FIFA Women's World Cup 2023

Mon Autre said:
She might not want it!

That said, if that genuinely was the plan, I think it coming down to whether or not we win against Spain shouldn't really come into it. It's one game and shouldn't really make a difference at this point whether she's deemed fit for the job. As an international manager she hasn't failed to get her team to a major tournament final ever. This is her fourth consecutive major tournament final and she's already won two of them.
Click to expand...
It makes her more marketable as a world cup winner.
 
Eds said:
The irony of all this is women shout man on when being pressed on the ball, they don't shout player on or women on etc. Likewise they will be asked to man mark a player and nobody bats an eyelid. And I speak from experience having been involved in managing / coaching girls / women's teams.
Click to expand...
Baby steps…

Don’t forget, women’s football has grown exponentially from a wholly male-dominated sport and will, of course, have terms that reflect that heritage.

The callouts within a game are for speed and understanding, but titles, like Man of the Match are simply wrong in the women’s game. While, as a man, I’d be quite happy to call it Woman of the Match in the women’s game, I believe the desire for equality within the game is driving the non-gender terminology. And, given it was already in use in many ways, it’s a simple, logical, entirely non-controversial accommodation that can be easily embraced.

There are real problems in football. Thankfully, this isn’t one of them.

The acceptance of change is a process, and there will be those who may resist the change and those who inadvertently revert to pre-change terminology, but neither will change the eventual outcome.

As to “man on” and “man mark,” they may well become “historic” holdovers within thd game for the reasons cited above, but we shouldn’t withhold, or not embrace, the change simply because of such ingrained efficiencies.

In short, it’s really a non-event that is one of the least controversial equality changes sought.
 
ChicagoBlue said:
Baby steps…

Don’t forget, women’s football has grown exponentially from a wholly male-dominated sport and will, of course, have terms that reflect that heritage.

The callouts within a game are for speed and understanding, but titles, like Man of the Match are simply wrong in the women’s game. While, as a man, I’d be quite happy to call it Woman of the Match in the women’s game, I believe the desire for equality within the game is driving the non-gender terminology. And, given it was already in use in many ways, it’s a simple, logical, entirely non-controversial accommodation that can be easily embraced.

There are real problems in football. Thankfully, this isn’t one of them.

The acceptance of change is a process, and there will be those who may resist the change and those who inadvertently revert to pre-change terminology, but neither will change the eventual outcome.

As to “man on” and “man mark,” they may well become “historic” holdovers within thd game for the reasons cited above, but we shouldn’t withhold, or not embrace, the change simply because of such ingrained efficiencies.

In short, it’s really a non-event that is one of the least controversial equality changes sought.
Click to expand...
I definitely think we should get a bank holiday if we win the World Cup ……I think the Gov would probably do it for the men’s team.

Only bringing this up due to equality reasons of course ;)
 
The Scarlet Pimpernel said:
I definitely think we should get a bank holiday if we win the World Cup ……I think the Gov would probably do it for the men’s team.

Only bringing this up due to equality reasons of course ;)
Click to expand...
They could start by calling them People’s Day, or Citizens’ Day, instead of Bank Holiday!
 
An article on the BBC web site today titled "Women's World Cup final: How England became good at women’s football."

Contains the following paragraph:
In 2022, BBC analysis suggested the average WSL player now earns £47,000 in 2022,and after the Lionesses' Euros success, WSL attendances increased by 267%, helped by big games being held at the country's biggest stadia, including Old Trafford, Emirates Stadium, Anfield and the Tottenham Hotspur Stadium.​
​
So yet again the BBC completely ignore MCWFC and it's impact on the womens game.

The team that won the Euros had five players associated with MCWFC in the starting eleven and the winning goal was scored by a current player who came on as a substitute along with three other players associated with our club. A total of 9 players out of the 17 that took part during the match.

Our ladies have won 1 Super League, 3 FA Cups and 4 League Cups whilst the ragettes have won SOD ALL.

Prople think the BBC are impartial, nothing could be further from the truth.
 
Sweden 1-0 up, penalty. The romantic part of me wants to see Australia win this third place play off but they're such a horrible crowd and team I'm not so sure.
 
Gray said:
An article on the BBC web site today titled "Women's World Cup final: How England became good at women’s football."

Contains the following paragraph:
In 2022, BBC analysis suggested the average WSL player now earns £47,000 in 2022,and after the Lionesses' Euros success, WSL attendances increased by 267%, helped by big games being held at the country's biggest stadia, including Old Trafford, Emirates Stadium, Anfield and the Tottenham Hotspur Stadium.​
​
So yet again the BBC completely ignore MCWFC and it's impact on the womens game.

The team that won the Euros had five players associated with MCWFC in the starting eleven and the winning goal was scored by a current player who came on as a substitute along with three other players associated with our club. A total of 9 players out of the 17 that took part during the match.

Our ladies have won 1 Super League, 3 FA Cups and 4 League Cups whilst the ragettes have won SOD ALL.

