Women's World Cup

Plenty of stuff to ponder here.

https://www.bsports.com/womens-world-cup-2015#.VXIPHUbWjoc

monkey tennis

I saw the Germany v Ivory Coast game on Sunday night. Germany looked a very good team - I'm sure they'd beat us, but Ivory Coast were utterly terrible. We've all seen some dreadful sides in green down the years, but the total lack of shape and inability to keep the ball was eye-opening to say the least. It was like watching a playground game where they all just chased after the ball regardless of their position. It doesn't do the women's game any favours when teams like that embarrass themselves on live TV. It's hard to imagine how it would work in practice, but it would be surely beneficial if there was a minimum standard all teams had to reach, because losing 10-0 at the World Cup (and it could have been 20) just devalues the tournament.

Looking forward to watching France v England tonight. I don't think anyone expects the English to challenge for the title but it should be a good watch.

Women's football is a bit like men's synchronised swimming. Completely pointless.

Why?

Bit annoyed they bumped family guy and american dad for this

Well, for me if I'm interested in watching a sport on TV then its more enjoyable to watch when played at a level befitting of televised sport. The level that women can attain in terms of pure ability is nowhere near that of the equivalent men's part-time game.

So it's just when it's on TV that it's pointless?

Of course it would be much improved if they wore tighter shorts

Charlie Wood wrote:

Of course it would be much improved if they wore tighter shorts

Hi Sepp

In terms of televisual worthiness, it can only be that it is televised from of gender equality angle - because the standard is crap. I do get why some women who play the game would want to watch it, but other than that yeah, pointless.

It has to be good for encouraging more girls to play. Obviously women's football doesn't have the strength in depth that men's football has, but it's good to see that efforts are being made to reverse it. I think the standard is more lopsided than universally crap - as I said earlier I'm pretty sure Argyle would struggle against the likes of Germany, the USA or Sweden.

And obviously, there's always an off button if you don't want to watch it.

I don't think it's any more important for girls to be encouraged to play football, than it is for boys to be encouraged to play Netball, but yeah, it's just a point of view.

As an aside, I'll say it would actually be quite interesting to see Argyle take on whoever is the top women's side.

I only watch the end of the game when they swap shirts.

Cornish Chris wrote:

It has to be good for encouraging more girls to play. Obviously women's football doesn't have the strength in depth that men's football has, but it's good to see that efforts are being made to reverse it. I think the standard is more lopsided than universally crap - as I said earlier I'm pretty sure Argyle would struggle against the likes of Germany, the USA or Sweden.

And obviously, there's always an off button if you don't want to watch it.

Have I got this straight..? Are you seriously suggesting Argyle would struggle against the womens teams of Germany, the USA or Sweden?

If so, you must be mad!

Rickler wrote:

Cornish Chris wrote:

It has to be good for encouraging more girls to play. Obviously women's football doesn't have the strength in depth that men's football has, but it's good to see that efforts are being made to reverse it. I think the standard is more lopsided than universally crap - as I said earlier I'm pretty sure Argyle would struggle against the likes of Germany, the USA or Sweden.

And obviously, there's always an off button if you don't want to watch it.

Have I got this straight..?  Are you seriously suggesting Argyle would struggle against the womens teams of Germany, the USA or Sweden?

If so, you must be mad!

Cameroon would rip you mugs a new'un.

Do you realise that these gals actually pass to members of their own team?

Cornish Chris wrote:

It has to be good for encouraging more girls to play. Obviously women's football doesn't have the strength in depth that men's football has, but it's good to see that efforts are being made to reverse it. I think the standard is more lopsided than universally crap - as I said earlier I'm pretty sure Argyle would struggle against the likes of Germany, the USA or Sweden.

And obviously, there's always an off button if you don't want to watch it.

Good grief no surely. Personally I think Truro City or even lower non league than that would beat a team like the USA ladies. They are technically very very good but the physical differences would be enormous. The men overall being bigger, faster and stronger would win almost every aerial challenge, run faster, tackle stronger, shoot harder and the goalkeeping would be much better too.

But could the men resist the urge to dive and play act at every opportunity?

Quite intrigued to see if the misandrist agenda will trump market forces re wages prize money etc. women's football pulls 5% of the audiences the mans game does but that doesn't change the fact women are not paid anything like equally regardless of the circumstances . You're a sexist monster if you don't agree! Btw why hasn't the Rooney rule been rolled out for disadvantaged women?

Is anyone enjoying the women's football? I've watched a bit of it, but I'm finding it difficult to get excited (ooer matron)

Even the England - France game was ordinary. No denying they give it everything but it's just not happening for me.