Women`s FA Cup final

[Lanterne Rouge]

1 hour ago, slartibartfast said:

Seriously? In what context, for gawds sake ?

1) Man City beat our girls on the way to the final

2) Man City beat our girls last week

3) The final was held at Ashton Gate recently

4) Two of the Birmingham players played for England v Bosnia at Ashton Gate

5) Mark Sampson used to be the coach of our girls.

 

Like I said, top man and a proper City fan!

[And Its Smith]

19 minutes ago, ChippenhamRed said:

It's a perfectly valid and interesting question and I wasn't making any judgement on the standard, simply asking the question. Shame you felt the need to belittle it.

Not belittling at all. Just adding to the debate really. I don't see the comparison is necessary 

[And Its Smith]

31 minutes ago, Red Army 75 said:

The standard is fantastic. But u constantly moan about Bristol city men's team. And constantly patronise people 

Blimey. Precious and confused.  I'm not comparing it to men's football.  

I enjoy watching men's football more but still love watching a woman's match.  

You seem to be like a bull in a China shop on the subject.  Wondering why 

[reddoh]

I must admit I enjoyed the game.

[Cowshed]

23 minutes ago, Red Army 75 said:

Wow . Technically there are city players not as good. But u want me to guess as u haven't got the bollocks to put it on here . 

It would be hard to sensibly debate anything with an individual who cannot move beyond shocking, shit, FFS, bollocks ...

Technically there are female players who are highly skilled. There is little reason for them not to be. In the world of freestyle there are females whose skills are of the exceptional e.g. Indie Cowie.

As I said tempo and strength are another thing.   

[Red Army 75]

Quote . I can think of at least one city player. But u won't name them . Why 

[Red Army 75]

16 minutes ago, RedDave said:

Blimey. Precious and confused.  I'm not comparing it to men's football.  

I enjoy watching men's football more but still love watching a woman's match.  

You seem to be like a bull in a China shop on the subject.  Wondering why 

Well u mentioned men's football twice. And a third . You're comparing it . And if you're brutally honest u have never actually paid to watch women's football . And the wonder why comment. What u saying. 

[Cowshed]

6 minutes ago, Red Army 75 said:

I can think of at least one city player. But u won't name them . Why 

It is glaringly obvious that there are City players with technical abilities that are not well rounded. You agreed. It is not necessary to name them.

[Red Army 75]

2 minutes ago, Cowshed said:

It is glaringly obvious that there are City's player with technical abilities that are not well rounded. It is not necessary to name them. You agreed.

Sorry I won't mention it again. U won't mention the players who play for Bristol city . Who's techniques are worse than Man City ladies. Of course it's necessary to name them so we can discuss it in the debate.But lets agree to disagree 

[cider-manc]

34 minutes ago, ChippenhamRed said:

It's a perfectly valid and interesting question and I wasn't making any judgement on the standard, simply asking the question. Shame you felt the need to belittle it.

There have over the last couple of years been several international women's teams beaten by youth academy teams from clubs. USA lost to Dallas u17s and Australia lost to the u16 newcastle jets for instance.

Although- they were friendlies and I believe Australia were without their overseas based players, these are two of the top 5 ranked international teams.

To be fair women's football is not a great standard in comparison to their male counterparts but it will get better the more pro teams there are and the more players who can train constantly rather then part time. I enjoy watching the women's England games- they certainly play with more pride and guts than the men's team.

However I do feel that it is does get more coverage than it currently deserves. There are other sports that have higher attendances and higher viewing figures that the BBC give a fraction of the coverage to. I guess it is catch 22 though as with less coverage less women will be able to go professional and the standard won't improve to deserve the coverage it gets.

 

 

[Red Army 75]

Just now, cider-manc said:

There have over the last couple of years been several international women's teams beaten by youth academy teams from clubs. USA lost to Dallas u17s and Australia lost to the u16 newcastle jets for instance.

Although- they were friendlies and I believe Australia were without their overseas based players, these are two of the top 5 ranked international teams.

