|
|
Post by Wimborne Gas on Jul 22, 2023 11:58:49 GMT
Anyway, back to the football which is what this thread should be for.
Tougher than expected test today and the defence looked ragged far too often, but 3pts in the bag and plenty to work on at both ends before the next game.
Credit to Haiti for having a go and making a decent game of it.
|
|
|
|
Post by percy on Jul 22, 2023 12:02:03 GMT
Anyway, back to the football which is what this thread should be for. Tougher than expected test today and the defence looked ragged far too often, but 3pts in the bag and plenty to work on at both ends before the next game. Credit to Haiti for having a go and making a decent game of it. Yeah spot in Haiti caused us plenty of problems. Need to put away some chances tho! 3pts the main thing for the first game tho. |
|
|
|
Post by dudelebowski on Jul 22, 2023 12:24:27 GMT
Play poorly and win, job done.
The opener is rarely pretty from England in women’s and men’s, off the mark with maximum points, onto the Danes!
|
|
|
|
Post by warehamgas on Jul 22, 2023 12:24:36 GMT
Great save Earps. That should have been 1-1 Especially after the comments about women’s goalkeepers. The standard of goalkeeping perhaps not the best but the very best keepers like Earp are very good. UTG! |
|
|
|
Post by Tilly's Thighs on Jul 22, 2023 12:36:05 GMT
When you consider we were banned from playing football for 50 years. And the year prior to the ban in 1921, 50,000 fans watched a women match at Goodison Park. Can you imagine all the top men's clubs of today being told they can’t play next year. In 1971, the FA lifted the ban and the WFA was formed. It was many years before the women’s game was brought under the auspices of the FA. And with it a firmer footing. Then a few more until a decent league structure was introduced. Think back to the men’s game in 1971 and consider the technical ability back then and now. The men's game has improved exponentially since those days, but so has the women. It takes time, money and a few generations to bring the standard of any sport from virtually zero to a high level of technical ability. The exponential growth in the women game is truly remarkable. Especially when so many young girls still do not have the opportunity to play at school etc. Until recently girls growing up had no role models. Whilst the boys had all manner to choose from. So please do not compare the two games. The playing field has not been, and is not level, and won’t be level for some years to come, if at all. Enjoy both versions of the game and cheer on our national teams As a schoolgirl, I trained with what was probably Bath City's first attempt at forming a ladies' team. We trained at Twerton Park, and I can assure you that it certainly was not a level playing field - surprised that I didn't break an ankle.  One of the ladies stopped to retrieve her hairpiece, which fell off as she bore down on goal - football Jim, but not as we know it! The women's game certainly has come on a long way since those days - I'd struggle to get a game in a veterans team these days. I don't expect it to be equal to the men's game, however, if I watch, I can enjoy it as a different entitly. Agree with Gas Go Marching In regarding the lack of play acting, and the behaviour of the femal players being better than the men. |
|
|
|
Post by garystash on Jul 22, 2023 12:40:29 GMT
When you consider we were banned from playing football for 50 years. And the year prior to the ban in 1921, 50,000 fans watched a women match at Goodison Park. Can you imagine all the top men's clubs of today being told they can’t play next year. In 1971, the FA lifted the ban and the WFA was formed. It was many years before the women’s game was brought under the auspices of the FA. And with it a firmer footing. Then a few more until a decent league structure was introduced. Think back to the men’s game in 1971 and consider the technical ability back then and now. The men's game has improved exponentially since those days, but so has the women. It takes time, money and a few generations to bring the standard of any sport from virtually zero to a high level of technical ability. The exponential growth in the women game is truly remarkable. Especially when so many young girls still do not have the opportunity to play at school etc. Until recently girls growing up had no role models. Whilst the boys had all manner to choose from. So please do not compare the two games. The playing field has not been, and is not level, and won’t be level for some years to come, if at all. Enjoy both versions of the game and cheer on our national teams  |
|
|
|
Post by eric on Jul 22, 2023 12:56:23 GMT
Given the Belshaw pile on in the Braga matchday thread perhaps we should sign Earps to replace him?
