Saying "don't watch" is a really poor get out. Your own interpretation of what actually constitutes "skill" is arguably the biggest piece of hyperbole in this thread.
I very much doubt you have any familiarity with the players I provided as examples of possessing skill. That's just one of the reasons that your observation is more than a little hollow. It's fine to criticise the women's game. But that criticism comes across as fairly fraudulent when it's not motivated by a genuine interest or concern.
Well to sate your indignant dismay I edited to include the entirety of your post, in all it's prattling glory.
Oh it's fine, I understand that it must be a distraction having to filter every other word through through here http://www.thesaurus.com/ so mistakes are bound to happen.
Oh it's fine, I understand that it must be a distraction having to filter every other word through through here http://www.thesaurus.com/ so mistakes are bound to happen.
I acquiesce the extenuation of your ejaculation
That's a fairly rubbish Capt Barbossa impersonation it has to be said.
Back to your crusade for "honesty." All in the interest of women's football. Reading your comments you tend to vacillate between being patronising and showering contempt on the women's game. It's jarring and inconsistent.
That's a fairly rubbish Capt Barbossa impersonation it has to be said.
Back to your crusade for "honesty." All in the interest of women's football. Reading your comments you tend to vacillate between being patronising and showering contempt on the women's game. It's jarring and inconsistent.
I just have a hard time accepting that someone who uses the word 'vacillate' on a regular basis would struggle to know the difference between 'its' and 'it's', that's all.
And how is it inconsistent to be both patronising and contemptuous. Unless you think one of those two things is a positive?
It makes you wonder what assistance they think they're providing to the sport by pretending that what we see now is any kind of standard. A casual viewer will turn on and think 'If this is as good as it gets, I'm not sticking around'
It'd help the sport a lot if people were honest and called it a young sport that they're willing to get behind in the hope it improves.
It feels a bit like watching a child after just two ballet lessons and rather than being supportive of their progress so far but acknowledging the distance they have to go in order to be of a good standard, instead saying 'She's brilliant, I don't know what's wrong with people who say different they're probably sexist. She could debut at the Royal Opera House tomorrow"
I don't see what good people think blatantly lying is doing. People can see the standard with their own eyes.
Gone away from the school sports day analogy and now onto ballet, it's progress I guess.
In the end people have differing views on football, maybe they're different than yours and not fooling themselves.
Exeter City went down to the conference, I thought it was the most shockingly depressing thing ever, the quality was appalling and I desperately wanted out of the division. Others loved it felt it was back to the good old days of proper football, without pretensions they were watching the same as I.
I'm also puzzled by what you expect broadcasters to do, I've yet to see one ever that came into a game saying. "you know the quality will be poor, but lets get on with it".
I didn't watch the English match, unfortunately I've seen a few of our games before and compared to the rest of the top teams we're pretty poor and hard to watch, much like the mens. Aus-Usa was fun though.
Anyway that Colombian goal last night, was pretty damn good I thought.
It isn't just down to a difference in interpretation though. What's wrong with women's football is blatant and clear to anyone who watches it and reflects on it honestly rather than being determined out of principle to defend it prior to the match starting, regardless of what quality it is.
If a match consistent of someone punting the ball out of the ground from kick off and then spending 30 minutes searching for a replacement only for the match to be abandoned due to lack of a ball, there'd still be people insisting that anyone who wasn't impressed with the spectacle was probably a patronising, contemptuous sexist.
The matches aren't being judged by any kind of standard. It's brilliant whatever happens because anyone who disagrees is bigoted.
Even people who profess to liking the sport don't seem all that keen to discuss the actual matches. There's hardly in-depth discussion of what's going on is there? Suggesting to me people who are keen to defend it aren't themselves actually watching that much. There are fewer pages than matches, and the matches included an England game, which you'd have thought would have generated some discussion.
I suspect all people are doing is making a note of the scores and then seeking to defend the standard of football matches they're not actually watching.
I just have a hard time accepting that someone who uses the word 'vacillate' on a regular basis would struggle to know the difference between 'its' and 'it's', that's all.
