England Women, Champions of Europe

[Richard Head]

Regarding the discussion about an English national anthem, I read this on Billy Bragg's Facebook page, after he played at the Cambridge Folk Festival during the match, somebody told him the score and he spontaneously led the crowd in "Jerusalem":

As I began to repeat the line ‘give my greetings to the new brunette’ a wave of jubilation swept through the audience, a cheering, air punching burst of emotion that hit me like a tsunami. CJ and JJ had to end the song. I was screaming with joy, arms aloft, eyes filling with tears. A song immediately came to mind. Not ‘Sweet Caroline’, nor ‘Football’s Coming Home’, but Blake’s ‘Jerusalem’. We sang it together in celebration of the victory of England’s women. ‘And did those feet….’

It seemed fitting on a number of levels. Firstly, Hubert Parry, who wrote the stirring tune and was appalled that it was used to stir up jingoism in the First World War, gave the copyright to National Union of Women’s Sufferage Societies, led by Millicent Fawcett. They referred to it as the Women Voter’s Hymn.

Secondly, England is a nation without an official national anthem: the Lionesses sang the UK’s anthem God Save the Queen before their games. ‘Jerusalem’ is by far the best candidate for the role among the ‘Rule Britannia/Land of Hope and Glory’ type songs sung at the Last Night of the Proms as, unlike the others, it actually mentions the name of our country.

And thirdly, most anthems are declarations of national exceptionalism: we are great! ‘Jerusalem’ is a song of aspiration. It challenges us to improve what we have, to undertake a mental fight to build a better society in our green and pleasant land. Over the past month, the Lionesses have certainly made a contribution to that better society, inspiring girls and women to reach their full potential, challenging men and boys to recognise females as equal in their pursuit of sporting excellence and in their aspirations as individuals.

[Cowshed]

4 minutes ago, Lorenzos Only Goal said:

You can do both if you want to expand the women's game, there has to be a realisation that even with the current professionalisation of the women's game wages are still small, and in order to become a professional athlete you need to give up your day job and have enough money to do it.  You have to get more money into at least the top 3 tiers of women's football to enable the professional game to grow, and the grass roots to have a realistic prospect of a career football even if its not the top top tier. 

I dont understand your post. 

Wages in the WSL can be up to 250k in a league with attendances that are not high. The WSL attracts so many foreigjn players because of its high wages. The WSL has up to 50% of its players coming from abroad.

Paying higher wages means clubs look abroad. Small time Bristol City women have signed Australian internationals. 

Football isn't a realistic carear prospect for kids. I say thas as a I hope a responsible coach and parent of a kid in the academy system. Waht we should be doing is concentrate on grass roots footall ensuring that this  experience is the best it can be and opportunity is to create the exceptional talents, that will progress.

That means that kids get to play football in school. In an affluent City like Bristol many don't, the schools dont have pitches. That means that in girls football they have a pitch, and have changing rooms, that have a female toilet . In an affluent City like Bristol we are not managing that, grounds like the Imperial supporting scores of girls teams has had NO changing rooms and toilets for YEARS. Where do girls go to toilet there? Bushes? Periods? The useless Mayor knows about this. The facility thing there is a national standard.

Facilities and coaching. Thats where success should be pursued. More 4G pitches, better toilets, more coaches, because the game has grown at grass roots as we learned that success starts from the bottom. England started mirroring performance culture with its future games, blue prints for football the coaching and performance models of foreign FA's over a decade ago. Get more in at the grass root level, make that experience better, coach them more skillfully and we produce more exceptional talents for pro clubs to feed off, and they will feed.

 

    

[phantom]

Just announced England to play USA back at Wembley later in the year 

https://www.wembleystadium.com/events/2022/England-v-USA?utm_medium=socialorganic&utm_source=socialorganic&utm_campaign=EnglandvUSA_5

[phantom]

38 minutes ago, Richard Head said:

Regarding the discussion about an English national anthem, I read this on Billy Bragg's Facebook page, after he played at the Cambridge Folk Festival during the match, somebody told him the score and he spontaneously led the crowd in "Jerusalem":

Billy Bragg... No offence but he's always having a pop about the monarchy and Government. 

