Manchester City Women (merged)

[nomorethaksintimes]

It's pretty cringeworthy the way the BBC and now City are try to whip up support for women's football despite it having no merit to warrant media coverage & strong public interest. I have absolutely no problem with City having a women's team but it shouldn't be mentioned in the same breath as the men's.

I don't see at as cringeworthy at all. I'm a lot more interested in whether MCWFC does well in the women's league than I am about the mens league in Scotland.

Girls and women's football has been for some years the fastest growing game in the UK in terms of participation numbers. I can't see why that doesn't warrant general media interest and I can't see why City, having made the decision to invest in women's football, should do anything other than publicise it with gusto.

Before London 2012, the paralympics were a long way down the pecking order as well. They still are, but paralympic sports have come on in leaps and bounds (sorry, couldn't resist it). Times change. perceptions change.

Giving women's football undeserved publicity is just a misplaced attempt at political correctness and promoting equality- it does neither, if anything it patronizes women's football by giving it a platform it definitely doesn't deserve. The fact you compared it to the paralympics is telling as personally, they fit into the same cateogory. What paralympic sports have you followed in the last month? - I'm guessing none.

Ultimately, women aren't very good at football and while it's great they play the game as a leisure pursuit, a (top division)Sunday League game ultimately offers a far better standard.

In Canada, every year the women's national ice hockey team (ranked No.1 worldwide) regularly take on high school (not University) teams with mixed results. I respect that, but doubt City would allow the women's team to play our Under 17s as we would see it all for what it is - an areas of the sport that deserves minimal if any media coverage.

 

[kaz7]

Instead of comparing it to the men just watch it as it is
Womens game has to start somewhere and they are a lot more skillful than you think

 

[mat]

Instead of comparing it to the men just watch it as it is
Womens game has to start somewhere and they are a lot more skillful than you think

This all over.

I prefer to watch the England Ladies over the men as they actually play like they give a fuck.

 

[nomorethaksintimes]

Instead of comparing it to the men just watch it as it is
Womens game has to start somewhere and they are a lot more skillful than you think

I didn't say they weren't skillful, I just said the standard was relatively very poor to semi-pro or above men's football and doesn't warrant a fraction of the publicity it receives.

I guess you could watch it in isolation from top flight men's football but I can already do this with Sunday League or watching the academy. Women aren't very good at football so what's the point in various media outlets (and now City) trying to push it into being a mainstream event. As I said before, the fact someone brought up the paralympics alongside women's football says a lot.

It's the emperor's new clothes of the sporting world :P

 

[Chris in London]

It's pretty cringeworthy the way the BBC and now City are try to whip up support for women's football despite it having no merit to warrant media coverage & strong public interest. I have absolutely no problem with City having a women's team but it shouldn't be mentioned in the same breath as the men's.

I don't see at as cringeworthy at all. I'm a lot more interested in whether MCWFC does well in the women's league than I am about the mens league in Scotland.

Girls and women's football has been for some years the fastest growing game in the UK in terms of participation numbers. I can't see why that doesn't warrant general media interest and I can't see why City, having made the decision to invest in women's football, should do anything other than publicise it with gusto.

Before London 2012, the paralympics were a long way down the pecking order as well. They still are, but paralympic sports have come on in leaps and bounds (sorry, couldn't resist it). Times change. perceptions change.

Giving women's football undeserved publicity is just a misplaced attempt at political correctness and promoting equality- it does neither, if anything it patronizes women's football by giving it a platform it definitely doesn't deserve. The fact you compared it to the paralympics is telling as personally, they fit into the same cateogory. What paralympic sports have you followed in the last month? - I'm guessing none.

Ultimately, women aren't very good at football and while it's great they play the game as a leisure pursuit, a (top division)Sunday League game ultimately offers a far better standard.

In Canada, every year the women's national ice hockey team (ranked No.1 worldwide) regularly take on high school (not University) teams with mixed results. I respect that, but doubt City would allow the women's team to play our Under 17s as we would see it all for what it is - an areas of the sport that deserves minimal if any media coverage.

Wow, what a lot of crap in one short post.

First, not that it matters, but the answer to your question about the paralympic sports I have followed recently is that I followed the winter paralympics reasonably closely, some sports more than others. If you undertake any winter sports, as I do, you will have some appreciation of people who can for instance ski considerably better with one leg than I can with two. Your assumption, like most of your post, is completely inaccurate and rather offensive.

Be that as it may, on to the rest of your post. The comparison with the paralympics generally is apt because paralympic sports were largely ignored before 2012 but the prolonged exposure brought about by those games demonstrated that whilst the standard is in absolute terms at a lower level than the olympics generally, there is considerable sporting merit in the events for their own sakes. I don't bracket paralympics and women's football together, what I bracket together is the comparative lack of media interest prior to a certain point and the impact that considerable media exposure can have. That point seems to have been rather lost on you.

The key word in your post seems to me to be in this phrase:

Giving women's football undeserved publicity is just a misplaced attempt at political correctness

What standard have you imposed on the world when you deem some sports but not others to be deserving of publicity? Most football outside the premier league is at a level considerably lower than the premier league standard. Why should we be interested in league one? Why should anybody be interested in Scottish football? Why do they 'deserve' media coverage? By the same yardstick, some premier league games are absolute dogshit. Why do they deserve media coverage?

