Jump to content
IGNORED

Is womens sport comparable to mens sport?


Bar BS3

Recommended Posts

2 hours ago, Bar BS3 said:

I don’t understand why women make awful goal keepers. They are renowned for their catching abilities.   

You say that in jest but England's wicket keeper Sarah Taylor is regarded by some, including Adam Gilchrist, as being the best wicket keeper in the world - including men.

http://www.espncricinfo.com/story/_/id/23871418/sarah-taylor-best-wicketkeeper-world 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Kid in the Riot said:

You say that in jest but England's wicket keeper Sarah Taylor is regarded by some, including Adam Gilchrist, as being the best wicket keeper in the world - including men.

http://www.espncricinfo.com/story/_/id/23871418/sarah-taylor-best-wicketkeeper-world 

I would like to see her behind the stumps with the ball pinging down at 90 mph for a five day test match though. Not saying she can't but unless the sexes mix on matchday I think its daft even for a great like Gilchrist to make comparisons

Link to comment
Share on other sites

47 minutes ago, Kid in the Riot said:

You say that in jest but England's wicket keeper Sarah Taylor is regarded by some, including Adam Gilchrist, as being the best wicket keeper in the world - including men.

http://www.espncricinfo.com/story/_/id/23871418/sarah-taylor-best-wicketkeeper-world 

That’s a ridiculous thing to say from Gilchrist.

The women’s game is much less pacy than the men’s. No woman bowls at 90mph ffs.......Can you imagine how a top lady opener would do facing the likes of Dale Steyn or any top men’s pace bowler?

The only true comparison would be to shorten the ladies pitch from 22 to 20 yards - that way the ball would be arriving a a similar velocity to the mens

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, Robbored said:

That’s a ridiculous thing to say from Gilchrist.

The women’s game is much less pacy than the men’s. No woman bowls at 90mph ffs.......Can you imagine how a top lady opener would do facing the likes of Dale Steyn or any top men’s pace bowler?

The only true comparison would be to shorten the ladies pitch from 22 to 20 yards - that way the ball would be arriving a a similar velocity to the mens

Not really, when the quote is 'Gilchrist highlighted Taylor's work up to the stumps which has regularly been world-class'. No keeper stands up to 90 mph bowling so that argument is irrelevant as it is when describing what it would be like for a ladies player to bat against it. The discussion was her keeping up to the stumps is world class, which it is her glovework at the stumps is easily as good as mens.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Mtimmy11 said:

Women’s football is about the biggest hyped up s..t going.why lansdown bothers paying for that i will never know.some actually moan because there not on the same coin as the premier ship players

Any sport could replace football(and I include tennis) in your opening line because women are not physically up to what a man can do but that doesn’t discredit their achievements and nor should it

Link to comment
Share on other sites

58 minutes ago, joe jordans teeth said:

Any sport could replace football(and I include tennis) in your opening line because women are not physically up to what a man can do but that doesn’t discredit their achievements and nor should it

 

59 minutes ago, joe jordans teeth said:

Any sport could replace football(and I include tennis) in your opening line because women are not physically up to what a man can do but that doesn’t discredit their achievements and nor should it

What achievements,failing to reach the box from a corner,goal kicks just creeping out of the box.A friend of ours had 12 england v Wales tickets at st Mary's for free all you had to pay for was transport to Southampton,after she asked everyone north of the river she still had 10.How about snooker,pool darts there rubbish at that to.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Bar BS3 said:

I don’t understand why women make awful goal keepers. They are renowned for their catching abilities.   

I know that's a humorous comment but I think that there is one simple reason why the goalkeeping in the women's game is so poor: the size of the goal frame has been established for male keepers with their increased height and width.

 

The main England goalkeeper with 73 caps is 5'11" Karen Bardsley https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karen_Bardsley

The other two in the squad are 5'9" and 5'7".

 

Joe Hart is 6'5".  Jordan Pickford is regarded as being short for a keeper at 6'1".

 

It seems crashingly obvious that the goal frame should be smaller in the women's game.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, joe jordans teeth said:

Any sport could replace football(and I include tennis) in your opening line because women are not physically up to what a man can do but that doesn’t discredit their achievements and nor should it

It's no coincidence though in women's sport the richest are quite often the most attractive.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, DaveInSA said:

You have to look at the context. I'd much rather watch women play tennis (okay okay) than men because their is a level of finesse that has gone from the mens game, with all these massive light raquets. It's all about speed around the court and power. 