Jerusalem is the anthem at English cricket Internationals, but GSTQ is still sung before the games. 

GSTQ isn't likely to ever be replaced whilst the Queen is still alive (and I see no reason that it should be, just because a minority of people don't think the tune is passionate enough), but I guess an apt time to think about it would be when the Queen passes. 

But if you wanted passion, you should have been amongst us belting GSTQ at Wembley last Sunday, then you'll realise how powerful and passionately we sing it

Anyway back to the football lol 

Who's going to the game at Stoke or Wembley? 

[phantom]

So not only do we play against the World Cup holders but also play Brazil in the first bellisima final too

[chinapig]

1 hour ago, Cowshed said:

I dont understand your post. 

Wages in the WSL can be up to 250k in a league with attendances that are not high. The WSL attracts so many foreigjn players because of its high wages.

Can be for a minority. From The Telegraph back in March:

The investigation found that current salaries range from as little as £20,000 per annum to as much as £250,000, plus bonuses, across the 12 top clubs. That top end of the spectrum could well rise, as three sources within the WSL were aware of an England player being offered around £300,000-a-season to sign a new contract this summer.

At the lower end of the scale, Telegraph Sport's investigation found that, according to the most recent accounts available, Birmingham City and Tottenham Hotspur spent the least on employee salaries (figures that included all administrative staff as well as players). Of the WSL clubs to have published details in their 2019-20 financial accounts, both clubs' average salary for employees fell well below the national average wage, with Birmingham's coming to less than £19,000.

So it's a very uncompetitive league of a few rich clubs and the rest there to make up the fixtures.

[Cowshed]

23 minutes ago, chinapig said:

Can be for a minority. From The Telegraph back in March:

The investigation found that current salaries range from as little as £20,000 per annum to as much as £250,000, plus bonuses, across the 12 top clubs. That top end of the spectrum could well rise, as three sources within the WSL were aware of an England player being offered around £300,000-a-season to sign a new contract this summer.

At the lower end of the scale, Telegraph Sport's investigation found that, according to the most recent accounts available, Birmingham City and Tottenham Hotspur spent the least on employee salaries (figures that included all administrative staff as well as players). Of the WSL clubs to have published details in their 2019-20 financial accounts, both clubs' average salary for employees fell well below the national average wage, with Birmingham's coming to less than £19,000.

So it's a very uncompetitive league of a few rich clubs and the rest there to make up the fixtures.

Which is why foreign players are attracted to the WSL. The wages are high., even the lower end is high hence so many Internatioinal players play here. Bristol City at the bottom end of the pay scale can sign Australian Internationals like Chloe Logarzo. 

The numbers of homegrown players in squads since the inception of the WSL has dropped as wages increase.

 

Edited August 2, 2022 by Cowshed

[Robbored]

5 minutes ago, Cowshed said:

Which is why foreign players are attracted to the WSL. The wages are high., even the lower end is high hence so many Internatioinal players play here. Bristol City at the bottom end of the pay scale can sign Australian Internationals like Chloe Logarzo. 

The numbers of homegrown players in squads since the inception of the WSL has dropped as wages increase.

 

One of the senior women involved in the WSL was saying that the average wage of the WSL player is £27k per year and pointed out that male professional footballers in the PL are paid 10 times that per week with several more on even more. KdB reputedly on £350k  per week.

[chinapig]

16 minutes ago, Cowshed said:

Which is why foreign players are attracted to the WSL. The wages are high., even the lower end is high hence so many Internatioinal players play here. Bristol City at the bottom end of the pay scale can sign Australian Internationals like Chloe Logarzo. 

The numbers of homegrown players in squads since the inception of the WSL has dropped as wages increase.

 

Yes indeed. The WSL in its context is even worse than the Premier League in that respect. So if more money comes in it will likely go to pay ever higher wages to star, often foreign, players.

Not what I would call a legacy.

[Cowshed]

33 minutes ago, Robbored said:

One of the senior women involved in the WSL was saying that the average wage of the WSL player is £27k per year 

Yes.

Which is reflective of the status of the womens game. That wage still fills multiplen WSL squads with International players.

33 minutes ago, Robbored said:

 male professional footballers in the PL are paid 10 times that per week 

Which reflects the environment.

