| Woman's. Football 15:58 - Nov 13 with 4890 views | Bramidan |
OK, tin hat on!
Is anybody interested? Apart from a small minority of the 50%?
Be fair it's slow and sh..te |  | | |  |
| Woman's. Football on 20:00 - Nov 13 with 1111 views | Oldboy |
| Woman's. Football on 19:22 - Nov 13 by Bramidan |
Thank you so much for taking the time for your post.
I stand corrected. |
11.7 Million watched the world cup semi final on the BBC between England and USA. Is that enough for you. |  | | |
| Woman's. Football on 20:01 - Nov 13 with 1096 views | Deano69 |
| Woman's. Football on 18:01 - Nov 13 by Bramidan |
OK how many people tune in to watch Womans PLF as opposed to Premiership games.
I know this is a football thread but do you tune in to watch Womans Rugby as opposed to 5 nations etc? |
Bit confused, are you saying how popular is Womens football compared to mens? Or are you suggesting this supports your statement in the OP? |  |
| |
| Woman's. Football on 20:08 - Nov 13 with 1075 views | tractordownsouth |
I admit I don't follow the Super League much but I always watch England games in the major tournaments and it's good to see ITFC women doing well. |  |
| |
| Woman's. Football on 20:12 - Nov 13 with 1070 views | Wakh |
| Woman's. Football on 19:22 - Nov 13 by Bramidan |
Thank you so much for taking the time for your post.
I stand corrected. |
I am a time traveller that flits back a nostalgic 2021 promotion season when teams were bizarrely all male. Here in 2078 each premiership team have to have 3-women on the pitch. [Post edited 13 Nov 2021 20:14]
| | | |
| Woman's. Football on 21:57 - Nov 13 with 1001 views | Ryorry |
| Woman's. Football on 19:22 - Nov 13 by Bramidan |
Thank you so much for taking the time for your post.
I stand corrected. |
Why the sarkiness? I didn't want to believe you're a trill, but you're not helping yourself. |  |
| |
| Woman's. Football on 23:12 - Nov 13 with 966 views | Nthsuffolkblue |
| Woman's. Football on 21:57 - Nov 13 by Ryorry |
Why the sarkiness? I didn't want to believe you're a trill, but you're not helping yourself. |
Definitely a trill.
A trill being a large step down from a troll. |  |
| |
| Woman's. Football on 23:46 - Nov 13 with 950 views | Superblue95 |
| Woman's. Football on 18:41 - Nov 13 by Bramidan |
I really love a conspiracy theory!
Glad to have stimulated a debate. |
‘I really love a conspiracy theory!’
It’s a pity you seemingly don’t understand what one is though |  |
| |
| Woman's. Football on 08:22 - Nov 14 with 901 views | pennyfathersleg |
I’ve started watching ITFC women at the goldstar this season. I was very open minded about it when I went, but I have to say I’ve been blown away by the quality.
The pace is of the game is definitely not ‘slow’! There is some great passing; the ITFC ladies try to play a great brand of football. I’ve seen some big tackles, great passes, amazing saves and top quality goals so far this season. We have some individually great players who work well as a team. I have to say that I have thoroughly enjoyed every game I’ve watched this season. I will continue going to every home game this season.
I will say that there is a big difference in quality between the top and the bottom teams in this division, but that’s mainly due to teams being new.
Get along and watch a live game. Don’t make an opinion after watching a few minutes on TV! |  | | |
Login to get fewer ads
| Woman's. Football on 08:28 - Nov 14 with 894 views | hadleighboyblue |
| Woman's. Football on 16:03 - Nov 13 by StokieBlue |
I suspect more people are interested in women's football than are interested in your opinions.
SB |
.......at least they don't fall over and pretend they are badly hurt like Oxford did yesterday .......pathetic | | | |
| Woman's. Football on 08:32 - Nov 14 with 895 views | ChateauWines |
Wow!
What a strange post. I don't particularly like rap music, however I don't feel the need to check out who else doesnt. | |
| |
| Woman's. Football on 11:56 - Nov 14 with 865 views | Ryorry |
| Woman's. Football on 23:12 - Nov 13 by Nthsuffolkblue |
Definitely a trill.
