Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
CANARYKING

Women’s World Cup

Recommended Posts

2 hours ago, SwearyCanary said:

I agree that it’s different to men’s football. Saying it’s **** is relative to the comparison. Compared to men’s football up to a level it is far lower standard, but for women’s football this tournament is the pinnacle. Women sprinters are not as fast as the men, so they don’t race with them but women sprinting is just as good when you see it as the fastest women competing against the fastest women. I’d happily go and watch my local club playing non league football with a crowd of 25 and be entertained, because I’m watching players of roughly equal standard going for it. The atmosphere and standard of women’s elite football pi**es all over that. If you only watch the elite level of any sport you can compare any other level as being **** but that’s why it’s not all just rolled into one. But if you’re a sports fan then you look at each contest in relative terms and find the competition and all the great spectating that brings. To rule it out just because they’re female is sexist and archaic tripe peddled by morons and thankfully the least influential in society, which is why it’s being shown, hyped and enjoyed by literally millions while the sad minority harp on about the good ole days when their wives did the ironing, cooking and kept out of man business. 

I have absolutely no problem with women's football but as I have said here before I do believe it's being hyped too much. I am really talking about the WFL. The Euros I would hope we all want England to do well but the product of the WFL is not ready for the kind of plugging it's getting in my view. It has to be allowed to grow organically. Even with all the coverage it's getting the attendance figures are let's be fair embarrassing. We said all the way through project restart that football was nothing without the fans and for me that is the main problem. When Bradford in league 2 are getting 7 times the gate with people paying 3 times the price for a ticket than the average WFL game but get no where near the same coverage. The WFL needs time to grow but all the press are pushing so hard it can't gain the fan base at the same rate as the coverage and that makes it look poor to my eyes. No real atmosphere. So many empty seats.  Spurs Vs Villa had 508 people paying £10 adult and £2 concessions. At the moment it's not a competition that warrants the level of coverage. Give it time and who knows. For me it's just not ready. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I like the idea that the cricket 100 series came up with. A women's match followed by a men's match. It was one ticket and the number of people at the start of the women's match dwarfed anything the women's game had ever attracted before. People were then at the ground for 2 more hours so the food and drink revenue went up as a result,  plus people got to see women's cricket, some for the first time. If we had a women's game kick off a 12.30 followed by the men's at 3 I'm sure a lot of people would make a day of it. Then it could get a following and then be able to attract decent numbers of its own accord. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, SwearyCanary said:

I agree that it’s different to men’s football. Saying it’s **** is relative to the comparison. Compared to men’s football up to a level it is far lower standard, but for women’s football this tournament is the pinnacle. Women sprinters are not as fast as the men, so they don’t race with them but women sprinting is just as good when you see it as the fastest women competing against the fastest women. I’d happily go and watch my local club playing non league football with a crowd of 25 and be entertained, because I’m watching players of roughly equal standard going for it. The atmosphere and standard of women’s elite football pi**es all over that. If you only watch the elite level of any sport you can compare any other level as being **** but that’s why it’s not all just rolled into one. But if you’re a sports fan then you look at each contest in relative terms and find the competition and all the great spectating that brings. To rule it out just because they’re female is sexist and archaic tripe peddled by morons and thankfully the least influential in society, which is why it’s being shown, hyped and enjoyed by literally millions while the sad minority harp on about the good ole days when their wives did the ironing, cooking and kept out of man business. 

Fully agree with this, the sport is massively growing and fortunately the ladies ignore a lot of the sexism and just crack on with it 

I’ve raised an eye brow on a few of the comments on here, ‘ref was fit’ (she also got very little wrong, bar a corner call) ‘under 14 standard’ (maybe 10-15 years ago when the game was in its infancy, not now) ‘the football is s**t’ (compared to what? Mens football from professional academies? It’s going to be, the ladies game went professional less than 5 years ago, is mens and ladies tennis of the same standard)

It’s an absolute delight to see some of the reaction on here and on social knowing that it doesn’t even bother the ladies playing the game, in fact it’s motivation, so keep…it…coming…

Edited by Yobocop
  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, SwearyCanary said:

Very offensive this. Glad you’re a retired police officer with values like this. My sister is a police officer and no doubt you worked with several outstanding female officers in your service? I’d think this would make them feel a little belittled. 

