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.

Yes, I appreciate "moving the goalposts" would be tricky, but the width of the pitch makes a difference as well.

I also don’t think anyone ever claimed that women tennis players are less skilled. I know it’s a constant debate about football but in tennis the reasons for the differences in the game are about strength but not skill. They are two different discussions

Re best of 3, why can't the women play five nowadays?

Can’t answer that one! I have read the only reason is that there is just not the scheduling time in the major tournaments to accommodate. And the women’s game does bring in less money sad to say.

It does, but the shape of the pitch can dictate the tactics used. There's no official shape of them, just a max and minimum for length and width, so it's possible to have a minimally wide and max length pitch and vice versa.

Some clubs change the dimensions of the pitch to help tactically.

So by having women's pitches narrowed compared to men's isn't going to improve the women's game.

I don't think there's a simple solution. But getting more girls and women into the game, and more matches broadcast on tv can only be a good thing in my eyes

Hmm! I think that should change. Surely it would help the women's game : otherwise it implies unintentionally that the players are weaker that they actually are. I think I read that it originally was codified like that because 5 sets were thought to be too strenuous.

I am into strength training and men are just physically stronger than women. Some people (even men for some reason) try to dispute it but it’s a fact. It’s something like the average man is stronger than 80% of women, and most men could manage about 3 pushups at a minimum while women’s average is 0.

But I would also draw a comparison between sports and comedy. It’s embarrassing now but I used to think women were just less funny than men because there were barely any female comedians. But actually it was just very hard for them to break into the industry, and now that they are deliberately given a platform there are lots more female comedians doing really well. I think investment and interest in women’s sports is increasing, so we will see ability improving at all levels, because there is more opportunity for girls and the chance of attracting/affording better coaches, trainers, equipment etc. than before. That said, they will never be at the same “level” as men in some sports because they are simply less strong on average. (And this is why I am against trans people playing as their transitioned gender even though I am generally pro trans)

But someone did say it which is what I was quoting and while their is flaws in it and they possibly didn’t play there best and used it for training etc they still should have beaten them

I see women’s tennis differently. When you have people fairly equally matched, at the top of sport, I don’t at all consider that due to a top male tennis player having more brut force that I’m watching a lesser game.

I’m not interested in soccer. I only watch men’s rugby. I follow sailing a bit and occasionally look up endurance running both of which women compete on more equal footing and can beat all the men. I don’t follow them for this reason, I’m just pointing this out.

It's pointless comparison to make as the playing field isn't equal. Female athletes work and train just as hard as male athletes, but obviously in terms of sheer strength and physical capabilities the upper limit of male athletes is higher than women.

In an equal world where professional sport hasn't basically been taken over as a business, both sets of athletes would be valued and paid equally.

I think another example is Basketball, the Men’s and Wonen’s games are totally different. I think the women’s is more skillful just because women are not 6ft 10. But Men would have a massive advantage over women.

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.

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

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!).

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.

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

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).

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?

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.

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.

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.

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 😂

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

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 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.