And how is it inconsistent to be both patronising and contemptuous. Unless you think one of those two things is a positive?
Resorting to bigging up a typo. Well done you. Keep milking that one.
Neither of those things are positive. But at least in one case you're maintaining your posturing artifice.
I very much doubt you have any familiarity with the players I provided as examples of possessing skill. That's just one of the reasons that your observation is more than a little hollow. It's fine to criticise the women's game. But that criticism comes across as fairly fraudulent when it's not motivated by a genuine interest or concern.
I don't see why I actually need to have any familiarity with the players whatsoever.
Even if I haven't watched any of the games I am not sticking my neck out by suggesting that the skill levels are moderate. Its like saying I'm not qualified to suggest Burundi aren't all that good because I have no familiarity with their players. The fact that we never hear of their national side even in their own confederation is enough.
If I can elaborate a bit, in an attempt to stop you just passing me off as another of these who is just criticising to be cool, I see this a bit like golf.
A 10-handicapper can hit good shots arguably as good as those of the top pros. The issue and reason for their handicap is their bad shots. When a 10-handicapper gets it wrong, its usually the type of shot you would never see from the top pro, a shank in the woods, or an air shot, or a thin blade across the green, something like that.
In ladies football the good moments of skill are exactly that. But when they get it wrong, or simply lack the required ability, it is far more obvious and far more evident.
Listen, I'd love to be watching a great game featuring 22 ladies giving it their all and with skill the like of which I would anticipate in men's football. I'd love nothing more. But it isn't of that standard and I have a problem with people pretending that it is. Those people are those who, when particularly close to women's football, are those who hold the standard back.
Kelly Smith for example was a terrific footballer and I would never deny that, who could. The point is that for every terrific footballer there are three or four who by comparison are incredibly limited. In the men's game those who stand out do so amongst other very good professionals. That is the difference.
Well, I would never have predicted that score after the first half. What a shame England didn't try taking the game to France in their second half, the way Norway have just done against Germany.
It isn't just down to a difference in interpretation though. What's wrong with women's football is blatant and clear to anyone who watches it and reflects on it honestly rather than being determined out of principle to defend it prior to the match starting, regardless of what quality it is.
If a match consistent of someone punting the ball out of the ground from kick off and then spending 30 minutes searching for a replacement only for the match to be abandoned due to lack of a ball, there'd still be people insisting that anyone who wasn't impressed with the spectacle was probably a patronising, contemptuous sexist.
The matches aren't being judged by any kind of standard. It's brilliant whatever happens because anyone who disagrees is bigoted.
Even people who profess to liking the sport don't seem all that keen to discuss the actual matches. There's hardly in-depth discussion of what's going on is there? Suggesting to me people who are keen to defend it aren't themselves actually watching that much. There are fewer pages than matches, and the matches included an England game, which you'd have thought would have generated some discussion.
I suspect all people are doing is making a note of the scores and then seeking to defend the standard of football matches they're not actually watching.
Did you see the Norweigian free kick?;-)
I haven't been able to do more than watch most of the highlights and one game so far (not the England one) but will fill my boots from 2mmrw onwards. Austrailia V Nigeria should be right tasty.
I've been watching women's football since the mid nineties on and off and the standard has improved massively since then. I watched a lot of the 2011 world cup and I had never seen so many skillful first touches, bullet hard shots, dribbling at pace and crucially, killer passes in the women's game. So, I will continue to give women's football a chance because the same criticisms about "lack of footballing intelligence" and "low skill quality" were once levelled en masse at African and Asian football and now look where we are.
I do think that there are still too many chauvinist men that are simply threatened by women's expansion into male arenas - just like that nobel prize winning scientist who had to resign after his unecessarily sexist comments to a conference.
You may or may not be one of them Tony Daniels. Just in case you're not, let me ask you two questions; do you think the women's game can ever improve to the level you would find watchable? And what would you do to improve the level asap?
I do think that there are still too many chauvinist men that are simply threatened by women's expansion into male arenas.
I have to say that I think that's rubbish, MP.
