Big scorelines in women's football: a problem?

[Chipper]

I'm pretty sure some prominent figures within the English women's game have been voicing concerns lately so if they see it as a problem who am I to argue?

For me, as a punter I just don't see where the entertainment factor would come from when it comes to teams being so mis-matched in ability. I had no interest in Watching England men v San Marino lately because there's just no doubt who will win and the point of sport is to find out who is better (at least on the day)/who will win and to test yourself against others.

Suppose you could make the same argument against the FA Cup and a minnow facing a Premier League side but the ability gap seem even bigger here as the scores aren't often this size. FA Cup also gives tiny teams other tangible benefits, often financial. Would the Latvian women's game get anything financially out of these drubbings? I imagine they might be out of pocket, scrimping and saving from flying around Europe and struggling to even fulfil the fixtures.

Not really for the mercy rule or going easy on teams that has been mentioned. That's not part of what sport it for me either. As well as finding out who is better, there's the whole concept of doing your best.

They have every right to be there but things like that just aren't interesting to me personally. Maybe others enjoy the spectacle so fair play there.

 

[tenpoless]

They should be allowed to play with two GK if they wish to do so.

 

[SER19]

The defensiveness from some about the problems in the women's game and how to fix them makes conversation very hard. But looking at what was as poor a standard as Sunday league last night, its embarrassing that sky etc bend over backward to make sure to make the distinction about 'mens' records, as if when one of these women inevitably overtakes Rooney as 'England's all time top scorer' it should even be the same conversation, or that Ronaldo is the 11th highest international scorer of all time

 

[Pogue Mahone]

No problem with it, that match was one of the funniest things I've seen in ages.

A combination of the two teams being so obviously mismatched and England celebrating like every goal was a 90th minute winner

Oh God. Really? Why do that?!?

 

[Wolf1992]

Doesn't help that the keeper in the 2nd half was about 5ft. Ideally the womens game should have considerably smaller goals because their average height is about half a foot shorter than men. But then it would make it logistically harder for them to train and play because all infrastructure has men sized goals, so it makes sense to just have it the same. But it doesn't help the game in my opinion, as it makes the keepers look shit because they genuinely can't reach some long rangers even if their positioning is fine.

It's already very hard to find 5'11 (1.80 cm) women, now imagine trying to find some 1.90 tall girl who wants to play proffessional Football to be a GK or CB.

 

[11101]

I know it's not but those lads will have had access to the best youth coaches in the Aussie game since they were 5 years old. The ladies team will have been coached by amateurs, most likely part time so they could do paying work the other half, right up until they made the national squad.

And the Aussie's don't fund anything other than swimming and cricket. I know a couple of lads who competed at commonwealth level in Australia for running short and long distance, they had to move to Europe to get better funded and compete against better opposition.

The FC Dallas U15s also beat the US Women's Team a couple of years back, and they do have the best coaches and funding available. Probably better than FC Dallas has access to.

 

[Wolf1992]

We won't really know what the issue is until the women's game gets the same amount of funding and access to the best coaches like the men's game does from grass roots.

Men have physical advantage over women, its unfair to compare.
If both man and woman train equally hard, men will be stronger, especially if we compare athletes and people who practice sports.
Obviously a woman who works out and practices sports will be stronger than a man who lives a sedentary life and eats unhealthy, but she won't be stronger than a man who does the same as her.

It's possible for an U-16 men team to beat a national women team, just by using their physical advantage, not necessarily by being more skilled or better coached.

 

[Conor]

Oh God. Really? Why do that?!?

Not sure if you misread, but England were playing.

 

[Goldfiessli]

I think a big question is whether these weaker nations will have the financial capacity and the willingness to invest in women's football to level the playing field at least a little bit.

 

[crossy1686]

Men have physical advantage over women, its unfair to compare.
If both man and woman train equally hard, men will be stronger, especially if we compare athletes and people who practice sports.
Obviously a woman who works out and practices sports will be stronger than a man who lives a sedentary life and eats unhealthy, but she won't be stronger than a man who does the same as her.

It's possible for an U-16 men team to beat a national women team, just by using their physical advantage, not necessarily by being more skilled or better coached.

I disagree.

We can compare mens team in age groups or at different levels also.

USA’s under 18’s team is great, they win major tournaments, but the drop off in coaching once they hit 18 upwards is huge, which is why they either move to Europe or become a regular in the MLS.

