Liverpool Women FC

[dom9]

topscorer made some points and some agreed with them. To think that womens soccer is only held back because of little financing and sexism is a huge pass on their skill level.

I think subsequent posters have answered this for me tbh.

[Kenneth]

Do you not think the lack of funding, coverage and promotion to females with consequently lower levels of participation in this 'male' sport is the reason the skill gap is quite so huge? Contrast with tennis which enjoys a more equal footing and so much smaller gap, to the point where top female athletes are acknowledged as outstanding in their own right in spite of any gap.

Which is indeed the point. How the women compare to men is pretty much irrelevant, I doubt Serena would get very far on the mens tour (and that's being polite) but it doesn't matter, the women's game is entertaining and of high quality in its own right.

But I'm not going to watch bad football or follow a team that plays bad football. I'm not Scottish

[Buzzo]

It will take a more sophisticated trap than that.

[Kenneth]

Leave it with me.

[topscorer]

Some people seem to get it and some still don't.

The skill gap is obviously because of lack of investment and opportunity. To suggest otherwise is ludicrous.

I don't think I or anyone has ever suggested that a woman's team would be able to match a man's football team physically.

But as I mentioned and others have too women's tennis is a good example of how watching the womens version of a sport can be equally entertaining to watching as the mens version and in some ways more so. Different skills and tactics can develop based on physicality and some of those skills and tactics might even crossover to the men's game at some point.

Using an example of women's international teams losing to U15s is just another cheap shot at women and insulting.

As for Kenneths comment that the quality is too low to be entertaining or of interest to him that's fine. That's an opinion and a fact, I can respect and accept but not because it's women.

League 2 is very low quality compared to Premier League but a lot of people enjoy watching it. Amateur teams are often very low quality but some teams get a large following of support.

So for anyone that is only interested in watching the highest quality of football or any sport then fine. Just watch that.

I don't go out of the way to watch womens football but I'll watch and support Liverpool Women's if I see they are on TV because they are us.

Just like I watch U23s and U18s if I see they are on.

And I'm pleased that thy woman's game is finally getting some funding to develop, but let's be clear it's still miniscule compared to the investment put into premier league academies that U15s train at.

I have a friend in Mexico whose daughter is an incredible football player. I watched her a few years ago when she was 9 and she had amazing skill. I think she was as good as my son was at that age.

Sadly all the other girls she played with and against were pretty awful and their are very few opportunities for her to continue to develop in Mexico.

My friend struggled to find somewhere for her to develop. So of course she will never have the opportunity to become as good as my 17 year old son is now.

It will take a generation before woman's football can get even close to the potential standard it can reach.

Unfortunately for the money to continue to be invested to create the opportunities for talented girls like my friends daughter the womens game will need a lot more support from the public than I am seeing displayed here.

Not necessarily going to watch if you don't want to do that but at least treating them with the same respect as the U23s and U18s and making sure that the club knows that we want and expect them to continue investing in the womens game.

[vlahka]

Do you not think the lack of funding, coverage and promotion to females with consequently lower levels of participation in this 'male' sport is the reason the skill gap is quite so huge? Contrast with tennis which enjoys a more equal footing and so much smaller gap, to the point where top female athletes are acknowledged as outstanding in their own right in spite of any gap.

Surely that just down to lack of coaching?

Men aren’t genetically pre-disposed to be more skilful at football. Stronger and faster arguably, though not definitely in all cases, but more skilful?

The entire footballing infrastructure has been set up for men for more than 100 years, to expect the women’s game to have the same skill set in a short space of time is unrealistic.

I mean theres a few ways of looking at it. Probably my use of the words 'skill level' was wrongly chosen. Take the tennis example, its a small court where players run forwards and sideways a few steps and hit the ball. Aside from power and reflexes or whatever, womens and mens tennis are fairly similar when watched.

Now you take womens football and its a completely different thing. The players are far slower compared to the mens game. The speed is a big attraction to the sport. Slow games are very boring at times. Like I said I do enjoy watching some womens games, but the speed and flow of the game is as if they were wading through mud. My friends would ask me how can I watch the womens games they're so boring and slow. And I'm thinking nah they arent THAT slow, look how fast they're running. But then you watch how long it takes for a player just to run half the field and then compare it to the mens. Its very obvious. This is why the sport will never be hugely mainstream. Unless its the national games where we all put on our patriotic hats and wave stuff around while watching.

Money into coaching is a different argument altogether. That wont change the speed of the game. You'd probably have to counter that with skill, by making all the players do flicks and tricks ronaldo messi style everywhere for entertainment. Or something. But no. Even with the huge push women are getting in every field over the past decade, no amount of backing with change the slower part of the game. Thats my view though.

[topscorer]

I mean theres a few ways of looking at it. Probably my use of the words 'skill level' was wrongly chosen. Take the tennis example, its a small court where players run forwards and sideways a few steps and hit the ball. Aside from power and reflexes or whatever, womens and mens tennis are fairly similar when watched.



