football

I respect both, I have boys and spend way too much time watching sport with them. I just think that the technical side of football has improved 10 fold in the last 20 years whilst than men's game has stagnated outside of the top 2 divisions where they can afford to import innovation. In the men's game why are there so few talented young english players or are we just not finding them? If we could go professional then the physical side would be easier to deal with. And yes our goal keepers haven't improved as fast as the rest of the game I think one or two have styled themselves after Wojciech Szcz?sny

It's just my opinion, but I don't think technically woman's football is that great, the goalkeeping at times is especially poor.
There are male footballers who are technical wizards but in a game scenario are useless.

Man Utd have played long balls this season, it doesn't mean Rooney, Fellaini are not technically gifted.

Once again I feel that comparing the two is like comparing a female triple jumper to a male. Lots of skill involved in triple jump but due to physical differences you can't compare the two and it's best to respect each individually.

Mengog I was saying that on a technical level the skills have risen but yes in terms of dealing with the physicality of professionals who train a lot more often than most women who hold down other jobs of course they will kick teams off the park. Having watched some championship football the skills are not that much better and in some cases worse. Perhaps when our game can go fully professional rather than just a handful we will see more improvements. You can even watch how Tony Pulis's team plays a defensive style that doesn't require ability rather it requires positional awareness. At that is at the top level. Want to talk about long ball West Ham or Crystal Palace who have topped long ball pass statistics? Our game doesn't just hoof a ball and hope.

I agree that Womans team are nowhere near league 2 standard. Who on a good day can beat a premier league team.

I was trying to find any reports. Apparently the US woman's football team play quite a few behind closed doors friendlies against top high school teams U18. The only report I could find was of them losing 4-1 five years ago.

I honestly don't think comparing the two games is fair. They are different animals, men, on the whole, tend to be stronger, faster, bigger etc. Physicality goes a long way in football.

Last night on Sky Sports they were showing Player of the Season nominees.
For Alex Sanchez, Hazard, etc they were played elaborate goals on each one of them, commenting on how great they were and how either one of them deserves it.

As for women's nominees, they played one clip (the above), mentioned the rest of the nominees and swiftly moved on.
It was as if Sky were being forced to acknowledge women's football exists.

And to anyone looking to detract from our game look at this strike and then tell me the men's game is that much better. Video of interview and goal

The grass roots, the game will never get beyond its current level without more girls at school and outside growing up with the game the way the boys do. Actually one of the weaknesses in the men's game is the coaching at school level, both boys and girls would benefit from an earlier exposure to the tactical side of the game.

Would also like to see a media campaign to encourage viewers to watch the games and get out to live games. At present it feels like a side show attraction.

Thanks, Ken.

Bear and sausage, if you had the £m from the men's game to spend freely on the women's, where would you spend it?

BT Sport show quite a lot , gets decent viewing figures.

The margins between premier league players and L2 are not that significant

Nah, this is nonsense. There is a world of technical difference between L2 and the premiership. Watch any cup game between clubs from these divisions. The main differences aren't physical or mental, they boil down to basic technical things like first touch, the quality of 10-yard passes etc.

I've played and coached a lot of (mens') football and watched enough women's football. I agree with the suggestion that in terms of individual skill the better women's sides are easily around L1/L2 level. I think tactically, and particularly in terms of defensive shape there is still a big gap but I think professionalism will lead to that narrowing. I think you can draw a comparison with where African football was 20-30 years ago - without wanting to sound patronising, there is plenty of ability and enthusiasm but a shortage of know-how on a broad cultural level. I get the sense there is an ongoing transfer of knowledge from the men's game that will hopefully put the two on a more even footing in a decade or two's time. I can really see this happening.

One thing I would say is that the women's game is much more watchable than a lot of men's football. Most (not all) men's football played between maybe championship level and upper semi-pro is fucking horrible overly-physical formulaic percentage-based robot-ball with precious little room for creativity. Note that this ain't necessarily long ball, it's possible to play an obvious, boring, passing-based game too. It would be lovely if the women's game could avoid falling into this trap. I don't know how it would go about that.

Postingbot have you watched the style of teams like Blackpool? I have two boys that love football and they agree that the lower divisions just do not have the technical abilities. Yes there will be players that are able to move up the divisions and play at the highest level. Glenn Murray last night is an example of a player that people questioned if he would be able to get to the top. But for every player that has that ability I would estimate (okay DS1 would estimate) that there are 10 that cannot. Having watched far too much sport with my boys I would suggest that you over estimate the men's game and under estimate our game. Watching the WPL I was surprised by how gifted some players are.

