Manchester City Women (merged)

[bluenova]

Re: Manchester City Ladies - Toni Duggan {merged}

......Well, that's just not true due to the physiological differences men and women have. Generally, women don't have the testosterone nor the muscle mass to push to the same level as the men for 90 mins.

You will find, one or two, to have similar stamina to a man, but it's rare. So, overall, it's why a women's tennis match can finish in 50 mins, on average. I have seen a fair few games of footy, from start to finish and, on average, the 70 min mark is where the game becomes diminished due to the ground covered.

Less ground to cover will bring the quality up.

Like I said; my opinion.

There was a quote a few years back from Socrates (Brazilian footballer not Greek philosopher) who was part of what many considered one of the most attractive footballing teams ever (Spain '82 era Brazil). He said that the pitch had become too small now that players were much fitter (I think he said this whilst taking another drag on his cigarette).

Women's football clearly can't match the skill of modern men's football (so many less women play so this is inevitable at the moment), but it doesn't resemble any of the football men play at lower levels. The fact that they don't have the speed/power to flatten an opponent within 0.1 seconds of them receiving the ball is an advantage for me. You get a very different game, often nearer to the ideal we have of attractive football than many of the men's matches.

 

[Bigga]

Re: Manchester City Ladies - Toni Duggan {merged}

My point has been consistent throughout, STAMINA. Endurance running is entirely stamina based so is an obvious example. Football is an endurance sport for some positions more than others (particularly the fullbacks under Pellegrini), the original point is that training will increase the quality of women's football. We appear to be going in circles so this is no longer a productive use of my time. Have a nice day.

Well, ladies and gents, here is someone who doesn't understand that football is NOT a constant action where endurance is really needed as no player is CONSTANTLY running. They jog, stop, walk, stop, run, sprint. Mix it up however you like, but no one ever needs the endurance of a marathon runner for a game of football.

Besides, training for men and women will be the same; sprint and short distance running to cover all aspects of the game, including general muscle training, blah blah. It will just be the facilities that are different, for now. That said, in athletics , at the top level, everybody trains the same way and still no woman beats a man for the same discipline.

Not sure why you still think 'better training' will produce the same game. It won't.

Women will develop certain aspects of skill and conditioning better, not the same level of power and speed.

End of discussion between us, as you said.

 

[Chris in London]

Re: Manchester City Ladies - Toni Duggan {merged}

My point has been consistent throughout, STAMINA. Endurance running is entirely stamina based so is an obvious example. Football is an endurance sport for some positions more than others (particularly the fullbacks under Pellegrini), the original point is that training will increase the quality of women's football. We appear to be going in circles so this is no longer a productive use of my time. Have a nice day.

Well, ladies and gents, here is someone who doesn't understand that football is NOT a constant action where endurance is really needed as no player is CONSTANTLY running. They jog, stop, walk, stop, run, sprint. Mix it up however you like, but no one ever needs the endurance of a marathon runner for a game of football.

Besides, training for men and women will be the same; sprint and short distance running to cover all aspects of the game, including general muscle training, blah blah. It will just be the facilities that are different, for now. That said, in athletics , at the top level, everybody trains the same way and still no woman beats a man for the same discipline.

Not sure why you still think 'better training' will produce the same game. It won't.

Women will develop certain aspects of skill and conditioning better, not the same level of power and speed.

End of discussion between us, as you said.

Is the difference between men's performance and women's at elite level enough to make people switch off?

Does anyone really think 'I can't arsed watching the women's 100m final because they can't do it in less than 10.5 second when the men are down at the 9.8 level?

Did people think during the olympics 'that Victoria Pendleton's not very good, I've seen faster blokes on the way into work in the morning'?

Women at the very highest level may not achieve the equivalent level of power and speed as men at the very highest level but that doesn't mean they can't produce a very entertaining sporting spectacle. (I didn't understand you to be arguing that they couldn't, I'm just picking up on a point you made).

Test that theory this way: did you watch any of the hockey during the olympics? Me too.

Do you watch hockey regularly? Me neither.

Did you appreciate the finer nuances of the sport enough to understand the skill levels attained in the mens game were superior to those in the women's game? Me neither.

Were you just as pleased when the GB women's team won as the men? Me too.

 

[Citizen of Legoland]

Re: Manchester City Ladies - Toni Duggan {merged}

[quote="Chris in London]Did people think during the olympics 'that Victoria Pendleton's not very good, I've seen faster blokes on the way into work in the morning'?
[/quote]

I got overtaken one night going home on my bike by a lady rider, but only because I let her past ... honest!

 

[Chris in London]

Re: Manchester City Ladies - Toni Duggan {merged}

[quote="Chris in London]Did people think during the olympics 'that Victoria Pendleton's not very good, I've seen faster blokes on the way into work in the morning'?

I got overtaken one night going home on my bike by a lady rider, but only because I let her past ... honest![/quote][/quote]

I think it's disgusting and degrading that you let her go past purely to allow yourself to perv at her lycra-clad posterior.

Besides, you know the rules. Pics or it didn't happen.

 

[Matty]

Re: Manchester City Ladies - Toni Duggan {merged}

My point has been consistent throughout, STAMINA. Endurance running is entirely stamina based so is an obvious example. Football is an endurance sport for some positions more than others (particularly the fullbacks under Pellegrini), the original point is that training will increase the quality of women's football. We appear to be going in circles so this is no longer a productive use of my time. Have a nice day.