If you're referring to society in general, then you may have a point. In terms of the discussion on here, I don't think that you do.
I don't see any threads complaining about the amount of women attending football, playing football, or any other sport.
The main complaint appears to be that there are too many people trying to promote it as being of a higher standard than it is. That's worthy of discussion, in my opinion.
It isn't just down to a difference in interpretation though. What's wrong with women's football is blatant and clear to anyone who watches it and reflects on it honestly rather than being determined out of principle to defend it prior to the match starting, regardless of what quality it is.
If a match consistent of someone punting the ball out of the ground from kick off and then spending 30 minutes searching for a replacement only for the match to be abandoned due to lack of a ball, there'd still be people insisting that anyone who wasn't impressed with the spectacle was probably a patronising, contemptuous sexist.
The matches aren't being judged by any kind of standard. It's brilliant whatever happens because anyone who disagrees is bigoted.
Even people who profess to liking the sport don't seem all that keen to discuss the actual matches. There's hardly in-depth discussion of what's going on is there? Suggesting to me people who are keen to defend it aren't themselves actually watching that much. There are fewer pages than matches, and the matches included an England game, which you'd have thought would have generated some discussion.
I suspect all people are doing is making a note of the scores and then seeking to defend the standard of football matches they're not actually watching.
You haven't said what's wrong with women's football, despite saying it's blatantly obvious. For sure the standard isn't as good as men's football but that will not be changed by not showing it on TV or not holding a World Cup.
Equally you cannot judge the current standard of women's football by comparing it to the standard of men's football. Objectively you can only judge it fairly relative to the highest quality in women's football as it currently is. The top teams in the final stages will produce exciting and good quality matches. There are bound to be some one-sided drubbings in the early stages. Maybe people have forgotten how one-sided some group games in the World Cup used to be when African and Asian teams first became involved. Now there are no weak international teams. In women's football there are clearly still a lot of them. But the choice is either to exclude them on the grounds of capability or admit them to encourage them to get better. The latter strategy worked with mens football so should also work in the womens game.
Back in the early 1960s the standard of women's tennis was diabolical. There were one or two very good players. The rest were awful. Matches were mostly dull. There was no professional circuit as such. Now look at it. Lot's of power, strength and skill. Often more interesting to watch than the mens game, which can be very tedious. That development will come in women's football too eventually, but only when domestic competition levels increase and more players get involved. Fully professional leagues, better financial backing, better coaching and training methods are all required. At the moment in some countries it's still all very amateur and "best efforts".
So judging women's football objectively isn't the issue. If you come at it with the attitude that this is supposed to be the best in women's football and it's not as good as men's football you are bound to be disappointed. All you can do is enjoy watching it (or not). The standard is still developing and skill levels vary widely. But it's better than it used to be and will improve rapidly as it gets more media attention and therefore more investment.
I would say that what's wrong with women's football is not the standard of play. It's lack of investment in developing the game. Given that, the standard will improve.
Enjoyed that Chinese injury time goal. Nice pass that was perfect enough to set through the Chinese player to score. If China could be more clinical in front of goal, they'd be a team to go far in this competition. Maybe they will. Like their style of play.
China lost their first game in stoppage time and now win their second game in stoppage time against a woeful Dutch team who should be flattered by the 1-0 scoreline.
I suspect he is exaggerating to prove his point. I don't think you need to be taking it literally.
I do get the point he's just made a similar one with school athletics a number of times, i think we get it now.
Oh and as I keep ion saying, this "problem with bigging it up" doesn't seem an huge problem from what I read on here, and I maintain that every TV company that has a sport of any kind talk it up, it's broadcasting.
We all know the football is not at the standard as the men.
I actually thought the Norway and Germany game was enjoyable.
Those that don't like the football and are not happy about it. As fair minded people shouldn't the dismay be shown towards the governing bodies of football. If the sport had more investment like the tennis then you might see a different tournament. Someone posted earlier that England invented the game and yet we are far behind the others.
Another thing to note like with my cousin who is in primary school and has very good skills, many girls are the boys equals at that age and yet lots never get giving the same opportunities such as going to academies. Surely if those girls like the boys after primary school were to develop then they would improve.
