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 RTFT but yes, they’re missing the point. My DH is a lifelong men’s football fan but has got increasingly interested in the women’s game in the last decade or so. He considers the female game to be overall a better showcase of skill than the men’s because players are much less reliant on brute strength. He thinks the same about women’s tennis.

I think there's a lot of bias in the debate - particularly things like the USA women's team - why are they asked about losing to the U15s when training match losses with "embarrassing" teams are common for elite mens football too. If they lost because they were women, why did Man U lose to Wrexham reserves? Why did the USA women's team beat other under 15s?

I remember there being research that showed something around 10% of men thought they could score a point against Serena Williams- when she was still at her peak with a serve speed over 100 miles per hour.

Women’s tennis is great but insisting they have equal prize money for 3 sets, not 5 is utterly absurd and devalues all arguments on quality imo

It's prize money, not an hourly rate. The achievement of winning Wimbledon or the French open is the same for women as it is for men, therefore prize money is the same.

Besides which, the real reason why it's best of 3 at GS is down to scheduling, not anything else. The women would and could quite happily play best of 5.

Yeah, but there was also research that said 10% of men thought they could beat a grizzly bear.

That sort of poll just confirms at least 10% of blokes are dumb

Apologies, but this is nonsense. If the 2022 Lionesses were capable of 'wiping the floor' with the 2022 men's side they'd all being playing in the Premier League, not the WSL and it's overseas equivalents.

Why should female tennis players put themselves through the physical stress of 5 sets though?

Of course 5 sets is achievable. However, the physical impact on a female tennis player’s body of returning even fast female serves and stretching on a court made for the male proportions would be exposing female players to greater injury and more exhausting than what the male players experience.

There is little doubt that female bodies are more prone to injury, it has been well documented. Particularly during certain times of the menstrual cycle. So, why should female players do this and potentially shorten their careers for some out dated thinking of them having to match the men?

Female people are not mini male people. This notion that they should have to do more than their male counterparts to be viewed as ‘equal’ is harmful when it puts them at increased risk of injury than their male counterparts face.

Female footballers and ACL injuries.

They are starting research projects on it. There has also been talk about the boots being designed foe male bodies

Women being able to beat men at sport is not the right measure of women’s skills and talents in sport. Football and tennis are sports that involve elements of brute strength and speed and men will always have the advantage over women by those measures. But that is not the only way of measuring quality in sport.

My DH generally finds women’s tennis more interesting to watch because brute strength and speed are less important than skill and technique in the women’s game. And as i said above, he thinks women’s football is a greater showcase for skill than men’s football, at least English men’s football.

They're not being asked to do more than their male counterparts.

I can't say I recognise this argument against women playing 5 sets. The rate of injury in the men's game seems to be higher than the rate of injury in the women's game (illness the opposite). I'm not aware of any research that suggests the rate of injury is higher in 5-setters than in 3-setters and even if it were, the argument would be that these are the flagship events where the players are pushing themselves more.

In any case, this would just be the top players - those that reach round 4 or the quarter-finals of grand slams, and only a maximum of 4 times a year. The women are already elite athletes, training just as much as the men, all year round, so I can't see how the addition of a maximum 12 or 16 five set matches for the top top players in one year is going to increase the injury rate.
And it would get all those 'women should play 5 set' stuck record merchants, off their backs.

No-one is forced to watch it. There is an audience for it, both male and female. I only like the heavier weight boxing, as many men do, but no-one has been debating getting rid of the lower weight categories or the lower weights in weight lifting. It's quite incredible that women's football has been started in my granddaughter's lifetime. Many young women just about get their head around that us, near 60 year old women were subject to legal rape within our marriage. WF has been fantastic for the old Everton ground, it was about to become a housing estate in a over crowded, run down area, it's been brought back to life and the surrounding business are grateful for it. Women are entitled to play football. It doesn't have to compete with the men's game.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-merseyside-55429876

I’d sooner watch men’s football and rugby, but each to their own with what they want to watch.

There is no research that I know of specific to tennis.