A trill being a large step down from a troll. |
Indeed - some typos are just too happy an accident to correct! | |
| |
| Woman's. Football on 12:16 - Nov 14 with 854 views | Parky |
Absolutely no interest. Also getting fed up how all the sports channels shoe-horning all the ex woman’s footballers into the commentary and punditry just to tick a box. | | | |
| Woman's. Football on 12:33 - Nov 14 with 840 views | pennyfathersleg |
| Woman's. Football on 12:16 - Nov 14 by Parky |
Absolutely no interest. Also getting fed up how all the sports channels shoe-horning all the ex woman’s footballers into the commentary and punditry just to tick a box. |
Explain why it’s ticking a box? I think it’s massively refreshing! | | | |
| Woman's. Football on 12:41 - Nov 14 with 834 views | footers |
| Woman's. Football on 12:16 - Nov 14 by Parky |
Absolutely no interest. Also getting fed up how all the sports channels shoe-horning all the ex woman’s footballers into the commentary and punditry just to tick a box. |
Yes, what the game needs is more insight from football's greatest minds like Robbie Savage, Jimmy Bullard and Michael Owen. |  |
| |
| Woman's. Football on 12:54 - Nov 14 with 825 views | Parky |
| Woman's. Football on 12:33 - Nov 14 by pennyfathersleg |
Explain why it’s ticking a box? I think it’s massively refreshing! |
Watched Soccer Saturday the other week for the first time in years and seen they’ve replaced Thompson, Nicholas etc with people like Sue Smith.
Another example, Colchester game on BBC the other week and the best commentator they could get was Siobhan Chamberlain.
Have absolutely no problem if they’re the best fit and best qualified, I think Emma Hayes and Alex Scott are absolutely brilliant. | | | |
| Woman's. Football on 13:08 - Nov 14 with 818 views | Keaneish |
This thread is hilarious! Only read the first page but that was enough. Not sure why the need to trample all over it and play the “political correctness” card by most, it’s a simple question. Lots of posturing as usual, it seems.
I haven’t engaged with it yet. There’s more than enough men’s football to catch-up on so I struggle to find the time. From what I have seen, the standard is improving rapidly but it’s still a non-league men’s football equivalent in my view so I doubt I’ll get to it any time soon either. |  |
| |
| Woman's. Football on 14:32 - Nov 14 with 775 views | jacko77 |
| Woman's. Football on 12:54 - Nov 14 by Parky |
Watched Soccer Saturday the other week for the first time in years and seen they’ve replaced Thompson, Nicholas etc with people like Sue Smith.
Another example, Colchester game on BBC the other week and the best commentator they could get was Siobhan Chamberlain.
Have absolutely no problem if they’re the best fit and best qualified, I think Emma Hayes and Alex Scott are absolutely brilliant. |
I always thought sue Smith was very good,but like you say the rest are just a bunch of box-tickers,not very good at all. | | | |
| Woman's. Football on 17:52 - Nov 14 with 751 views | Darth_Koont |
Still better than cricket. Men’s or women’s.
But I guess my underlying point is that clearly people like different stuff. |  |
| |
| Woman's. Football on 09:17 - Nov 15 with 657 views | Radlett_blue |
| Woman's. Football on 13:08 - Nov 14 by Keaneish |
This thread is hilarious! Only read the first page but that was enough. Not sure why the need to trample all over it and play the “political correctness” card by most, it’s a simple question. Lots of posturing as usual, it seems.
I haven’t engaged with it yet. There’s more than enough men’s football to catch-up on so I struggle to find the time. From what I have seen, the standard is improving rapidly but it’s still a non-league men’s football equivalent in my view so I doubt I’ll get to it any time soon either. |
The level of women's football is similar to a team's academy of U15 players. This is largely down to size & strength.
A lower standard of a sport can sometimes be entertaining to watch e.g. some College American football games are more open & entertaining than the NFL, but women's football will never be a serious mass spectator sport unless men stop playing football. |  |
| |
| Woman's. Football on 09:54 - Nov 15 with 645 views | SaleAway |
So I came across a very similar discussion to this a few years ago (2013) , originally about cricket, it was on twitter, so not suited to nuance.... so I gave up and wrote a blog.... copied below, for those that are interested:
I've been following a discussion on Twitter about women's sport and particularly cricket. One journalist who thinks that its "dull" and shouldn't get any support, funding or exposure, and others calling him out for being outdated, sexist etc etc. I wanted to get involved, but to me, its a long complicated issue, not suited to the limitations of Twitter. Hence, this blog, as I attempt to form my random thoughts into something vaguely coherent.
I find myself jumping about a bit on this issue. On one side, I strongly believe that women's sport has its place in the world of sports and entertainment. On the other, I find it difficult to argue with the complete equality demands of some sports ( such as Tennis), where the insistence that both sides take home the same prize money, is at odds with the level of interest, and to an extent the quality of the fare on offer.
