England ladies | Vital Football

England ladies

R

RainhamGill

Vital Youth Team
Great start by England in the Euros last night against against Scotland, although I suspect the opposition wasn't the strongest, still it's always good to start with a big win!

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/40651426
 
Yes, a very good start. The Scots may not be the greatest but then neither were Iceland.

I suspect that stiffer tests will come but I have to say I thoroughly enjoy what I saw of the game (missed the first 10 mins).

Did wonder how they'd fare against a league 1 side?
 
Skullduggery Pleasan - 20/7/2017 11:06

Yes, a very good start. The Scots may not be the greatest but then neither were Iceland.

I suspect that stiffer tests will come but I have to say I thoroughly enjoy what I saw of the game (missed the first 10 mins).

Did wonder how they'd fare against a league 1 side?
Click to expand...

England are one of the tournament favourites with a real chance of winning it. Germany are favourites but they haven't looked as dominant as usual (a lot of their senior players have retired and so they have a few old heads like Mittag but the rest is generally younger "talents" who will be a force in a tournament or two time)
Sweden always look capable until they run into Germany and get knocked out
France are talented but have a habit of self exploding.

On home soil, the Netherlands could be a good outside bet...

As for how well would they do against a league one team? England Ladies would lose comfortably - no matter how skillful the England side is, the competitive advantage gained from testosterone will triumph. Even Gillingham All Time Sucky XI would be expected to win.

I think it was the US Ladies team (one of the best in the world) played a few amateur men's team as preparation a number of years back before one of the tournaments and found themselves physically outmuscled and well and truly trounced.
 
Some of them are quite tall, Karen Bardsley (the goalkeeper) and Jill Scott for example.

I don't understand the curiosity of how a women's team would fare against a men's team. The competitions are completely separate so they would never play against each other anyway, in the same way that the England men's team would never play against a team of actual lions.
 
Seriously? Rainham

The subject is interesting because they both play the same game under exactly the same rules, and there?s always so much talked about gender equality and pay gaps. I think it?s very interesting how they?d do against a men?s team.

I do think they?d struggle with the physical aspect against men?s teams to be honest. Speed and strength. The technical skill I also think they would struggle with too at a certain level. They are clearly not at the same level technically as the top of the men?s game. I think the difference though is that physical and speed are largely limited by physiology. Technical skill I?d say is not. The gaps in technical skill is probably more just down to the maturity of the women's game compared with the men's.

But you?d imagine that maybe they?d be level with lower league team on technical skill alone ? who knows what level ? but even with ateam they are technically as good as, they would still lose the physical battles. You might then have to go down a further few levels before their superiority in technical skill would outweigh the physical limitations.

I think it would be a really interesting point to see how they compare against Men?s teams.
 
Am I right in thinking that the argument here is that women's football "isn't as fast or skilled as the men's game so I'm not interested"?

That may well be the case, but remember that most of the time women's teams are picked and set up to play against other women's teams, not other men's teams. If you opened the competition up completely then yes you would probably get the women's teams losing heavily to the men's teams...at first, but over time (after quite a few years probably) you would see an improvement in results, because they would realise that there needs to be more emphasis on physical strength and speed in order to complete with their male counterparts.

But like I said that's not likely to happen: At the moment the competitions are kept separate and that's ok with me. My point is that I don't think the women's England team (or indeed the Gills team) need to demonstrate that they are on a par with men's teams in terms of speed, strength and skill just to get our attention and our support.

In terms of where they stand in their respective international competitions I have a lot more faith in this women's England team than the men's to deliver good results.
 
RainhamGill - 20/7/2017 13:06

1) Am I right in thinking that the argument here is that women's football "isn't as fast or skilled as the men's game so I'm not interested"?.

That may well be the case, but remember that most of the time women's teams are picked and set up to play against other women's teams, not other men's teams. If you opened the competition up completely then yes you would probably get the women's teams losing heavily to the men's teams...