To be fair women's football is not a great standard in comparison to their male counterparts but it will get better the more pro teams there are and the more players who can train constantly rather then part time. I enjoy watching the women's England games- they certainly play with more pride and guts than the men's team.

However I do feel that it is does get more coverage than it currently deserves. There are other sports that have higher attendances and higher viewing figures that the BBC give a fraction of the coverage to. I guess it is catch 22 though as with less coverage less women will be able to go professional and the standard won't improve to deserve the coverage it gets.

 

 

Well said 

[And Its Smith]

28 minutes ago, Red Army 75 said:

Well u mentioned men's football twice. And a third . You're comparing it . And if you're brutally honest u have never actually paid to watch women's football . And the wonder why comment. What u saying. 

I'm mentioning it. You are comparing it.  

[Red Skin]

@Red Army 75 Out of interest have you seen City women play?  I watched a game live when they were the Academy.  Very enjoyable summers evening.  Could get a pint.  Cheap tickets.  No play acting or time wasting.  Decent standard.  I recommend it.   Watching on TV doesn't compare.

[Pezo]

11 hours ago, Cowshed said:

It is glaringly obvious that there are City players with technical abilities that are not well rounded. You agreed. It is not necessary to name them.

But your whole point revolves around these players that don't have the same technical ability as some of the women, so it's impossible the debate with you if you don't say who the player(s) are, or do you not want the debate because you know your point would be made to look silly? Or are you talking about Flint?

[MC RISK77]

100% agree with @Red Army 75 the standard is shocking....I especially love the goalkeeping worse than Sunday league

[Robbored]

6 minutes ago, MC RISK77 said:

the standard is shocking....I especially love the goalkeeping worse than Sunday league

That's the worse position in women's football. They're all pretty hopeless. No real idea at all and yet some of them have had coaching from former professional goalkeepers like David Seaman.

Doesnt seem to help much........

[Eddie Hitler]

Notts County summarily chopped their successful women's team last month.

Projected income for the season (tickets, sponsorship): £28k

Projected costs for the season: £500k

http://m.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/39667392

 

I've watched women's football live; it's a perfectly good game to watch.

But it's an amateur game and will never succeed on a professional level.

Every attempt to set up a parallel professional operation to an existing men's football team falls flat on its face.

If you view it for what it is, a decent amateur sport that gets more people playing football like seniors, juniors, it disabled / ability teams then it's successful.

Viewed however as a professional sport somehow rivalling men's professional football it is a stone cold failure.  Wayne Rooney is paid £300k a week because he makes that and more for his club; the captain of England's women's team gets about £50k a year and doesn't even make that for her club.

Women's football is a decent sport; but it is not and never will be a professional one.

[Lanterne Rouge]

Watching the coverage of Man City`s win this morning the reporters were saying how they have won everything possible this season, bought the best players, have huge funding etc.

I don`t think having a team like that is good for the women`s game either -  I`m sure some clubs at some point will say `what`s the use, we`re never going to win anything if they`re in it` and just give up.

If you were say, Yeovil Ladies you know you`re never going to be able to compete and it will just end up like the Scottish League with Man City winning it every year if they`re not careful - they need some sort of FFP rules if they haven`t already IMO.

[cityshippers]

2 hours ago, Eddie Hitler said:

Notts County summarily chopped their successful women's team last month.

Projected income for the season (tickets, sponsorship): £28k

Projected costs for the season: £500k

http://m.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/39667392

 

I've watched women's football live; it's a perfectly good game to watch.

But it's an amateur game and will never succeed on a professional level.

Every attempt to set up a parallel professional operation to an existing men's football team falls flat on its face.

If you view it for what it is, a decent amateur sport that gets more people playing football like seniors, juniors, it disabled / ability teams then it's successful.

Viewed however as a professional sport somehow rivalling men's professional football it is a stone cold failure.  Wayne Rooney is paid £300k a week because he makes that and more for his club; the captain of England's women's team gets about £50k a year and doesn't even make that for her club.

