by Nameless »
18 Jun 2015 22:21
Royal Rother Nameless
To be honest I think that article is almost complete rubbish. It makes completely irrelevant comparisons and ignores the whole concept of 'elite' sport.
I do agree that the knee jerk reaction from many that women's football/sport generally is rubbish and inferior simply because it is women's sport is wrong and pretty stupid. And that comparing women's football to the men's game is rather pointless. Women's sport should not be considered a version of the men's game, it should be given respect as it's own sport and judged accordingly. Unfortunately with the football the whole presentation seems to invite us to judge it against the men's game, things like the England manager calling Kirby 'mini Messi' are daft. In fact what of Sampson says seems daft and it would be great if the mone's game found coaches who weren't men who weren't good enough to work in the men's game but had a connection and passion for developing a women's game with a style and identity of it's own. Like women's tennis is a distinctive game rather than just bad men's tennis, with a different approach.
But Holt seems to think any sport should be applauded just because participants are trying, rather than for the quality they produce. This is fine for kids, or social sportsmen but at the very elite level you should demand elite performances, top class skills, innovative tactics etc etc. Just huffing and puffing and having a context really isn't enough at the top. Look at the England one day cricket team. They have had contests for years and roundly been called rubbish. Now they have adopted an attacking approach and performed superbly people are praising them. Presumably Holt would think they have deserved praise prior to this because they were out there taking part. but sorry, at the top level that is not enough.
I've seen enough junior women's football to know there are some very good players out there. The game is still developing and aim would certainly say the coaching is a weakness as much as the playing. But what I have seen of the WC has not been a particularly good advert so far and it's as patronising to the women's game to ignore the generally low skill levels, the high number of errors, the fairly uninspiring tactics etc as it is unfair to ignore the good stuff.
you say it's almost complete rubbish then proceed to agree with almost the entirety of his article.
I don' think so.
He suggests you can't criticise sport, which is rubbish.
The women's WC hasn't been very good because the standard of play has been poor. That's not comparing it to the men's game, it's just not been of a very high standard. That it is a competition doesn't mean that is enough and it cannot be criticised, just as the men's WC can't be (and isn't) immune from criticism even though it is probably the highest level of the sport.