2) at first, but over time (after quite a few years probably) you would see an improvement in results, because they would realise that there needs to be more emphasis on physical strength and speed in order to complete with their male counterparts.

But like I said that's not likely to happen: At the moment the competitions are kept separate and that's ok with me.

3) My point is that I don't think the women's England team (or indeed the Gills team) need to demonstrate that they are on a par with men's teams in terms of speed, strength and skill just to get our attention and our support.
Click to expand...

1) Nope... But I've seen people bring that up before as a reason to accuse anyone who doesn't usually watch women's football or think it is superior to men's as being misogynistic...

The "doesn't interest me" is also often used when people say they don't watch Italian or German football (who generally play at a lower tempo than in English football) and is definitely not to do with the gender of the people involved despite some people assuming otherwise.

2) Unless the women start to inject themselves with steroids and testosterone then the female players will struggle to get anywhere near the physical attributes the male players can naturally reach. You might get a few females going beast mode but not in the numbers to be able to compete. This is not sexism but a simple biological fact.

3) Agreed... although still an interesting topic of discussion to compare...
 
Interesting, but my question was (kind of) more specific than "How does a women's team compare to a men's League 1 side.

I was impressed by the shape of the England side (no jokes please). When out of possession, they would very quickly form up to deny Scotland any real space. That's something that last season we (and an awful lot of the opposition) seemed unable to do. And by generally keeping their shape they made it easy for their team mates to find them.when they did have posession. That was obviously down to the coach as well as their own discipline.

I accept the physicallity argument. Even though a few years ago i played in a "Dads Team" against my middle stepdaughter's college side. As a "traditional" inside left, i was marked by said stepdaughter who was the right sided central defender.

I still have the bruises. And i know we were crap but they were a hell of a lot quicker than us.

You think Chatham got a pasting? :3:
 
There are some very, very tasty pieces in the England team. Very tidy. Oh to be the England physio - lucky, lucky man. He must already have enough images in the mental wank bank for the rest of his life!
 
SteveTreacle - 20/7/2017 14:32

There are some very, very tasty pieces in the England team. Very tidy. Oh to be the England physio - lucky, lucky man. He must already have enough images in the mental wank bank for the rest of his life!
Click to expand...

I should be disappointed. However, I find myself more impressed that we got this far down the page before the word 'tidy' appeared :4:
 
Didn't Gills play England ladies in a friendly in Le Touquet years ago? I don't think that was a rout.

I find in general that there's less speed and the first touch isn't as good on average as the men's game, and for some reason the goalkeeping is terrible. Even the best keepers like Hope Solo. That said, the through balls and finishing is still clinical.
 
Wayne.Kerr - 20/7/2017 21:30

I think it's the way the goals were taken - very clinical
Click to expand...

Oh right, I clearly misunderstood when I heard the commentator talking about a "tidy finish". I thought he was referring to a pretty Nordic midfielder.
 
I think from a basic skills perspective there is nothing to stop male and female football players from competing on a even footing, however, evolution has decided that males in general are bigger, taller, stronger than women. This could of course change over the years and females could evolve to become more physically akin to men, I hope that doesn't happen and that the differences remain, not because I believe men and women shouldn't be equal, I just like the difference.
 
Razorpound - 21/7/2017 20:47

Must say, the Deutchenstriker Islak.er looks quite fit tonight against the Italiessen
Click to expand...

All the players in the tournament are fit...

(as professional sportswomen, being fit is an occupational requirement)
 
What then would be the problem with having mixed gender teams?

I'm not suggesting that mixed teams should replace the separate men's and women's teams but I can see no reason why mixed teams couldn't also exist. They have mixed teams in volleyball and mixed doubles in tennis. I think it'd be an interesting addition to the game, especially at international level.

No doubt some amongst you will think that our game is quite unsuitable to mixed teams. Which is what, in the early 1920s, the FA said about the game with regard to women when they banned them from playing on their pitches.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.