Asking a female player to play at peak performance facing the hits of today’s female players, and running proportionately longer because they are playing on the same court size with shorter legs is asking female people to do more than male people if you look at the competitive analysis.

Female people have more delicate ligaments and connective tissue and are more prone to damage. Particularly if they are proportionately more exhausted. This has been researched I believe. I don’t believe it is controversial to point out that female players would putting themselves at greater risk extending their bodies further to reach balls due to shorter limbs. And more skill and expended power is needed to reach the ball and hit it back with accuracy.

If it was a smaller court, you might have an argument that the body’s workload would be more equivalent.

An example is in cricket, if I remember correctly, women have a smaller boundary to cope with the less powerful hits.

I found that when you watch the lower league men’s teams too though.

Hmm...I see that. So arguably the older argument for 3 sets due to women having less stamina was partly right?

I probably wouldn’t say it is stamina. Because women have ‘stamina’, it is body exhaustion I am trying to explain, I guess.

I think both male and female athletes are pushing themselves to their limits so the size of the courts doesn't make a difference. More relevant I would think is that male athletes are heavier and are running faster and more explosively, so the strain on the joints and muscles to change direction is rather more than for females.
The trend in ultra events for women to do better than men would indicate that they have better stamina over longer periods of time.

”I think both male and female athletes are pushing themselves to their limits”

Agreed.

“the size of the courts doesn't make a difference”

How can it not make a difference when women have shorter limbs requiring more steps, and needing longer reach? And when female joints are more prone to damage, even more so a certain times of the menstrual cycle? Emma Hilton in the past has also said there is a slight reaction delay in processing visual cues so I would also assume that could also play a difference. (You can search her twitter timeline for that, she has said it more than once)

Just saying ‘they both are working hard on the same sized court doesn’t make sense if female hits are approaching male speeds and they are playing in the exact same court. Of course, they are pushing themselves. The point is that you are saying female players have to use the exact same court, with shorter limbs, joints more prone to damage, returning balls that are approaching the same speed while needing more steps to get there and you don’t believe that will have an impact?

There are studies on injuries at Grand Slam level that might be useful.

Here is a study for Wimbledon over 10 years

https://bjsm.bmj.com/content/51/7/607

Women are noted to be more prone to injury (both sexes noted to be more prone to carrying chronic injury) and the injury areas more prone are feet and wrist. This data is obviously based on the women doing three sets.

It found :

”Injury rate was lower for male players (17.7 injuries per 1000 sets played) than female players (23.4 injuries per 1000 sets played). There was variability in the numbers of injuries reported by men and women players over the 10-year period”

https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11015763/

here is a review from the French grand slam. While they have said there is little difference, the raw data does show female people had higher injuries over male people. I don’t believe it is a stretch to surmise that if women were in the court longer for 5 sets this would increase. I cannot remember but I don’t believe the data was reduced to per 1000 sets as the Wimbledon data was. Perhaps they would have concluded differently if it was. Perhaps not.

The numbers recorded were:

”The number of injuries in female and male players was similar (392 vs 358, respectively)”

In the pdf “INJURY TRENDS IN PROFESSIONAL TENNIS ACROSS DIFFERENT”, it also noted that female professional players have a higher rate of injury. And that the zones of injury of feet and wrists, particularly tendons, was common across different studies. Just copy and search for the title. I cannot link it as it is a downloadable.

This link below is from Tennis Australia and it notes that the Australian Open has higher injury rate for female players too (this could be exacerbated by heat too)

https://www.tennis.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2019/02/Injuries_through_elite_pathway_HPEDM_FINAL.pdf

for the Australian figures it noted the rates of 68.9 female and 41.2 male (per 10,000 game exposures). This is also with the female players only playing 3 sets.

Here is a review of the injuries at the Australian Open

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/28687543/

Results: Female players experienced more injuries than male players (201.7 vs 148.6). The shoulder (5.1±1.1 injuries per year), foot (3.2±1.1), wrist (3.1±1.5) and knee (3.1±1.1) were the most commonly injured regions among females. Knee (3.5±1.6), ankle (2.3±1.3) and thigh (2.3±1.5) were the most prevalent male injuries. Upper arm injuries and in-event treatment frequency increased by ≥2.4 times in both sexes over the 5-year period. Muscle injuries were most frequent. There was a greater than twofold increase in men and women with stress fractures over the 5-year period. The torso region, including the neck, thoracic spine, trunk and abdominal, lumbar spine, hip and groin, pelvis/buttock, attracted high in-event treatment frequencies in both sexes.