|
|
|
|
Post by daniel300380 on Jul 22, 2023 12:58:59 GMT
Great save Earps. That should have been 1-1 Especially after the comments about women’s goalkeepers. The standard of goalkeeping perhaps not the best but the very best keepers like Earp are very good. UTG! Their defender got his fingers on the ball for the penalty as well🤣 |
|
|
|
Post by daniel300380 on Jul 22, 2023 13:03:19 GMT
When you consider we were banned from playing football for 50 years. And the year prior to the ban in 1921, 50,000 fans watched a women match at Goodison Park. Can you imagine all the top men's clubs of today being told they can’t play next year. In 1971, the FA lifted the ban and the WFA was formed. It was many years before the women’s game was brought under the auspices of the FA. And with it a firmer footing. Then a few more until a decent league structure was introduced. Think back to the men’s game in 1971 and consider the technical ability back then and now. The men's game has improved exponentially since those days, but so has the women. It takes time, money and a few generations to bring the standard of any sport from virtually zero to a high level of technical ability. The exponential growth in the women game is truly remarkable. Especially when so many young girls still do not have the opportunity to play at school etc. Until recently girls growing up had no role models. Whilst the boys had all manner to choose from. So please do not compare the two games. The playing field has not been, and is not level, and won’t be level for some years to come, if at all. Enjoy both versions of the game and cheer on our national teams It's pointless comparing the two, but the women's game will never be as good as the men's. It should be judged on it's own right and it's good the game is growing. |
|
|
|
Post by rememberhalifax on Jul 22, 2023 14:22:58 GMT
Just stop the comparisons, woman are forging there own path let them be and enjoy it for what it is, when watching Rovers v Burton we don't compare it with Man City v Real Madrid do we? there is no comparison but we still enjoy it don't we? and are just as passionate as any of their fans IMHO. I totally agree and it's a very fair point, just don't do it off the back of the men's game, don't shove it down people's throat (I'm talking the media here, especially, but not exclusively, the BBC and thirdly it's the women footballers and their proponents that are making the comparisons by demanding equal pay, equal recognition and refusing TV deals because they are too low. You say we don't compare league one with the EPL, exactly, we don't and we don't expect equal pay for our players, we don't expect a massive TV deal and we don't expect blanket coverage on outlets like the BBC. If you doubt me take a look at the football page of the BBC, not now because the women's world cup is on and the BBC are covering it so there is going to be a lot of coverage, but a normal week during the season. I guarantee they'll be a number of stories about women's football, all them positive and hyperbolic, the odd story about the championship and none about any league below the championship. Yep i do agree, the comparisons don't just come from forums like this but from the promoters of the woman's game, i am prepared to watch it as a sport in it's own right , the exponents and promoters should do so as a stand alone sport in it's own right , not on the back of the male equivalent, you are correct that the order of 'play' is Premier, championship, Scottish Prem, woman's Prem then the lower leagues,they should be separated. |
|
|
|
Post by tinkerbell on Jul 22, 2023 17:38:10 GMT
When you consider we were banned from playing football for 50 years. And the year prior to the ban in 1921, 50,000 fans watched a women match at Goodison Park. Can you imagine all the top men's clubs of today being told they can’t play next year. In 1971, the FA lifted the ban and the WFA was formed. It was many years before the women’s game was brought under the auspices of the FA. And with it a firmer footing. Then a few more until a decent league structure was introduced. Think back to the men’s game in 1971 and consider the technical ability back then and now. The men's game has improved exponentially since those days, but so has the women. It takes time, money and a few generations to bring the standard of any sport from virtually zero to a high level of technical ability. The exponential growth in the women game is truly remarkable. Especially when so many young girls still do not have the opportunity to play at school etc. Until recently girls growing up had no role models. Whilst the boys had all manner to choose from. So please do not compare the two games. The playing field has not been, and is not level, and won’t be level for some years to come, if at all. Enjoy both versions of the game and cheer on our national teams As a schoolgirl, I trained with what was probably Bath City's first attempt at forming a ladies' team. We trained at Twerton Park, and I can assure you that it certainly was not a level playing field - surprised that I didn't break an ankle. One of the ladies stopped to retrieve her hairpiece, which fell off as she bore down on goal - football Jim, but not as we know it! The women's game certainly has come on a long way since those days - I'd struggle to get a game in a veterans team these days. I don't expect it to be equal to the men's game, however, if I watch, I can enjoy it as a different entitly. Agree with Gas Go Marching In regarding the lack of play acting, and the behaviour of the femal players being better than the men. |
|
|
|
Post by heartofgas on Jul 22, 2023 20:04:13 GMT