The good thing is , no one cares what these old buffers think, they're the past, because they won't embrace the future. He of course will pretend that he's just Angling. Or employ the get out clause emoji. Soooooo predictable.

Aye things were so much better in the old days.

 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Yobocop said:

Fully agree with this, the sport is massively growing and fortunately the ladies ignore a lot of the sexism and just crack on with it 

I’ve raised an eye brow on a few of the comments on here, ‘ref was fit’ (she also got very little wrong, bar a corner call) ‘under 14 standard’ (maybe 10-15 years ago when the game was in its infancy, not now) ‘the football is s**t’ (compared to what? Mens football from professional academies? It’s going to be, the ladies game went professional less than 5 years ago, is mens and ladies tennis of the same standard)

It’s an absolute delight to see some of the reaction on here and on social knowing that it doesn’t even bother the ladies playing the game, in fact it’s motivation, so keep…it…coming…

When you say Women's football is massively growing how are you judging this? The TV and press coverage is massively growing. The participation is growing but what is probably the biggest factor for the sustainability of Women's football as a professional game is not. Attendances last year were poor. In some metrics they had even gone down and that is with all the publicity it's had. It also has the major advantage of being linked to the men's teams, I would watch snail racing if one was a Norwich snail and the other was from Suffolk.  It is for all intents and purposes failing to get the bums on seats and is a minority sport getting the coverage of a major sport. The British basketball league gets a higher average attendance than the WFL but do the BBC do a British basketball league program? This euros might give the WFL the kick it needs but I really do think all the coverage has come too soon. Walk before you can run and all that. Get the product right, attract the crowds, gain a following and then it should get the press it deserves. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

70k fans is a great result - and especially seeing so many parents taking children, girls, who maybe wouldn't be interested in the mens game but enjoying the match.

Because it's the same sport and (stupidly) with the same size pitches and goals it's impossible not to compare to mens standard and of course, the standard is atrociously poor - but it's certainly improving.

The great thing is it's optional - no one has to watch it.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, hogesar said:

it's impossible not to compare to mens standard and of course, the standard is atrociously poor

It's not and it isn't, but hey ho, like you say, no one is forcing you to watch it or telling me I can't.

Though one thing that would intrigue me among those who have opinions like yours, is Kristian Laight (Mr Reliable, 300 fights, 279 losses, mostly at Super Middleweight) a better boxer than Hiroto Kyoguchi (unbeaten and largely considered the best active flyweight on the planet)? After all, they fight in the same ring and Laight, even now in his 40s would beat Kyoguchi if they ever fought.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Canaries north said:

When you say Women's football is massively growing how are you judging this? The TV and press coverage is massively growing. The participation is growing but what is probably the biggest factor for the sustainability of Women's football as a professional game is not. Attendances last year were poor. In some metrics they had even gone down and that is with all the publicity it's had. It also has the major advantage of being linked to the men's teams, I would watch snail racing if one was a Norwich snail and the other was from Suffolk.  It is for all intents and purposes failing to get the bums on seats and is a minority sport getting the coverage of a major sport. The British basketball league gets a higher average attendance than the WFL but do the BBC do a British basketball league program? This euros might give the WFL the kick it needs but I really do think all the coverage has come too soon. Walk before you can run and all that. Get the product right, attract the crowds, gain a following and then it should get the press it deserves. 

