Womens World Cup

Women's football, what really is the point of it as it currently is?

Before we start I'm not a misogynist, I simply can see that women's football isn't and can't be the same as men's football simply because of men are built physically differently from women.

Men are bigger, stronger, more powerful and faster - that's how nature designed us - women are not built the same way - so there is no comparison between the two, so it is obvious that watching a man's game will be different to watching a woman's game in terms of strength, power and aggression.

It seems obvious to me the woman's game needs to be tailored to their physicality, the pitch should be shortened, certainly the goals need to.  I've seen shots directly at the keeper go in above their heads, and I don't mean lobs, I've seen goals from the penalty spot go in a clear several feet inside the post - with the keeper diving in the right direction!  That simply wouldn't happen in the same tier of football in the men's game.

This current world cup is like watching a well organised and drilled non league team down the park - doing their best but knowing that in all likelihood any half decent Championship side will beat them easily and comprehensively.

The only reason the BBC are showing match coverage is because no one wants to spend money watching such a standard of football on Sky, otherwise don't you think it would be being shown there instead?

I'm not saying that there aren't a few good goals or one or two flowing moves but there's hardly any crunching tackles raining in or the game is being played at a hundred miles a hour either.

The women's game should stand alone and be distinctly different from the men's game as comparison between the two is laughable.

There's nothing wrong in then having a game or wanting to play but it needs to be developed to their physicality's and not those of the man's game.

Women tennis is based over three sets rather than five, similarly the boundaries are much shorter in women's cricket than men's because of this basic reason and that's why apart from bowls or a few other novelty sports men and women do not compete on the same teams as equals.

Who cares if England win the Women's World Cup when you know that Bolton's six players plus whatever youth's we still have could probably still beat them?

For women's football to take off for me they need to develop their own game and identity away from the male game.

Anybody disagree?

They don't look like women to me not feminine at all.

Mod wankers.

I challenge sluffy to a game of 3-and-In and you delete the message.

This is bellendary of the highest level.

Obviously doesn’t remember your goal at Deepdale

Obviously he does remember my goal, that's why he deleted the message.

Running scared.

What is a game of 3-and-in or should I not be asking that?

It sounds like some orgy!

karlypants wrote:What is a game of 3-and-in or should I not be asking that?

Embarrassing post.

karlypants wrote:What is a game of 3-and-in or should I not be asking that?

It sounds like some orgy!

Three and in is where two or more of you compete to be the first one to score three goals into the same net. So when you have the ball you are attacking the goal but as soon as you lose it you defend the same goal you were trying to score in.

Usually there is a goalkeeper (although I've played games where there hasn't been) and the first one to score three goes in goal and the keeper plays out, with everybody starting on zero goals.

It's a good game and really enjoyed it in my youth playing in the street or on the park.

As for Natasha's post don't know what happened, the audit log shows Bonce deleting his message on the thread at 9:29pm last night and you doing the same at 9:58pm.

Don't know anything more than that and I actually fancy my chance of winning the challenge, even at my age, if Natasha was required to play me wearing her 5 inch heels!

I did delete a post last night. Having read what I'd written, I decided it was rubbish. 

I'm sure most of you are asking how the other 21,000 posts got through my rubbish test.

I think the standard is alright from what I've seen apart from the goalkeepers.

boltonbonce wrote:I did delete a post last night. Having read what I'd written, I decided it was rubbish. 

I'm sure most of you are asking how the other 21,000 posts got through my rubbish test.

In response to sluffy's original post, men have been playing professional football for over a century but the women's game is relatively new.

A better question to ask yourself is would the men playing football in the 1920's beat the women playing in 2019? Would they fook.

Natasha Whittam wrote:In response to sluffy's original post, men have been playing professional football for over a century but the women's game is relatively new.

A better question to ask yourself is would the men playing football in the 1920's beat the women playing in 2019? Would they fook.