Look at the lower leagues in England, way more physical when they play a PL team, they kick everyone and keep the ball in the air but the overall quality of the players in PL teams usually see’s out the game.

Like I said before, we won’t know what the real issue is until all variables are equal.

 

[groovyalbert]

A goal on average every 5 minutes (less in last night's case!) to one team shouldn't be happening at any professional level of the game. That's ridiculous. Latvia didn't even have a player sent off.

I get the argument about games developing, but how exactly would last night have done less damage than good?

 

[Chipper]

Just Googled Latvian Women's football team, maybe hoping to find some insight about the issues they might face with funding, or what sort of training they do, how often or the facilities they have.

Didn't find anything on that but one thing that sprung out from their Wikipedia page was the age of the players. Out of 20 listed in the squad, 14 are 22 and under, 1 is 23 , 1 is 24 and there are 4 in their late 20s. So they're inexperienced, but think this could also point to a lot of their players dropping out of the game at some point. Perhaps currently it's a sport for girls at school and University students with no big follow on beyond that?

 

[moses]

The levels of the organisation and participation of the women's game are hugely different, but that will slowly balance out. There is a much broader conversation about gender and the late and sudden proactive drive in some countries further widening the gap. The top teams play out good competitive games. So we just wait, or get FIFA to funnel funds where it's needed if we really care.

 

[MrMarcello]

I know it's not but those lads will have had access to the best youth coaches in the Aussie game since they were 5 years old. The ladies team will have been coached by amateurs, most likely part time so they could do paying work the other half, right up until they made the national squad.

And the Aussie's don't fund anything other than swimming and cricket. I know a couple of lads who competed at commonwealth level in Australia for running short and long distance, they had to move to Europe to get better funded and compete against better opposition.

FC Dallas boys youth sides have clobbered the US women senior side a few times, and the women's side had experienced professional coaches and all the ladies are professionals as well.

 

[Andrew7582]

I disagree.

We can compare mens team in age groups or at different levels also.

USA’s under 18’s team is great, they win major tournaments, but the drop off in coaching once they hit 18 upwards is huge, which is why they either move to Europe or become a regular in the MLS.

Look at the lower leagues in England, way more physical when they play a PL team, they kick everyone and keep the ball in the air but the overall quality of the players in PL teams usually see’s out the game.

Like I said before, we won’t know what the real issue is until all variables are equal.

The difference in physical attributes between a man and a woman is a variable that will never be equal.

 

[crossy1686]

The difference in physical attributes between a man and a woman is a variable that will never be equal.

I’m not saying it will, I’m saying footballing ability overrides strength. The strongest teams don’t win football matches.

 

[SuperiorXI]

Yeah it is a problem and makes a mockery for the game. Someone like @GoranIvanisevic needs to be brought in, possibly as a consultant, in order to develop ways of making it an even playing field.

Yes

There is a sniper on the roof so you have to keep moving or you're dead

 

[Andrew7582]

I’m not saying it will, I’m saying footballing ability overrides strength. The strongest teams don’t win football matches.

Elite sport is a combination of physical and technical, you need both. Liverpool wouldn't be able to press and win the ball and exploit spaces as effectively as they do if their players weren't fantastic athletes.

 

[Mb194dc]

Big Scores not really an issue, happens in mens football too. Though Australia got moved to different region as their qualifying was ridiculous before.

The issue is that the women's game feels low quality and quite boring to watch generally, in my opinion anyway.

 

[Vitro]

I’m not saying it will, I’m saying footballing ability overrides strength. The strongest teams don’t win football matches.

Football ability is heavily influenced by physical ability. Men aren’t just stronger, but in general have better speed, explosiveness, agility, reflexes, balance, stamina, hand eye coordination etc. All of these things impact upon how good a player is at dribbling with the ball, shooting/passing with power and accuracy, or controlling a pass. Messi may seem small and weak, but he’ll have many outstanding physical attributes. Doesn’t mean a woman can’t be a better athlete, but an average female would be greatly disadvantaged at a sport such as football, which draws upon a broad level of physical attributes compared to an average male.

 

[crossy1686]

Elite sport is a combination of physical and technical, you need both. Liverpool wouldn't be able to press and win the ball and exploit spaces as effectively as they do if their players weren't fantastic athletes.

And a modern woman’s team could probably beat a men’s team from 30 years or so ago, that’s how far behind the woman’s game is in terms of development. We’ll never really know if this debate stacks up until all things are fair and equal and woman's team sport’s attract more young girls. In the UK (and some other countries) there’s always been a homosexual stigma attached to female team sports, which dissuades a lot of young girls, maybe the best, from signing up in the first place.