Now you take womens football and its a completely different thing. The players are far slower compared to the mens game. The speed is a big attraction to the sport. Slow games are very boring at times. Like I said I do enjoy watching some womens games, but the speed and flow of the game is as if they were wading through mud. My friends would ask me how can I watch the womens games they're so boring and slow. And I'm thinking nah they arent THAT slow, look how fast they're running. But then you watch how long it takes for a player just to run half the field and then compare it to the mens. Its very obvious. This is why the sport will never be hugely mainstream. Unless its the national games where we all put on our patriotic hats and wave stuff around while watching.

Sorry but you are talking complete bull****.

So you like fast football, fair enough so do I.

But again you are dismissing women by saying they are slow and all men are fast and all men's football is fast. Erm like Italian football for example.

Their are many ways to play football, fast slow long short defensive attacking.

[Tatterdemalion]

I mean theres a few ways of looking at it. Probably my use of the words 'skill level' was wrongly chosen. Take the tennis example, its a small court where players run forwards and sideways a few steps and hit the ball. Aside from power and reflexes or whatever, womens and mens tennis are fairly similar when watched.

Now you take womens football and its a completely different thing. The players are far slower compared to the mens game. The speed is a big attraction to the sport. Slow games are very boring at times. Like I said I do enjoy watching some womens games, but the speed and flow of the game is as if they were wading through mud. My friends would ask me how can I watch the womens games they're so boring and slow. And I'm thinking nah they arent THAT slow, look how fast they're running. But then you watch how long it takes for a player just to run half the field and then compare it to the mens. Its very obvious. This is why the sport will never be hugely mainstream. Unless its the national games where we all put on our patriotic hats and wave stuff around while watching.

Money into coaching is a different argument altogether. That wont change the speed of the game. You'd probably have to counter that with skill, by making all the players do flicks and tricks ronaldo messi style everywhere for entertainment. Or something. But no. Even with the huge push women are getting in every field over the past decade, no amount of backing with change the slower part of the game. Thats my view though.

The Men's 100m record is 9.58, and that's Usain Bolt, who was plenty ahead of everyone else. Before Bolt the record was held by Asafa Powell, at 9.74. Ignoring Flo-Jo the best women are running around 10.7. Even the best teenage girls are running at not much over 11.0 - I used to be pretty fast when I was 16 and I'd struggle to beat them. Footballers never run 100m in a sprint, so although the gap is 1 whole second, over 30-40 metres it wouldn't be that much.

Now I'm not saying that female footballers have the sprinting quality of professional female sprinters - they don't but neither do the men have the sprinting quality of a professional male sprinter. However, in the men's case they are not far behind, especially over short distances, and that's because of the high quality of training they've had, and their lifestyle etc.

The truth is that female sprinters are not that much slower than male sprinters, so if the women's football game appears slower that's because the quality of training is different, because they could certainly be a lot faster.

In short, more investment in the women's game will make it faster if it improves the quality of training and opportunities to train, just like it has the female sprinting profession.

EDIT: Watch a men's game from the 1980s or even the 1960s - it looks like it's being played in slow motion.

[vlahka]

Sorry but you are talking complete bull****.

So you like fast football, fair enough so do I.

But again you are dismissing women by saying they are slow and all men are fast and all men's football is fast. Erm like Italian football for example.

Their are many ways to play football, fast slow long short defensive attacking.

I'm not dismissing anything. Like I mentioned before I do watch some of their games, and they're ones from the national league here, so no liverpool team that I would normally feel obligated to support. Just a bunch of players I dont even know.

The Men's 100m record is 9.58, and that's Usain Bolt, who was plenty ahead of everyone else. Before Bolt the record was held by Asafa Powell, at 9.74. Ignoring Flo-Jo the best women are running around 10.7. Even the best teenage girls are running at not much over 11.0 - I used to be pretty fast when I was 16 and I'd struggle to beat them. Footballers never run 100m in a sprint, so although the gap is 1 whole second, over 30-40 metres it wouldn't be that much.

Now I'm not saying that female footballers have the sprinting quality of professional female sprinters - they don't but neither do the men have the sprinting quality of a professional male sprinter. However, in the men's case they are not far behind, especially over short distances, and that's because of the high quality of training they've had, and their lifestyle etc.

The truth is that female sprinters are not that much slower than male sprinters, so if the women's football game appears slower that's because the quality of training is different, because they could certainly be a lot faster.

In short, more investment in the women's game will make it faster if it improves the quality of training and opportunities to train, just like it has the female sprinting profession.

EDIT: Watch a men's game from the 1980s or even the 1960s - it looks like it's being played in slow motion.

I know what you're both saying and I'm sure a little better coaching would improve things. There are different styles of playing the game yes. Some regions even play it differently so speed may not be the be all end all. That was just a specific example of one reason. I'd love to give more input into this but my thoughts are a little scattered as its 7am and I havent slept yet. So I'm going to do that thing now.

[danperkins]

Escalation

[BillobShaisley]

Do you not think the lack of funding, coverage and promotion to females with consequently lower levels of participation in this 'male' sport is the reason the skill gap is quite so huge? Contrast with tennis which enjoys a more equal footing and so much smaller gap, to the point where top female athletes are acknowledged as outstanding in their own right in spite of any gap.