33 minutes ago, Robbored said:

 KdB reputedly on £350k  per week.

Man City signed Alanna Kennedy a Australian international.

She won't be on that astrononomicasl sum. She will be paid what the womens market and the signing club thinks her worth is in the womens game.

 

Edited August 2, 2022 by Cowshed

[Numero Uno]

3 hours ago, Cowshed said:

Football for females is not an elite sport. Far more females play football at grass roots level than elite level. Female football isnt built from the top down. A girl will start out in grass roots football and then if she is good enough will play and train at a regional development centre, her local County FA and then she might if exceptional attract the interest of a pro club. That is the FA and its regional FA's controlling football. The top the pro clubs control the top = WSL league teams look after what is a small % of football. 

 

What happens to the girls who reach 18, are past youth football and aren’t good enough for elite football? That’s the area I think needs to improve dramatically if you are talking about a true legacy……in participation anyway.

[Cowshed]

26 minutes ago, chinapig said:

Yes indeed. The WSL in its context is even worse than the Premier League in that respect. So if more money comes in it will likely go to pay ever higher wages to star, often foreign, players.

Not what I would call a legacy.

I would not say its likely, it inevitable because its already happened. The WSL is a reflection of home and European and frequently antipodean recruitment - Its seems half the Matildas squad are playing in England. 

Responses to that challenge for the game ? There will no quotas so increasing the standards of homegrown players, and our structure from the grass roots up for the wider benefit of football can and should be the response. That facilities x structure x coaching increases the talent pool for pro clubs. 

Edited August 2, 2022 by Cowshed

[Cowshed]

26 minutes ago, Numero Uno said:

What happens to the girls who reach 18, are past youth football and aren’t good enough for elite football? That’s the area I think needs to improve dramatically if you are talking about a true legacy……in participation anyway.

There are womens leagues in Bristol with teams with no toilets and changing rooms. This includes one if not Bristols biggest female club, and its not their fault, its the Councils and Mr Rees ignoring whats happening. We can see these poor standards across the nation.

4G pitches in Bristol can cost £100 an hour for a game. Council run pitches! The daft FA charge services for a FA accreditation stating this faciilty = this FA standard. The cost gets handed to consumers, grass roots clubs end up paying more as the businesses then charge more for the accreditation standards. 

And on this goes limiting not maximising opportunity to play the game.

Investing in more facilities and making the game cheaper and accessible should be the legacy.

Edited August 2, 2022 by Cowshed

[phantom]

31 minutes ago, Robbored said:

One of the senior women involved in the WSL was saying that the average wage of the WSL player is £27k per year and pointed out that male professional footballers in the PL are paid 10 times that per week with several more on even more. KdB reputedly on £350k  per week.

Easily justified by the amount of money raised in the men's game compared to the ladies

19 minutes ago, Numero Uno said:

What happens to the girls who reach 18, are past youth football and aren’t good enough for elite football? That’s the area I think needs to improve dramatically if you are talking about a true legacy……in participation anyway.

Is it that good a process for male footballers that don't make any professional standard? 

[Unan]

On 01/08/2022 at 10:32, Super said:

Peaked at 17.4M yesterday. Incredible.

I was in the pub with one screen & there was 70-100 people watching, those viewing figures can be bumped right up

[chinapig]

9 minutes ago, Marcus Aurelius said:

I was in the pub with one screen & there was 70-100 people watching, those viewing figures can be bumped right up

Yes, pubs are not included in the figures. Plus there were 5.9 viewing via BBC iPlayer and the BBC Sport website 

[Robbored]

25 minutes ago, phantom said:

Easily justified by the amount of money raised in the men's game compared to the ladies

Absolutely right and unless the sports broadcasters buy up the WSL matches that will remain the case.

[phantom]

30 minutes ago, Robbored said:

Absolutely right and unless the sports broadcasters buy up the WSL matches that will remain the case.

That is just the tip of the iceberg

[Northern Red]

To put that 17.4m figure into context, the last time England made the final of this tournament in 2009, also against Germany, it was watched by 1.4m viewers.

[Erithacus]

Now we've had a little time to reflect...

So what happened?

