Absolute bollocks.
I’ve seen some non league and they’re for the most part a load of fat hungover cloggers. An elite women’s team would run rings around them and probably win about 20-0.
LOL
Absolute bollocks.
I’ve seen some non league and they’re for the most part a load of fat hungover cloggers. An elite women’s team would run rings around them and probably win about 20-0.
I think you might have misread or missed “The men’s teams would likely beat any WSL side.” in my post.So wrong . Any league two team would absolutely annihilate all WSL teams . That’s in no way any disrespect to the women’s football teams but I know from a good source the under 15 boys team at city played the women’s team behind closed doors and gave them a good hiding. That’s 14 year old boys, league two professional men would beat both very comfortably just with pure physical strength and football fitness alone .
I think that’s the point I was trying to make.It’s not really the point though. The men’s teams would likely beat any WSL side.
That doesn’t mean that women can’t play football, it just means they aren’t as physically strong.
They can be as tactically astute, skilful and expend the same effort as men, so there’s no reason that both genders can’t talk about both men and women’s football.
You have just said exactly the same as @Alan Harper's Tash in the post you replied to.So wrong . Any league two team would absolutely annihilate all WSL teams . That’s in no way any disrespect to the women’s football teams but I know from a good source the under 15 boys team at city played the women’s team behind closed doors and gave them a good hiding. That’s 14 year old boys, league two professional men would beat both very comfortably just with pure physical strength and football fitness alone .
I only jumped in as we seemed to be getting bogged down in the League 1/2 vs women debate, when what Barton was suggesting is that the women can’t talk about top level football because they’re at a lower standard.I think that’s the point I was trying to make.
We all wish pundits were erudite and insightful. The reality is most aren't, including those of yesteryear that apparently didn't tick boxes (they did, it was just different criteria back then). But I've never let the standard of punditry affect my enjoyment of the game.I only jumped in as we seemed to be getting bogged down in the League 1/2 vs women debate, when what Barton was suggesting is that the women can’t talk about top level football because they’re at a lower standard.
That’s true, but because of physical disadvantages, not mental and technical ones. That means they can talk in the same way as a male footballer.
We all just wish pundits were all like Onuaha and Chrtistensen, rather than Hinchcliffe and Aluko.
Is there any actual evidence of “box ticking”, or is it just a way to suggest some think that there are too many women and people of colour?We all wish pundits were erudite and insightful. The reality is most aren't, including those of yesteryear that apparently didn't tick boxes (they did, it was just different criteria back then). But I've never let the standard of punditry affect my enjoyment of the game.
I think you might have misread or missed “The men’s teams would likely beat any WSL side.” in my post.
The women would lose the games because they are at a physical strength, height and speed disadvantage. All other aspects of the game could be the same.