Fran Kirby

[KC Royal]

I used to detest and despise Oliver Holt, however, first there was his apology to Stephen Hunt and now this:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/article-3122972/Why-trying-belittle-women-s-game.html

I'm not a fan of Holt's either, but that's a surprisingly good piece. Good to see his references to lower league/non league football and women's tennis, they both came to my mind too when reading through this thread the other day.

[RoyalBlue]

Women keepers are as tall as their male counterparts of 50 years ago.

If any change is logical it is that men's goals be made bigger.

Unfortunately this is bollox.

The average size of a male has gone up by just over an inch and a half in the last 100 years

Couldn't really be arsed looking but

Current average height of a female in 2012 was 64.3

Current average height of a male in 1912 was 68.25

If you can find data of the average height of world class goalkeepers (male and female from relevant time periods) and it turns out i'm wrong

Then i'll shut my fat fcuking face

Good data, although you can't necessarily read that straight across and assume that it would be a completely reliable indicator of the average height of keepers over different time periods. I think the view of keepers' heights might have changed over time. In the case of men, I believe that there has been a definite change in emphasis and clubs now look for 'giants' first and foremost.

That is supported by a statement made by Dean Greygoose, ex pro keeper and now goalkeeping coach, at a coaching session I was present at. He told the youngsters/parents there that things have definitely changed and now the first thing clubs consider is how big you are/will be. Only if you are going to be really tall/big will they then start to look at how good a keeper you might be. Shame, height is only just one very small aspect (pardon the pun) of goalkeeping, spring can compensate for lack of height and big keepers aren't always the most mobile/able to get down quickly. Goal sizes were the same back in the days of the great Steve Death and he didn't seem particularly disadvantaged by his miniscule stature.

No it's not. It's a sweeping generalism rooted in ignorance and a lack of exposure to enough women's football at the higher levels. I can assure you that there are some very good female keepers out there. They are good enough that semi-pro male players will happily train with them and treat them as an equal. That is a statement of fact based on personal experience and knowledge.

And yes, Bardsley has been dodgy at times - for some reason she always seems to crumble when it comes to major tournaments.

That's exactly the kind of response I'm talking about.

For years people mocked Scottish keepers in the same way. It was a joke based on a little bit fact.

If you can't see that, in general, the standard of goalkeeping in the womens is behind that of the out field players then I'd suggest you're not looking at it objectively.

And how many women's/girls' football matches have you actually attended/watched over the past 5 years? Having watched one or two virtually every week during each season, plus training sessions at various clubs, I think I would be pretty safe in asserting that my view was the more objective one.

If the standard of GKs at lower/younger levels is lower than that of their outfield counterparts then I would suggest that applies equally to boys and girls, and for a very good reason. Very few clubs have a specialist coach for what is a very specialist position. That means that the GKs, more often than not, have to make do with coaching from well meaning managers who often don't know how to coach GKs and, worse still, on occasions coach them incorrectly. That is why there are many thriving specialist GK coaching schools that are packed with boys and girls (often with nearly as many girls as boys). That coaching makes a massive difference. I know from experience, having paid for my kids to attend, both of whom have gone on to play at pretty decent levels i.e. in front of paying spectators.

[Hoop Blah]

I've watched very little womens football because it just doesn't hold my interest. That doesn't change the fact that the responses like yours defending the womens game go a long way to creating the level of debate that caused Holt and others to say there are dinosaurs and misogynists out there blah blah blah....

I'd happily say your view may be more informed RB, but certainly not more objective!

[Froomes]

Having watched one or two virtually every week during each season, plus training sessions at various clubs, I think I would be pretty safe in asserting that my view was the more objective one.

@ someone who thinks watching a crap load of piss poor goalkeeping whilst also having a vested interest in it is capable of anything close to resembling objectivity.

Watching that much women's football just means you should know more than anyone how dire the standard of goalkeeping is!

The 'best' women goalkeepers are currently proving how crap they are on a daily basis in Canada.

[sandman]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-3127128/Pointing-flaws-Women-s-World-Cup-doesn-t-make-sexist-Men-s-football-allowed-lousy-genuine-equality-women-s-too.html

A very rare good article from Martin Samuel.

[Pepe the Horseman]

Actual lol at the female commentator claiming the Colombia keeper should have been sent off for something that wasn't even close to a foul.

[VOR]

I thought this thread was about Fran Kirby. Who played well again tonight BTW.

[Pepe the Horseman]

it is. And this happened in the game she was playing in you.

I only watched the second half and Kirby was completely anonymous.

[Nameless]

I used to detest and despise Oliver Holt, however, first there was his apology to Stephen Hunt and now this:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/article-3122972/Why-trying-belittle-women-s-game.html

I'm not a fan of Holt's either, but that's a surprisingly good piece. Good to see his references to lower league/non league football and women's tennis, they both came to my mind too when reading through this thread the other day.

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.

[floyd__streete]

Following England's excellent run chase in the cricket last night I switched over to watch the second half of England vs Colombia. The most refreshing thing about this match was the complete lack of simulation and/or disrespect of the officials. Heartening to see and I hope that is reflective of the women's game as a whole. The second half itself can only be described as being very poor, neither side were able to string three passes together and before Colombia's very well taken goal I think there was only one shot on goal. I watch a lot of football at non league level and I'd say that that 45 minutes compared with something I'd see in the Southern League Division 1 South & West at North Leigh. This is not meant as a disparaging comment, just a realistic one and I am well aware that 45 minutes is not enough time to judge an entire sport on (mind you, I can only ever stomach 5 minutes of that Superbowl rubbish every year ).

