impetus but we'll see what these new moves by the FA do).

Of course it's true that female footballers--much like athletes in any discipline--cannot match the standard of their male counterparts due to the relative difference between them in speed and strength. As a point of reference, the US women's national team--who have been FIFA's top-ranked team for a few years now--lost 8-2 to the US u-17 boys national team in a training match last year.

I would also say that while the top women get great coaching, strategy/tactics isn't as sophisticated as the men's game because talent is still highly concentrated in a few countries and top teams still don't need to make things too complicated yet. E.g. USA still play 4-4-2 with straight lines (which is going the way of dial-up Internet in the men's game) because they can beat most teams just with their midfield and striker talent (though I'm oversimplifying things a bit).

But why does women's football have to be held to men's football's standard? Why can't it just get along on its own merits?

Was the 2011 FIFA Women's World Cup not a spectacular, well-played tournament, complete with a thrilling final? Who wouldn't say that the USA 4-3 Canada semifinal in the 2012 Olympics (complete with rivalry, heroes, villains, class, controversy, and a last-second-of-extra-time winner) wasn't a game as good as any? 21stCF hit the nail squarely on the head there.

If you were to watch the best women's footballers play without constantly comparing them to men, could you say, as examples, that Alex Morgan isn't a supremely talented player? Or that Christine Sinclair wasn't born to be a striker? That Megan Rapinoe doesn't kick ass on the wing (both wings, for that matter)? That Homare Sawa isn't about as composed and creative as a midfielder can be? That Marta's ball skills and technique isn't borderline sorcery? Or that Hope Solo is a great shot-stopper (when she's focused on the game and not complaining to the media)?

Whether or not the players whose names I dropped (and others, for that matter) can hang with the big boys is irrelevant to me.

I understand why people don't watch women's football nearly as much as men's football, and I think the reasons are obvious. For the record, I like women's football enough to watch important games/tournaments but I don't go out of my way to watch anything else (especially as Americans are never at want for sports as we have a million games going on every night). But dismissing women's football offhand as crap misses the point of women's football.

If I had a daughter, and she told me, "When I grow up, I want to be a professional soccer player," I could never imagine myself responding in a manner similar to what BlueBrett wrote above.

[Col city fan]

After reading some of the posts on this thread, I wonder just how much top-class women's football some of the commenters above have watched. England isn't there yet but they're making big strides (London 2012 provided a lot of impetus but we'll see what these new moves by the FA do).

Of course it's true that female footballers--much like athletes in any discipline--cannot match the standard of their male counterparts due to the relative difference between them in speed and strength. As a point of reference, the US women's national team--who have been FIFA's top-ranked team for a few years now--lost 8-2 to the US u-17 boys national team in a training match last year.

I would also say that while the top women get great coaching, strategy/tactics isn't as sophisticated as the men's game because talent is still highly concentrated in a few countries and top teams still don't need to make things too complicated yet. E.g. USA still play 4-4-2 with straight lines (which is going the way of dial-up Internet in the men's game) because they can beat most teams just with their midfield and striker talent (though I'm oversimplifying things a bit).

But why does women's football have to be held to men's football's standard? Why can't it just get along on its own merits?

Was the 2011 FIFA Women's World Cup not a spectacular, well-played tournament, complete with a thrilling final? Who wouldn't say that the USA 4-3 Canada semifinal in the 2012 Olympics (complete with rivalry, heroes, villains, class, controversy, and a last-second-of-extra-time winner) wasn't a game as good as any? 21stCF hit the nail squarely on the head there.

If you were to watch the best women's footballers play without constantly comparing them to men, could you say, as examples, that Alex Morgan isn't a supremely talented player? Or that Christine Sinclair wasn't born to be a striker? That Megan Rapinoe doesn't kick ass on the wing (both wings, for that matter)? That Homare Sawa isn't about as composed and creative as a midfielder can be? That Marta's ball skills and technique isn't borderline sorcery? Or that Hope Solo is a great shot-stopper (when she's focused on the game and not complaining to the media)?

Whether or not the players whose names I dropped (and others, for that matter) can hang with the big boys is irrelevant to me.

I understand why people don't watch women's football nearly as much as men's football, and I think the reasons are obvious. For the record, I like women's football enough to watch important games/tournaments but I don't go out of my way to watch anything else (especially as Americans are never at want for sports as we have a million games going on every night). But dismissing women's football offhand as crap misses the point of women's football.

If I had a daughter, and she told me, "When I grow up, I want to be a professional soccer player," I could never imagine myself responding in a manner similar to what BlueBrett wrote above.

Great post Jordan and I started the thread not to knock women's soccer. You're right... It needs to be looked at for its own merits. I was just interested in getting some views on how people think it would compare. I agree with most of the posts.

[Bilo]

Technically they're better than most male sides, no hoofball and plenty played into feet.

 

They wouldn't beat any professional men's team but it's unfair to compare them. Women and men don't play football together for a reason, the physical differences past their teenage years are insurmountable. The best female player in the world wouldn't last five minutes if marked by a six foot two, muscle-bound League Two centre half. She'd be bullied out of the game. 

 

It doesn't make the women's game inferior or the men's game superior, it just means the two are different. Judge each on their own merits.

[DennisNedry]

Technically they're better than most male sides, no hoofball and plenty played into feet.

 

They wouldn't beat any professional men's team but it's unfair to compare them. Women and men don't play football together for a reason, the physical differences past their teenage years are insurmountable. The best female player in the world wouldn't last five minutes if marked by a six foot two, muscle-bound League Two centre half. She'd be bullied out of the game. 

 

It doesn't make the women's game inferior or the men's game superior, it just means the two are different. Judge each on their own merits.

 

[Bilo]

 

A bold quote I admit, but watch some women's football.

 

No long ball tactics, using the wings effectively and plenty of passing on the ground. We'd all love City to play like that all the time, albeit with much more pace and strength.

[Leicfox]

MIXED AGE GROUP FOOTBALL PERMITTED TO U15

A change to the age limit at which boys and girls can play football in the same teams has been unanimously voted in by The Football Association

The resolution to increase the mixed football age limit from U14s to U15s was approved on Thursday 16th 2013 by The FA shareholders at their AGM after The FA Board, FA Executive and FA Council agreed the proposal.

The change will come into effect for the forthcoming 2013-14 season and will enable The FA to conduct further research into mixed football at this older age group.

Kelly Simmons, Director of the National Game and Women’s Football at The FA, said: “This is really great news and we are delighted that The FA Shareholders fully supported the rule change to enable boys and girls to play in the same teams if they wish to do so up to the U15 age limit.

“The most important thing is to give girls who want to play football the choice.â€

Is this a serious accident waiting to happen?

[RonnieTodger]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ienZj9onV0Q

 

Women's cup final from 98. These two were the last remaining sides in England.

 

And the Iceland goalkeeper from the European championships. She was supposedly the best female keeper in the country!

 

Obviously these aren't the norm for all games but they vindicate you. 

[Guest MattP]

That women's fa cup final video is among the funniest thing s I've ever seen.

[HEGGSY]

That Arsenal volley... lol