To think people who say women's football & tennis isn't as skilled as men's because the men (or even untrained boys) would beat them are missing the point?

I'll add that one of our pupils captained the Scotland Under-18 team.

When he was signed by a club in the Scottish Premier League, one of the first things that they taught him was how to dive.

I suppose it would be a bit like saying that a heavyweight boxer is inherently 'better' than a lightweight boxer, whereas in fact presumably there is no reason why a heavyweight would be any more skilled at boxing, but would likely still beat a lightweight. Disclaimer: I know absolutely nothing about boxing!

My late husband used to say this. He also said that - in his opinion - there was less cheating and moaning in women's tournaments.

Watching this match tonight, the standard of refereeing is a huge problem. I am a neutral, and this ref has made several dubious decisions

This is true. Another example of the same point is if you compare adult woman's community football with, say, u12s -u16s girls grassroots, you will see that the current generation of girls coming through now are so much more technically able than their equivalents in the adult woman's game.

This is a really good article on women's ultra distance running and the difference between the sexes

https://www.runnersworld.com/uk/news/a39393890/jasmin-paris-barkley-marathons/

The number of entrants is mentioned but not in the way you mention. More that there are too many barriers for women to enter

I think women also have the advantage in ultra long distance races.

I read somewhere that one of the reasons that women can do better than men at long distance races is that it tends to be women who are at the top of their game who enter, so there will be relatively few of them entering a particular race, whereas you get many more men who are not at such a peak of fitness who enter the same race and then get beaten by the women, so it looks like women are better at long distances...or something like that.

I agree that women’s sport should be judged on its own and not in comparison. Just like when you watch a lower league you can enjoy the game and the competition without it having to be at an elite male level. It can be hard not to compare sometimes though as men’s sports are so dominant.

I would say Ginger Rogers did everything her partner Fred Astaire did, but backwards and in high heels.

You'd have to shrink the women's height a bit, or that factor would be disproportionate to the rest 🤔 I may be overthinking this 😂

Just pointing readers to this thread with the studies and papers detailing the physical advantages that male athletes have over female athletes.

www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/5142027-save-female-sports-evidence-thread?page=1

You are not wrong OP. Women and girls are most definitely not 'less skilled' just because some male athletes beat them in competition.

Its a very different situation and would create confusion around classifications of areas when you're in active play as it wouldn't just mean a reduced perimeter.

I'm not a fan of women's football because the matches I've watched haven't matched the men's game for pace, skill, intensity or atmosphere. That's comparing the team I support and going to live games.

I think the actual infrastructure should be different in the women's game to reflect the physical differences between men and women. A smaller pitch and smaller goals, for example.

Tennis I don't think there's as stark a difference, but the matches for women are shorter than for men, which reflects the stamina difference.

Sorry to nit pick but it isn't just the testosterone, it is the muscle mass, type of muscle, bone structure.

@Nosejobnelly does your husband agree with the FA's 50 year ban on women's football?

Yeah that's also a really good point about which male tennis players and which female tennis players you're looking at. The beauty of the game is the diversity of styles on both tours, and how - once you factor in psychology, mentality and tactics - you very often see players with "less good" shots win more. On the women's side, Tatjana Maria slicing her way through all the bigger hitters to win Queen's last year comes to mind. And I love watching Tien as well.

And also a really good point about racquet technology being the reason the game looks like it does now. I'd add changes to court speed - this was very much driven by the men's game, because the 90s ace machines like Sampras were turning fans off (at a time when the women's game was really exciting). Slowing the courts down, even Wimbledon, meant that long rallies and athleticism returned to the men's game (but made serve-and-volleying nearly extinct on both tours).

Agree with above.
It's much easier to break serve in the women's game. Which also makes it more interesting.

Not sure about this. Some of the top men use their spin to get stuck in very neutral rallies that are quite arduous to watch (looking at that domestic abuser Zverev). The flatter-hitting women will go for higher-risk, aggressive shots sooner.

Though even that's down to the evolution of the game rather than anything innate - in the 90s the women's game was certainly considered more strategic, with longer rallies, because it was less serve-dominated. (Back then the top women were also much more consistent than the top men, so I'm not sure consistent results have much to do with best of 3 vs best of 5.)

To me the biggest difference between the men's and women's games is the serve - not just the relative quality but how it informs a player's entire strategic approach. This goes back to how children are coached differently.

Boys are taught from the word go that their game should be built around holding serve. This is where their focus and effort is directed. Girls (with less natural shoulder power) are taught that their opponent's serve will be a weakness, and so they should build their games around an aggressive return.

I'd disagree that serve and volley was about brute strength. Brute strength started being a factor when Nadal hit the heights. Before then the racket technology didn't allow the amount of topspin that enables the ball to be hit at full pelt and still stay in the court.
Interestingly many of the women also go for the power game and can sometimes come close to the men in terms of the speed the ball travels but they hit the ball much flatter because they are physically unable to generate the same amounts of topspin. Of course they are also slower around the court.
Depending on which women you are watching, you can get a much more skillful and tactical game. There aren't many players in either the men's or women's game who can compete at the highest level without the ability to welly the ball.
I love watching Learner Tien - he's not naturally the biggest hitter but so clever. Also Heather Watson - a really clever player.
The game doesn't have to be fast to be interesting.

Tired of thr argument about 5 sets. It applies to only 4 out of hundreds of tournaments a year. Just change the grand slams- first 3 or 4 rounds - 3 sets for everybody. Final 3 or 4 rounds - 5 sets for everybody. Seems a no-brainer but here we are still debating it and the grand slams pretty much ignoring (except Craig Tiley - well done that man!).

Deleted as used to force MN to accept my post - see below!

Best of 3 vs best of 5 is a red herring really. Length doesn't equal quality - I've watched five-setters that were fairly dull slogs, versus three-setters that were high-quality from start to end. Would we seriously argue that a 3-hour film is automatically better than a 90-minute film? A six-minute song is better than a 3-minute song?

Best of 5 also results in a lot of mid-match lulls because it's all about conserving your energy for the end - in best of 3 you can't afford to let up at all. A lot of top men seem able to come out half-asleep in best of 5 because they know they have time to work their way into the match - in best of 3 you don't have the same luxury.

Best of 5 works well for showpiece matches like Grand Slam finals, but I don't think the men's game suffers when they play best of 3 for most of the year, and I don't think the women playing best of 3 makes it an inferior sport.

You also have to consider that a tennis player's work isn't just about the match - it's about the training and the fitness work as well. I don't think anyone suggests the women work less hard.

Plus the expenses - are the women's flights and hotel bills and so on cheaper? It costs them the same amount to build a professional career as the men.