Jump to content

Could your mates beat the world champions?


MONKMAN
 Share

Recommended Posts

31 minutes ago, Menzel said:

Why are some men so obsessed with questions about beating women footballers?

Can't make them orgasm but by god they could surely beat them at football?!? Please?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Uncle Psychosis said:

No. 

Occasionally used to play fives with one of the girls in the Scotland ladies team because her dad played with us regularly and she'd come along if we were short. 

Quite a few of the lads were very decent amateur players but we couldn't get near her without fouling her. The US women are clearly miles better than that too. 

I can easily believe that a low level mens professional or semi professional team could beat the USA but the idea a bunch of random blokes could is nonsense. 

 

Fives is absolutely miles away from 11s.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You say Manchester United women as if they are very good that was one of their first ever games and entered as one of the lowest ranked teams in England, I would wager that the coaching and pay is better at Salford than it is for Man United.
The Australian team like you say was pretty decent in terms of women's football at the time however many of those players were semi pro and the teenagers they played against were pro.
I don't think many posters will either have the energy or talent of professional15 year old boys and would get utterly pumped by the USA woman's team.
The question in this thread has nothing to do with pay or coaching.
Friend of friends... my starting 11 I reckon would do well.
I know a few professional footballers and if its friend of friends I'd get a full team of footballers. Cheating but this was the question.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, ex-german exile said:

Why can't we accept top class women's football (soccer if you must) for what it is?
We don't slag off the women's 100m final at the Olympic Games as not being comparable to the men's, so why do it with football?

This, I don't get why people want to keep comparing women's football to men's football. The game is different in the sense that women are physically different from men. For the same reason, top female 100m sprinters are considerably slower than the decent men's ones. Plus men's football as a seriously organised sport started roughly a century earlier.

Let's compare women's football with the women's game say a decade ago. Then nobody can deny that it has developed greatly and is still fast developing. That can only be a good thing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I was part of a secondary school team that actually did beat a Scotland womans side, but you're going back over a decade now for that.

Didn't watch any of the tournament so no idea of the standard, of the club games I've seen every so often, it's still miles from the mens game. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, deej said:

As long as it's Alex Morgan and not Hope Solo, I'm in. 

Morgan could wear you as a strap on and it wouldn't touch both sides.

Disrespectful, chauvinistic comments aside, no. Most of my friends are chubby, functioning alcoholics approaching their late 30's. The US womens team are professional athletes. They would maul them.

Not really any grounds for comparison in the respective games, given the enormous physical differences between the sexes, particularly after years of professional conditioning.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Ross. said:

 

Not really any grounds for comparison in the respective games

*dons hard hat*

tell those involved in womans football to stop the constant bleating about getting money from the mens game filtered into the womans game then.

USA have a justified complaint as their womans team does earn comparable money, so deserve comparable rewards, the rest doesnt.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, RandomGuy. said:

*dons hard hat*

tell those involved in womans football to stop the constant bleating about getting money from the mens game filtered into the womans game then.

USA have a justified complaint as their womans team does earn comparable money, so deserve comparable rewards, the rest doesnt.

I think there are some grounds for complaint, but largely agree that they are making an issue of something that they don't have a great deal of right in complaining about. The US womens team definitely have the strongest argument in that respect. Mostly though, the mens game generates far more revenue and that follows through in terms of wages and prize money, which is how it should be.

The argument they should be making is in the viewpoint of investment. The mens game has had far more money spent on it over a far longer time, which is one of the big reasons that it does generate that extra revenue. I have no issue with more being spent promoting the womens game, even subsidising the womens game, while it is generating the interest that it now is. Hopefully that would then lead to further increases in revenue, which drives improvements in standards, wages, sponsorship and all that jazz.

Will be interesting to see how the SFA deal with things. I am assuming they will be receiving a healthy chunk of cash related to the womens team qualifying for the world cup.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Ross. said:

I think there are some grounds for complaint, but largely agree that they are making an issue of something that they don't have a great deal of right in complaining about. The US womens team definitely have the strongest argument in that respect. Mostly though, the mens game generates far more revenue and that follows through in terms of wages and prize money, which is how it should be.

The argument they should be making is in the viewpoint of investment. The mens game has had far more money spent on it over a far longer time, which is one of the big reasons that it does generate that extra revenue. I have no issue with more being spent promoting the womens game, even subsidising the womens game, while it is generating the interest that it now is. Hopefully that would then lead to further increases in revenue, which drives improvements in standards, wages, sponsorship and all that jazz.

Will be interesting to see how the SFA deal with things. I am assuming they will be receiving a healthy chunk of cash related to the womens team qualifying for the world cup.

Read something over the weekend that pointed out the women actually get a higher percentage of revenue as prize money from the World Cup - something like 13% compared to the 9% the men got from 2018. (Not sure how accurate those numbers are as it's from memory)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, deej said:

Read something over the weekend that pointed out the women actually get a higher percentage of revenue as prize money from the World Cup - something like 13% compared to the 9% the men got from 2018. (Not sure how accurate those numbers are as it's from memory)

I'd say both figures are too low, though perhaps basing it on "Profit generated" rather than "Revenue" would be a fairer way of distributing the cash to the players and refs.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...