I had nothing better to do this afternoon, so I thought I'd watch the England women's World Cup Quarter Final match against the USA, which they proceeded to lose 3-0. I might as well have watched paint dry for the entertainment value the game provided. That, of course, is the same when you watch some matches where men are playing. But it was sooooooooo slow. It seemed as if it was being played in slow motion. I can't think women's football will ever attract a mass audience, whether live or on TV, on this showing.
[Cue allegations of sexism, misogny, chauvenism etc. Whatever.]
Why would you watch Womens Football for the Football?
ReplyDeleteSpot The Difference between your new banner Iain and adam boulton's sky's blog.
ReplyDeleteimitation is the sincerest form of being miffed at your success.
I don't like watching women in sport at all. It's always going to be a pale imitation of what men are capable of; or it's going to be abnormally muscular women batting balls across a net for hours on end, producing the same jaw-cracking tedium that men's tennis produces.
ReplyDeleteIn fact, I don't know of any woman who would be motivated to watch women play football or basketball or anything else. Far better to tune in and watch male soccer players' legs or male basketball players running - they look great! But then, muscularity and strength in men is attractive. In women, it's grotesque.
Women's football is shite. End of.
ReplyDeleteTo be fair USA are one of the best teams in the world from what I've heard, and womens football in England is becoming more popular. I can't stand watching it myself but it's not like the BBC has got anything else to show!!
ReplyDeleteOK. If it wasn't a Saturday and you didn't have access to Sky Sports or were possibly "turned on" by 22 women footballers etc then you just MIGHT watch it but there are several Premier matches(incl Arsenal) being screened live at the same time for God's sake, Iain!
ReplyDeleteThe US women's soccer team will always be a contender because of Title IX. The US men's soccer team will always be a pathetic mess because of Title IX.
ReplyDeleteI wanted it to be good. I hoped it would encourage more girls to get into sport. But it was awful - the worse football I have every watched on tv by miles. And the BBC have done no one any favours by bigging it up so much as expectations have been raised but the product has underperformed badly. The co-commentator, who was clearly a friend of the players, was also desperately annoying and so biased that I ended up rooting for the damn Americans.
ReplyDeleteOoooh you're not allowed to say that!
ReplyDeleteI was going to accuse you of mysoginy Iain but then Verity did a good job of reminding me what real mysoginy is, so I won't bother.
ReplyDeleteAnd yes, the match was shite.
Toney Baloney - Why should "more girls get into sport"? Why is sport a religious duty? Excercise, like walking or cycling or dancing, fine. But most women are not physically competitive and why should we be forced to mimic men? Women playing team sports is just blood curdling to watch.
ReplyDeleteAt my school they played hockey. For the first few months, I found a cupboard and hid in it and read and no one missed me. Then the sports mistress (a sneak had mentioned the cupboard) found me one day and I was hauled out.
Well, it wasn't long - as in maybe the first half (or whatever they call it) of one game before the capitain realised I should be out there, a long way away, guarding the boundaries. I don't know what the position was called - exile, maybe - but I spent the rest of the term in sports hour finding shapes in the clouds and daydreaming. Then, one day, I heard them all shouting my name and to my horror the puck was shooting towards me and several girls brandishing hockey sticks were thundering across the turf. I did the only noble thing. I turned and ran.
That was the end of my career as an athlete.
I have to say I didn't find it worthy of attention.
ReplyDeleteThere was an interview on TV last night with one of the players suggesting that womone's football was 'not physical but more technical'. I just found it slow. Dull. Much like watching the men's 2nd Division.
(I speak as a female who played football at school before it was trendy, nay acceptable, for girls to play at all).
Why would you watch women's football?
ReplyDeleteTwo words... Rachel Unitt
Whichever way you look at women, they look better, smell better and are infinitely better company than men.
ReplyDeleteCath Dibble - If you are going to accuse women you don't know of misogyny, it would be more effective if you learned how to spell your insult.
ReplyDeleteIt was not the fact it was Womens' Football that made it boring but the fact it was Football.
ReplyDeleteYou should have been watching the Rugby! :-)
Oh Iain!!! How could you write such small minded nonsense?? I have seen many male football games which have been dull enough to make me want to clean the oven. Women's football should not be about women replicating the men's game - and thank goodness it doesn't, otherwise you'd have people diving around as if they'd just been shot or moaning because someone dares to breath on their shirt! So the women's game might not be as fast as the men's but it is usually technically perfect and better behaved. As a coach of an under 10 girls team I am delighted that the sport is becoming more popular in the playground. And if you come and watch my girls take on Northfleet tomorrow, you'll see some pretty determined little terriers playing their hearts out. What tomorrow's England stars need is encouragement, not nonsensical comments like this!
ReplyDeleteBut much livelier than even the edited highlights of the Lib Dem conference?
ReplyDeleteVerity - fair point about the spelling but I don't see why I shouldn't accuse someone of misogyny based on comments on a blog, rather than on knowing the person as a whole - on that basis we may as well not respond to anyone we don't know - and I was referring to the points you made rather than you as a "whole person" anyway. Besides, I fully accept that you would be entitled to assume that I can't spell for toffee, much as I may argue it was a one-off aberration (have I got that one right?)