Also why has the England women's team hired a young immature coach and not established manager who has been in the game for a long time. That suggests the sport by those above is not been taken seriously. That needs to change.
I've been watching women's football since the mid nineties on and off and the standard has improved massively since then. I watched a lot of the 2011 world cup and I had never seen so many skillful first touches, bullet hard shots, dribbling at pace and crucially, killer passes in the women's game. So, I will continue to give women's football a chance because the same criticisms about "lack of footballing intelligence" and "low skill quality" were once levelled en masse at African and Asian football and now look where we are.
I do think that there are still too many chauvinist men that are simply threatened by women's expansion into male arenas - just like that nobel prize winning scientist who had to resign after his unecessarily sexist comments to a conference.
That's pretty insulting but fairly typical. If you point out that its not very good you are a chauvinist. Brilliant. The fact that no one has an issue with women playing the game or being involved in football in general counts for nothing. If you do the Emperors New Clothes routine and say the standard isn't great it must be anti-women in some way.
You haven't said what's wrong with women's football, despite saying it's blatantly obvious. For sure the standard isn't as good as men's football but that will not be changed by not showing it on TV or not holding a World Cup.
Equally you cannot judge the current standard of women's football by comparing it to the standard of men's football. Objectively you can only judge it fairly relative to the highest quality in women's football as it currently is. The top teams in the final stages will produce exciting and good quality matches. There are bound to be some one-sided drubbings in the early stages. Maybe people have forgotten how one-sided some group games in the World Cup used to be when African and Asian teams first became involved. Now there are no weak international teams. In women's football there are clearly still a lot of them. But the choice is either to exclude them on the grounds of capability or admit them to encourage them to get better. The latter strategy worked with mens football so should also work in the womens game.
Back in the early 1960s the standard of women's tennis was diabolical. There were one or two very good players. The rest were awful. Matches were mostly dull. There was no professional circuit as such. Now look at it. Lot's of power, strength and skill. Often more interesting to watch than the mens game, which can be very tedious. That development will come in women's football too eventually, but only when domestic competition levels increase and more players get involved. Fully professional leagues, better financial backing, better coaching and training methods are all required. At the moment in some countries it's still all very amateur and "best efforts".
So judging women's football objectively isn't the issue. If you come at it with the attitude that this is supposed to be the best in women's football and it's not as good as men's football you are bound to be disappointed. All you can do is enjoy watching it (or not). The standard is still developing and skill levels vary widely. But it's better than it used to be and will improve rapidly as it gets more media attention and therefore more investment.
I would say that what's wrong with women's football is not the standard of play. It's lack of investment in developing the game. Given that, the standard will improve.
If you are judging it objectively you would say it isn't very good. The lack of objectivity is coming from people who are making excuses for why it not being very good is ok.
I totally agree with those who say that it needs investment to improve. I agree with the above post in the most part. I also agree with those who say that it WILL improve over time. That is great - put it on the telly when it reaches that level then.
At the moment you cant help but compare the men's game to the women's game because it is EXACTLY the same sport. the only difference is that one is played by women and one is played by men. The only way that you can realistically appreciate the women's game is by making allowances for it. If I, as a football fan with no vested interest in the women's game, switch the TV on while this world cup is on and watch a game, I can HELP but be struck by how much worse it is. There can be all the logical reasons in the world why this is the case but that's not really my issue as the casual viewer.
To my mind there is a place for women's football, of course there is, but as a spectator sport I honestly believe it needs to have some sort of change to make it different to the men's in order to give it its own selling point. Women's tennis lacks the absolute raw power of the men's and is the better for it. I think that if you had smaller pitches, smaller goals and promoted the skill side of the game then it would possibly be sufficiently different to what viewers/spectators are used to in the men's game to give it its own niche in the market. I don't think its sexist or deliberately disingenuous to the sport to suggest this seriously. If this is seen as massively disrespectful to the sport then I take that on board but I don't think it will ever become more that the poor relation to the men's game that it currently is.
