Women’s World Cup

[TheGunnShow 6,023]

Speaking of crap football, here's a stonker...Hibernian are losing to an Andorran club side.

 

[canarydan23 4,060]

3 hours ago, keelansgrandad said:

But I believe the poor quality is the norm for some of these teams. Of course it can be entertaining but I don't call poor play or ball control entertaining.

And yet you follow Norwich. We all know that quality isn't the be all and end all, if we didn't know that, we wouldn't be Norwich fans. We'd spend our time watching Man City or Real Madrid. But it's about being invested in something, that's what makes it more entertaining. It's why I regularly here parents of the grassroots team I coach say how much more they enjoy watching kids football than professional football. And if Norwich played my U10s (soon to be U11s), they'd put up a cricket score. Yet no one would be so stupid as to compare the two because of the physical advantages the men enjoy.

And yet here we are when women's football is brought up.

I am significantly more invested in the Lionesses than England Men. And anyone who watches a Weigman team and then a Southgate team and turns around and says that the men were more entertaining doesn't really understand football. And the women are just much more likeable human beings, far more relatable than the likes of Maguire, Grealish and Mount. They would never do it, but if the England Men and the England Women played their matches at the same time, I would watch the England Women ten times out of time. That the Men would win 50-0 if they played the Women is absolutely irrelevant.

And it's bizarre to see the people who seem to enjoy needlessly lambasting women's football say things like, "They're rubbish compared to the men, but it's different in Tennis, I enjoy women's Tennis", as if Iga Swiatek wouldn't get as trounced by Novak Djokovic as the England Women would get trounced by the England Men. She would lose 6-0 6-0 and you'd need one hand to keep track of how many points she would win in the entire match.

I genuinely don't care if people don't see the women's game in the same way I do. The only time I get mildly riled is by the fact that every time, literally every time, a forum or tweet or Facebook post gets created about Women's football, as sure as night follows day a man will come along and say how **** it is. Why? It doesn't happen in other spheres. Look at The Ashes thread on here; I'm certain there are people on the PinkUn who can't stand cricket but they don't see a thread titled "The Ashes" and think, "I know, I should go in there and say how **** cricket is". But when it comes to Women's Football, these people that the PaddyPower advert above have skewered cannot help it, they're like flies around ****. They have to say how crap they find it. It's bizarre. Really, really bizarre. I'm no psychologist, but I'd wager there is misogyny at play somewhere, even if it many cases it is unconscious.

I loved the Women's Euros, I'm loving the World Cup. I'm loving that my son wanted a shirt with "Hemp" on the back and I'm loving how much better a role model she is than **** like Ronaldo. And the quality is great and entertainment value even better if you are able to rid yourself of the patriarchal perspective that has deeply-embedded itself within.

And if you can't? Fine, you don't have to like it. Just shut the **** up and let other people like it; no one needs to know whether you think it's rubbish. And if you have some burning desire to let people know you think it's rubbish, ask yourself why, because it's a weird urge to be harbouring.

[GJL Mid-Norfolk Canary 1,801]

...a passionate defence from someone who doth protest too much.

This is white knighting on the grandest of scales.

[canarydan23 4,060]

22 minutes ago, GJL Mid-Norfolk Canary said:

...a passionate defence from someone who doth protest too much.

This is white knighting on the grandest of scales.

Cool story bro

[CDMullins 446]

14 hours ago, TheGunnShow said:

Saying the quality isn't as good is missing the point, I think. Although some of the play has been good and I find the women's game more honest and not as spoiled by gamesmanship. It doesn't always have to be excellent tika-taka play to be entertaining.

Let's face it, we often said last season that the lads looked a bit unfit and a bit apathetic. These women might be technically limited, but they're going all-in and they're competing on what is probably an unprecedented stage for them. Fair play to 'em, I say.

Is it?

There's a reason why on Sunday afternoons we watch the Premier League and not the Moldovan Super League.

[TheGunnShow 6,023]

2 minutes ago, CDMullins said:

Is it?

There's a reason why on Sunday afternoons we watch the Premier League and not the Moldovan Super League.

