BAMSOLA
Has issues!
- Joined
- Jul 7, 2006
- Messages
- 10,979
- Supports
- A Crack Habit.
In fairness I can't hear her so i'm assuming with the aid of a paper bag I could still work with the raw materials she has.
In fairness I can't hear her so i'm assuming with the aid of a paper bag I could still work with the raw materials she has.
Hell, just been watching the Mexico/NZ match and had me thinking what Vidic could do with some of NZ's corners. Quite sad actually that these female players could deliver a more decent corner that what we've been putting up with all season.The level of play in the Women's World Cup has been very good.
Many of you are simply used to the PL, CL or WC level football.
I have to put up with the MLS and watching Canada compete internationally and I must say that the German, French and American women's teams have been very good.
Some of the German women can literally cross better than the Canadian men's teams.
I think most people on this site are United fans and not fans of football in general.
That's a bit of an overreaction if I be quite honest. You seem to think that there is some mental block which makes us perceive women's football as shite and boring, while it actually is shite and boring.Typical that this thread is full of ridiculous comments, I knew it would be.
Is it really hard to believe that women's football isn't on the same level as men's? When girls aren't given anywhere near the same training or encouragement, then the game has absolutely nowhere near the same money and exposure (and we're really talking nowhere near here). There's about 1 article on the last page of every sports paper with a couple of paragraphs on the game for the women's game, for the men's game there's months and months of hype and round-the-clock coverage. Also, a very small amount of women choose to play football, very small, whereas nearly every boy in the country is in some team at some stage. Talent pool way, way smaller. It's like Liechtenstein being compared to a country with a population of over 100million.
It can never get to the same level as the men's, obviously, definitely not, but it could be a hell of a lot better if some men just let go of this mental block they have towards women getting involved in football. Part of the reason it's not good is because it's so frequently pushed to one side and given no attention. Remember the big hoo-ha about a woman just being on the lines, or a commentator ffs? So many men just can't deal with it, typically. Get over it. Some women like football. Big deal.
Eh? I take it you haven't watched any men's tennis for the last 2 years.I think that you can't separate imagination, technique and footballing intelligence from athleticism, speed and strength. You have to be able to have the power and quickness to execute first, before you can imagine doing something.
It is not an accident that Rooney's strength and speed result in his having more intelligence and imagination on the pitch. Do you really think he is simply smarter than other players?
Tevez and Messi have a low center of gravity coupled with lightning quickness and strength. Is it an accident they are technically gifted as well? I'm not saying that every player with those physical attributes will be as good as Messi. I'm just saying that certain physical gifts are a prerequisite, or a platform, if you will, upon which the player can build their technique and imagination.
I've watched Women's soccer in the U.S. for many years. I will even sit and watch the Women's pro league games when I'm bored during the course of the year. They come on the soccer channels I pay for. I enjoy the game, especially players like Mia Hamm, Michelle Akers or these days Marta who are head and shoulders above their fellow players. But the fact is that the Women's game is slow, less technical, and less imaginative. I put this down to the physical difference between men and women, even if football does not make use of the upper body.
There was a time when women's tennis was lacking in technical variety. It was just endless baseline rallies, except for a few muscle-bound serve-and-volleyers like Navratilova or Novotna. Then the racket technology was changed, enabling the women to have the strength and power to do things which they couldn't do before. Now men's tennis is sometimes a boring serving exhibition, where the women play more rallies, have more variety and have more breaks of serve.
Perhaps women's soccer, like women's basketball in the U.S., needs a different ball or a smaller pitch, or a shorter match like women's tennis, in order to allow women to close the athletic gap and play a game as interesting or more interesting than the men.
Because they have more more more more time for the crossing.After watching a few games I'm fairly confident in the fact that women are generally better at crossing than men.They regularly whip in some fantastic balls, they really have gotten the technique.I've seen better crosses from women than PL players (even United players).
And also because they don't have to weigh their crosses, they just pelt it towards the box and it travels about half the width of the pitch.Because they have more more more more time for the crossing.
PL is the fastest league in the world > Women`s football is slow
Great goal scored last night by the english striker Elen White.Very good technique
I disagree with most of this.I think that you can't separate imagination, technique and footballing intelligence from athleticism, speed and strength. You have to be able to have the power and quickness to execute first, before you can imagine doing something.
It is not an accident that Rooney's strength and speed result in his having more intelligence and imagination on the pitch. Do you really think he is simply smarter than other players?
Tevez and Messi have a low center of gravity coupled with lightning quickness and strength. Is it an accident they are technically gifted as well? I'm not saying that every player with those physical attributes will be as good as Messi. I'm just saying that certain physical gifts are a prerequisite, or a platform, if you will, upon which the player can build their technique and imagination.
I've watched Women's soccer in the U.S. for many years. I will even sit and watch the Women's pro league games when I'm bored during the course of the year. They come on the soccer channels I pay for. I enjoy the game, especially players like Mia Hamm, Michelle Akers or these days Marta who are head and shoulders above their fellow players. But the fact is that the Women's game is slow, less technical, and less imaginative. I put this down to the physical difference between men and women, even if football does not make use of the upper body.
There was a time when women's tennis was lacking in technical variety. It was just endless baseline rallies, except for a few muscle-bound serve-and-volleyers like Navratilova or Novotna. Then the racket technology was changed, enabling the women to have the strength and power to do things which they couldn't do before. Now men's tennis is sometimes a boring serving exhibition, where the women play more rallies, have more variety and have more breaks of serve.
Perhaps women's soccer, like women's basketball in the U.S., needs a different ball or a smaller pitch, or a shorter match like women's tennis, in order to allow women to close the athletic gap and play a game as interesting or more interesting than the men.
The defender running past the ball wasn't too good either.Terrible positioning by the keeper, decent chip mind.
Meh, just miscommunication between the two of them, nothing major.The defender running past the ball wasn't too good either.
The same term would be used about blokes...I did like when there was some minor pushing between two players because the French player dived, and the female commentator described it as 'handbags'.