Women's football is a decent sport; but it is not and never will be a professional one.

Some good point here, but woman's football is now professional with most teams in the super league full time.

[Silvio Dante]

2 hours ago, Red Right Hand said:

Watching the coverage of Man City`s win this morning the reporters were saying how they have won everything possible this season, bought the best players, have huge funding etc.

I don`t think having a team like that is good for the women`s game either -  I`m sure some clubs at some point will say `what`s the use, we`re never going to win anything if they`re in it` and just give up.

If you were say, Yeovil Ladies you know you`re never going to be able to compete and it will just end up like the Scottish League with Man City winning it every year if they`re not careful - they need some sort of FFP rules if they haven`t already IMO.

This, to a degree but I think there is a real risk if implemented.

I went to City Women vs Man City on Tuesday night. As has already been said, it's a decent experience - pint in hand while watching game, standing and about 900 there. Forgot my season ticket so it was a tenner total for me and my daughter which is more than reasonable.

However, what struck me was how much more physically fit Man City were than BCFC. Man City left out Lloyd, Bronze and Houghton (3 of their best) and dominated totally. Our girls, if I understand correctly, are part time and get basically pin money - and you can see the difference between full time MCWFC and part time BCFC.

The question I have is that income from that game for city was under 10k - how can you then get a team under FFP?

More pertinently, if Man City can't pay people like Duggan, Houghton, Bronze etc a full time wage (which they couldn't under a real FFP), doesn't the chances of them walking away and the standard never getting better become all the greater?

A lack of FFP almost is a necessary evil in the women's game in the short term IMO if the standard is to improve

[Lanterne Rouge]

2 minutes ago, Silvio Dante said:

This, to a degree but I think there is a real risk if implemented.

I went to City Women vs Man City on Tuesday night. As has already been said, it's a decent experience - pint in hand while watching game, standing and about 900 there. Forgot my season ticket so it was a tenner total for me and my daughter which is more than reasonable.

However, what struck me was how much more physically fit Man City were than BCFC. Man City left out Lloyd, Bronze and Houghton (3 of their best) and dominated totally. Our girls, if I understand correctly, are part time and get basically pin money - and you can see the difference between full time MCWFC and part time BCFC.

The question I have is that income from that game for city was under 10k - how can you then get a team under FFP?

More pertinently, if Man City can't pay people like Duggan, Houghton, Bronze etc a full time wage (which they couldn't under a real FFP), doesn't the chances of them walking away and the standard never getting better become all the greater?

A lack of FFP almost is a necessary evil in the women's game in the short term IMO if the standard is to improve

I see where you`re coming from but just think there is a real danger of there being three or four massively financed clubs which will always attract the best players and a lot of also rans and wonder if interest can be maintained and grown for those clubs. I personally don`t think it can.

[Silvio Dante]

Just now, Red Right Hand said:

I see where you`re coming from but just think there is a real danger of there being three or four massively financed clubs which will always attract the best players and a lot of also rans and wonder if interest can be maintained and grown for those clubs. I personally don`t think it can.

I absolutely think there's a real danger and it's a real quandary - if you can't pay you lose the players to the sport full stop and the attendances drop as the standard worsens. I really don't see an easy answer.

In my opinion, the worst decision the WFA have made is to after the spring series align the season with the men's. If you kept the season running April - September you'd have far more chance of casual fans showing up as there's no men's football on. I can see that decision putting attendances in reverse and reducing the potential for BCFC ever hitting a semi level playing field

[Eddie Hitler]

1 hour ago, cityshippers said:

Some good point here, but woman's football is now professional with most teams in the super league full time.

But they really shouldn't be.

Mind, that is football.

The co-owners of Truro City (just avoided relegation from Conference South this season) put in £250k a year to bridge the gap between their income and their costs, so losing half the £500k Notts County were losing on their women's team.

But I bring you back to the Notts County women's income, and this for a successful team, of £28k.

This will never work as a professional sport because it is nowhere near as good as the men's game and never will be because of the size, strength, speed advantages and the huge numbers of boys all competing to be footballers.