I would say that what's wrong with women's football is not the standard of play. It's lack of investment in developing the game. Given that, the standard will improve.
How many other sports (both male and female) could make that same argument though - "yes we recognize that the quality is not great and only a few people have any interest in the product but if you invest a ton of money (which in all likelihood you will never see again or get any return on) and give us loads of free publicity/tv exposure then eventually we will get much better". It is a vicious cycle, poor quality means no audience, no audience means no sponsors/investors, no sponsors/investors means poor quality.
How many other sports (both male and female) could make that same argument though - "yes we recognize that the quality is not great and only a few people have any interest in the product but if you invest a ton of money (which in all likelihood you will never see again or get any return on) and give us loads of free publicity/tv exposure then eventually we will get much better". It is a vicious cycle, poor quality means no audience, no audience means no sponsors/investors, no sponsors/investors means poor quality.
In the end this sport does have an huge following in many places though, so you are not starting anew. The viewing figures certainly haven't been bad so far, it's been justified to be put on.
I keep on saying that sport needs stars more than anything, in the States it's got them and is huge.
Again I am not accusing anyone of being sexist, but the poor quality you all see is subjective. So please stop saying it isn't. It's clearly a very different game, but it has it's advantages as well as disadvantages, less gamesmanship, wasting time, thuggery. If I was being objective I could say it was a better game because of these things.
Yet in the end it's different, so please stop telling everyone people are deluding themselves because they see things differently. It's kind of tiresome, it's like the same post by 5 different people over and over again.
People complaining about being told a certain view on the game, whilst force-feeding their view of the game towards anyone that differs, it's getting a bit surreal.
Comments
Sate is a great word only for the apostrophe to later ruin things.
I very much doubt you have any familiarity with the players I provided as examples of possessing skill. That's just one of the reasons that your observation is more than a little hollow. It's fine to criticise the women's game. But that criticism comes across as fairly fraudulent when it's not motivated by a genuine interest or concern.
Oh it's fine, I understand that it must be a distraction having to filter every other word through through here http://www.thesaurus.com/ so mistakes are bound to happen.
I acquiesce the extenuation of your ejaculation
That's a fairly rubbish Capt Barbossa impersonation it has to be said.
Back to your crusade for "honesty." All in the interest of women's football. Reading your comments you tend to vacillate between being patronising and showering contempt on the women's game. It's jarring and inconsistent.
I just have a hard time accepting that someone who uses the word 'vacillate' on a regular basis would struggle to know the difference between 'its' and 'it's', that's all.
And how is it inconsistent to be both patronising and contemptuous. Unless you think one of those two things is a positive?
Gone away from the school sports day analogy and now onto ballet, it's progress I guess.
In the end people have differing views on football, maybe they're different than yours and not fooling themselves.
Exeter City went down to the conference, I thought it was the most shockingly depressing thing ever, the quality was appalling and I desperately wanted out of the division. Others loved it felt it was back to the good old days of proper football, without pretensions they were watching the same as I.
I'm also puzzled by what you expect broadcasters to do, I've yet to see one ever that came into a game saying. "you know the quality will be poor, but lets get on with it".
I didn't watch the English match, unfortunately I've seen a few of our games before and compared to the rest of the top teams we're pretty poor and hard to watch, much like the mens. Aus-Usa was fun though.
Anyway that Colombian goal last night, was pretty damn good I thought.
Yes, a superb effort and Norway deservedly on level terms.
If a match consistent of someone punting the ball out of the ground from kick off and then spending 30 minutes searching for a replacement only for the match to be abandoned due to lack of a ball, there'd still be people insisting that anyone who wasn't impressed with the spectacle was probably a patronising, contemptuous sexist.
The matches aren't being judged by any kind of standard. It's brilliant whatever happens because anyone who disagrees is bigoted.
Even people who profess to liking the sport don't seem all that keen to discuss the actual matches. There's hardly in-depth discussion of what's going on is there? Suggesting to me people who are keen to defend it aren't themselves actually watching that much. There are fewer pages than matches, and the matches included an England game, which you'd have thought would have generated some discussion.