Yet you've said this on a Norwich City forum and not a Manchester City one. And the Moldovan league is hardly competitive either. Sheriff Tiraspol have won it in something like eleven of the last twelve years.

[Six Pack 94]

On 27/07/2023 at 01:07, keelansgrandad said:

Overall, despite a less than perfect performance, you can see why England are one of the best teams. From what I have seen, some of the football has been awful. Individually, some of the women are not athletic enough and do not seem to put in enough of the effort required to just simply control the ball.

I think the skillful Japanese girls would tear Ben Gibson a new one ! 

[CDMullins 446]

5 minutes ago, TheGunnShow said:

Yet you've said this on a Norwich City forum and not a Manchester City one. And the Moldovan league is hardly competitive either. Sheriff Tiraspol have won it in something like eleven of the last twelve years.

There's massive difference between supporting a football team,

And watching football as an hobby though isn't there?

[TheGunnShow 6,023]

1 minute ago, CDMullins said:

There's massive difference between supporting a football team,

And watching football as an hobby though isn't there?

Is there?

If they can't be entertained watching football regardless of the standard, then how much of a fan are they?

 

[CDMullins 446]

9 minutes ago, TheGunnShow said:

Is there?

If they can't be entertained watching football regardless of the standard, then how much of a fan are they?

 

I shouldn't need to tell you this, but we don't support football teams to be entertained.

[TheGunnShow 6,023]

3 minutes ago, CDMullins said:

I shouldn't need to tell you this, but we don't support football teams to be entertained.

I shouldn't need to tell you this, but when you're a spectator, sport is entertainment.

[Wacky Waving Inflatable Arm Flailing Tube Man 3,865]

15 hours ago, TheGunnShow said:

I find the women's game more honest and not as spoiled by gamesmanship.

This, most definitely. You don't see players rolling around feigning injury or surrounding the referee after every single foul like you do in the men's game. The men's game really needs to look at this and sort it out, because it's a blight on the game right now.

[sgncfc 1,259]

3 hours ago, canarydan23 said:

And yet you follow Norwich. We all know that quality isn't the be all and end all, if we didn't know that, we wouldn't be Norwich fans. We'd spend our time watching Man City or Real Madrid. But it's about being invested in something, that's what makes it more entertaining. It's why I regularly here parents of the grassroots team I coach say how much more they enjoy watching kids football than professional football. And if Norwich played my U10s (soon to be U11s), they'd put up a cricket score. Yet no one would be so stupid as to compare the two because of the physical advantages the men enjoy.

And yet here we are when women's football is brought up.

I am significantly more invested in the Lionesses than England Men. And anyone who watches a Weigman team and then a Southgate team and turns around and says that the men were more entertaining doesn't really understand football. And the women are just much more likeable human beings, far more relatable than the likes of Maguire, Grealish and Mount. They would never do it, but if the England Men and the England Women played their matches at the same time, I would watch the England Women ten times out of time. That the Men would win 50-0 if they played the Women is absolutely irrelevant.

And it's bizarre to see the people who seem to enjoy needlessly lambasting women's football say things like, "They're rubbish compared to the men, but it's different in Tennis, I enjoy women's Tennis", as if Iga Swiatek wouldn't get as trounced by Novak Djokovic as the England Women would get trounced by the England Men. She would lose 6-0 6-0 and you'd need one hand to keep track of how many points she would win in the entire match.

I genuinely don't care if people don't see the women's game in the same way I do. The only time I get mildly riled is by the fact that every time, literally every time, a forum or tweet or Facebook post gets created about Women's football, as sure as night follows day a man will come along and say how **** it is. Why? It doesn't happen in other spheres. Look at The Ashes thread on here; I'm certain there are people on the PinkUn who can't stand cricket but they don't see a thread titled "The Ashes" and think, "I know, I should go in there and say how **** cricket is". But when it comes to Women's Football, these people that the PaddyPower advert above have skewered cannot help it, they're like flies around ****. They have to say how crap they find it. It's bizarre. Really, really bizarre. I'm no psychologist, but I'd wager there is misogyny at play somewhere, even if it many cases it is unconscious.