I watched the aforesaid Truro City play on Boxing Day. Pint in hand, standing, reasonable standard of football. Even Basso played for them last season.

If you put the best women's team in the men's league it would be at my estimation two steps down the pyramid from Conference South if that.

[Nogbad the Bad]

The standard of women's football is nowhere near good enough for there to be teams full of professional players.

Most are simply not good enough to merit making a living out of playing football, and, despite extravagant positive publicity there is extremely limited interest from the public to watch them.

Unless you're extremely PC, work for the BBC, or know someone personally involved in the women's game, it's hard to see how anyone could possibly talk it up.

[Cowshed]

6 hours ago, Pezo said:

But your whole point revolves around these players that don't have the same technical ability as some of the women, so it's impossible the debate with you if you don't say who the player(s) are, or do you not want the debate because you know your point would be made to look silly? Or are you talking about Flint?

No my point was women's football is not to use the posters description shit. If you accept women players can have high levels of ability ... They cannot be shit. 

It is a waste of time debating real differences such as strength, pace and aerobic capacity (women players V02 max is lower) with its shit.

[Erithacus]

I'll stick my oar in here...

 

Firstly, I thought the Cup Final was a decent game overall. Given that Man CIty hit three in a quarter hour the contest was largely over before half-time. It happens in mens' football too. The standard is rising, year on year, but it will of course not withstand comparison to the mens' as yet.

But then - would you, for example, expect a good competitive contest between Johanna Konta and Andy Murray? Or put Nicola Adams in the ring with Khalid Yafai? Or would Laura Kenny defeat her hubby Jason? Probably no contest. There are no real grounds for such comparison at these athletic sports. Consider an equal fight in low-demand sports such as golf, snooker or darts? I suspect that the men would still have an advantage only explained by gender. Might we remind ourselves of the old proverb: a good little 'un will beat a bad big 'un?

 

But there is a clear demarkation at the top of women's football in that the excessive amounts of money, technical and practical facilities offered by the likes of Man City, Arsenal, Liverpool and Chelsea are creating an imbalance in WSL1. Guess what - it's almost the same in the Premiership! The clubs with the big wedge are pulling in the better players. Now that's a situation that the WSL is largely unconcerned with I feel, as the FA have created this opportunity with international success in the forefront of their aspirations. The domestic game will have to sort itself out, perhaps, but the England Lionesses are the focus for now. Having the (considerable) input from the men's sides drives up the standard, but also highlights the fact that there is a greater number of clubs that are semi-professional or part-time still. Hopefully this will level out in time, but I understand the concerns expressed that the women's financial situations are not anywhere near as viable.

The recent demise of Notts County was a shock to many, including the players and staff! I can see that the owner (who took over the club from the previous incumbent knowing the severe deficit looming over it) tried to make a go of it and held out as long as he possibly could. Finding that the sums simply would't add up he let the club go to the wall two days before the Series start; I can see that he kept quiet so as to prevent any abandonment or restlessness, but that only made the shock more painful when he called time. His quote of the expected income being £28k as against outstanding debts of about £500k looks a little pronounced as the money from other sources seems to be left out. However, the unavoidable red figures weren't going to be erased.

I agree with the many who think that the women's game is overstretching itself in becoming full-time. To those who claim it is in an artificial position - I would agree somewhat. County's closure emphasises this. Progress can only happen in the current form if the girls are supported by the parent club. The cost to run a side for a year will be peanuts compared to paying Mr Superstar's weekly wages. Interestingly, the Glazers came out with a significant quote: why don't Man United run a women's side to rival City's? They replied: it's not our core business. I find that profound.

I reckon the FA's approach is to try and exemplify the very best of women's football and encourage lots of media coverage in order to attract players in at grass roots level; this will, over time, push up the participation numbers and the quality. Whether it will mirror the men's is yet to be seen, as with other sports that have gender division. I personally feel that the massive effect that money has in the game in general has too much bearing over success. If the WSL is to have a long term future it cannot rely on the money-bags clubs but the stable, secure and better-placed clubs like Yeovil or Durham; they have grown up in their own right and stand on their own feet. They have a realistic and healthy understanding of the game. The Football Association should take note.