The coverage will help it attract the crowds and gain a following. 14,000 turned up at Carrow Road for a meaningless friendly tournament gain against Spain. Nearly 70,000 has just turned up at Old Trafford. I get this is international football and the axe you're grinding seems to be about club football, but it shows there are those willing to watch it. I would watch a WSL team if I could walk to the ground or get there within 30 minutes on public transport (I probably only continue to watch Norwich because I can walk to Carrow Road, I'd have probably knocked it on the head long ago if I had to go through the faff of driving, parking and not drinking). There are probably thousands and thousands like me who would watch top level women's club football if the opportunity was there. Hopefully, because of the coverage it's getting and even more hopefully on the back of a successful Euros, that opportunity will come sooner rather than later.

A football is not a minority sport in this country, whatever the sex of the people playing it. It's the second most popular sport for women and girls by participation, behind Netball and ahead of Basketball.

And you can watch the BBL on Sky, if you're interested.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, canarydan23 said:

It's not and it isn't, but hey ho, like you say, no one is forcing you to watch it or telling me I can't.

Though one thing that would intrigue me among those who have opinions like yours, is Kristian Laight (Mr Reliable, 300 fights, 279 losses, mostly at Super Middleweight) a better boxer than Hiroto Kyoguchi (unbeaten and largely considered the best active flyweight on the planet)? After all, they fight in the same ring and Laight, even now in his 40s would beat Kyoguchi if they ever fought.

Sorry, can't really relate, never been interested in that level of boxing and can't pretend to have any sort of experience watching beyond the 'big' fights.

When I say it's impossible not to compare it's because they're playing on the same pitch, same sized goals in the same stadiums men have watched mens football in for however many years - it's always going to lend itself to comparisons, whether that's right or wrong.

For me personally, the standard isn't good enough to be entertaining. To be fair, that's primarily due to goalkeeping / defence which becomes a bit of a comedy sketch - I think the midfield and attacking players have improved considerably over the past few years. If you enjoy it then that's great; the 70k fans suggest plenty others do as well.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, hogesar said:

Sorry, can't really relate, never been interested in that level of boxing and can't pretend to have any sort of experience watching beyond the 'big' fights.

When I say it's impossible not to compare it's because they're playing on the same pitch, same sized goals in the same stadiums men have watched mens football in for however many years - it's always going to lend itself to comparisons, whether that's right or wrong.

For me personally, the standard isn't good enough to be entertaining. To be fair, that's primarily due to goalkeeping / defence which becomes a bit of a comedy sketch - I think the midfield and attacking players have improved considerably over the past few years. If you enjoy it then that's great; the 70k fans suggest plenty others do as well.

Again, I don't get where this defence/goalkeeping comedy sketch comes from. Admittedly I watch very little club football, thought started to watch a bit at the tail end of this season, but the last few games I've seen it's been anything but that. I obviously went to the England Spain game and watched two defensively adept teams play out an entertaining 0-0, with a couple of great saves. The game before that was a pretty solid 1-1 with the England goal in particular being an amazing goal and nothing to do with weak defence. The opening game on Wednesday featured two defensively solid teams with both keepers saving everything that came at them bar the single goal which no one was saving. To be honest, having watched Norwich all season I was surprised at the upgrade on the defending I'd been accustomed to!

For sure, there are huge disparities in teams so you get ridiculous spectacles like the 20-0 v Latvia, which did feature comic defending and goalkeeping, but you get that in the men's game when Germany play Gibraltar, it's just the volume of teams make the incidents much less frequent.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, hogesar said:

70k fans is a great result - and especially seeing so many parents taking children, girls, who maybe wouldn't be interested in the mens game but enjoying the match.

Because it's the same sport and (stupidly) with the same size pitches and goals it's impossible not to compare to mens standard and of course, the standard is atrociously poor - but it's certainly improving.

The great thing is it's optional - no one has to watch it.