Again the above is based on a three set match.

This link below is a review from Kings College

https://lbsm.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2022/05/tennis-risk-factors.pdf?srsltid=AfmBOope4np57NdXHwHSmgWZe9FUqNhwEP6YMzSzJiX0VOS8Y-beQkpZ

THE INTRINSIC AND EXTRINSIC RISK FACTORS
FOR INJURY IN PROFESSIONAL TENNIS PLAYERS
ON CLAY AND GRASS COURT: A SYSTEMATIC
REVIEW

This paper has reviewed the studies I linked and others too.

It says this about sex

”Wimbledon competition which is played on grass court reported that injury rate was higher in female players (23.4 injuries per 1000 sets played) than in male players (17.7 injuries per 1000 sets played) [5]. There was no direct comparison of injury rate between clay courts and grass courts in the data of this study, but Hartwell et al. reported the difference between hard courts and clay courts [13]. They suggested that female players were more injured on clay courts (3.4 injuries per 1000 MEs) than male players (3.29 injuries per 1000 MEs), despite the higher injury rate in male players. Female players were four times more injured on clay courts than hard courts*.
Thus, it can be concluded that female tennis players are observed more injuries than male players on clay courts and grass courts, and female players are more injured on clay courts compared to grass courts.”

My reading here is that at three sets female players are already experiencing a higher injury rate. That could be because they are carrying longer term injuries. That all makes sense with what other studies have shown in regards to the injury rates for female athletes at elite level due to the difference in physiology (including the growing information about injuries during the menstrual cycle etc).

Either way, elite women are pushing their bodies to these higher injury levels already at three sets. I understand that in the past some elite female players had stated that five sets would be desirable. Partly that was to encourage greater audiences. I do question whether those same players would say the same now knowing the current reviews.

For me, I generally think the rise in women's football is great - mainly because it has broadened the reach of football. Most of the people that I have met who follow women's football, were strongly anti-football before, and now they are watching it! I have family members who would have flat out refused to ever watch a game, who now watch whole tournaments...

It has become almost like a fresh start. If you grew up disliking football culture, and not being part of it, you now have a new way "in" that comes with far less baggage and existing tribalism to contend with.

That being said, I also understand why many existing fans don't feel the need to watch it. I think you can devide them into two camps:

A. Sexist fans (men and women)
but bigger than that is B. fan's who just don't want "more football"

I would put myself in the later. Picking up the women's game is just too much. There is already so much football for the teams I've followed for years.. adding another huge batch of games? Another tournament? I can't justify watching all the games for my club already, and would have to ignore my child to do that... Its the same reason why we don't just go watching another league, or following another club. There is no need when your footballing needs are already being met by your existing club/country.

Both groups feel the need to give reasons though that are just irrelevant.. its less skilled.. its slower.. etc. all true, but all not good reasons. Engaging sport has never been about skill or speed. I'm sorry but no football fan remembers a match because of how "high skilled" it was. They remember it because of the drama/stakes/emotion involved. And that comes about when there are big consequences and evenly matched levels. It is why a relegation battle between two "lower skilled" teams, where one can loose everything... is far more engaging than a friendly between two incrediably high skilled clubs.

I have seen push back over the years on ultra long endurance running as being somewhere where male athletes ha e less advantage over female athletes due to some exceptional women athletes. I think I remember seeing one of the known courses or races that people have used to support that argument recently had a male athletes do it in a time that was very much faster than previous runners.

Not to take away from the incredible female athletes who are doing incredible feats of endurance. However, I think even here male advantage is present and the jury is out still on whether male advantage is diminished to zero vs female athletes.