Well, ladies and gents, here is someone who doesn't understand that football is NOT a constant action where endurance is really needed as no player is CONSTANTLY running. They jog, stop, walk, stop, run, sprint. Mix it up however you like, but no one ever needs the endurance of a marathon runner for a game of football.

Besides, training for men and women will be the same; sprint and short distance running to cover all aspects of the game, including general muscle training, blah blah. It will just be the facilities that are different, for now. That said, in athletics , at the top level, everybody trains the same way and still no woman beats a man for the same discipline.

Not sure why you still think 'better training' will produce the same game. It won't.

Women will develop certain aspects of skill and conditioning better, not the same level of power and speed.

End of discussion between us, as you said.

Is the difference between men's performance and women's at elite level enough to make people switch off?

Does anyone really think 'I can't arsed watching the women's 100m final because they can't do it in less than 10.5 second when the men are down at the 9.8 level?

Did people think during the olympics 'that Victoria Pendleton's not very good, I've seen faster blokes on the way into work in the morning'?

Women at the very highest level may not achieve the equivalent level of power and speed as men at the very highest level but that doesn't mean they can't produce a very entertaining sporting spectacle. (I didn't understand you to be arguing that they couldn't, I'm just picking up on a point you made).

Test that theory this way: did you watch any of the hockey during the olympics? Me too.

Do you watch hockey regularly? Me neither.

Did you appreciate the finer nuances of the sport enough to understand the skill levels attained in the mens game were superior to those in the women's game? Me neither.

Were you just as pleased when the GB women's team won as the men? Me too.

With the running examples, and the Victoria Pendleton one to, they are a bit different to football. With running I don't really care that the women are running about a second slower than the men for the 100m, running is running. You don't run with flair, or creativity. The issues the women's game has are physical in one respect, the power, the pace etc is not the same, but technical too. It's a simply fact the spacial awareness, hand eye coordination etc is something men are genetically better at than women, on the whole. So it goes without saying that the elite footballers, the best of the men, will be extremely skilled in these areas. No amount of training is going to make the elite female footballers as technically proficient as the men. Think of it this way, if you watch a Premier League game on the TV, and then watch a League One game, you're likely to see far better skill in the former, and as such it's likely to be a more entertaining spectacle for you.

 

[Chris in London]

Re: Manchester City Ladies - Toni Duggan {merged}

Well, ladies and gents, here is someone who doesn't understand that football is NOT a constant action where endurance is really needed as no player is CONSTANTLY running. They jog, stop, walk, stop, run, sprint. Mix it up however you like, but no one ever needs the endurance of a marathon runner for a game of football.

Besides, training for men and women will be the same; sprint and short distance running to cover all aspects of the game, including general muscle training, blah blah. It will just be the facilities that are different, for now. That said, in athletics , at the top level, everybody trains the same way and still no woman beats a man for the same discipline.

Not sure why you still think 'better training' will produce the same game. It won't.

Women will develop certain aspects of skill and conditioning better, not the same level of power and speed.

End of discussion between us, as you said.

Is the difference between men's performance and women's at elite level enough to make people switch off?

Does anyone really think 'I can't arsed watching the women's 100m final because they can't do it in less than 10.5 second when the men are down at the 9.8 level?

Did people think during the olympics 'that Victoria Pendleton's not very good, I've seen faster blokes on the way into work in the morning'?

Women at the very highest level may not achieve the equivalent level of power and speed as men at the very highest level but that doesn't mean they can't produce a very entertaining sporting spectacle. (I didn't understand you to be arguing that they couldn't, I'm just picking up on a point you made).

Test that theory this way: did you watch any of the hockey during the olympics? Me too.

Do you watch hockey regularly? Me neither.

Did you appreciate the finer nuances of the sport enough to understand the skill levels attained in the mens game were superior to those in the women's game? Me neither.

Were you just as pleased when the GB women's team won as the men? Me too.

With the running examples, and the Victoria Pendleton one to, they are a bit different to football. With running I don't really care that the women are running about a second slower than the men for the 100m, running is running. You don't run with flair, or creativity. The issues the women's game has are physical in one respect, the power, the pace etc is not the same, but technical too. It's a simply fact the spacial awareness, hand eye coordination etc is something men are genetically better at than women, on the whole. So it goes without saying that the elite footballers, the best of the men, will be extremely skilled in these areas. No amount of training is going to make the elite female footballers as technically proficient as the men. Think of it this way, if you watch a Premier League game on the TV, and then watch a League One game, you're likely to see far better skill in the former, and as such it's likely to be a more entertaining spectacle for you.

No, the point I am getting at is that women's football at elite level is obviously not at the same level as the men's game, but it is not so technically deficient as to lose its appeal completely.

Here's a question: would you prefer to watch City Women's team v Arsenal Ladies, or would you sooner watch Colchester v Southend (i.e. men's team)?

 

[TonyM]

Stick a city badge on anything and I'll be interested.

 

[r.soleofsalford]

is it just me that`s going to be more interested in buying a ladies team calender than our quadruple trophy winning teams calender

 

[r.soleofsalford]

is it just me that`s going to be more interested in buying a ladies team calender than our quadruple trophy winning teams calender

i cant see the men being skilled enough to do this <a class="postlink" href="http://thechive.files.wordpress.com/2012/04/cheerleaders-4.jpg?w=500&h=537" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://thechive.files.wordpress.com/201 ... =500&h=537</a>