I agree 70 thousand is great. As you say it's optional to watch the games. For me now it's impossible to avoid WFL news. I know it's because the BBC , SKY and Talk Sport are all plugging it as they have coverage but when I hear a news flash that man city are signing a 5 time champions League winner to find out it's WFL and I've never heard of her does wind me up. As said before the WFL does not get the attendance to match with the coverage. Norwich signing Hayden was hardly reported by the mainstream media or sporting press outside of Norwich despite us getting gates of 26 thousand. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Canaries north said:

When you say Women's football is massively growing how are you judging this? The TV and press coverage is massively growing. The participation is growing but what is probably the biggest factor for the sustainability of Women's football as a professional game is not. Attendances last year were poor. In some metrics they had even gone down and that is with all the publicity it's had. It also has the major advantage of being linked to the men's teams, I would watch snail racing if one was a Norwich snail and the other was from Suffolk.  It is for all intents and purposes failing to get the bums on seats and is a minority sport getting the coverage of a major sport. The British basketball league gets a higher average attendance than the WFL but do the BBC do a British basketball league program? This euros might give the WFL the kick it needs but I really do think all the coverage has come too soon. Walk before you can run and all that. Get the product right, attract the crowds, gain a following and then it should get the press it deserves. 

This whole "low and falling" attendance malarkey justifying inherent sexism is tiresome. The men's game has waxed and waned as far as attendances are concerned (remember the 80's some of you duffers). 

If I can contrast the women's game to both rugby codes.  Until Union went fully professional some of the crowds attending matches in the top league took a few years to build where they are now from those currently enjoyed by the WSL (which is still only Chumps / League 1 level). In League, they are still struggling to get WSL sized crowds at some teams on a regular basis.  Myself I love Union, but struggle massively connecting with League which I feel is too rigid in the rules governing it.

The WSL will find a sizeable audience, with or without those critics on here.  It is not the same as the EPL, nor will it ever be, but that doesn't make it unenjoyable if you have an open mind. Now we just need Norwich's women's team to make some progress to show the rest of the country what support is.   

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, canarydan23 said:

The coverage will help it attract the crowds and gain a following. 14,000 turned up at Carrow Road for a meaningless friendly tournament gain against Spain. Nearly 70,000 has just turned up at Old Trafford. I get this is international football and the axe you're grinding seems to be about club football, but it shows there are those willing to watch it. I would watch a WSL team if I could walk to the ground or get there within 30 minutes on public transport (I probably only continue to watch Norwich because I can walk to Carrow Road, I'd have probably knocked it on the head long ago if I had to go through the faff of driving, parking and not drinking). There are probably thousands and thousands like me who would watch top level women's club football if the opportunity was there. Hopefully, because of the coverage it's getting and even more hopefully on the back of a successful Euros, that opportunity will come sooner rather than later.

A football is not a minority sport in this country, whatever the sex of the people playing it. It's the second most popular sport for women and girls by participation, behind Netball and ahead of Basketball.

And you can watch the BBL on Sky, if you're interested.

The facts are people are not going to watch the WFL. This is despite the coverage. Its not working. In fact in some cases the attendance has dropped. It is not growing in response to the coverage and that's a shame. I am not anti women's football and the fact the international games get good attendance is great. All I am saying is something is not working for the WFL. Surely the ideal situation is for the women's league to grow and prosper and support its self financially. It needs to grow a fanbase to stand on its own two feet. This is not happening and people should look at why. The fact you say the coverage will help it attract a crowd and gain a following is being proved completely false by the figures. As mentioned Cricket took, in my mind a great approach. The Women's game was watched by more people than ever before. People turned up early and made a day of it. The club made more money out of drinks and food as people were at the ground for 4 to 5 hours. It's a win win situation. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, shefcanary said:

This whole "low and falling" attendance malarkey justifying inherent sexism is tiresome. The men's game has waxed and waned as far as attendances are concerned (remember the 80's some of you duffers). 