The conflict to me comes with the crossover between sport and entertainment, and why it is that people watch sport. I think watchers fall into 2 categories... I'll call one the tribalists. These are the people that watch sport for the personalities involved. I'm an Ipswich Town fan. I'll pay to watch them, even though I accept that they don't produce the best examples of football available to me. On the other side, are the technical fans - who watch a sport because they like to see it played, and played well - I will go and watch top class squash, regardless of who is playing, as I love to see masters at work.
So when it comes to the division of men's and women's sport, here is the issue. Given that there is a limitation of what I can watch, I will usually go for the highest quality example of what I can see, this doesn't necessarily make one or the other less interesting - just different. Case study: Last weekend was the British National Squash Championships. Men and women, competing in the same place. You buy your ticket, and you see both sexes compete. The issue is, that top level men's squash is a phenomenon. Its completely different to the sort of game you see in your local club. Whereas top level women's squash is about on a level with the top of men's club level squash. It's still exciting. The women's final over 5 sets and almost 80 minutes was actually a much better match in terms of tension and excitement, than a somewhat one sided men's final was. However, if you forced me to choose between going to watch a women's match or a men's one, I would choose the men's one every time, because I want to see the best quality squash that I can.
So what does this mean? If we accept that for the majority of sports, the physiological differences will always mean that men's sport is harder, faster, stronger, higher, do we give up on women's sport, or do we think, actually, the reasons that the gaps are so big in some sports is due to the lack of funding available for so much of it. The small pools of players mean that you are less likely to find those that have the x-factor. The lack of money available to attract the best coaches leads to lower quality, which makes it less attractive... etc etc. Do we say that only the best is good enough - or do we accept that watching women, at the top of their game is still an exciting, fascinating way to spend our time. Who can seriously argue that Jessica Ennis wasn't brilliant to watch at the Olympics, who can say that they weren't blown away by the guts and determination shown by Laura Trott in the elimination race of the world championships. Watching the women's rowers kick start the British gold rush - was that tribalism, or can we add a third category to why we watch sport? That of seeing people push themselves to the limit, physically, mentally, emotionally. The human side of sport is the same whatever sex you are.
As I write this, I find more thoughts crowding in - its interesting that the sports I've highlighted in the olympics, are of the pure faster/higher/stronger types, the ones where women could never compete on a level playing field. As we look at something like cricket though, we are already seeing the gaps close between men's and women's levels. More women than ever are playing, and they are getting coaching and funding to make it a proper career. This leads to better skills - we're starting to see the opportunity for the best to start to compete with the men, perhaps only at 2nd XI level, but the difference even to only a few years ago is phenomenal. Yes, you could argue that the viewing figures are low - but then large amounts of men's cricket is too. How many of the people that go and watch international cricket are real connoisseurs of top quality cricket - and how many just go for a day on the lash with their mates? Is the demand for top quality cricket, or is it just tribalism. Maybe the answer is to get tribalism on side - do what the rugby have been doing and put women's matches into double bills with the men? Raise exposure of women's sport, and the people will realise that the human side is the same. The tensions of a close game are the same whether the skills are high or not. Again, some of the worst quality sports matches are the best in terms of tension - errors are made, tension rises. The human side takes over.
I started writing this to try and get my thoughts in order, the conclusion I've come to as I've spent the time thinking it through, is that ok, maybe some of the skill levels in women's sport aren't as high as the men, but we can always make them better. At the end of the day, part of why we play and watch sport is about seeing how hard the human can push itself, and that is the same whatever the sex. I don't pretend to be able to answer questions about how to raise exposure, participation levels and funding for women's sport, but I find myself firmly in the camp that thinks its good to try. | |
| |
| Woman's. Football on 10:51 - Nov 15 with 608 views | Radlett_blue |
| Woman's. Football on 09:54 - Nov 15 by SaleAway |
So I came across a very similar discussion to this a few years ago (2013) , originally about cricket, it was on twitter, so not suited to nuance.... so I gave up and wrote a blog.... copied below, for those that are interested:
I've been following a discussion on Twitter about women's sport and particularly cricket. One journalist who thinks that its "dull" and shouldn't get any support, funding or exposure, and others calling him out for being outdated, sexist etc etc. I wanted to get involved, but to me, its a long complicated issue, not suited to the limitations of Twitter. Hence, this blog, as I attempt to form my random thoughts into something vaguely coherent.
I find myself jumping about a bit on this issue. On one side, I strongly believe that women's sport has its place in the world of sports and entertainment. On the other, I find it difficult to argue with the complete equality demands of some sports ( such as Tennis), where the insistence that both sides take home the same prize money, is at odds with the level of interest, and to an extent the quality of the fare on offer.