Totally agree with this. The women's game is far more about moving the ball around the court where as the men's game for a number of years is all about how hard you can smack the ball down. I'm not saying that there haven't been some brilliant men's matches but in general I'd prefer to watch the women's game.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Midlands Robin said:

Totally agree with this. The women's game is far more about moving the ball around the court where as the men's game for a number of years is all about how hard you can smack the ball down. I'm not saying that there haven't been some brilliant men's matches but in general I'd prefer to watch the women's game.

Yes, when it comes to tennis (and also golf) IMO the women's game is a better spectator sport than the men's.  That the men could beat them easily misses the point.

When it comes however to football and rugby it is nowhere near as good.  Which would not be however a problem were it not for the media, and particularly the BBC, being obsessed with forcing the minority sport of women's football upon us.  I don't recall the last time men's hockey, or women's hockey for that matter, received any press coverage.  They're minority sports, their participants are skillful and the game is fast flowing.  Yet it's not being reported upon or shown on telly.  Women's football however is repeatedly on despite the acres of empty seats shown each time footage is played revealing the lack of spectator interest outside of media sports circles.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

38 minutes ago, Mtimmy11 said:

 

What achievements,failing to reach the box from a corner,goal kicks just creeping out of the box.A friend of ours had 12 england v Wales tickets at st Mary's for free all you had to pay for was transport to Southampton,after she asked everyone north of the river she still had 10.How about snooker,pool darts there rubbish at that to.

See you talk nonsense until your last statement which is a good question,there is no reason I can think of why a woman can’t be better than a man at pool or darts but they aren’t 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

37 minutes ago, Eddie Hitler said:

I know that's a humorous comment but I think that there is one simple reason why the goalkeeping in the women's game is so poor: the size of the goal frame has been established for male keepers with their increased height and width.

 

The main England goalkeeper with 73 caps is 5'11" Karen Bardsley https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karen_Bardsley

The other two in the squad are 5'9" and 5'7".

 

Joe Hart is 6'5".  Jordan Pickford is regarded as being short for a keeper at 6'1".

 

It seems crashingly obvious that the goal frame should be smaller in the women's game.

 

It’s a fair point. 

Plus they are scared of getting hit by the ball and can’t catch..!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Eddie Hitler said:

I know that's a humorous comment but I think that there is one simple reason why the goalkeeping in the women's game is so poor: the size of the goal frame has been established for male keepers with their increased height and width.

 

The main England goalkeeper with 73 caps is 5'11" Karen Bardsley https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karen_Bardsley

The other two in the squad are 5'9" and 5'7".

 

Joe Hart is 6'5".  Jordan Pickford is regarded as being short for a keeper at 6'1".

 

It seems crashingly obvious that the goal frame should be smaller in the women's game.

 

Can we suggest to the FA that we lower our goal frame if frankie fielding has to play this season 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Eddie Hitler said:

I know that's a humorous comment but I think that there is one simple reason why the goalkeeping in the women's game is so poor: the size of the goal frame has been established for male keepers with their increased height and width.

 

The main England goalkeeper with 73 caps is 5'11" Karen Bardsley https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karen_Bardsley

The other two in the squad are 5'9" and 5'7".

 

Joe Hart is 6'5".  Jordan Pickford is regarded as being short for a keeper at 6'1".

 

It seems crashingly obvious that the goal frame should be smaller in the women's game.

 

and by that logic the field of play as well, why not go the whole hog and play with a smaller ball, where do you stop?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Robbored said:

That’s a ridiculous thing to say from Gilchrist.

The women’s game is much less pacy than the men’s. No woman bowls at 90mph ffs.......Can you imagine how a top lady opener would do facing the likes of Dale Steyn or any top men’s pace bowler?