If I can contrast the women's game to both rugby codes.  Until Union went fully professional some of the crowds attending matches in the top league took a few years to build where they are now from those currently enjoyed by the WSL (which is still only Chumps / League 1 level). In League, they are still struggling to get WSL sized crowds at some teams on a regular basis.  Myself I love Union, but struggle massively connecting with League which I feel is too rigid in the rules governing it.

The WSL will find a sizeable audience, with or without those critics on here.  It is not the same as the EPL, nor will it ever be, but that doesn't make it unenjoyable if you have an open mind. Now we just need Norwich's women's team to make some progress to show the rest of the country what support is.   

If you say stating facts that the attendance is low or falling is justifying inherent sexism I do worry. Facts are facts. They are black and white. What people need to do is find a way to change them and the extra press and coverage is not doing that. If you think that is sexist then I'm sorry. I stated facts and gave an example of how another sport has tried successfully to change this. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, canarydan23 said:

Who's lying to themselves?

Nearly 70,000 in Old Trafford last night forking out cash in a cost of living crisis to watch England women.

Or alex_ncfc from the pinkun forums eating his third packet of family size Chilli Doritos in his pants breathing heavy from a walk to the fridge?

Fiver a ticket though, Alex's 3 bags of Chilli Doritos cost more...... 😏

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
37 minutes ago, Canaries north said:

The facts are people are not going to watch the WFL. This is despite the coverage. Its not working. In fact in some cases the attendance has dropped. It is not growing in response to the coverage and that's a shame. I am not anti women's football and the fact the international games get good attendance is great. All I am saying is something is not working for the WFL. Surely the ideal situation is for the women's league to grow and prosper and support its self financially. It needs to grow a fanbase to stand on its own two feet. This is not happening and people should look at why. The fact you say the coverage will help it attract a crowd and gain a following is being proved completely false by the figures. As mentioned Cricket took, in my mind a great approach. The Women's game was watched by more people than ever before. People turned up early and made a day of it. The club made more money out of drinks and food as people were at the ground for 4 to 5 hours. It's a win win situation. 

Completely agree with the putting a women's game on before a men's one. I'd be more than happy to rock up at 1pm at Carrow Road, watch a Norwich women's team followed by a Norwich men's team. Atmosphere might increase for the latter game as well as a lot of the people there would be 4 or 5 drinks in before the men's team even kick off. And pissed people make more noise!

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, shefcanary said:

In League, they are still struggling to get WSL sized crowds at some teams on a regular basis.

Not in Super League. Only London Broncos. Half of the teams get five-figure average attendances.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, canarydan23 said:

Completely agree with the putting a women's game on before a men's one. I'd be more than happy to rock up at 1pm at Carrow Road, watch a Norwich women's team followed by a Norwich men's team. Atmosphere might increase for the latter game as well as a lot of the people there would be 4 or 5 drinks in before the men's team even kick off. And pissed people make more noise!

I would argue herein lies the real divisive issue- by having to resort to a 'gimmick' like this, it implies by its existence a difference in quality/ acceptance/ attractiveness to watch that neither 'side' in this wants to admit to.

And as with most other grand-scale male/female divide equalisers, a big part of the issue is that there's a clamour to skip steps in the process because 'this is how it works for the mens'. Like it or not, there is a process of growth for these things (as mentioned by another poster earlier) and rather than letting it proceed naturally, there's a demand to skip parts of the evolution that make it feel forced and build resistance. This then sets the whole ideal back a step. That's psychology for you.

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, canarydan23 said:

Not in Super League. Only London Broncos. Half of the teams get five-figure average attendances.

From a very quick internet search, the last round of super league matches had an average of 6,500 ish so if you are right that's half who have attendances c.2k or less to make the math work.  On that basis, my statement still stands, although agreed still a lot of work to be done!  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
59 minutes ago, shefcanary said:

From a very quick internet search, the last round of super league matches had an average of 6,500 ish so if you are right that's half who have attendances c.2k or less to make the math work.  On that basis, my statement still stands, although agreed still a lot of work to be done!  