You failed to answer my point about the growth in participation because it is unanswerable - womens and girls football has grown very rapidly in the last 15-20 years, and it is impossible to see what is "undeserved" about coverage in the media of a game that is growing rapidly in popularity. You aren't interested in women's football, fair enough. Many other people are. What makes your choice of what interests you more valid than theirs?

If you look at the attendance at most City games, the proportion of women to men is pretty poor - it's about 8 or 9 men to every woman where I sit. If you can't see why the club, as we prepare to expand our stadium, is eager to encourage interest in a sizeable proportion of the population that we don't currently reach as well as we might, I'm glad you aren't in charge of marketing. It isn't that women aren't interested in football, because as I have already said womens football has grown hugely as a participation sport recently, more than any other sport in this country.

Canada is an interesting example to choose because Ice Hockey is the No 1 sport there by a distance. I have no idea what standard their No 1 women's team reaches but assuming it's about the same as a decent high school team, that rather undermines your point to my mind. The women's professional game might be a long way behind the men's but its fucking streets ahead of school level football. If you don't believe me, go on the OS and watch some of the training videos. Then go and watch a schools XI play.

If you aren't interested in MCWFC but are interested in Sunday league football, good for you. You watch the Dog and Duck play the Rose & Crown, and I'll watch a team represent the club I have followed all my life.

 

[nomorethaksintimes]

I don't see at as cringeworthy at all. I'm a lot more interested in whether MCWFC does well in the women's league than I am about the mens league in Scotland.

Girls and women's football has been for some years the fastest growing game in the UK in terms of participation numbers. I can't see why that doesn't warrant general media interest and I can't see why City, having made the decision to invest in women's football, should do anything other than publicise it with gusto.

Before London 2012, the paralympics were a long way down the pecking order as well. They still are, but paralympic sports have come on in leaps and bounds (sorry, couldn't resist it). Times change. perceptions change.

Giving women's football undeserved publicity is just a misplaced attempt at political correctness and promoting equality- it does neither, if anything it patronizes women's football by giving it a platform it definitely doesn't deserve. The fact you compared it to the paralympics is telling as personally, they fit into the same cateogory. What paralympic sports have you followed in the last month? - I'm guessing none.

Ultimately, women aren't very good at football and while it's great they play the game as a leisure pursuit, a (top division)Sunday League game ultimately offers a far better standard.

In Canada, every year the women's national ice hockey team (ranked No.1 worldwide) regularly take on high school (not University) teams with mixed results. I respect that, but doubt City would allow the women's team to play our Under 17s as we would see it all for what it is - an areas of the sport that deserves minimal if any media coverage.

Wow, what a lot of crap in one short post.

First, not that it matters, but the answer to your question about the paralympic sports I have followed recently is that I followed the winter paralympics reasonably closely, some sports more than others. If you undertake any winter sports, as I do, you will have some appreciation of people who can for instance ski considerably better with one leg than I can with two. Your assumption, like most of your post, is completely inaccurate and rather offensive.

Be that as it may, on to the rest of your post. The comparison with the paralympics generally is apt because paralympic sports were largely ignored before 2012 but the prolonged exposure brought about by those games demonstrated that whilst the standard is in absolute terms at a lower level than the olympics generally, there is considerable sporting merit in the events for their own sakes. I don't bracket paralympics and women's football together, what I bracket together is the comparative lack of media interest prior to a certain point and the impact that considerable media exposure can have. That point seems to have been rather lost on you.

The key word in your post seems to me to be in this phrase:

Giving women's football undeserved publicity is just a misplaced attempt at political correctness

What standard have you imposed on the world when you deem some sports but not others to be deserving of publicity? Most football outside the premier league is at a level considerably lower than the premier league standard. Why should we be interested in league one? Why should anybody be interested in Scottish football? Why do they 'deserve' media coverage? By the same yardstick, some premier league games are absolute dogshit. Why do they deserve media coverage?

You failed to answer my point about the growth in participation because it is unanswerable - womens and girls football has grown very rapidly in the last 15-20 years, and it is impossible to see what is "undeserved" about coverage in the media of a game that is growing rapidly in popularity. You aren't interested in women's football, fair enough. Many other people are. What makes your choice of what interests you more valid than theirs?

If you look at the attendance at most City games, the proportion of women to men is pretty poor - it's about 8 or 9 men to every woman where I sit. If you can't see why the club, as we prepare to expand our stadium, is eager to encourage interest in a sizeable proportion of the population that we don't currently reach as well as we might, I'm glad you aren't in charge of marketing. It isn't that women aren't interested in football, because as I have already said womens football has grown hugely as a participation sport recently, more than any other sport in this country.

Canada is an interesting example to choose because Ice Hockey is the No 1 sport there by a distance. I have no idea what standard their No 1 women's team reaches but assuming it's about the same as a decent high school team, that rather undermines your point to my mind. The women's professional game might be a long way behind the men's but its fucking streets ahead of school level football. If you don't believe me, go on the OS and watch some of the training videos. Then go and watch a schools XI play.