I loved the Women's Euros, I'm loving the World Cup. I'm loving that my son wanted a shirt with "Hemp" on the back and I'm loving how much better a role model she is than **** like Ronaldo. And the quality is great and entertainment value even better if you are able to rid yourself of the patriarchal perspective that has deeply-embedded itself within.

And if you can't? Fine, you don't have to like it. Just shut the **** up and let other people like it; no one needs to know whether you think it's rubbish. And if you have some burning desire to let people know you think it's rubbish, ask yourself why, because it's a weird urge to be harbouring.

This is a great post, Canary Dan. I'll hold your coat while you deal with these misogynistic b***ards.

[CANARYKING 644]

Is the Denmark game on tv ? Ko 9:30 and I can’t find it listed

[CANARYKING 644]

6 minutes ago, CANARYKING said:

Is the Denmark game on tv ? Ko 9:30 and I can’t find it listed

Oooops never checked BBC

[Midlands Yellow 4,090]

One up inside seven minutes. 

Edited July 28, 2023 by Midlands Yellow

[canarydan23 4,060]

Very dominant start.

[ec-p 99]

Bad injury for Walsh, looks like it’ll end her tournament early. 

[canarydan23 4,060]

Just now, ec-p said:

Bad injury for Walsh, looks like it’ll end her tournament early. 

Yeah, she knows it's a bad one.

So, so unlucky. Mead, Williamson and Walsh are probably our three best players and now none are available.

[hogesar 9,760]

13 hours ago, canarydan23 said:

I am significantly more invested in the Lionesses than England Men. And anyone who watches a Weigman team and then a Southgate team and turns around and says that the men were more entertaining doesn't really understand football. And the women are just much more likeable human beings, far more relatable than the likes of Maguire, Grealish and Mount. They would never do it, but if the England Men and the England Women played their matches at the same time, I would watch the England Women ten times out of time. That the Men would win 50-0 if they played the Women is absolutely irrelevant.

I agree with a lot of your post but even though you're a staunch lover of women's football you can't be serious about this bit 😅

[ec-p 99]

Yes, really bad luck with injuries to key players, Kirby as well. If all those were fit we’d have had a really good chance of winning the whole thing. 
Let’s hope the less experienced players can step up. Lauren James certainly seems to have made a positive difference.

[Mello Yello 2,303]

I'm not particularly interested but I do hope that those who are....are enjoying it.....

[canarydan23 4,060]

4 minutes ago, hogesar said:

I agree with a lot of your post but even though you're a staunch lover of women's football you can't be serious about this bit 😅

Are you serious? Southgate's England play pretty turgid stuff and seem to be unashamedly defensive in their approach. Weigman's England play a much more expansive and exciting brand of football. Fast wide players who whip crosses in, full-backs who get up the pitch, ball-playing centre-midfielders. The pace of the game is inevitably slower, so if that's you look for for your entertainment, then I get it. But if that is your opinion, that "this is too slow, I don't like it", it is probably an attitude borne by a lack of understanding and appreciation for other aspects of the game, hence my comment.

I took my family to watch the England v Brazil game at Wembley earlier this year. There's no way I'd pay money and travel down to London to watch the current England men's team in what was essentially a friendly match.

[SwearyCanary 1,179]

I feel really gutted for England this tournament tbh. An England side with Mead in along with Williamson, Walsh, Kirby just makes us a real force. James has been very good and Daly playing well, but this is one hell of a scrappy battling game. Getting past the first knock out round would be a good return in my view, but too many stronger sides with fewer injuries would unfortunately take advantage. I’m not convinced by Russo personally, but can’t think of who else would go there. Daly is an option but in games like these Russo has a bit more ability to hold it up 

[Faded Jaded Semi Plastic SOB 1,042]

13 hours ago, CDMullins said:

Is it?

There's a reason why on Sunday afternoons we watch the Premier League and not the Moldovan Super League.

I do not watch the Premier League on a Sunday afternoon (or anytime) is the Moldovan Super League available on Freeview?........