Btw, a few female friends, colleagues and even the missis - a keen football fan herself - have all mentioned without prompting how poor in quality ("unwatchable" it was rather harshly described to me by a colleague) they believe women's football to be on the evidence of having watched some of the WWC. I guess they are just misogynists themselves? Women's football maybe has rather a problem if it can't appeal to potential female viewers.

Additional: Frank substituted after 20 almost entirely anonymous second half minutes.

[Extended-Phenotype]

I guess in the same way as a person used to watching Premier League football would naturally measure a non-league game against their experience, people watching the women's game are approaching it from a familiarity with men's football and are naturally going to draw comparisons.

It's just what people are used to. It would be nice if people could have the decency to appreciate it for what it is and keep their criticisms respectable, though.

What do folk think are the main reasons for the differences? I'd argue a large part of it is little to do with genetics/biology.

[RoyalX]

The most refreshing thing about this match was the complete lack of simulation and/or disrespect of the officials. Heartening to see and I hope that is reflective of the women's game as a whole.

There is possibly less, but sadly not non-existent; I think this element of the women's game is overplayed.

What do folk think are the main reasons for the differences? I'd argue a large part of it is little to do with genetics/biology.

IMO there will always be a gap for this reason, the women's game will never have the speed or physicality of the men's game. At the moment I think the gap is larger than it could be presumably due to the vast difference in cash available and the knock-on effects on coaching, facilities, number of pros etc.

I think it is notable that aside from some of the more established teams (USA being the prime example) the squads are very young and often the younger players are playing ahead of the more experienced ladies, which would suggest they're heading in the right direction.

[ZacNaloen]

I guess in the same way as a person used to watching Premier League football would naturally measure a non-league game against their experience, people watching the women's game are approaching it from a familiarity with men's football and are naturally going to draw comparisons.

It's just what people are used to. It would be nice if people could have the decency to appreciate it for what it is and keep their criticisms respectable, though.

What do folk think are the main reasons for the differences? I'd argue a large part of it is little to do with genetics/biology.

Less Money, Less coaching, smaller pool of talent, lower quality of coaching on top of the less coaching, and in the UK in particular.. it's not really been taken seriously until the last 10 to 15 years.

[floyd__streete]

I'd have no problem whastoever with the 'you can't compare it like-for-like' argument were it not for the fact that the women's game appears to be demanding good coverage from the media when it seems to me that the quality and interest it drives is in fact rather minimal. For instance I logged onto the BBC website recently and one of their main sports stories was 'Man City coach sacked'.....turned out Man City ladies team had dispensed with the services of their coach . Agenda-driven nonsense as ever from the BBC, I don't see them reporting the latest news from minority sports such as Speedway and Crown Green Bowls on their main banner headlines

[Maguire]

I guess in the same way as a person used to watching Premier League football would naturally measure a non-league game against their experience, people watching the women's game are approaching it from a familiarity with men's football and are naturally going to draw comparisons.

It's just what people are used to. It would be nice if people could have the decency to appreciate it for what it is and keep their criticisms respectable, though.

What do folk think are the main reasons for the differences? I'd argue a large part of it is little to do with genetics/biology.

Less Money, Less coaching, smaller pool of talent, lower quality of coaching on top of the less coaching, and in the UK in particular.. it's not really been taken seriously until the last 10 to 15 years.

Fewer money, fewer coaching

[ZacNaloen]

Alright Stannis

[Maguire]

FWIW I think women's football has come a long, long way in the last couple of decades. Of course it won't ever be as fast or as physical as men's football but that's a daft expectation. Paula Radcliffe's marathon world record is about 12 minutes slower than the men's record, so what?

Now that there's more money in the women's game and players can train full-time plus the wider exposure should all mean that we continue to see step-wise improvement. And remember, mock all you want but the likes of Megan Rapinoe would absolute demolish your average Sunday League team

I do share the opinion that the goalkeeping is the one area which really hasn't kept pace with the outfield players, but then you can't make women six inches taller so they're always going to be vulnerable to high shots. Beyond that they are still quite flappy and uncertain under pressure a lot of the time so some work required on that front.

[Brosef Stalin]

FWIW I think women's football has come a long, long way in the last couple of decades. Of course it won't ever be as fast or as physical as men's football but that's a daft expectation. Paula Radcliffe's marathon world record is about 12 minutes slower than the men's record, so what?

Now that there's more money in the women's game and players can train full-time plus the wider exposure should all mean that we continue to see step-wise improvement. And remember, mock all you want but the likes of Megan Rapinoe would absolute demolish your average Sunday League team

I do share the opinion that the goalkeeping is the one area which really hasn't kept pace with the outfield players, but then you can't make women six inches taller so they're always going to be vulnerable to high shots. Beyond that they are still quite flappy and uncertain under pressure a lot of the time so some work required on that front.

Make the goalposts proportionately smaller

[Sutekh]

Make the goalposts proportionately smaller

They don't usually bother for 12 year olds let alone ladies.

[Extended-Phenotype]

FWIW I think women's football has come a long, long way in the last couple of decades. Of course it won't ever be as fast or as physical as men's football but that's a daft expectation. Paula Radcliffe's marathon world record is about 12 minutes slower than the men's record, so what?

Now that there's more money in the women's game and players can train full-time plus the wider exposure should all mean that we continue to see step-wise improvement. And remember, mock all you want but the likes of Megan Rapinoe would absolute demolish your average Sunday League team

I do share the opinion that the goalkeeping is the one area which really hasn't kept pace with the outfield players, but then you can't make women six inches taller so they're always going to be vulnerable to high shots. Beyond that they are still quite flappy and uncertain under pressure a lot of the time so some work required on that front.

Make the goalposts proportionately smaller

Or just accept that part of the women's game, a different game to the men's, includes being able to score a bit easier.