Sausage, that's no longer true of the lower divisions. Long ball football was the majority, it's not any more.

Lower league clubs survive on producing the occasional gem who is sold the the premier league. No teams in the premier league play long ball direct football, producing players on that basis wont sustain players. the likes of Blackpool (bad eg as they are on their way back down) and Bournemouth have all climbed the leagues playing quality technical football.

Not sure how I've ended up in here and before I say this can I say I have a lot of respect for womens football.

But I've got to disagree that after taking the physical advantages out of it women's top football is technically superior to L2, that's simply not the case. The margins between premier league players and L2 are not that significant, particularly in technical talent terms, the men that make it at the top tend to have a mental advantage over those that 'only' make league two, the difference is dedication, not talent.

Women's football has come a long way in the last 10 years and the ability gap is closing without question.

But to claim women's football is on a par with league 2 at a technical level (which I think has been said above) is simply not true

Interesting sausage, thank you,

Still the issue is that at the lower levels the coaching is limited in the men's game with the majority of teams either being long ball game or a very physical presence. The WPL benefits from coaching staff connected with top clubs. The Doncaster Belles were the number 1 side for many years yet now they are nowhere near the top. Arsenal Ladies have been the top league team for the last couple of years and tactically and technically the game is focused on the strengths... short passes, diagonal balls more in line with the sort of game you would see Arsenal Men play. I have 2 sports mad boys and I would not write this if I hadn't discussed it with them.

DTF in terms of technical ability WPL would be top of league 2, bottom of league 1 but when you consider the wages even at that level you can't be surprised especially as so many boys try to make careers out of it. I can certainly see Arsenal Ladies beating Hartlepool in terms of technical play however given the men an opportunity to kick women for fun without repercussions nope not going to see that happen. Given the choice of WPL or a League 2 match to watch I know which one would be more my style.

I would love to see what the women's game was like after, ooh, 50 years plus of millions of pounds of investment (of course, the men's game being correspondingly allotted significantly smaller annual funding). I assume all the well paid coaches and managers and physios etc make a significant difference, not to mention the talent scouts and funded academies and training facilities.

We play a much more techinically gifted game a bit more slowly apart from the very top of the men's game

If we set aside DTF's comment as just being stirring (and on the face of it if one ignores his other comments it could be a genuine question) the comment above is a bit of a sweeping generalisation. I get that female players might lack the speed and endurance of male players but this seems to be saying female players are more technically gifted other than the best male players.

Do you mean in coaching you concentrate on pure technique , dribbling, passing skils, placing to the exclusion of speed and stamina , which makes sense. That doesn't make female players more technically "gifted" however.

Do give over; you have been snide on several FWR threads so far this morning and many more in the past.

Again, what do you get out of it?

Snide? I ask one simple question and Mt. Butthurt starts to rumble; I suspect that rivers of tears shall shortly be flowing from it's peak. Better get my waterproofs on.

Seriously, DTF, what do you get out of hanging around FWR making snide comments?

sausageeggbacon11
"We play a much more techinically gifted game a bit more slowly apart from the very top of the men's game."

If the best womens' team was allowed to compete in the male leagues, based purely on technical ability, where do you think they would be placed in the rankings?

Jessica the primary difference between the two is the explosiveness of speed in the mens game. We play a much more techinically gifted game a bit more slowly apart from the very top of the men's game. Oh and I guess in terms of sheer power of striking the football the men will have the edge but is that because they are stronger or that they play from childhood more so than most girls?

It was nice to see Arsenal bring in an American international who scored the goal I raved about. BT Sport are the only live coverage which means it is only focused on when there are no men's games but I would say the WPL is better technically than say the Conference and a better watch. However I guess there are psychological blocks for people that will only be broken down by TV coverage which will only come with more people watching.... yes one of those horrible vicious circles.

I'm aware, but don't watch it, but that's because I don't watch football at all.

I know there's a women's league but never go to games. I go to my team's men's games about twice each season and always watch if they're on TV.

When there's a big sporting event like the Olympics or Wimbledon I watch men's and women's equally (and pretty obsessively), but if they're separate (like football or rugby world cups) I tend to watch the men's.

I know it's sexist to only watch the men's and I don't know why I do it. Maybe if I make an actual effort to watch the women's games I'll become more interested and after a while it'll become normal.