The ladies put on a show in tennis, like they do in football. Actually I don't mind the womens football, but like own brand crunchy nut cornflakes vs Kellogs, you have to accept that its a different thing. Their touch and passing is great, they get time. But pace and goalkeeping especially, are in another world.

To just go back to the point about tennis, they now get equal pay for less time on court and less bums on seats. Every advantage mentioned above has been removed and yet it is still a vastly inferior product.

We have also had various 'Battles of the Sexes' with varying levels of seriousness:

A 29yr old Billy Jean King at her prime did beat a 55yr old retired ex-pro in the 70's. He had previously beaten Margaret Court a few months earlier. These were the stand out female players of that generation. Rumours of the guy betting against himself or throwing it to clear gambling debts were never verified. Still a 26 year age gap was in effect.

A 40yr old Jimmy Connors beat a 35yr old Navratilova in straight sets.

More recently: From Wiki

1998: Karsten Braasch vs. the Williams sisters

Venus and Serena Williams had claimed that they could beat any male player ranked outside the world's top 200, so Braasch, then ranked 203rd, challenged them both. Braasch was described by one journalist as "a man whose training regime centered around a pack of cigarettes and more than a couple bottles of ice cold lager". The matches took place after Braasch had finished a round of golf and two shandies. He first took on Serena and after leading 5–0, beat her 6–1. Venus then walked on court and again Braasch was victorious, this time winning 6–2. Braasch said afterwards, "500 and above, no chance". He added that he had played like someone ranked 600th in order to keep the game "fun". Braasch said the big difference was that men can chase down shots much easier, and that men put spin on the ball that the women can't handle.

2003: Yannick Noah vs. Justine Henin

In December 2003, Yannick Noah and Justine Henin played a friendly match at the Forest National in Brussels. Noah donned a dress for much of the match. He played predominantly trick shots and slices, but still ended up winning 4–6, 6–4, 7–6.

[Red_Polo]

The ladies put on a show in tennis, like they do in football. Actually I don't mind the womens football, but like own brand crunchy nut cornflakes vs Kellogs, you have to accept that its a different thing. Their touch and passing is great, they get time. But pace and goalkeeping especially, are in another world.

To just go back to the point about tennis, they now get equal pay for less time on court and less bums on seats. Every advantage mentioned above has been removed and yet it is still a vastly inferior product.

We have also had various 'Battles of the Sexes' with varying levels of seriousness:

A 29yr old Billy Jean King at her prime did beat a 55yr old retired ex-pro in the 70's. He had previously beaten Margaret Court a few months earlier. These were the stand out female players of that generation. Rumours of the guy betting against himself or throwing it to clear gambling debts were never verified. Still a 26 year age gap was in effect.

A 40yr old Jimmy Connors beat a 35yr old Navratilova in straight sets.

More recently: From Wiki

1998: Karsten Braasch vs. the Williams sisters

Venus and Serena Williams had claimed that they could beat any male player ranked outside the world's top 200, so Braasch, then ranked 203rd, challenged them both. Braasch was described by one journalist as "a man whose training regime centered around a pack of cigarettes and more than a couple bottles of ice cold lager". The matches took place after Braasch had finished a round of golf and two shandies. He first took on Serena and after leading 5–0, beat her 6–1. Venus then walked on court and again Braasch was victorious, this time winning 6–2. Braasch said afterwards, "500 and above, no chance". He added that he had played like someone ranked 600th in order to keep the game "fun". Braasch said the big difference was that men can chase down shots much easier, and that men put spin on the ball that the women can't handle.

2003: Yannick Noah vs. Justine Henin

In December 2003, Yannick Noah and Justine Henin played a friendly match at the Forest National in Brussels. Noah donned a dress for much of the match. He played predominantly trick shots and slices, but still ended up winning 4–6, 6–4, 7–6.

Not sure whether that was in response to my argument or just quoted as it mentions tennis?

Argument was never that there isn't a gap. It's that the enormity of the gap in football is not nearly accounted for by biology.

[BillobShaisley]

I think the performance gap is just as huge in tennis despite equalising pretty much all other factors.

I'd argue that football exaggerates the biological differences more than tennis, with some actual contact and competing for the same balls etc.

[Charly]

Sorry but you are talking complete bull****.

So you like fast football, fair enough so do I.

But again you are dismissing women by saying they are slow and all men are fast and all men's football is fast. Erm like Italian football for example.

Their are many ways to play football, fast slow long short defensive attacking.

I think womens football lacks toxic masculinity

[Charly]

I think the performance gap is just as huge in tennis despite equalising pretty much all other factors.

I'd argue that football exaggerates the biological differences more than tennis, with some actual contact and competing for the same balls etc.

I think if you compare fitness levels, and how important that is now, that directly affects how you play. Gegen pressing would never have worked 20 years ago

I know I have gone on a mazey run or two in my time, only to end up toepunting toward the corner flag because I was too knackered to do anything else.

I can only imagine fitness levels will widen further between the genders before they close.