When you consider we were banned from playing football for 50 years. And the year prior to the ban in 1921, 50,000 fans watched a women match at Goodison Park. Can you imagine all the top men's clubs of today being told they can’t play next year. In 1971, the FA lifted the ban and the WFA was formed. It was many years before the women’s game was brought under the auspices of the FA. And with it a firmer footing. Then a few more until a decent league structure was introduced. Think back to the men’s game in 1971 and consider the technical ability back then and now. The men's game has improved exponentially since those days, but so has the women. It takes time, money and a few generations to bring the standard of any sport from virtually zero to a high level of technical ability. The exponential growth in the women game is truly remarkable. Especially when so many young girls still do not have the opportunity to play at school etc. Until recently girls growing up had no role models. Whilst the boys had all manner to choose from. So please do not compare the two games. The playing field has not been, and is not level, and won’t be level for some years to come, if at all. Enjoy both versions of the game and cheer on our national teams Sorry but there is a misleading agenda that the FA banned women's football. I won't go into it chapter and verse but the games quoted as having 50,000 were charity matches for the families of veterans. A game of tidlywinks would have drawn a similar crowd. The women's game was an exhibition. There was never a league system. Games could carry on after 1921 and did. Games were not allowed at league grounds. This was as much about not wanting charity games as women's football. I don't deny there was sexism that held women's football back but overall there just wasn't interest in it. And don't forget that the FA only covered English games. If there was interest in it why didn't other countries develop it. It's great that the women's game is now so popular but there is this tendancy in these internet days to fall into this victim mentality. Why not just enjoy it. |
|
|
|
Post by gasify on Jul 23, 2023 9:56:45 GMT
When you consider we were banned from playing football for 50 years. And the year prior to the ban in 1921, 50,000 fans watched a women match at Goodison Park. Can you imagine all the top men's clubs of today being told they can’t play next year. In 1971, the FA lifted the ban and the WFA was formed. It was many years before the women’s game was brought under the auspices of the FA. And with it a firmer footing. Then a few more until a decent league structure was introduced. Think back to the men’s game in 1971 and consider the technical ability back then and now. The men's game has improved exponentially since those days, but so has the women. It takes time, money and a few generations to bring the standard of any sport from virtually zero to a high level of technical ability. The exponential growth in the women game is truly remarkable. Especially when so many young girls still do not have the opportunity to play at school etc. Until recently girls growing up had no role models. Whilst the boys had all manner to choose from. So please do not compare the two games. The playing field has not been, and is not level, and won’t be level for some years to come, if at all. Enjoy both versions of the game and cheer on our national teams I honestly think this is down to the FIFA game franchise. From my experience, growing up we would imitate what we saw on TV. Zico, Hoddle and ardilles (lower case a for his relationship with swindle). Now kids are being inspired by the tricks they see on FIFA and then try them out in real life. I don't think you have to go as far back as the 70's. The 90's, it was all long ball. Then FIFA came out in 94. The kids playing that version of FIFA would be the class of 2000/2001 maybe. Anyway to the question in hand. I like watching women's football. The lionesses are more skilful than any player we have. |
|
|
|
Post by Gas Go Marching In on Jul 23, 2023 10:10:40 GMT
Given the Belshaw pile on in the Braga matchday thread perhaps we should sign Earps to replace him? If Earps was to decide she want to become a he then what is stopping this? Anything is possible in 2023. |
|
|
|
Post by lympstonegas on Jul 23, 2023 10:45:28 GMT
When you consider we were banned from playing football for 50 years. And the year prior to the ban in 1921, 50,000 fans watched a women match at Goodison Park. Can you imagine all the top men's clubs of today being told they can’t play next year. In 1971, the FA lifted the ban and the WFA was formed. It was many years before the women’s game was brought under the auspices of the FA. And with it a firmer footing. Then a few more until a decent league structure was introduced. Think back to the men’s game in 1971 and consider the technical ability back then and now. The men's game has improved exponentially since those days, but so has the women. It takes time, money and a few generations to bring the standard of any sport from virtually zero to a high level of technical ability. The exponential growth in the women game is truly remarkable. Especially when so many young girls still do not have the opportunity to play at school etc. Until recently girls growing up had no role models. Whilst the boys had all manner to choose from. So please do not compare the two games. The playing field has not been, and is not level, and won’t be level for some years to come, if at all. Enjoy both versions of the game and cheer on our national teams I honestly think this is down to the FIFA game franchise. From my experience, growing up we would imitate what we saw on TV. Zico, Hoddle and ardilles (lower case a for his relationship with swindle). Now kids are being inspired by the tricks they see on FIFA and then try them out in real life. I don't think you have to go as far back as the 70's. The 90's, it was all long ball. Then FIFA came out in 94. The kids playing that version of FIFA would be the class of 2000/2001 maybe. Anyway to the question in hand. I like watching women's football. The lionesses are more skilful than any player we have. Hoddle was also at Swindle |