I suspect all people are doing is making a note of the scores and then seeking to defend the standard of football matches they're not actually watching.
Resorting to bigging up a typo. Well done you. Keep milking that one.
Neither of those things are positive. But at least in one case you're maintaining your posturing artifice.
I don't see why I actually need to have any familiarity with the players whatsoever.
Even if I haven't watched any of the games I am not sticking my neck out by suggesting that the skill levels are moderate. Its like saying I'm not qualified to suggest Burundi aren't all that good because I have no familiarity with their players. The fact that we never hear of their national side even in their own confederation is enough.
If I can elaborate a bit, in an attempt to stop you just passing me off as another of these who is just criticising to be cool, I see this a bit like golf.
A 10-handicapper can hit good shots arguably as good as those of the top pros. The issue and reason for their handicap is their bad shots. When a 10-handicapper gets it wrong, its usually the type of shot you would never see from the top pro, a shank in the woods, or an air shot, or a thin blade across the green, something like that.
In ladies football the good moments of skill are exactly that. But when they get it wrong, or simply lack the required ability, it is far more obvious and far more evident.
Listen, I'd love to be watching a great game featuring 22 ladies giving it their all and with skill the like of which I would anticipate in men's football. I'd love nothing more. But it isn't of that standard and I have a problem with people pretending that it is. Those people are those who, when particularly close to women's football, are those who hold the standard back.
Kelly Smith for example was a terrific footballer and I would never deny that, who could. The point is that for every terrific footballer there are three or four who by comparison are incredibly limited. In the men's game those who stand out do so amongst other very good professionals. That is the difference.
I suspect he is exaggerating to prove his point. I don't think you need to be taking it literally.
Did you see the Norweigian free kick?;-)
I haven't been able to do more than watch most of the highlights and one game so far (not the England one) but will fill my boots from 2mmrw onwards. Austrailia V Nigeria should be right tasty.
I've been watching women's football since the mid nineties on and off and the standard has improved massively since then. I watched a lot of the 2011 world cup and I had never seen so many skillful first touches, bullet hard shots, dribbling at pace and crucially, killer passes in the women's game. So, I will continue to give women's football a chance because the same criticisms about "lack of footballing intelligence" and "low skill quality" were once levelled en masse at African and Asian football and now look where we are.
I do think that there are still too many chauvinist men that are simply threatened by women's expansion into male arenas - just like that nobel prize winning scientist who had to resign after his unecessarily sexist comments to a conference.
You may or may not be one of them Tony Daniels. Just in case you're not, let me ask you two questions; do you think the women's game can ever improve to the level you would find watchable? And what would you do to improve the level asap?
I have to say that I think that's rubbish, MP.
If you're referring to society in general, then you may have a point. In terms of the discussion on here, I don't think that you do.
I don't see any threads complaining about the amount of women attending football, playing football, or any other sport.
The main complaint appears to be that there are too many people trying to promote it as being of a higher standard than it is. That's worthy of discussion, in my opinion.
Equally you cannot judge the current standard of women's football by comparing it to the standard of men's football. Objectively you can only judge it fairly relative to the highest quality in women's football as it currently is. The top teams in the final stages will produce exciting and good quality matches. There are bound to be some one-sided drubbings in the early stages. Maybe people have forgotten how one-sided some group games in the World Cup used to be when African and Asian teams first became involved. Now there are no weak international teams. In women's football there are clearly still a lot of them. But the choice is either to exclude them on the grounds of capability or admit them to encourage them to get better. The latter strategy worked with mens football so should also work in the womens game.
Back in the early 1960s the standard of women's tennis was diabolical. There were one or two very good players. The rest were awful. Matches were mostly dull. There was no professional circuit as such. Now look at it. Lot's of power, strength and skill. Often more interesting to watch than the mens game, which can be very tedious. That development will come in women's football too eventually, but only when domestic competition levels increase and more players get involved. Fully professional leagues, better financial backing, better coaching and training methods are all required. At the moment in some countries it's still all very amateur and "best efforts".