Only because they'll all be dead now, you bellend

MartinBWFC wrote:Only because they'll all be dead now, you bellend

Natasha Whittam wrote:In response to sluffy's original post, men have been playing professional football for over a century but the women's game is relatively new.

A better question to ask yourself is would the men playing football in the 1920's beat the women playing in 2019? Would they fook.

It's not actually, it was actually massive in the 1920's would you believe?

"Women's football matches once pulled bigger crowds than most men's games - sometimes more than 50,000.
In the 1920s the sport flourished with around 150 women's teams in England".

Quite and interesting article on it (well not that interesting tbh) but it does show a picture of Preston Ladies from 1939 - I wonder which one is Natasha?


At the end of the day, and I'm not disrespecting the ladies, it is all simply down to human biology in that the male of the species are simply built bigger, stronger, more powerful and faster than the female in the fast majority of cases.

Differentiate their game by maybe making the goals and pitch shorter, maybe ban tackling and encourage more passing by limiting the number of times a player can kick the ball without either shooting or passing.  Create a new version of the game Rugby has two codes for instance, cricket is played in various formats, T20, one day, 4 day county, 5 day tests etc?

Identify what women can do better then men - they can't compare on power and speed so maybe develop a code where they develop passing and vision say, perhaps?

Whatever it is though they need to do it because they simply can't compete on the same level and format as men and their core support seems to be a sisterhood of women supporting their gender rather than true sports fan appreciating the sport they are playing.

Just my thoughts though.

Here's the link -

http://www.bbc.co.uk/newsbeat/article/40654436/the-secret-history-of-womens-football

And swap shirts at the end (jokes)

Sluffy wrote:It's not actually, it was actually massive in the 1920's would you believe?

But it wasn't professional, which was my point.

The women of 2068 would piss all over the men of 2019.

Natasha Whittam wrote:

Sluffy wrote:It's not actually, it was actually massive in the 1920's would you believe?

But it wasn't professional, which was my point.

The women of 2068 would piss all over the men of 2019.

I would hope so too with the advances in sports science and nutrition and medical developments to come in that time - but that wasn't my point either as the women of 2068 would still be below the level of the men of 2068 because physically they aren't the same.

I take your point about men being paid professionals in the 1920's but without the enthusiasm to research it (as I'm really not that interested in the subject) I wonder if the men actually were full time professionals or more like semi-pro (with a 'proper job' as well) or even unpaid amateurs as many who played sports back then often were?

I've no doubt either that crowds of 50,000 back then to see women's football  was as much to do with the cheap thrill of seeing women not clothed from top to toe as befit the morals at the time and seeing them flash a bit of leg instead!

I guess that was the next best thing to porn back in those days!

Bottom line is that given a choice of watching a same tier of game most people would watch the men's game and not the women's

However give them a choice between say a men's football game and men's rugby game at the same tier then there would a more closer split I would imagine, so if you can move women's football away from the man's game and differentiating it in some way - maybe women's seven a side on a half size pitch perhaps - then more people would choose to watch the sport they liked rather than choose between the gender where men are simply stronger, faster, etc, etc than the women.

Why would anybody want to choose an inferior product - it's not as though it is for a cheap sexual thrill as I expect it might have been a century ago.

Also I've just remembered a true story.

When the London Olympics were on I was fortunate enough to get tickets to a number of events for my daughter and me.

One of the events we went to see was the hockey (not that either one of us had any real interest in that sport but we had a more realistic chance of getting tickets for that rather than say the athletics and the cycling which we tried for but never got near to obtaining any). I specifically got tickets to see a random women's game because I thought my daughter would prefer to be with a crowd full of women supporting the sisterhood.

To be honest we both found it boring and only went because of the occasion of the Olympics coming to town, than anything else.

Some years later my daughter told me in passing that she would have loved to have gone to one of the men's hockey game because there would have been a load of 'fit' men to look at if nothing else!

So much for supporting the sisterhood if that's the only reason to go and watch them!

When does it finish? Not that I’ve watched any of it or intend to.