Now the tournament is finished, what has been the real result?

England (the nation that Gave The World Football) actually won a major trohy. Been a while, and a journey from a wilderness within living memory. There cannot be any disguising or denying that and we should be proud of the achievement.

Has it been inevitable, given the complete seachange in the authorities' commitment? No. But it is a sign that things have changed, and may continue to do so in the future. But are these changes for the good? I often wonder if it will be a case whereby Women's football will only be considered a success by some when it replicates Men's football in every important aspect - good and bad. How would people react if the women were (over)paid and (over)idolised as greatly as the men, or had similar dark secrets brought out such as the recent spotlight on abuse? Would bigger gates at women's game inevitably create hooliganism? Or would that be considered 'equality'? Can we have it both ways, or will women's football retain a distinct difference that will keep it apart. I note that when a women's match ends the players are much more keen to stay on the pitch and meet the fans, unlike the men. I accept there is a sage reason for men to disappear and not invite trouble but this difference is making many people reconsider their affinity. Hearts and minds have been won as never before. Women play a game that has all the important ingredients and is impressing new converts. A sign of progress.

Overall, the tournament has proven quite a result on may levels. After the FA were awarded the bid and chose the grounds used, it will be happy to realise that the Lionesses could and should have played at Wembley. Of course, the use of other grounds brought the game to more people (who after all are suffering from the general financial crisis) but the sell-outs are indicitive. Even the non-host games were well attended, not neccessarily by nationals. It will be to our credit that the numbers were above expectations. Winners here. It must be appreciated that the crowds are mainly family-based compared to men's, but there seemed to be more single men/mates that also turned up to cheer. Would an increasing proportion of the latter be an indication of a greater acceptance? Much has been made of the atmosphere at the games, mainly as a breath of fresh air and as a place where people come to enjoy, not antagonise. The demographic was, nonetheless, somewhat different this time.

In terms of the actual play, there cannot be any denial that the standard was higher than ever seen before. (On a world stage the USA, whose approach is the best in the world still, are the ones to aim for). The European players have shown that the top level produces a highly competitive game, with technical skills, stamina and recogniseable structure that will compare favourably with any other, male or female. England especially have a way of playing that pleased many observers, and their success will not be undeserved.

Elsewhere, I felt the games were more competitive, with a few more heavy fouls committed not by clumsiness or inexperience but with deliberate intent. And there were a few more 'fouls won' by some tactics from the book of the Dark Arts - an inevitable evolution? Game management? Professionalism? Again, is this progress?

Officiating standards were better, if not yet as good as possible - same might be said of the men's, though. Again, poor decisions are replayed many times, but is this a sign of the modern approach?

So what changed?

A few things I noted have been a little different this time around. The media coverage was pretty extensive, and mainly to a terestrial audience, compared to the past. More was made of the tournament, but will this extend to the future? World Cup 2023 is in the Antipodes, so can the women capitalise on the attention generated?

When the men played in the Euros last year the nation put the flags out. When the women played previously there was barely any sign on the streets, but this summer I saw a few St Georges out here and there (plus a few Union Flags perhaps left over from the Platinum Jubilee). Fan parks - such a male culture - started to spring up for the Lionesses. Elsewhere, many pubs and clubs had large gatherings to watch. Again, the demographics were somewhat different. The victory parade from Trafalgar Square did not feel unnatural; cheeky calls for a national day off were a finishing touch.

So now what?

Victory will last forever, but the game moves on and we need to sieze the opportunity. If there is a real desire for women's football to benefit then there are plenty of challenges that need to be recognised and met with.

There have been many points raised about the game in this country - a game that has delivered on one prime aspect. The present system has created something that had not existed until a few short years ago; inevitably, the sudden growth has also created other issues of a more pragmatic nature. The WSL is replicating the Premiership (as in my earlier point) in that the top clubs are present in both, largely due to the enormous financial resources available. The top clubs are the breeding ground for the international side (which the FA are keen to promote, not autonomous Premier League mandarins); the rest of the top flight clubs are the background against which the stars are highlighted. Sound familiar? Here we must acknowledge that the men's game is run by a three-headed dog and no prizes for guessing which dog has by far the biggest bark. The FA control the women's game in total.