The only true comparison would be to shorten the ladies pitch from 22 to 20 yards - that way the ball would be arriving a a similar velocity to the mens

Entirely irrelevant. Standing back to quicker bowling very unlikely to be an issue for her. The skill in keeping is standing up and she is superb at that- technically but also with incredibly quick hands and feet. Suspect Gilchrist being a bit hyperbolic but she is a fantastic keeper and - purely as a keeper not a batsman- would cope easily with men's professional cricket.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

26 minutes ago, pillred said:

and by that logic the field of play as well, why not go the whole hog and play with a smaller ball, where do you stop?

Just the goalposts.

It's noticeable how rubbish is the goal keeping in the women's game but I doubt a 5'7" male keeper would be much better; if you're smaller then you can't cover the goal as well as a much bigger man.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

44 minutes ago, Eddie Hitler said:

Just the goalposts.

It's noticeable how rubbish is the goal keeping in the women's game but I doubt a 5'7" male keeper would be much better; if you're smaller then you can't cover the goal as well as a much bigger man.

It’s all about positioning that’s the point unless you are 5 foot 1 then there is no reason for a average height women to be getting lobbed like they do in women’s football or be so away from getting near a shot.I think its nearer the truth that nobody  wanted to be a keeper growing up in kids football it just happened that normally the least talented outfield player ends up there and with women’s football apart from a few there is no talent so the keeper is bound to be crap

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Eddie Hitler said:

Just the goalposts.

It's noticeable how rubbish is the goal keeping in the women's game but I doubt a 5'7" male keeper would be much better; if you're smaller then you can't cover the goal as well as a much bigger man.

Lots of big women around these days, big boned, tall, so why can't one of them play in goal?

Unless they're all playing women's rugby of course.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 11/09/2018 at 09:55, phantom said:

Not sure how many of you saw the winning goal for the women's team at the weekend, but we would all be going nuts if one of the mens team had done this...

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/45475936

(29 seconds in)

My 10yr old daughter will love this. Bcfc season ticket holder for 3 years and really into the women's game.  Plays for Ashton girls too. 

Thanks for the link 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

40 minutes ago, Port Said Red said:

This is the 21st century right? 

Just checking as some of the comments on this thread seem more like something from the Victorian era.

We got a Labour Party led by a certain bloke who belongs in the 20th century and has a lot of followers so you are not surprised by some of the comments on here surely 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, windmillhillred said:

Don't get the hostility. Nobody making you watch it (or click in this thread for that matter)

Sky don’t want it because it’s crap.so the bbc big it up as being the next best thing.the problem with this is the women start believing the hype and want to become professional when really it should be kept amateur until they can pay there way instead of subbing of the men’s game

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 11 September 2018 at 11:24, Nogbad the Bad said:

You don't have to wait long then - I agree.

I don't mind whether women's football gets bigger or not. Girls who want to play at school should be allowed to, of course, but I suspect those will always be in a minority and the vast majority will prefer to continue to enjoy playing hockey and netball etc. like they always have.

Either way, I find the excessive media coverage of a minority sport like women's football extremely annoying.

Football for women is much more popular than hockey and netball:

https://www.sportengland.org/news-and-features/news/2016/december/8/record-numbers-of-women-getting-active/

I also think you're making the old mistake of comparing its popularity to the men's game. It might be less popular (although the numbers playing women's / girl's football would suggest that calling it 'minority' is debatable), but my daughter has only become interested in sport if it's women involved, which has encouraged her to take it up with all the benefits that entails.

And here's a friendly suggestion; you can just ignore the coverage if you find it annoying, just like I do with coverage of ''sports'' like motor racing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, steveybadger said:

Football for women is much more popular than hockey and netball:

https://www.sportengland.org/news-and-features/news/2016/december/8/record-numbers-of-women-getting-active/

I also think you're making the old mistake of comparing its popularity to the men's game. It might be less popular (although the numbers playing women's / girl's football would suggest that calling it 'minority' is debatable), but my daughter has only become interested in sport if it's women involved, which has encouraged her to take it up with all the benefits that entails.

And here's a friendly suggestion; you can just ignore the coverage if you find it annoying, just like I do with coverage of ''sports'' like motor racing.

The most popular participant sport is angling.

The whole debate around women's football, fuelled by its excessive coverage on the BBC, is not whether it is a popular sport for particpants but whether it is a popular sport for spectators.

It isn't.

Play it, enjoy it, great.  But if it's not popular amongst spectators then it has no place in the national media.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...