Imagine how small the pool of men’s talent would be if mostly just gay men signed up?

For me, it’s a bit lazy to just say women are physically inferior to men and that’s why these score lines happen, especially when there is so much disparity at every level, logistically and socially.

 

[SER19]

Football ability is heavily influenced by physical ability. Men aren’t just stronger, but in general have better speed, explosiveness, agility, reflexes, balance, stamina, hand eye coordination etc. All of these things impact upon how good a player is at dribbling with the ball, shooting/passing with power and accuracy, or controlling a pass. Messi may seem small and weak, but he’ll have many outstanding physical attributes. Doesn’t mean a woman can’t be a better athlete, but an average female would be greatly disadvantaged at a sport such as football, which draws upon a broad level of physical attributes compared to an average male.

I can't believe people don't get this. The physical difference also means everything happens at a different pace and intensity. Look at AWB, who seemingly can't cross a ball. He'd be the best crosser in any amateur men's game due to the difference in time, intensity and physicality. Its why some top players struggle in tougher leagues. Its not a badge of honour, but no professional women's team will ever even come close to beating a men's one and it would be frankly dangerous to let them go for it full pelt

 

[Stack]

https://www.theguardian.com/footbal...-misogyny-in-football-football-weekly-special

 

[Keownisacnut]

The results for both England teams, 10-0 and 20-0, are embarrassing, not for players or staff but for UEFA/FIFA. It shows their inability to organise football around the world. Its fairly obvious we need a pre-qualifying system for the amateur/semi-pro teams like San Marino and Latvia.

 

[Rocksy]

We won't really know what the issue is until the women's game gets the same amount of funding and access to the best coaches like the men's game does from grass roots.

That's unlikely though, isn't it?

The men's game gets its "funding" from being popular and its "access" to the best coaches is because the men's game has built and pushed itself forward, and so the best coaches want to work in it. How would the women's game overcome those two issues? The men's game has these things because it's just better. The women's game gets treated very favorably indeed, considering very few people are interested in it. Listen to any podcast nowadays and much more coverage is given to women's football than Championship football and below. Yet the lower leagues of men's football is at a much higher level, and is much more watched.

 

[moses]

For me, it’s a bit lazy to just say women are physically inferior to men and that’s why these score lines happen, especially when there is so much disparity at every level, logically and socially.

It's amazing this needs to be pointed out.

 

[crossy1686]

That's unlikely though, isn't it?

The men's game gets its "funding" from being popular and its "access" to the best coaches is because the men's game has built and pushed itself forward, and so the best coaches want to work in it. How would the women's game overcome those two issues? The men's game has these things because it's just better. The women's game gets treated very favorably indeed, considering very few people are interested in it. Listen to any podcast nowadays and much more coverage is given to women's football than Championship football and below. Yet the lower leagues of men's football is at a much higher level, and is much more watched.

Yeah it’s super unlikely because the men’s game is way more established than the woman’s game, but we expect that when the woman’s game was banned for generations so of course the men’s game has made leaps and bounds in that time.

We’d be having the exact same conversation but flipped if the men’s game only got decent funding in the last 10 years. If the women’s game started paying coaches more than the men’s game for the next 20 years we’d see a massive difference in both genders.

The media coverage is to try and generate interest and attract new fans, they have to start somewhere. For the sake of equality and attracting young girls to the sport they have to be accessible.

 

[Rocksy]

We’d be having the exact same conversation but flipped if the men’s game only got decent funding in the last 10 years. If the women’s game started paying coaches more than the men’s game for the next 20 years we’d see a massive difference in both genders.

Why don't they start paying coaches more than the men's game, then? Obviously, they won't, because not enough people are interested and it doesn't generate the money. That's not because of "the system" it's just market forces. The men's game created its own coaches, and the money that goes along with that was because those coaches, and the men's game, pushed itself forwards. There were plenty of decades where the men's game had a lot less money, but it helped itself and grew.

 

[moses]

Why don't they start paying coaches more than the men's game, then? Obviously, they won't, because not enough people are interested and it doesn't generate the money. That's not because of "the system" it's just market forces. The men's game created its own coaches, and the money that goes along with that was because those coaches, and the men's game, pushed itself forwards. There were plenty of decades where the men's game had a lot less money.