What really concerns me is the 'legacy' of this famous victory. There will surely be lots of young girls (and boys, let's not ignore) who will be inspired to play. Where will they go? Who will coach and encourage them? How many will want to join a club but can't find one local to them, or find the club does not have a female section? If legacy means anything, it must surely mean providing an opportunity - for without it the game is dead. Will the powers put the right amount of emphasis on creating and growing the game where it needs it most?

I feel the incredible surge of the women's game in this country has produced a worthy 'product' at the elite level but what of the rest? Being of an old-fashioned mind, I believe the national team must be a culmination of a solid and healthy pyramid, and that the success is related to the many players and clubs that support it. As others have pointed out, the system is not perfect and the financial imbalance is a worry. The WSL and the FA are the highly-visible apex of a pyramid that perhaps looks rather narrow-based and top-heavy. If the grass roots game is not allowed to grow properly and organically then there must surely be a time in the future when that pyramid crashes.

Grass roots are the very foundation of talent; very few will be brought up in a professional club environment. The job is to ensure the girls are able to express their talent in a welcoming and enjoyable pathway. Apart from the lack of clubs in places, the real shortage in the game centres around female coaches. It took generations to get them to play; it will take longer for women to rise to the levels needed off the pitch and this is the key.

Our victory will not be a simple trophy in a cabinet nor a scoreline in the history books - it will be a nation that offers the chance to all that want to embrace the Beautiful Game.

[phantom]

It will be interesting to see how this develops over time 

[KegCity]

On 02/08/2022 at 10:27, Numero Uno said:

This is spot on tbh. The women need to attract their own regular fanbase to watch their own brand of football. That’s how the numbers will increase from National League attendance levels. Speaking from a personal view I have family and work commitments that allow me to watch BCFC but if you then add in going to BCFC Women’s games it’s just not viable for me and I’m sure many others (the vast majority imo) to commit the time and money to do both. My money, my choice is to watch Mens football. That’s an inconvenient issue that cannot be ignored and the BBC banging a drum won’t change it.

The other huge advantage men’s football in this country has is the pyramid system that has built up over a hundred years. Tens if not hundreds of thousands of blokes play at all levels from EPL to barely able to pass a ball 25 yards level on a Saturday and Sunday whereas everything being spoken of womens football is about kids and elite level, nothing in between. That will need sorting out big time, if the interest is there that is, for the game to grow to even 25% of the mens game in the long term.

If the powers that be just sit back and EXPECT the game to grow based on a fantastic tournament win for England which we all enjoyed they will be disappointed. Sponsorship, investment and attendance will always be based on demand and interest in the product being put out there ultimately.

Exactly. I think Bill Burr sums it up nicely below. I've seen a lot of tweets/posts from women quite rightly flying the flag for women's football, but unfortunately not many actually go to games which holds the sport back. 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FlVYBixQNQ0

 

[everreddy]

3 hours ago, Erithacus said:

Now we've had a little time to reflect...

So what happened?

Now the tournament is finished, what has been the real result?

England (the nation that Gave The World Football) actually won a major trohy. Been a while, and a journey from a wilderness within living memory. There cannot be any disguising or denying that and we should be proud of the achievement.

Has it been inevitable, given the complete seachange in the authorities' commitment? No. But it is a sign that things have changed, and may continue to do so in the future. But are these changes for the good? I often wonder if it will be a case whereby Women's football will only be considered a success by some when it replicates Men's football in every important aspect - good and bad. How would people react if the women were (over)paid and (over)idolised as greatly as the men, or had similar dark secrets brought out such as the recent spotlight on abuse? Would bigger gates at women's game inevitably create hooliganism? Or would that be considered 'equality'? Can we have it both ways, or will women's football retain a distinct difference that will keep it apart. I note that when a women's match ends the players are much more keen to stay on the pitch and meet the fans, unlike the men. I accept there is a sage reason for men to disappear and not invite trouble but this difference is making many people reconsider their affinity. Hearts and minds have been won as never before. Women play a game that has all the important ingredients and is impressing new converts. A sign of progress.