The conflict to me comes with the crossover between sport and entertainment, and why it is that people watch sport. I think watchers fall into 2 categories... I'll call one the tribalists. These are the people that watch sport for the personalities involved. I'm an Ipswich Town fan. I'll pay to watch them, even though I accept that they don't produce the best examples of football available to me. On the other side, are the technical fans - who watch a sport because they like to see it played, and played well - I will go and watch top class squash, regardless of who is playing, as I love to see masters at work.
So when it comes to the division of men's and women's sport, here is the issue. Given that there is a limitation of what I can watch, I will usually go for the highest quality example of what I can see, this doesn't necessarily make one or the other less interesting - just different. Case study: Last weekend was the British National Squash Championships. Men and women, competing in the same place. You buy your ticket, and you see both sexes compete. The issue is, that top level men's squash is a phenomenon. Its completely different to the sort of game you see in your local club. Whereas top level women's squash is about on a level with the top of men's club level squash. It's still exciting. The women's final over 5 sets and almost 80 minutes was actually a much better match in terms of tension and excitement, than a somewhat one sided men's final was. However, if you forced me to choose between going to watch a women's match or a men's one, I would choose the men's one every time, because I want to see the best quality squash that I can.
So what does this mean? If we accept that for the majority of sports, the physiological differences will always mean that men's sport is harder, faster, stronger, higher, do we give up on women's sport, or do we think, actually, the reasons that the gaps are so big in some sports is due to the lack of funding available for so much of it. The small pools of players mean that you are less likely to find those that have the x-factor. The lack of money available to attract the best coaches leads to lower quality, which makes it less attractive... etc etc. Do we say that only the best is good enough - or do we accept that watching women, at the top of their game is still an exciting, fascinating way to spend our time. Who can seriously argue that Jessica Ennis wasn't brilliant to watch at the Olympics, who can say that they weren't blown away by the guts and determination shown by Laura Trott in the elimination race of the world championships. Watching the women's rowers kick start the British gold rush - was that tribalism, or can we add a third category to why we watch sport? That of seeing people push themselves to the limit, physically, mentally, emotionally. The human side of sport is the same whatever sex you are.
As I write this, I find more thoughts crowding in - its interesting that the sports I've highlighted in the olympics, are of the pure faster/higher/stronger types, the ones where women could never compete on a level playing field. As we look at something like cricket though, we are already seeing the gaps close between men's and women's levels. More women than ever are playing, and they are getting coaching and funding to make it a proper career. This leads to better skills - we're starting to see the opportunity for the best to start to compete with the men, perhaps only at 2nd XI level, but the difference even to only a few years ago is phenomenal. Yes, you could argue that the viewing figures are low - but then large amounts of men's cricket is too. How many of the people that go and watch international cricket are real connoisseurs of top quality cricket - and how many just go for a day on the lash with their mates? Is the demand for top quality cricket, or is it just tribalism. Maybe the answer is to get tribalism on side - do what the rugby have been doing and put women's matches into double bills with the men? Raise exposure of women's sport, and the people will realise that the human side is the same. The tensions of a close game are the same whether the skills are high or not. Again, some of the worst quality sports matches are the best in terms of tension - errors are made, tension rises. The human side takes over.
I started writing this to try and get my thoughts in order, the conclusion I've come to as I've spent the time thinking it through, is that ok, maybe some of the skill levels in women's sport aren't as high as the men, but we can always make them better. At the end of the day, part of why we play and watch sport is about seeing how hard the human can push itself, and that is the same whatever the sex. I don't pretend to be able to answer questions about how to raise exposure, participation levels and funding for women's sport, but I find myself firmly in the camp that thinks its good to try. |
Good, considered post. Some women's sports I think are good to watch live, such as golf, where their swing speeds are close to that of a low handicap male player & therefore one can relate to their play more than that of a male pro. The standard of cricket has definitely improved - I've watched bits of the women's hundred - but it still is generally about decent male club 2nd XI standard. However, women's golf attracts about 10% of the audience of male golf & the fact remains that most women's sports are competing against the male version for essentially the same audience, as people have a limited amount of time to watch their chosen sports. | |
| |
| Woman's. Football on 14:56 - Nov 15 with 537 views | Wickets |
My Grand daughter plays so i am !  |  | | |
| Woman's. Football on 17:38 - Nov 15 with 492 views | Hipsterectomy |
personally I love that it has blown up in popularity, however i wish the BBC wouldn't share the football page with women's football. imo it takes away from the women's game when it's forced on there. when they accidentally leave the HYS comments on women's articles, like 95% of the comments are just asking why we can't have the option to have men's football as a separate page
sometimes there will be 3 or 4 trivial women's stories above some actual huge stories in the championship and below |  |
| Walter Smith's Barmy Army |
| |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
