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.

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

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.

That's OK: agree with those things. They all stem from testosterone though- I think?

I don't think the matches being shorter for tennis is due to stamina difference. That's an older rule when 5 sets were believed to be too strenuous, but it's debatable whether that's really true. They keep it that way now because of the structure.

Thank you.

Yes, I think that's a factor. Women who like tennis now often grew up with great female players being celebrated. Whereas women's football is newer (or at least the amount of coverage it gets is newer) so people compare more to the men's game they grew up supporting. Plus there's the emotional element to football which the Lionesses haven't had time to build up in the same way.

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

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

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!

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.

Ha, I love Ginger. I think to be fair though, many dance experts think technically he probably danced with better dancers (Rita Hayworth, Cyd Charisse, Eleanor Powell). Ginger was very good but probably not top tier. Imo what made Ginger special was that she was more of an all-rounder. She's great in non-dancing films (both comedy and drama) like The Major and the Minor or The Primrose Path, she won an acting Oscar for a reason.

Sorry, off-topic I know🤣- I love black and white films!

Even then grater reach, bigger hand etc give subtle male advantage. That's before we get to the social differences and attitudes to boys/men playing sport vs girls/women.

It is apple v oranges. I enjoy a wide variety of sports and understand that usually the men's and women's versions are separated entities. Faster, harder, stronger doesn't necessarily mean 'better'. A male footballer can out jump a female one, he can get to the ball faster, kick it harder/further, beat her in 50/50 challenges but that doesn't make him a 'better' player, it makes him a bigger, stronger faster player.

If the heavy weight could land a blow they would probably knock the light weight out cold. But the light weight would almost certainly be nimbler and faster so better at dodging the blows.

This. I think if people see 'smaller pitch' etc and less physical strength as 'minimising the levels' it makes it hard to enjoy most female sports. It's about female strength & abilities, comparisons to male sport aren't relevant in that sense

My husband watches women's football - he has a season ticket for one of the premier league clubs. He used to watch the men's team but got fed up with the prima Donna attitudes, the constant sacking of managers, the dodgy finances...

Anyway, he says it's nowhere near the skill level of the men's game but he finds it more interesting and still competitive.

My brother prefers to watch women's golf. He finds it more realistic - he finds the men's tournaments boring.

It isn't for everyone but it is still intrinsically competitive, just as the Para Olympics or under 18s are competitive, even though men's events may be higher quality.

Really - they're 90% not shorter. It's only the grand slams (4) which are best of 5 for the men. The rest of the tour is best of 3 - so the year end finals, the Masters events, the 500s, the 250s and everything else below.

@gannett Watching Tatjana dismantle three of the best tennis players on the tour - all heavy hitters - was a delight!

Re. ultra endurance - the women are actually winning some of these events on a level playing field against the men. Women hold some of the records
https://www.livefortheoutdoors.com/trail-running/news/ultra-women-endurance-sports/

Pool and snooker- male people have advantage due to larger hands, and due to skeletal proportions have greater leverage, and with greater muscle mass and greater strength, including twitch muscles and grip strength, more power to hit balls at speed and with greater control. Plus they have a height advantage and greater stability due to hip alignment.

Darts and curling - similar to the above.

And that is with VAR.

The WSL doesn't use VAR

Women’s Rugby is arguably better to watch than men’s Rugby, because the women’s flexibility makes scrums more successful (around half the scrums in the M6N collapsed), and there’s more passing, running and tactical play in the women’s game.
DH is converted to watching women’s rugby since COVID restrictions moved the W6N to after the M6N so it could be separately televised.
In Rugby, the men have become so bulky and muscle bound that a lot of their agility has been sacrificed, the women’s game is much more like the men’s used to be, and much less aggressive.

I enjoy watching women’s rugby. It is a different game though as women’s upper body strength is not comparable to men’s.

Re male rugby players being too muscle bound for agility, pint sized scrum halves still appear to be a thing!

That's the article I was thinking about - thanks for finding it

Sir Geoff Hurst was asked how he thought the England team of '66 would have fared against the Lionesses.

"I think we'd have won 1-0" he replied.

"Only 1-0?" questioned the reporter.

"Yes," said Geoff. "There's only me left now and I'm 83."

Ah, that's a shame. I thought there would be some difference.

Some difference? Or no difference?

Currently a male snooker or pool player, Haynes, has been legally challenging the English organisation's decision to exclude him. He has previously won female competitions. Look up Lynne Pinches to see what she has to say and how she has been treated.

There are male players in the european competitions and winning championships there too.

There is definitely a male advantage. Dr Emma Hilton gave evidence, I believe, to the first Haynes court case. He is now appealing that decision.