Overall, the tournament has proven quite a result on may levels. After the FA were awarded the bid and chose the grounds used, it will be happy to realise that the Lionesses could and should have played at Wembley. Of course, the use of other grounds brought the game to more people (who after all are suffering from the general financial crisis) but the sell-outs are indicitive. Even the non-host games were well attended, not neccessarily by nationals. It will be to our credit that the numbers were above expectations. Winners here. It must be appreciated that the crowds are mainly family-based compared to men's, but there seemed to be more single men/mates that also turned up to cheer. Would an increasing proportion of the latter be an indication of a greater acceptance? Much has been made of the atmosphere at the games, mainly as a breath of fresh air and as a place where people come to enjoy, not antagonise. The demographic was, nonetheless, somewhat different this time.

In terms of the actual play, there cannot be any denial that the standard was higher than ever seen before. (On a world stage the USA, whose approach is the best in the world still, are the ones to aim for). The European players have shown that the top level produces a highly competitive game, with technical skills, stamina and recogniseable structure that will compare favourably with any other, male or female. England especially have a way of playing that pleased many observers, and their success will not be undeserved.

Elsewhere, I felt the games were more competitive, with a few more heavy fouls committed not by clumsiness or inexperience but with deliberate intent. And there were a few more 'fouls won' by some tactics from the book of the Dark Arts - an inevitable evolution? Game management? Professionalism? Again, is this progress?

Officiating standards were better, if not yet as good as possible - same might be said of the men's, though. Again, poor decisions are replayed many times, but is this a sign of the modern approach?

So what changed?

A few things I noted have been a little different this time around. The media coverage was pretty extensive, and mainly to a terestrial audience, compared to the past. More was made of the tournament, but will this extend to the future? World Cup 2023 is in the Antipodes, so can the women capitalise on the attention generated?

When the men played in the Euros last year the nation put the flags out. When the women played previously there was barely any sign on the streets, but this summer I saw a few St Georges out here and there (plus a few Union Flags perhaps left over from the Platinum Jubilee). Fan parks - such a male culture - started to spring up for the Lionesses. Elsewhere, many pubs and clubs had large gatherings to watch. Again, the demographics were somewhat different. The victory parade from Trafalgar Square did not feel unnatural; cheeky calls for a national day off were a finishing touch.

So now what?

Victory will last forever, but the game moves on and we need to sieze the opportunity. If there is a real desire for women's football to benefit then there are plenty of challenges that need to be recognised and met with.

There have been many points raised about the game in this country - a game that has delivered on one prime aspect. The present system has created something that had not existed until a few short years ago; inevitably, the sudden growth has also created other issues of a more pragmatic nature. The WSL is replicating the Premiership (as in my earlier point) in that the top clubs are present in both, largely due to the enormous financial resources available. The top clubs are the breeding ground for the international side (which the FA are keen to promote, not autonomous Premier League mandarins); the rest of the top flight clubs are the background against which the stars are highlighted. Sound familiar? Here we must acknowledge that the men's game is run by a three-headed dog and no prizes for guessing which dog has by far the biggest bark. The FA control the women's game in total.

What really concerns me is the 'legacy' of this famous victory. There will surely be lots of young girls (and boys, let's not ignore) who will be inspired to play. Where will they go? Who will coach and encourage them? How many will want to join a club but can't find one local to them, or find the club does not have a female section? If legacy means anything, it must surely mean providing an opportunity - for without it the game is dead. Will the powers put the right amount of emphasis on creating and growing the game where it needs it most?

I feel the incredible surge of the women's game in this country has produced a worthy 'product' at the elite level but what of the rest? Being of an old-fashioned mind, I believe the national team must be a culmination of a solid and healthy pyramid, and that the success is related to the many players and clubs that support it. As others have pointed out, the system is not perfect and the financial imbalance is a worry. The WSL and the FA are the highly-visible apex of a pyramid that perhaps looks rather narrow-based and top-heavy. If the grass roots game is not allowed to grow properly and organically then there must surely be a time in the future when that pyramid crashes.

Grass roots are the very foundation of talent; very few will be brought up in a professional club environment. The job is to ensure the girls are able to express their talent in a welcoming and enjoyable pathway. Apart from the lack of clubs in places, the real shortage in the game centres around female coaches. It took generations to get them to play; it will take longer for women to rise to the levels needed off the pitch and this is the key.