The average attendance this season was around 8,500. Only Broncos had an average attendance similar to the average WSL game. Super League is closer to the average Union Premiership average attendance than it is WSL.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm going to both of Icelands games in Manchester. I  haven't seen much women's football so I don't have anything to judge it by. I won't be trying to make comparisons with the mens game as that is pointless.

Should be a good atmosphere, and hopefully we might get a goal, or even a point 🙂

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, hogesar said:

Sorry, can't really relate, never been interested in that level of boxing and can't pretend to have any sort of experience watching beyond the 'big' fights.

In fairness, I used the wrong fighter, I meant Reggie Strickland, not Kristian Laight, the latter was a lightweight and would probably still lose to Kyoguchi despite the weight and reach advantage.

However, Reggie Strickland lost 276 of his 363 fights.

Hiroto Kyoguchi has never lost a fight and has been a two-weight world champion at mini and light flyweight for four years.

However, Strickland at his best (possibly even Strickland today in his 50s) would beat Kyoguchi in a fight. Does that make him a better boxer? Does that make flyweight boxing pointless to watch? Does it ****.

But it's essentially the same logic we see when people use that USA college team beating the USA women's team or whatever it was as a reason why women's football is so ****. Crap heavyweights beat amazing lightweights. It doesn't make the lightweights crap, it doesn't mean the lightweights don't have any quality.

And so it is for the women.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Mason 47 said:

I would argue herein lies the real divisive issue- by having to resort to a 'gimmick' like this, it implies by its existence a difference in quality/ acceptance/ attractiveness to watch that neither 'side' in this wants to admit to.

And as with most other grand-scale male/female divide equalisers, a big part of the issue is that there's a clamour to skip steps in the process because 'this is how it works for the mens'. Like it or not, there is a process of growth for these things (as mentioned by another poster earlier) and rather than letting it proceed naturally, there's a demand to skip parts of the evolution that make it feel forced and build resistance. This then sets the whole ideal back a step. That's psychology for you.

 

I'm not sure I would call it a gimmick personally. I think it would be something that would benefit all involved and that should not be taken as a gimmick more a pulling together of the men's and women's teams at all clubs. Pitches now are good enough to take it so why not. I just see giving it all the media coverage is not helping when the product isn't ready. As you say it does feel forced for some people and I admit I'm  one of them. If by playing 2 games on a Saturday the women's team gains that following and we have thousands turning up at 1 then it could if wanted move on as a stand alone product and if it's good enough it will. At this moment in time I don't think it has that pull and I hope that's not taken as sexist just me looking at the numbers. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, canarydan23 said:

In fairness, I used the wrong fighter, I meant Reggie Strickland, not Kristian Laight, the latter was a lightweight and would probably still lose to Kyoguchi despite the weight and reach advantage.

However, Reggie Strickland lost 276 of his 363 fights.

Hiroto Kyoguchi has never lost a fight and has been a two-weight world champion at mini and light flyweight for four years.

However, Strickland at his best (possibly even Strickland today in his 50s) would beat Kyoguchi in a fight. Does that make him a better boxer? Does that make flyweight boxing pointless to watch? Does it ****.

But it's essentially the same logic we see when people use that USA college team beating the USA women's team or whatever it was as a reason why women's football is so ****. Crap heavyweights beat amazing lightweights. It doesn't make the lightweights crap, it doesn't mean the lightweights don't have any quality.

And so it is for the women.

I actually agree with what your saying completely. My point is not comparing men's Vs women's football but the media coverage compared to the attendance. As was mentioned before there are many other sports that get no where near the coverage but have more followers. Let the women's game grow organically rather than pushing it so hard. If we used the cricket idea even a couple of times a season it would be up to people if the want to come in early to watch. If they like it then great, use it as an introduction to women's football. All the press coverage does feel forced to me. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, canarydan23 said:

Completely agree with the putting a women's game on before a men's one. I'd be more than happy to rock up at 1pm at Carrow Road, watch a Norwich women's team followed by a Norwich men's team. Atmosphere might increase for the latter game as well as a lot of the people there would be 4 or 5 drinks in before the men's team even kick off. And pissed people make more noise!