Prople think the BBC are impartial, nothing could be further from the truth.
Click to expand...

Not sure exactly who thinks the BBC are impartial, and certainly when it comes down to their sports media team. As City supporters we know that to be a complete falsehood.

They are a major rag/dipper servicing agency whoreing themselves unapologetically.

Disgraceful for a publicly funded organisation.
 
Gray said:
An article on the BBC web site today titled "Women's World Cup final: How England became good at women’s football.
Click to expand...
I thought the headline was a bit demeaning, as though women’s football is a different game to men’s. Shouldn’t it have read: How the England women’s team became good at football?
 
Gray said:
An article on the BBC web site today titled "Women's World Cup final: How England became good at women’s football."

Contains the following paragraph:
In 2022, BBC analysis suggested the average WSL player now earns £47,000 in 2022,and after the Lionesses' Euros success, WSL attendances increased by 267%, helped by big games being held at the country's biggest stadia, including Old Trafford, Emirates Stadium, Anfield and the Tottenham Hotspur Stadium.​
​
So yet again the BBC completely ignore MCWFC and it's impact on the womens game.

The team that won the Euros had five players associated with MCWFC in the starting eleven and the winning goal was scored by a current player who came on as a substitute along with three other players associated with our club. A total of 9 players out of the 17 that took part during the match.

Our ladies have won 1 Super League, 3 FA Cups and 4 League Cups whilst the ragettes have won SOD ALL.

Prople think the BBC are impartial, nothing could be further from the truth.
Click to expand...

Colin Bells Boots said:
Not sure exactly who thinks the BBC are impartial, and certainly when it comes down to their sports media team. As City supporters we know that to be a complete falsehood.

They are a major rag/dipper servicing agency whoreing themselves unapologetically.

Disgraceful for a publicly funded organisation.
Click to expand...

I used to think you were all paranoid. Reluctantly, I've come to the same conclusion as you. It really is disgraceful.
It's a detail, but by common consent, Lauren Hemp was the woman of the match the other day.
Now it's skewed, I admit, because I was watching it with a French commentary. The man was a complete idiot, he kept pronouncing Millie Bright as “Miley” — fuck me, you'd think they'd do some basic research for the money they're on; he was also terribly proud of knowing that the Australians are called the 'Matildas', and slotted it in at every available opportunity ad nauseam, while clearly being blissfully unaware that the England girls are (much more) widely known as the 'Lionesses'. The woman commentator was much better — I think she was a former player, and that generally helps.
Anyway, my main point is that there was not one mention of Lauren being a City player. You can be utterly certain that everybody would be reminded that Alessia Russo was a former United player, and now plays for Arsenal, and everybody duly was. How did it pan out on English commentary?
 
Last edited:
paulchapo said:
Sweden 1-0 up, penalty. The romantic part of me wants to see Australia win this third place play off but they're such a horrible crowd and team I'm not so sure.
Click to expand...

Not able to watch this, but isn't it now being revealed — has it not already been revealed?— that Australia were basically a plucky team, able to mix it physically, who rode through the tournament on the crest of national euphoria. Nothing wrong with that, but are they not basically the most technically limited of the four semi-finalists?
 
Lovebitesandeveryfing said:
Not able to watch this, but isn't it now being revealed — has it not already been revealed?— that Australia were basically a plucky team, able to mix it physically, who rode through the tournament on the crest of national euphoria. Nothing wrong with that, but are they not basically the most technically limited of the four semi-finalists?
Click to expand...
They are second best in this match, Sweden have been good value for their lead. They could do with another goal though.
 
Lovebitesandeveryfing said:
Not able to watch this, but isn't it now being revealed — has it not already been revealed?— that Australia were basically a plucky team, able to mix it physically, who rode through the tournament on the crest of national euphoria. Nothing wrong with that, but are they not basically the most technically limited of the four semi-finalists?
Click to expand...

Sweden are the better side but yes the crowd and the Aussies doggedness are keeping them in it, but they are very limited.
 
Lovebitesandeveryfing said:
I used to think you were all paranoid. Reluctantly, I've come to the same conclusion as you. It really is disgraceful.
It's a detail, but by common consent, Lauren Hemp was the woman of the match the other day.
Now it's skewed, I admit, because I was watching it with a French commentary. The man was a complete idiot, he kept pronouncing Millie Bright as “Miley” — fuck me, you'd think they'd some basic research for the money they're on; he was also terribly proud of knowing that the Australians are called the 'Matildas', and slotted it in at every available opportunity ad nauseam, while clearly being blissfully unaware that the England girls are (much more) widely known as the 'Lionesses'. The woman commentator was much better — I think she was a former player, and that generally helps.
Anyway, my main point is that there was not one mention of Lauren being a City player. You can be utterly certain that everybody would be reminded that Alessia Russo was a former United player, and now plays for Arsenal, and everybody duly was. How did it pan out on English commentary?
Click to expand...
Careful!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Unread Posts

Don't have an account? Register now and see fewer ads!

SIGN UP
Back
Top