 

Having watched and taken an interest in women's football for many years now, I take it as I find it. The beautiful game has no gender. Yes, the girls can't match the men for athletic prowess so they have to have a more skill-based approach; men tend to use muscle to make up for the lack of talent. Therefore, the girls have a purer style and the atmosphere at games is not aggressive or intimidating and families are much more likely to attend. How many women or young children do you know who say they would like to go to the Gate but find it intimidating or too expensive? The SGS is not a bad place to watch and has lots to appeal to a family audience. I am sure there are fans of the Vixens who do not go to the City games and are therefore unique to the girls. Does anyone here go to other levels of football, such as local amateur or junior? Is there a similar comparison to the men's like the women get?

 

So, to sum up...women's football is not the same as the men's. It is inferior in some aspects, but better in others. It is the same game, but a different flavour. I take it as it is and acknowledge that the various comparisons and evaluations will result in different opinions. That in itself makes for interest. But there is no denying that it has a place in our sporting appreciations, and I'm happy to be a supporter!

COYR
COYV

[Eddie Hitler]

Excellent post @Erithacus and a great summary of the current position.

I am disappointed to find myself agreeing with Man Utd but I absolutely do.  Hard physical contact sports such as football and rugby are infinitely better to watch when men are playing.

Tennis and golf are not contact sports and I will happily watch, and pay to watch, women's tennis and golf for example. In the days of the tedious big serving Sampras and Lendl I far preferred watching women's tennis to men's.

But football - no. It will never be as good and exciting however much FA money gets thrown at it. Professional clubs should just focus upon their first teams and stop running a women's team as that has as much relevance to the purpose of the club as running a hockey team (or a basketball team.... different argument).

So whilst a lot of women's football is good it is not and will never be good enough to be full time professional.

[Lanterne Rouge]

Just now, Eddie Hitler said:

Excellent post @Erithacus and a great summary of the current position.

I am disappointed to find myself agreeing with Man Utd but I absolutely do.  Hard physical contact sports such as football and rugby are infinitely better to watch when men are playing.

Tennis and golf are not contact sports and I will happily watch, and pay to watch, women's tennis and golf for example. In the days of the tedious big serving Sampras and Lendl I far preferred watching women's tennis to men's.

But football - no. It will never be as good and exciting however much FA money gets thrown at it. Professional clubs should just focus upon their first teams and stop running a women's team as that has as much relevance to the purpose of the club as running a hockey team (or a basketball team.... different argument).

So whilst a lot of women's football is good it is not and will never be good enough to be full time professional.

I must admit I do like watching women`s cricket. Because the emphasis isn`t on pace and power so much the more technical aspects of the game show up more and I find it very entertaining.

[cityshippers]

With respect this is one of the problems with these opinions. Woman's football shouldn't be compared to men's football there really is no point. They will never play each other and wouldn't want to. The woman's game is growing at a fast rate. The cup final at the city ground a few years ago got a crowd of around 8k I think. This year it was 35k.

They are trying to attract a different crowd and it is working slowly.

 

It will never be as big or as good as the men's but it doesn't have to be to be a success grass roots or processional , you don't need to be on 350k a week to earn a living from something.

 

[Erithacus]

Thanks, Eddie.

Indeed! I often wander along to the occasional Toolstation League game over a season. Do I stand there and abuse the players because they don't match professional standards? No. Same with the kids games or women's. They play their way and it is incumbent on the spectator to appreciate the standard. It's about competition - two teams equally matched that often produces the excitement.

As to the the WSL - I expect that the current involvement will continue for the short term at least and attempt to establish it in the sporting world. The real proof will come when the lesser teams can compete with the rich ones, or if the money drains away from the very top; either way, it needs to be a more level playing field if the league is to survive.