The woman playing the game wouldn’t want this - can tell you that free of charge 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, Canaries north said:

When you say Women's football is massively growing how are you judging this? The TV and press coverage is massively growing. The participation is growing but what is probably the biggest factor for the sustainability of Women's football as a professional game is not. Attendances last year were poor. In some metrics they had even gone down and that is with all the publicity it's had. It also has the major advantage of being linked to the men's teams, I would watch snail racing if one was a Norwich snail and the other was from Suffolk.  It is for all intents and purposes failing to get the bums on seats and is a minority sport getting the coverage of a major sport. The British basketball league gets a higher average attendance than the WFL but do the BBC do a British basketball league program? This euros might give the WFL the kick it needs but I really do think all the coverage has come too soon. Walk before you can run and all that. Get the product right, attract the crowds, gain a following and then it should get the press it deserves. 

Because I have been involved in the game for 15 years and can see the difference between now and 15 years ago 

i won’t explain to you why the basketball leagues aren’t being shown more regularly as I’m sure you can work it out for yourself if you think hard enough 

good luck with the snail racing 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Yobocop said:

The woman playing the game wouldn’t want this - can tell you that free of charge 

Reckon quite a few would be open to this if it meant they got to regularly play at their club's actual home ground rather than a lower league pitch or training ground.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Legend Iwan said:

Reckon quite a few would be open to this if it meant they got to regularly play at their club's actual home ground rather than a lower league pitch or training ground.

The problem lies in the implied 'lack'. If you're having to attach a women's match onto a mens game in order to try and get people through the door, just by existing it turns the women's game into an undercard. 'You're only here for the City' springs to mind.

It would essentially be a direct manipulation to try and force the development of the women's game, hoping the association with better-attended mens matches gives watchers second-hand enthusiasm. When you try to force agreement in people they will disagree even more stubbornly.

This would be more damaging to the women's game than helpful; the only solution is natural growth and accepting these things take time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
46 minutes ago, Yobocop said:

I won’t explain to you why the basketball leagues aren’t being shown more regularly as I’m sure you can work it out for yourself if you think hard enough 

Racism?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
40 minutes ago, Mason 47 said:

The problem lies in the implied 'lack'. If you're having to attach a women's match onto a mens game in order to try and get people through the door, just by existing it turns the women's game into an undercard. 'You're only here for the City' springs to mind.

Yeah, I wasn’t passing comment on whether it was right or wrong in that post, but that some would be open to playing before the men as it meant they had the chance to play at the club’s home ground instead of numerous out grounds.

40 minutes ago, Mason 47 said:

It would essentially be a direct manipulation to try and force the development of the women's game, hoping the association with better-attended mens matches gives watchers second-hand enthusiasm. When you try to force agreement in people they will disagree even more stubbornly.

I’d also contend this doesn't have to be the case. You only have to look at The Hundred to see that double headers can be beneficial short term in raising awareness and increasing initial attendances. Converting them to standalone fans is obviously much more difficult.

41 minutes ago, Mason 47 said:

This would be more damaging to the women's game than helpful; the only solution is natural growth and accepting these things take time.

And this is fine, until you realise that for men’s football to reach where it is today, they’ve enjoyed professionalism in the game since the 1880s, while that only happened to women in this country five years ago. It also forgets that women were banned from playing football for the best part of fifty years, which obviously decimated every level of the game, in particular grassroots. So while waiting for it to naturally grow might seem to be “the only solution”, why should we let progress potentially take over 100 years like the men’s, when it can be helped along the way?

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...