TorquayFans.com | Torquay United Fans Forum

I thought England were meant to be good? Currently, we're 3rd in the group, 2 points behind Spain in second and we have to beat France who are runaway leaders and currently look like the best team in the competition, to go through to the next round.

I'm sure we were being hyped as the favourites to win?

cambgull wrote:I thought England were meant to be good? Currently, we're 3rd in the group, 2 points behind Spain in second and we have to beat France who are runaway leaders and currently look like the best team in the competition, to go through to the next round.

I'm sure we were being hyped as the favourites to win?

Well, given that England got to the final at the last Euro tournament and qualified for this one at a canter, it wasn't that much of a stretch to think they might do well. They had done well at the 2011 Women's World Cup, too.

The problem is that the rest of Europe has really caught up. For a long time it was Germany way out in front, with Sweden up there, then England, and several poor teams. In the last 6 or 7 years or so the women's game has really improved - just look at how good France have become, and Spain were nowhere until recently but they too, have got a lot better.

The rest of Europe have indeed caught up, same as in the mens game too. :na:

Apart from Austria...

Sadly correct Luke.

AustrianAndyGull wrote:The rest of Europe have indeed caught up, same as in the mens game too. :na:

Yep, and Austria are fast catching up to........................San Marino

Yeah that's true................................in terms of best places to live in Europe.

Mmm I wonder Salzburg or Sunderland? Graz or Guildford? Vienna or Vale Of Glamorgan? Kitzbuhel or Kingston upon Hull?

At the risk of changing this into a 'bash women's football thread' I just think the standard is really quite terrible. I mean it's good they play and I'm all for that but if they are saying they need similar wages to the mens game then I would say the answer is a firm no - it's just not as entertaining. Torquay would beat the England Women's team EASILY.

I think I might get ripped apart for this comment.

stevegull wrote:At the risk of changing this into a 'bash women's football thread' I just think the standard is really quite terrible. I mean it's good they play and I'm all for that but if they are saying they need similar wages to the mens game then I would say the answer is a firm no - it's just not as entertaining. Torquay would beat the England Women's team EASILY.

Pretty sure that nobody has ever said that, though.

I've seen a lot of women's football, and I would disagree on the 'not as entertaining' thing. Of course, it very much depends on the game, but for me the 2011 Women's World Cup was the most entertaining international tournament I've ever seen (with the possible exception of the 2002 WC). Skillwise, I genuinely think the best women are approaching the levels of men, but the issue has been (and will probably remain so for a while) that the physicality we see and expect from players is only very rarely present on the women's side, and those players that do have that - Birgit Prinz, Abby Wambach and Kelly Smith, for example - generally do *really* well. And I think that's really why a lot view it as 'not entertaining'. It can't be lack of action, because there are a lot more goals in women's matches, and most of the games (at the higher levels) are pretty competitive. The defending is pretty abject, it must be said, so it's not something for the defensive purists. And there are very few goalkeepers that are better than 'average', which is why those that are (Hope Solo being one) stand out among the crowd.

You're probably right that Torquay would beat the England Women's side. But I'd put that mainly down to the physical differences. The sort of physicality you see in midfield in every men's match is simply not something you see in the women's game. Once you accept the women's game as just 'different' to the men, you can enjoy it a lot more. You also have to remember that the development of the women's game is a good 50/60 years behind the dudes. For example, we're seeing right backs now being essentially wingers who start further back - so their speed and attacking ability is similar to that of proper wingers; that's not happened to women yet, so most female right backs are those who are shoved there because they're not really good enough to be an actual winger. That probably contributes to the somewhat shoddy defending you see.

I still think it's fun to watch, though

(hope you notice, this wasn't ripping you)

I was attending Seton Hall when Kelly Smith came there to play college soccer. Seton Hall has had many prominent male athletes who went on to very successful pro careers in basketball, baseball and soccer. But I maintain that Kelly Smith is the best athlete the school has ever had, she was better at her sport than anyone else at the school ever was. Having said that, while she was there our very mediocre men's soccer team would have run circles around a women's team that had 11 Kelly Smiths. That's just the way it is, the physical advantages men have are too great for even the most talented women's players in the world to overcome. That doesn't mean women's soccer isn't worthwhile, you just have to appreciate it for what it is. Understand that someone like Alex Morgan is, in her sport, as good as a Ronaldo or Messi but that she could never compete on the pitch with a Ronaldo or Messi.

This year's England team had expectations raised because of their run to the final last time but honestly I just don't think they're very good. I've watched them play quite a bit over the years as I've followed Smith's career and I think she's the only world-class player England's ever had. And now she's gotten old and her body has broken down. I don't think any of her teammates would be able to make the US squad. They overachieved to get to the last Euro final, raising expectations, and now people are feeling let down. And since there seems to be a reluctance in England in the first place to take women's soccer seriously when the team disappoints people get very dismissive very quickly and say things like, women's soccer stinks, is unwatchable, etc. Which isn't fair at all. There are 7 or 8 truly top class women's national teams. England doesn't happen to be one of them. Doesn't mean you should dismiss a whole gender because your team isn't very good. In many ways I find women's soccer more enjoyable than men's, especially in the latter stages of major tournaments. The women aren't afraid to go for it while it seems the men freeze up on the big stage, afraid to make the big mistake. Look at how dire the Spain-Holland World Cup final was. The US women's team has played 6 knockout stage games in the World Cup and Olympics the last 2 years and 5 of the 6 were absolutely fabulous games. The semi against Canada in the Olympics was the best soccer game I've ever seen, the fact that the players had ponytails and that any reasonably competent men's youth squad would have beaten either team didn't detract from it in the slightest.

The one thing I really noticed, as happytorq mentioned, was the standard of goalkeeping. Really, REALLY poor!!! So many avoidable goals, for some reason the commentators didn't pick up on it, so I'm guessing it's pretty endemic in women's football. Pretty entertaining stuff, I'd like to see how it develops in the next few years, once we start to get more pro clubs (I believe there's only a couple and they're abroad) then things will really start to improve at a rate of knots.

I watch Bristol Academy and they have a good bunch of up and coming young players who will go on to greater things in years to come.
I also attend "One Church" in Gloucester and know Grace McCatty who also plays for England under 21 and Bristol Academy.
My wife is keen on Womens Football too.