If you aren't interested in MCWFC but are interested in Sunday league football, good for you. You watch the Dog and Duck play the Rose & Crown, and I'll watch a team represent the club I have followed all my life.

To give a short answer, I was suggesting media coverage and support by the club does not on any planet correlate with the increased participation and admitted rise in fans worldwide. My point was that the sport is promoted in the name of political correctness and not entertainment which is what sport is meant to be about - if you think women's football has got to where it is today through grass-roots support and a genuine buzz, we have different opinions.

I have seen some of the training videos and if you think it's a better standard than the academy kids (I didn't mention school level football), then I also can't agree. The fact you try and massage the point about women's football not quite being up there with the men's was what I was talking about before when I was saying that people are patronizing the women's game for not seeing it for what it is - pretty terrible football. Why don't we wait before it comes on leaps and bounds (if this happens) before shoving it in everyone's faces?

The logical conclusion of this patronizing support of the women's game was that Swedish reporter who had the cheek to ask Zlatan how his achievements compared to that Swedish football player - no wonder he wasn't happy!

If you look at the attendance at most City games, the proportion of women to men is pretty poor - it's about 8 or 9 men to every woman where I sit. If you can't see why the club, as we prepare to expand our stadium, is eager to encourage interest in a sizeable proportion of the population that we don't currently reach as well as we might, I'm glad you aren't in charge of marketing. It isn't that women aren't interested in football, because as I have already said womens football has grown hugely as a participation sport recently, more than any other sport in this country.

I almost mentioned this in my first post as a good reason for the women's game, and if I worked in marketing for City I'd probably try the same approach to widen demographics for City. But as I said, I see it for what it is.

 

[Chris in London]

Women's football today is played by women who played girls football 15 years ago. 15 years before that there was virtually no women's football and virtually no girls football either. The increase in the popularity of women's football is a direct result of a huge expansion, at grass roots level and with minimal support from the FA, of girls football in the late 90s and early years of this century.

There is a very simple point that many girls who played the game at school or club level as kids may not play any more now they have kids and jobs and mortgages but are interested in the game still and would be particularly interested in women's football. Quite why anyone would decide that a sport that interests many who played the game themselves up to a certain point should be excluded from media coverage on quality grounds that don't apply to coverage of lower league and non English teams is beyond me.

 

[KenTheLandlord]

I suppose Zlatan would be pissed off to be reminded , however indirectly, that he has won nothing at world and European level.

He would need that bike to catch up with Messi and Ronaldo in terms of comparison.

 

[nomorethaksintimes]

Women's football today is played by women who played girls football 15 years ago. 15 years before that there was virtually no women's football and virtually no girls football either. The increase in the popularity of women's football is a direct result of a huge expansion, at grass roots level and with minimal support from the FA, of girls football in the late 90s and early years of this century.

There is a very simple point that many girls who played the game at school or club level as kids may not play any more now they have kids and jobs and mortgages but are interested in the game still and would be particularly interested in women's football. Quite why anyone would decide that a sport that interests many who played the game themselves up to a certain point should be excluded from media coverage on quality grounds that don't apply to coverage of lower league and non English teams is beyond me.

My point was women's football seems to be exempt from those quality grounds which apply to lower leagues and non English teams. It exists in a world where goalkeepers have no idea what they're doing (I know that sounds like a gross generalization but after watching highlights of the last World Cup, I can't see how anyone could disagree), and noone who covers the game is allowed to acknowledge that.

As I said, I don't think we'll agree and I see it as a bit of a charade for the reasons I've already stated but I don't object to women's football itself obviously - just the attention around it. Maybe they should give the women's game smaller nets/pitches - it would help it distinguish itself from the men's game with a different style and would help it look less amateurish.

 

[kaz7]

Women's football today is played by women who played girls football 15 years ago. 15 years before that there was virtually no women's football and virtually no girls football either. The increase in the popularity of women's football is a direct result of a huge expansion, at grass roots level and with minimal support from the FA, of girls football in the late 90s and early years of this century.

There is a very simple point that many girls who played the game at school or club level as kids may not play any more now they have kids and jobs and mortgages but are interested in the game still and would be particularly interested in women's football. Quite why anyone would decide that a sport that interests many who played the game themselves up to a certain point should be excluded from media coverage on quality grounds that don't apply to coverage of lower league and non English teams is beyond me.

My point was women's football seems to be exempt from those quality grounds which apply to lower leagues and non English teams. It exists in a world where goalkeepers have no idea what they're doing (I know that sounds like a gross generalization but after watching highlights of the last World Cup, I can't see how anyone could disagree), and noone who covers the game is allowed to acknowledge that.

As I said, I don't think we'll agree and I see it as a bit of a charade for the reasons I've already stated but I don't object to women's football itself obviously - just the attention around it. Maybe they should give the women's game smaller nets/pitches - it would help it distinguish itself from the men's game with a different style and would help it look less amateurish.

smaller nets and pitches ffs
I hope to hell that was a wind up and not what you really think