Market forces is the system. The Market is not some objective Darwinian process;, that myth is surely over? The market is a construct, favouring some over others.

You can create and skew markets. For years over here in Ireland that was the cry of soccer people over the rise of Rugby Union. Journalism here, like rugby came from the same socio-economic gene pool so it had a much larger share of the media market due to the bias of the establishment. The coverage was disproportionately big and sympathetic when it was a tiny minority amateur sport played almost exclusively in private Leinster schools, and just to emphasise the point, as pre-internet kid, on a Saturday afternoon, we had to listen to men's amateur hockey results before the English first division.

 

[Rocksy]

Market forces is the system. The Market is not some objective Darwinian process;, that myth is surely over? The market is a construct, favouring some over others.

Ok, which “system” in football has created the false consciousness that women’s football isn’t actually very good? Thanks for the analogy with the situation in Ireland but I don’t see it. Football in England was not of the elites and, in the 70s or 80s in particular, you were seen as scum if you followed football. Men’s football hasn’t had many favours, its success is to its own merit.

 

[moses]

Ok, which “system” in football has created the false consciousness that women’s football isn’t actually very good? Thanks for the analogy with the situation in Ireland but I don’t see it. Football in England was not of the elites and in the 70s or 80s you were seen as scum if you followed football. Men’s football hasn’t had many favours, its success is to its own merit.

Overall. It isn't very good outside of countries where it is established. That's not the discussion though? It's the why.

My point about the Irish media and their systemic bias is to counter the idea of the market as an independent barometer, rather than something which h can be created, or neglected, whichever the case may be.

 

[moses]

Ok, which “system” in football has created the false consciousness that women’s football isn’t actually very good? Thanks for the analogy with the situation in Ireland but I don’t see it. Football in England was not of the elites and, in the 70s or 80s in particular, you were seen as scum if you followed football. Men’s football hasn’t had many favours, its success is to its own merit.

So men's football in the 50's was bigger and better than the women's game on merit, with no social pressures or influence?

 

[crossy1686]

Why don't they start paying coaches more than the men's game, then? Obviously, they won't, because not enough people are interested and it doesn't generate the money. That's not because of "the system" it's just market forces. The men's game created its own coaches, and the money that goes along with that was because those coaches, and the men's game, pushed itself forwards. There were plenty of decades where the men's game had a lot less money, but it helped itself and grew.

Because the men's game generates bigger sponsorship's so the women's game can't outbid them for the same coaches of a higher standard. The women's game will grow organically also but it's going to take about 30 years.

The women's game was banned in 1921 for 50 years until 1971 after some women's games got bigger crowds than the men's. The FA said "the game of football is quite unsuitable for females and ought not to be encouraged".

It's much easier to grow a sport when you ban the competition.

What do you think would happen to the men's now if it got banned for 50 years?

 

[RUCK4444]

So men's football in the 50's was bigger and better than the women's game on merit, with no social pressures or influence?

Is your argument that womens football isn’t as popular as mens because of social pressures and influence?

 

[crossy1686]

So men's football in the 50's was bigger and better than the women's game on merit, with no social pressures or influence?

Women's football didn't exist in the 50's because it was banned by the FA.

 

[moses]

Is your argument that womens football isn’t as popular as mens because of social pressures and influence?

No, I'm saying it's lower standard and maybe to a degree therefore, the popularity is due to the very different long term histories of the two sports, which has been influenced by many things.

 

[moses]

Women's football didn't exist in the 50's because it was banned by the FA.

That's quite a blow to the potential market I'd say. But there you have your answer. It's new. Look at the historical men's international scorelines. England hammered Turkey 8-0 home and away in the early 80's.

 

[TsuWave]

I’ve been unimpressed by the goalies

 

[crossy1686]

That's quite a blow to the potential market I'd say. But there you have your answer. It's new. Look at the historical men's international scorelines. England hammered Turkey 8-0 home and away in the early 80's.

Yep, exactly. Sport's only succeed when funding ultimately finds it's way in.

Women's football is new, most elite teams have only just started women's sides in the last few years. All the best women players are moving into media roles now (because the coaching doesn't pay well enough), which will raise awareness of the sport, which in turn will attract more young women (and men) to watch more often, which will ultimately increase sponsorship's and keep the best women coaches, or attract male coaches, in/to the sport. It's just super early right now.

 

[Dumbstar]

I have absolutely no issue with big necklines in women's football.

Damn auto correct