Karen Carney

[Brammie Steve]

Karen Carney, the backbone of Birmingham City and England's Women's football has finally accepted an offer she couldn't refuse from Chelsea.

Is women's football going the same way as the "men's" game?

Chelsea etc. have very loud money and see rich pickings in a game where even top internationals have to claim working families tax credit.

Is it time for the sport to be properly recognised and rewarded or is a slide into a small elite cluster of mercenary clubs an inevitable outcome?

[Mostyn6]

sadly, or maybe not, women's football will never have the support base of men's football. Many men still dream of being footballers even when they are too old an past-it, and until women have similar desires, the same level of interest will never come.

[jagerbob]

There is very little money in Womens football sadly. It does seem Chelsea are going to try buy the best talent though. I think Kirby last year was a record transfer fee in the womens game. The top players will go where the money goes, and who can afford them. Firstly it was fulham who were the first professional team, then arsenal who won everything for many years, now it seems to be Chelsea who are set to dominate. Dont think it will be long before DCFC Ladies are in the super league. Gone from the 7th tier to 3rd tier in very short space of time. The Fleetwood / AFC Wimbledon of the ladies game.

 

[Philmycock]

Greedy cow

[Brammie Steve]

23 hours ago, Mostyn6 said:

sadly, or maybe not, women's football will never have the support base of men's football. Many men still dream of being footballers even when they are too old an past-it, and until women have similar desires, the same level of interest will never come.

In the Great War men who would have been playing football were too busy on other matters.

Women did most or all of the jobs which became vacant.

They did a magnificent, not merely adequate, job at all levels.

The massive scale of the void gave unprecedented opportunities.

Women even took to the football pitch and played to huge crowds.

As an entertainment it soon became an accepted norm and was regarded as (no prefix) football.

There were players who became as popular and famous as any pre-war player.

After the war women continued to play in leagues supported by the Football Association.

In 1922 the FA declared against women's football and had the leagues disbanded.

This was despite, or because of, its continued popularity and may have been influenced more by financial considerations than prefudice. Then again it my not.

Fast forward 94 years............

[DEL]

Better than Hazard.  

[LesterRam]

who?

[Anon]

On 23 December 2015 at 07:48, steve brummie said:

Is it time for the sport to be properly recognised and rewarded or is a slide into a small elite cluster of mercenary clubs an inevitable outcome?

Recognised and rewarded how? You can't force people to go. If the women's game continues to improve then wages will continue to improve as more money is generated from the game.

[fridgeless]

16 hours ago, steve brummie said:

In the Great War men who would have been playing football were too busy on other matters.

Women did most or all of the jobs which became vacant.

They did a magnificent, not merely adequate, job at all levels.

The massive scale of the void gave unprecedented opportunities.

Women even took to the football pitch and played to huge crowds.

As an entertainment it soon became an accepted norm and was regarded as (no prefix) football.

There were players who became as popular and famous as any pre-war player.

After the war women continued to play in leagues supported by the Football Association.

In 1922 the FA declared against women's football and had the leagues disbanded.

This was despite, or because of, its continued popularity and may have been influenced more by financial considerations than prefudice. Then again it my not.

Fast forward 94 years............

Excellent summary, that. The ban on women's football was only lifted in 1971, so while the FA recently celebrated its 150th anniversary, women's football has had less than a third of this time to develop.

That's why the argument that the women's game isn't popular because it isn't as technically good etc is so frustrating - of course men play to a better standard when men's football has been around and developing for so much longer. Take the game back to the beginning, let both men's and women's football grow naturally and with equal funding, coverage etc along the way, and I honestly don't think we'd see too much difference between the quality of the two today.

But I digress...

It'd be really good to see the rams with a ladies team competing at the top level in the near future 

[Anon]

On 24 December 2015 at 23:43, fridgeless said:

Excellent summary, that. The ban on women's football was only lifted in 1971, so while the FA recently celebrated its 150th anniversary, women's football has had less than a third of this time to develop.

That's why the argument that the women's game isn't popular because it isn't as technically good etc is so frustrating - of course men play to a better standard when men's football has been around and developing for so much longer. Take the game back to the beginning, let both men's and women's football grow naturally and with equal funding, coverage etc along the way, and I honestly don't think we'd see too much difference between the quality of the two today.

But I digress...

It'd be really good to see the rams with a ladies team competing at the top level in the near future 

If that's the only difference, why is there still such a gulf between male and female tennis players? I quite enjoy watching top level women's football and I certainly think there's a market that can be carved out for the game, but to suggest that equal funding and coverage are the only things stopping it being on a par with the men's game ignores sexual dimorphism completely.

[StringerBell]

Lots of small players with low centres of gravity could be a very different, more technical game. But there's no chance I'll ever watch women's football until the need for specific pitches with the dimensions changed has been addressed. Who wants to watch a goalkeeper struggle to kick the ball past the halfway line? Or a goalkeeper not be able to make a save specifically because they are too short to fill the goal?