|
|
|
Post by gaelgas on Jul 23, 2023 10:53:29 GMT
When you consider we were banned from playing football for 50 years. And the year prior to the ban in 1921, 50,000 fans watched a women match at Goodison Park. Can you imagine all the top men's clubs of today being told they can’t play next year. In 1971, the FA lifted the ban and the WFA was formed. It was many years before the women’s game was brought under the auspices of the FA. And with it a firmer footing. Then a few more until a decent league structure was introduced. Think back to the men’s game in 1971 and consider the technical ability back then and now. The men's game has improved exponentially since those days, but so has the women. It takes time, money and a few generations to bring the standard of any sport from virtually zero to a high level of technical ability. The exponential growth in the women game is truly remarkable. Especially when so many young girls still do not have the opportunity to play at school etc. Until recently girls growing up had no role models. Whilst the boys had all manner to choose from. So please do not compare the two games. The playing field has not been, and is not level, and won’t be level for some years to come, if at all. Enjoy both versions of the game and cheer on our national teams Ok a couple of things, but before that I want to make clear that I think it is great that Women and girls play football and that it gets coverage and I think it was absolutely wrong that women were banned from football. But just a couple of things. I think it's a bit tone deaf to quote figures of people watching women's football after the Great War, there were some games that attracted large crowds such as the Dick Kerr ladies at Goodison as mentioned but crowds for football were generally much higher back then plus there is not much evidence that women's teams across the board got those crowds, some WSL teams get big crowds for one off games but small ones most of the time, but think why people were going to watch women's football. 883,000 men of fighting and therefore football playing age had lost their lives and a further 1.6 million had been injured out of a population a lot lower than today. For the first few years after the war there just weren't enough men left, by 1921 that had started to recover. Again, don't get me wrong, I agree it was wrong to ban it, but we cannot judge society then by today's standards, the powers that be decided that the only way for men's football to recover was to make sure it had little competition. On the point about the standard of men's football in 1971, a certain George Best was in his pomp in 1971, the fitness might have been less but not the standard. No doubt I will get belters for it but I feel quite strongly about the Great War, I lost two great Uncles and both my grandfathers were left with lifelong physical and psychological issues by the war, I think sometimes people forget the immediate impact after the war and the longer term impact, that's all. |
|
|
|
Post by straighouttabristol on Jul 23, 2023 13:23:12 GMT
The women’s game has come on massively you just have to look at as women’s football not compare it to the men’s game and enjoy it.
The only gripe I have is the equal pay, footballs a business and until the women’s game can bring in the tv and sponsorship to the level of the men’s they can’t expect to be paid equal unless the money just appears out of thin air.
|
|
|
|
Post by dudelebowski on Jul 23, 2023 13:29:53 GMT
As far as I know the equal pay shout has been championed by the US team, where they do have a case as they’ve long been more watched/popular than their male counterparts.
Our girls are going for improved bonuses, I think? No one’s saying they should be on the same wedge as Haaland and co.
|
|
|
|
Post by mariobalotelli on Jul 23, 2023 14:34:37 GMT
As far as I know the equal pay shout has been championed by the US team, where they do have a case as they’ve long been more watched/popular than their male counterparts. Our girls are going for improved bonuses, I think? No one’s saying they should be on the same wedge as Haaland and co. The Australian team came out ranting about equal pay prior to the WC. I read that the mens world cup generated 7 billion, whereas the womens generated 400million but with a lot of backing from the financial success of the mens world cup. Despite this, women are given 20% of that as prize money whereas men get 7%. So in theory if it was to be equal men would either earn a lot more than currently or women would earn a lot less than the amount they currently complain about. |
|
|
|
Post by percy on Jul 28, 2023 10:00:26 GMT
Great goal by James. Could be the one to make a difference in this comp.
Need a 2nd here tho!
|
|
One of the ladies stopped to retrieve her hairpiece, which fell off as she bore down on goal - football Jim, but not as we know it! The women's game certainly has come on a long way since those days - I'd struggle to get a game in a veterans team these days. I don't expect it to be equal to the men's game, however, if I watch, I can enjoy it as a different entitly. 