ReplyDeleteCath
Cath Dibble - Iain had predicted, at the end of his post, qv, that people would race in with cries of "misogyny".
ReplyDeleteI cannot trace the connection between thinking all sport (except cricket; normal cricket, meaning men's cricket) is excruciatingly boring, and thinking that women wannabees aping men is even more ridiculous, and claiming that the writer is anti-woman.
What if I'd claimed that men don't look as good in make-up as women do or walk as well in stilettos as women do (exception to both being made in the case of Ru-Paul), would that make me anti-man? I simply cannot follow your logic.
'But much livelier than even the edited highlights of the Lib Dem conference?'
ReplyDeleteThe advantage of that would be that it would be...oooo about 4 seconds long.
I feel your pain. But there’s a fairly simple solution, as long as we’re prepared to forego a live viewing. Basically just speed up the footage a touch, and then dub on a commentary. Bob’s your uncle, Fanny’s your aunt, etc.
ReplyDeleteI struggled through the film, "Bend it like Beckham" recently, which, although it was a very good movie, it was about ladies football (and lots of funny and interesting other things). Ultimately therefore, it was a letdown for me emotionally as I have a space in my psyche where the football-equals-release-of-endorphins gizmo should be. To me, all football and related kicking sports are a mystery and always will be.
ReplyDeleteI watched some excerpts from a 1970's First Division match latst week and was amazed how slooooooow it was in comparison with the Premiership. Maybe the women are just 30 years behind? Then again I don't think many female footballers would survive a Norman Hunter tackle.
ReplyDeleteGood to see Iain's judged English women's football on the basis of one match....
ReplyDeleteIf you'd bother to inform yourself / have an open mind, you'd know that Arsenal ladies rock.
You should have tried South Africa v Tonga instead, which was a hell of a game.
ReplyDeleteIt's not women's football. All football is dull. Rugby... now there's a game
ReplyDeleteThen d00d, you need to watch women's hockey. They're much more agile on the skates than most professional male players are, so it makes for a faster, trickier game. Fewer body slams, more action. I hear that women's basketball is a faster game than the men's for the same reason, but since I hate basketball, I never watch.
ReplyDeleteFrequent lurker occasional commenter here: are we to believe the cantankerous person known on this blog as "Verity" is....a....LADY!!???
ReplyDeleteGood God. I'm frankly astonished. I had assumed she was a he. I'm aware of course that the word can be a female's Christian name, but it's not a very common one, and I thought it was just a blog moniker referring to the dictionary meaning. I guess this is rather misogynist of me (the assumption that excessive argumentativeness and aggression is to be found only amongst men).
I've often tried with the best intentions to watch womens football(cup finals on may bank holiday mainly) but the games are wither slow or one sided, and key aspects are notbaly inferior.
ReplyDeleteIn particular, the goalkeeping is woeful, there is rarely any true pace of player or play and games are too often too one sided.
On the first day I was off work, and watched the Germany-Argentina game, and it was among the worst half hours I've seen since I played myself! Any shot by the Germans and the Argentine 'keeper flapped embarrassingly as it flew past her and the German Prinz was talked about like a superstar, but would not get in a Scottish first division team, sadly I've got to agree with Iain.
Hands up all those who only watched it in the hope that they'd swap shirts at the end of the match..!
ReplyDeleteVerity, "But then, muscularity and strength in men is attractive. In women, it's grotesque".
ReplyDeleteNot if you are a lesbian, it can be quite nice (so I'm told).
The majority of comments here just demonstrate how you Tories miss the point.
Has anyone here actually watched a video of England winning the world cup in 1966? It was the slowest, most tedious match to watch - but at the time it was electric - these were the best players for their country and although it was slow - the excitement and skill levels were high.
Women's football is in development and has been held back by prejudice (it was banned by the FA until 1971! They said it was 'unbecoming' for women to play football. It might also have had something to do with the fact that in the inter-war and wartime period, women's football could attract over 50,000 attendences in England and Scotland).
Besides that, over a billion people will see this World Cup on TV. There have been attendences over 60,000. It is the biggest womens team sport!. Not only is Ian Dale wrong to say it will not catch on, it ALREADY is catching on. This post seems just to be an opportunity to have a cheap shot (as usual).
Yes, any men's non-league team would out-muscle and out-pace whe world's best women - but that does not mean there is not some spectacular games, skills, and entertaining play to watch. For a start there are around 3.5 goals per game in this world cup compared to around 2.5 in the men's game. There is none of the endless rolling about on the floor play acting we see in the men's game. There is an innocence to the game just like there was in the early men's world cup. The standards may currently be much lower (not surprising since most of the players are amateur) but that does not mean the entertainment is not higher. Ian saw a fairly poor game - you should have watched many more games if you really do want to appreciate what is on offer. But maybe like Tory ideas in general, that is not the way you like to work.