Here is a tweet from an expert on the ultra endurance events

https://x.com/woodywing/status/1381679949241794561?s=46

Indeed even with the small number of serious competitive athletes the gap between males and females is evident in ultra running. When you look at the major events you see the best males still well ahead. It’s only in minority events with elite females competing against non /1

Elite males you see females beating males.

There’s also some stats going around purporting to show near equal times. However they compare a much deeper male field with smaller female field in events with time limits. For example comparing the average times of 11,000 male... /2

Finishers in Comrades with the average for the 3000 females. With cut offs and curves the going to deeper fields falsely reduces the gap. Top 3000 males v top 3000 females still a massive gap /3

I have seen some more in depth discussion from Ross Tucker as well, but this is what I can find for now

x.com/scienceofsport/status/1716737522699534728?s=46

“As for the ultra question, I don't know if this is the case. If you compare the M vs F gap in 24 hour races, or 48 hour races, it's the same as it is over 400m. It doesn't shrink. THe ultras are hard to compare though, because you get mismatched comparisons, where you'll have a /1

..field of relatively weaker men and an exceptional female, then you'll hear about how the woman came 3rd overall, or even won the race. You don't hear about the races where the best men ran, and finished 25% ahead of the fastest woman, and these happen quite often too. /2

So if you take the long view, and you compare a decade of performances, and you compare only the very best performances to deal with this race by race variability, then you end up with pretty much the same M vs F gaps as you do over short distances. /3

And here

https://x.com/scienceofsport/status/1828147856294682945?s=46

Probably to refute it, as it’s not true. Look at the records for 50 miles, 100 miles, 24 hours, 48 hours etc. the male female gap is the same across the range. It’s only when you compare mismatched times that get this narrowing, but that’s because these ultra events are so niche /1

For example, 100 miles is 10:51 for men, 12:42 for women. 17% difference. 48 hours is 473.5km for men, 435.3 for women. 9%. 6 days is 1036.8km for men, 901.8km for women. 15% difference. The gap doesnt narrow with distance. /2

Male physical advantage doesn't disappear at 30 miles or 40 miles or whatever. They still have bigger lungs and different q angle and all the other 100s of differences. The victories by some females in some ultra events tend to be because women the women run longer rather than faster, they take fewer shorter rest breaks, it is the tortoise and the hare in action.

Haven't read thread so sorry if I am repeating points but fully agree. I am in Ireland and coach juvenile ladies Gaelic football and camogie. We have amazing female numbers in our club, the women side of the sport has grown exponentially in the last decade and the game is thriving. For me and many others we feel the women's game is a more exciting watch. They don't have the same kicking power as the men so can't kick points from the half way line they have to work the ball up the field with passing and tackling and soloing through, and as result tend to score more goals then points (goal in Gaelic worth 3 points, ball through the posts worth 1), it makes for a more exiting watch and more skilled team play, many are starting to agree.

Edited to add, in our sport we have more and more female coaches and refs coming through, particularly at juvenile level, and I do believe women coaching women works really well especially at keeping girls in the sport during those tricky teenage years.

This is sounding dangerously close to the Victorian argument that women shouldn't play sport at all because of their delicate constitutions.

The progress of sports science means that all athletes, male and female, can do things now that would have been a higher risk of injury 50 years ago. Training, technique and equipment all mitigate that.

I agree that female-centred sports science has a long way to go - the impact of the menstrual cycle and the frequency of ACL injuries are the most obvious under-studied areas. But it's simply not true that female tennis players are at a greater risk of injury than male ones, and the "shorter limbs => more injuries" theory doesn't hold up at all in tennis.

FWIW absolutely no one in tennis thinks that women wouldn't be able to handle five sets physically. If they had to play best of 5, they would adapt their training accordingly. Some women frequently play three-setters that rival five-setters in length (don't forget that most women get fewer "free points" off their serves so have to expend more effort in more rallies).

Whether women play best of 5 in the future, or whether best of 5 will be eradicated for the men, is something that will be decided by TV studios, and the latter is far more likely at this point.

I once got to play a five-set match, thoroughly enjoyed it. Would play that format more but committing to that length of time, and having that sort of indefinite access to courts, is rare!