[canarydan23 4,060]

1 hour ago, SwearyCanary said:

I feel really gutted for England this tournament tbh. An England side with Mead in along with Williamson, Walsh, Kirby just makes us a real force. James has been very good and Daly playing well, but this is one hell of a scrappy battling game. Getting past the first knock out round would be a good return in my view, but too many stronger sides with fewer injuries would unfortunately take advantage. I’m not convinced by Russo personally, but can’t think of who else would go there. Daly is an option but in games like these Russo has a bit more ability to hold it up 

I genuinely think a full strength England with Weigman in charge could have won this World Cup. The US don't look like the near invincible unit they have done in the past.

But take the best three players out of any team, plus another likely starter, and they will struggle. I hope Weigman sticks around another 4 years when hopefully we'll be luckier and some of our younger players have gotten even better.

[hogesar 9,760]

2 hours ago, canarydan23 said:

Are you serious? Southgate's England play pretty turgid stuff and seem to be unashamedly defensive in their approach. Weigman's England play a much more expansive and exciting brand of football. Fast wide players who whip crosses in, full-backs who get up the pitch, ball-playing centre-midfielders. The pace of the game is inevitably slower, so if that's you look for for your entertainment, then I get it. But if that is your opinion, that "this is too slow, I don't like it", it is probably an attitude borne by a lack of understanding and appreciation for other aspects of the game, hence my comment.

I took my family to watch the England v Brazil game at Wembley earlier this year. There's no way I'd pay money and travel down to London to watch the current England men's team in what was essentially a friendly match.

I think it was the claim that people who find the England men's team better to watch don't understand football, was the only part of your post that I disagreed with. 

It isn't just the pace of the game, from my perspective anyway, for why I prefer mens international football. The technical quality of the mens international team in a different stratosphere to the womens. On top of that you've obviously then got better opponents so the tactical innovation in the mens game has developed over so many years - so again that's at a higher footballing level for me. You see higher quality goals because they generally have to be to breach a mens international goalkeeper. The margins are smaller, I guess.

So again, the only bit that makes zero sense is your claim that preferring the men's England team to the women's is down to understanding of football!

[Wacky Waving Inflatable Arm Flailing Tube Man 3,865]

2 hours ago, canarydan23 said:

Are you serious? Southgate's England play pretty turgid stuff and seem to be unashamedly defensive in their approach. Weigman's England play a much more expansive and exciting brand of football. Fast wide players who whip crosses in, full-backs who get up the pitch, ball-playing centre-midfielders. The pace of the game is inevitably slower, so if that's you look for for your entertainment, then I get it. But if that is your opinion, that "this is too slow, I don't like it", it is probably an attitude borne by a lack of understanding and appreciation for other aspects of the game, hence my comment.

I took my family to watch the England v Brazil game at Wembley earlier this year. There's no way I'd pay money and travel down to London to watch the current England men's team in what was essentially a friendly match.

The England men's team has scored 31 goals in the last 10 matches, and as a more direct comparison, scored nine in their three group stage matches at the World Cup last year. I'm not sure where this misconception that they're 'turgid' and 'defensive' comes from.

The women's team are much more expansive, with their two 1-0 wins at this tournament.

[TheGunnShow 6,023]

11 minutes ago, Wacky Waving Inflatable Arm Flailing Tube Man said:

The England men's team has scored 31 goals in the last 10 matches, and as a more direct comparison, scored nine in their three group stage matches at the World Cup last year. I'm not sure where this misconception that they're 'turgid' and 'defensive' comes from.

The women's team are much more expansive, with their two 1-0 wins at this tournament.

Including a 0-0 draw against that powerhouse of the USA and six against the Iranian Wheeltappers And Shunters Invitational XI. As for the 31 in the last 10, eleven of them came against the scintillating, devastating Maltese and North Macedonians.

[Grumpy 124]

17 hours ago, canarydan23 said:

And yet you follow Norwich. We all know that quality isn't the be all and end all, if we didn't know that, we wouldn't be Norwich fans. We'd spend our time watching Man City or Real Madrid. But it's about being invested in something, that's what makes it more entertaining. It..............

That is a very good post and for the most part I am in agreement with.