So judging women's football objectively isn't the issue. If you come at it with the attitude that this is supposed to be the best in women's football and it's not as good as men's football you are bound to be disappointed. All you can do is enjoy watching it (or not). The standard is still developing and skill levels vary widely. But it's better than it used to be and will improve rapidly as it gets more media attention and therefore more investment.
I would say that what's wrong with women's football is not the standard of play. It's lack of investment in developing the game. Given that, the standard will improve.
I do get the point he's just made a similar one with school athletics a number of times, i think we get it now.
Oh and as I keep ion saying, this "problem with bigging it up" doesn't seem an huge problem from what I read on here, and I maintain that every TV company that has a sport of any kind talk it up, it's broadcasting.
I actually thought the Norway and Germany game was enjoyable.
Those that don't like the football and are not happy about it. As fair minded people shouldn't the dismay be shown towards the governing bodies of football. If the sport had more investment like the tennis then you might see a different tournament. Someone posted earlier that England invented the game and yet we are far behind the others.
Another thing to note like with my cousin who is in primary school and has very good skills, many girls are the boys equals at that age and yet lots never get giving the same opportunities such as going to academies. Surely if those girls like the boys after primary school were to develop then they would improve.
Also why has the England women's team hired a young immature coach and not established manager who has been in the game for a long time. That suggests the sport by those above is not been taken seriously. That needs to change.
That's pretty insulting but fairly typical. If you point out that its not very good you are a chauvinist. Brilliant. The fact that no one has an issue with women playing the game or being involved in football in general counts for nothing. If you do the Emperors New Clothes routine and say the standard isn't great it must be anti-women in some way.
If you are judging it objectively you would say it isn't very good. The lack of objectivity is coming from people who are making excuses for why it not being very good is ok.
I totally agree with those who say that it needs investment to improve. I agree with the above post in the most part. I also agree with those who say that it WILL improve over time. That is great - put it on the telly when it reaches that level then.
At the moment you cant help but compare the men's game to the women's game because it is EXACTLY the same sport. the only difference is that one is played by women and one is played by men. The only way that you can realistically appreciate the women's game is by making allowances for it. If I, as a football fan with no vested interest in the women's game, switch the TV on while this world cup is on and watch a game, I can HELP but be struck by how much worse it is. There can be all the logical reasons in the world why this is the case but that's not really my issue as the casual viewer.
To my mind there is a place for women's football, of course there is, but as a spectator sport I honestly believe it needs to have some sort of change to make it different to the men's in order to give it its own selling point. Women's tennis lacks the absolute raw power of the men's and is the better for it. I think that if you had smaller pitches, smaller goals and promoted the skill side of the game then it would possibly be sufficiently different to what viewers/spectators are used to in the men's game to give it its own niche in the market. I don't think its sexist or deliberately disingenuous to the sport to suggest this seriously. If this is seen as massively disrespectful to the sport then I take that on board but I don't think it will ever become more that the poor relation to the men's game that it currently is.
How many other sports (both male and female) could make that same argument though - "yes we recognize that the quality is not great and only a few people have any interest in the product but if you invest a ton of money (which in all likelihood you will never see again or get any return on) and give us loads of free publicity/tv exposure then eventually we will get much better". It is a vicious cycle, poor quality means no audience, no audience means no sponsors/investors, no sponsors/investors means poor quality.
In the end this sport does have an huge following in many places though, so you are not starting anew. The viewing figures certainly haven't been bad so far, it's been justified to be put on.
I keep on saying that sport needs stars more than anything, in the States it's got them and is huge.
Again I am not accusing anyone of being sexist, but the poor quality you all see is subjective. So please stop saying it isn't. It's clearly a very different game, but it has it's advantages as well as disadvantages, less gamesmanship, wasting time, thuggery. If I was being objective I could say it was a better game because of these things.
Yet in the end it's different, so please stop telling everyone people are deluding themselves because they see things differently. It's kind of tiresome, it's like the same post by 5 different people over and over again.
People complaining about being told a certain view on the game, whilst force-feeding their view of the game towards anyone that differs, it's getting a bit surreal.