Still the BBC will ram it down our throats though.

[LesterRam]

something to do with the Bank of England?

[RamNut]

On 23 December 2015 at 07:48, steve brummie said:

 

Is it time for the sport to be properly recognised?

Eh? What 

women's football ?

 

[fridgeless]

6 hours ago, Anon said:

If that's the only difference, why is there still such a gulf between male and female tennis players? I quite enjoy watching top level women's football and I certainly think there's a market that can be carved out for the game, but to suggest that equal funding and coverage are the only things stopping it being on a par with the men's game ignores sexual dimorphism completely.

Perhaps you're right on that last point, funding and coverage certainly aren't the only things preventing the women's game being as good as the men's. You're hinting at the fact men are bigger, quicker, stronger, etc am I right?

I actually think this is a really interesting subject. I won't try and deny that this is true, of course men are all of these things, but have you ever questioned why?

There was a study a few years ago in which mothers had to estimate the steepness of a slope that their babies would be able to crawl; and while they were able to predict correctly for the boys to within one degree, they underestimated the ability of girls by 9 degrees (it's here if you're at all interested, I can't say I've read the whole thing, I read about it here from a facebook post!)

The point I'm trying to make is that gender biases and expectations, which are ingrained into society, could be playing a major role in what makes men stronger, quicker etc. At this point, I don't think we'll ever know whether women could be just as strong/quick, because it's so deeply rooted into people's mindsets that women are smaller, slower, weaker... and so that means that because boys are assumed to be stronger, more physical, they're pushed to be stronger and more physical. Because girls are assumed to be less able, parents instead hold them back from more physical sports.

I don't know, I won't pretend to be an expert. I just think it's all very interesting to think about...

[Van der MoodHoover]

7 hours ago, StringerBell said:

Lots of small players with low centres of gravity could be a very different, more technical game. But there's no chance I'll ever watch women's football until the need for specific pitches with the dimensions changed has been addressed. Who wants to watch a goalkeeper struggle to kick the ball past the halfway line? Or a goalkeeper not be able to make a save specifically because they are too short to fill the goal?

Still the BBC will ram it down our throats though.

Probably a bit like the men's game in the late 19th century when average heights and power were generally lower than now.

You must remember 5ft 8 in les green? 

[StringerBell]

25 minutes ago, HantsRam said:

Probably a bit like the men's game in the late 19th century when average heights and power were generally lower than now.

You must remember 5ft 8 in les green? 

Was that when the ball weighed 2.6 fucktons?

[Van der MoodHoover]

2 minutes ago, StringerBell said:

Was that when the ball weighed 2.6 fucktons?

Only when wet ☺

I once borrowed a pair of grandpa's shorts for a kick about whilst on holiday. From the 1929 season. Made of thick cotton a bit like rugby shorts it was like trying to run in baggy chinos. 

Point is we shouldn't just assume that the game we see currently is how it has always looked and so there is no reason at all the women's game will not further evolve in ways different from the men's. 

[StringerBell]

1 minute ago, HantsRam said:

Only when wet ☺

I once borrowed a pair of grandpa's shorts for a kick about whilst on holiday. From the 1929 season. Made of thick cotton a bit like rugby shorts it was like trying to run in baggy chinos. 

Point is we shouldn't just assume that the game we see currently is how it has always looked and so there is no reason at all the women's game will not further evolve in ways different from the men's. 

Men's football has indeed changed and I'd suggest, bar the whining and diving and inability to dribble, it's changed for the better. That includes the distance people can kick the ball, how fast they can run over 40 yards and how far a goalkeeper can stretch. Modern football as we know it to be played is wrapped up in the dimensions of a football pitch and the goal. Doesn't it look weird when a regular Joe goes on the pitch at halftime to have a shot at goal and struggles to kick it with enough power to reach the goal?

As you point out, asking people to watch women's football is akin to asking people to watch football from the 1950's or something. Who watches football matches from the 1950's? 

Change the dimensions so that the dynamics of the women's game was played in a similar way to the men's and you will have a sport that people will be more interested in.

[RamNut]

Its shiit.

?

[Van der MoodHoover]

51 minutes ago, StringerBell said:

 

Change the dimensions so that the dynamics of the women's game was played in a similar way to the men's and you will have a sport that people will be more interested in.

Let's agree to disagree. 

I was trying to say that if dimensions were the key thing to enjoyment we would have altered the men's pitches, goal sizes etc over time. 

It hasn't been done which suggests we're happy to allow the game itself to develop to be a different spectacle. 

So personally I have no problem with the women's game being a different spectacle to the men's. Just as a game now is not the same spectacle as a game 50 years ago.

No problem with you having a different view mate!