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?

[Carla786]

I've been down a rabbit hole about the 1971 Mexico Women's World Cup, and it's got me interested in women's football now. I've always been interested in tennis. Anyway, it's struck me, reading MN threads, that a lot of posts seem to miss the point about physical strength differences between men and women.
Men obviously are able to kick/hit balls etc with more power, because of higher testosterone. It's incoherent to claim this makes women players 'less good'. Sports are generally an area where it doesn't make sense to compare women to men : the women's game should be judged on its own terms.

Not better so much as playing a game designed for men's greater power. Whereas women's football isn't 'worse',,it's just played by people with different natural abilities.

A couple of intetesting articles on the pitch issue :

https://www.ucfb.ac.uk/news/in-focus-should-the-goal-and-pitch-size-be-made-smaller-in-womens-football/

https://www.thetimes.com/sport/football/article/shrinking-goals-and-pitches-could-improve-women-s-game-dr022ptrx?gaa_at=eafs&gaa_n=AWEtsqeoG-N8u61F_uo_SOHnavf8xaowY0NMoEvPDclWq61alADonwMW8k_ejeafRyQ%3D&gaa_ts=69c24be1&gaa_sig=4L8qepEuz5AAFKtiRW1c04dkQEe0u2ZmxC7CgL_2tFVexOEVdwLvPscCurr17UGSn2dnQwT4c1PZnJ5S_bnQfg%3D%3D

The problem with making the pitch and goal smaller is that it reduces the number of pitches women and girls can play on.

Currently anyone can play on any pitch, changing that could limit women's opportunities.

Conversely having female only pitches could stop men/boys monopolising all the pitches.

That's difficult.. but I think if the change would improve the game, it should ideally be made. Could more pitches be built...?

Good point re monopolising.

In the serve and volley days of tennis, I used to think that the top female players with more skilled than the male players. A lot of the men relied a lot on brute strength. I don’t think that is the case now.

I take it he doesn't watch a lot of womens sport then, as they are all 'slower'.

Women's football deserves the recognition on their own merit not as a comparison.

They looked at it and it would give the women sport a huge disadvantage.

Women's football needs investment. The FA banned it for so many years that it is still playing catch up.

Apart from the fact men/teen boys are bigger and stronger, also the fact that more boys play at grass roots level means that it's easier for them to improve/be put at the right level to be challenged.

When I watch DS1 do football training there's about 4 pitches full of boys, and 1 of girls - it means the boys can have an A and B team, and be separated better by age.

As well as gymnastics, I think women also have the advantage in ultra long distance races.

It is explained here

https://www.cbssports.com/soccer/news/a-dallas-fc-under-15-boys-squad-beat-the-u-s-womens-national-team-in-a-scrimmage/

Of course, this match against the academy team was very informal and should not be a major cause for alarm. The U.S. surely wasn’t going all out, with the main goal being to get some minutes on the pitch, build chemistry when it comes to moving the ball around, improve defensive shape and get ready for Russia.

They weren’t trying to beat the academy team, they were trying to improve their flaws, speed bing one of them.

But this is minimising the levels. Smaller pitch. Smaller goals. Personally I just don’t think some sports are as entertaining - such as football when it’s women’s. I actually find women’s tennis’s much better to watch as it’s more about the skill and I would rather see the long rally’s etc.

I think if people want to compare male/female sports and the levels at which people can play should be based on sports which are all about skill such as darts; curling, pool, snooker etc.

Tennis boring? It's really not (misses point entirely!)
I do struggle slightly with equal pay for tournaments for female tennis players. A 3 set match is not the same as a 5 setter in grand slams. I'm sure the women are fit enough for 5 set matches these days

I understand it was an informal match etc but you can’t say that the senior women would have beaten the senior men - when in reality regardless of what it was they still got beat: they still should have beaten them.

it’s like when they do charity football matches the ex professional footballers come on the pitch and even though they are well passed there best they are are better than the celebrities playing and nearly always beat them.