Our victory will not be a simple trophy in a cabinet nor a scoreline in the history books - it will be a nation that offers the chance to all that want to embrace the Beautiful Game.

Yes, agree with most of that!

But, the truth is that the mens' game has lots to learn from the example set by the women.

On the pitch: play the ball forward quickly, with incisive passes. No more dilly dallying, passing the ball back to the 'keeper. Get on with the game. No need to argue with the ref (s/he aint gonna change their mind). Keep the ball when marginally ahead in the final minutes of a game. Get stuck in, but don't keep falling over in the penalty box. Try hard not to deliberately stamp on your opponent's ankle.Make positive use of the crowd, as a "twelfth man/person".

Off the pitch. No need to break into stadia, without a ticket. Sit down, so that everyone, especially elderly and disabled spectators, can actually see the match.Try not to kick the head in of rival fans/own fans you don't agree with. (Integrating home and away fans is not even worth suggesting). Applaud good moves. Sing "clean" songs. Try to stay sober. Enjoy the match - its supposed to be entertainment!!!

[And Its Smith]

The England womens team deserve to be MBEs. Let’s hope it happens. So bored of people paying lip service to equality. The men would have been made MBEs the very next day. 

[RudiRed]

Have to be honest I have very little interest in ladies sport - I just find it boring and low quality.

[chinapig]

17 minutes ago, RudiRed said:

Have to be honest I have very little interest in ladies sport - I just find it boring and low quality.

Thanks, we really needed to know that. A valuable contribution to the discussion.

[Numero Uno]

2 hours ago, everreddy said:

Yes, agree with most of that!

But, the truth is that the mens' game has lots to learn from the example set by the women.

On the pitch: play the ball forward quickly, with incisive passes. No more dilly dallying, passing the ball back to the 'keeper. Get on with the game. No need to argue with the ref (s/he aint gonna change their mind). Keep the ball when marginally ahead in the final minutes of a game. Get stuck in, but don't keep falling over in the penalty box. Try hard not to deliberately stamp on your opponent's ankle.Make positive use of the crowd, as a "twelfth man/person".

Off the pitch. No need to break into stadia, without a ticket. Sit down, so that everyone, especially elderly and disabled spectators, can actually see the match.Try not to kick the head in of rival fans/own fans you don't agree with. (Integrating home and away fans is not even worth suggesting). Applaud good moves. Sing "clean" songs. Try to stay sober. Enjoy the match - its supposed to be entertainment!!!

There’s a simple reason at the highest level why the best possession based teams go backwards to go forwards, it’s because men in teams who see less of the ball have been coached to be shit hot at blocking off passing lanes (hours of boring coaching) and you have to move people out of position. The only other way round it is to play counter attacking football where your main option is to pass it forwards because you are sat deep. When the weaker women’s sides get better coached at doing it their game will evolve exactly the same.

Playing forwards with incisive passes for 90 minutes is a lot easier to say than do against fit, disciplined, athletic and strong players. Which is why Man City never bummed us over two legs.

[The Bard]

1 hour ago, RudiRed said:

Have to be honest I have very little interest in ladies sport - I just find it boring and low quality.

Well,  why are you bothering commenting with what is, let's be honest, a boring and low quality post?

[RudiRed]

1 minute ago, The Bard said:

Well,  why are you bothering commenting with what is, let's be honest, a boring and low quality post?

Yet you still quote it. Let it pass you by next time. 

[RudiRed]

On 01/08/2022 at 11:05, Robbored said:

It’s football - the same sport and the women play it the same way that men do. Same formations and same tactics. The England game management excellent as it usually is in the mens game ( unfortunately not City it would seem) The only difference that I’ve noticed is the lack of diving that we see in the mens game and that’s a real positive.

I really enjoyed the entire tournament, watched every England match and a couple of other games as well.

To say the only difference is a lack of diving is stretching reality. Everything about it is inferior to mens football which is why I find it such a hard watch - the lack of pace, lack of quality on the ball, decision making etc makes it unwatchable for me. Find it far less enjoyable than let's say womens cricket or golf which I do sometimes have a watch of.