Given more investment and encouragement is given to boys and men playing football then I think it’s no surprise if they do end up being more skilled. Or to put it better, there is a larger pool of skilled players to pick from. Same goes for cricket and rugby. Tennis is a bit different as has been a mainstream sport for girls / women for a lot longer.
I play tennis to a decent level and there are lots of men at my club who are hopeless. They have a huge powerful serve that occasionally goes in, but they can’t keep a rally. I have more fun playing with the older ladies than some of the men.

Well no, I would never state that senior women would have beaten senior men. I was explaining why this example that keeps being trotted out is flawed.

I don’t really agree with your paraphrasing of Serena’s statement except in the broadest terms. Men’s strength and power means there is a lot more spin on the ball and play is consequently more strategic with more variety of shots. In the women’s game the ball travels faster but lacks the spin. It’s a lot more baseline to baseline. And consequently a less interesting game to watch. (The best of 3 in the women’s game also leads to fewer consistent results hence the great variety in the game at the top but that’s a different point).

Pretty much all sport is won on a combination of skill, strength and experience. The whole reason for there being different divisions of competition including age classifications for younger players, a women's league, sometimes a veterans league, sometimes different weight classes and also paralympic versions is so that the skills of those with less strength or bodies that are less well-adapted to the particular sport get a chance to pit their skills and experience against those in a similar position without being overpowered by those with less skill but more strength, so that those with less experience can play with those at a similar level of experience, and those with plenty of skill and experience but who are past their peak of physical condition can still showcase their talent. There is absolutely no point having different divisions in any sport if the boundaries for who qualifies are not really rigorously enforced.

I should add, the “less interesting game to watch” is a commonly held view but of course people may disagree with it.

They're essentially different sports as the players and tactics adapt to the circumstances they face, what would to win in a match between two mens teams or male tennis players isn't necessarily going to translate for a women's team or female tennis player facing same sex opponents.

I also think the skill level in football is a bit of a red herring, otherwise nobody would support non-league teams or anyone outside the top 6.
What matters is emotional investment and that is grown by exposure.

There's countless games in La Liga or the bundesliga which are probably higher quality than Fulham vs wolves, but I'm ten times more likely to watch the English game as I've sunk 40 years in to the product and I'm up to date on the narratives and backstory of the teams and players so there'll be something there that gives the game stakes and jeopardy.

It's absolutely no coincidence that the women's game has so much more interest now that broadcasters and marketing departments have pushed the game and so people can relate to the team and care wether or not a player they can recognize and probably refer to by their first name wins a match as opposed to nameless English goalkeeper #254.

We've seen it over here with the league of Ireland, exposure and people investing in the game generates interest in a much greater way than an uplift in quality.

@MoFadaCromulent why the shade on Fulham, ninth in the table??!

I prefer women’s tennis to men’s as the women’s tennis relies on skill more. I don’t think much of women’s football. I think the way our bodies are built make us a lot less skilful at football.

Their 0-0 with forest popped in to my head as a game I'd have never sat through if it was a mid table team against a relegation candidate in La Liga, yet because it was the PL I happily wasted 2 hours on it.

I subbed in Wolves as Forest seemed too interesting for my example given their season so far

My mil thinks this - she truly believes that women shouldn’t be paid as much as sports men because they aren’t as strong. So what she is saying is that women should be penalised for their biology. She’s not very bright.

Why is it impractical to draw some lines inside the existing ones? They do it for doubles v singles tennis?

No not god. A football fan has spoken and as those are overwhelmingly male and they generally find womens football too slow then its a valid point.

I would ask my husband about this topic as well given that he is the football watcher in this house. the rest of us dont watch and dont have an opinion.

To shorten the pitch you would need to move the goalposts.

Re tennis in fact the opposite is true. Men’s greater strength means the game isn’t just about pure power, which (in my view) makes it more interesting to watch. Hence the oft quoted statistic that Sabalenka has the fastest forehand in the game etc. it’s not really surprising.