Why no Saints women team?

I enjoy watching a category that exists in it's own right (Women's Super League) as part of it.

Why?

For the reasons I mentioned earlier.

Why do you dislike it so much that you need to challenge those that enjoy it?

For the reasons I mentioned earlier.

It's the same for any sport you care to mention. Women's tennis doesn't compare to mens tennis, golf - same, athletics - same. That doesn't mean that people don't enjoy watching Jess Ennis or they can't appreciate the skill shown. A lot of people enjoy women's tennis more as it seems more reliant on skill rather than brute force.

You haven't mentioned any reasons for your particular enjoyment of a category in its own right.

Ahem:

I just enjoy watching football.

To which you responded fair enough.

Now, as i've been indulging you, answer:

Why do you dislike it so much that you need to challenge those that enjoy it?

The original point was why do we not have a team and that is based on community impact and general message it give s out. Everyone is aware it will never be as popular or close to standard of men's game.

Mind there are 10000 or so fans who weren't there in L1 so clearly don't go to games for same reason as me and need to have their football to a required standard

The original point was why do we not have a team and that is based on community impact and general message it give s out. Everyone is aware it will never be as popular or close to standard of men's game.

Mind there are 10000 or so fans who weren't there in L1 so clearly don't go to games for same reason as me and need to have their football to a required standard

Which is fair play. But to be so adversarial against people playing, enjoying and appreciating the game of any category is something I simply cannot understand.

 

Why do you dislike it so much that you need to challenge those that enjoy it?

It is basically repression and thankfully receding generally

Ahem:

 

 

 

To which you responded fair enough.

 

Now, as i've been indulging you, answer:

 

Why do you dislike it so much that you need to challenge those that enjoy it?

I don't dislike it so much, it's just poor level football, that has no reason to be associated with existing clubs or be subsidised for convenient PR reasons. If women want to play football and you're keen to go along and watch, then by all means do so. But like most people, you won't go out of your way or spend significant amounts of your own money to watch it, because ultimately, the standard is cr@p.

No, you said that in particular you "enjoy watching a category that exists in its own right". I was just wondering why, as opposed to football in general.

 

I don't dislike it so much, it's just poor level football, that has no reason to be associated with existing clubs or be subsidised for convenient PR reasons. If women want to play football and you're keen to go along and watch, then by all means do so. But like most people, you won't go out of your way or spend significant amounts of your own money to watch it, because ultimately, the standard is cr@p.

I have spent my own money and travelled to watch it, women's internationals and club level when I lived in the midlands. Same level as my season ticket, no, but still good money.

There is no 'as opposed to football in general.' It is simply football.

What you would judge as PR (Saints possibly reintegrating the womens team) others would consider common sense, retaking control of a team that plays with our club's name in one of the fastest growing sports in the world.

Don't see any prob's. If some are in to it then let them get on with it. No one particularly against although some are uninterested and will take little notice.

I'm happy to watch any level of football, whether on the telly (where there's a fair amount of women's football shown here in Oz), or even the 4 year olds who play before my kids' matches. It's the competitiveness, not the skill, that draws me in.

I wonder if you have a daughter, Sour Mash, and whether you would pour scorn on her efforts to get to the highest football level she could?

I'm happy to watch any level of football, whether on the telly (where there's a fair amount of women's football shown here in Oz), or even the 4 year olds who play before my kids' matches. It's the competitiveness, not the skill, that draws me in.

 

I wonder if you have a daughter, Sour Mash, and whether you would pour scorn on her efforts to get to the highest football level she could?

I haven't 'poured scorn' on anyone's efforts to be the best they can be. Anyone can play football and try their best, so I'm not sure what your point is.

 

I wonder if you have a daughter, Sour Mash, and whether you would pour scorn on her efforts to get to the highest football level she could?

Was thinking the same, well not just about Mash, but generally the sexist dinosaur Keys and Gray outlook would be hard to equate if you have daughters esp if they like playing football.

I haven't 'poured scorn' on anyone's efforts to be the best they can be. Anyone can play football and try their best, so I'm not sure what your point is.

Agree, just don't expect the majority of football fans to be very interested.

My problem with it is the attempt to pass it off as significant or some kind of achievement, when anything where you're the "best in the world" at being a very small sub-division of a category is just empty hype.

The justification for putting women's football on the BBC is presumably purely just because it is women, and they are the best women at the sport, that means that some people must be interested in it (is there any evidence that women are more interested than men are compared to the proportions of each watching Prem football?). It's pretty patronising tbh. There are literally thousands of (men's) football teams in England alone which deserve to be on television based on their athletic achievements more than any English women's football club.

My problem with it is the attempt to pass it off as significant or some kind of achievement, when anything where you're the "best in the world" at being a very small sub-division of a category is just empty hype.

 

The justification for putting women's football on the BBC is presumably purely just because it is women, and they are the best women at the sport, that means that some people must be interested in it (is there any evidence that women are more interested than men are compared to the proportions of each watching Prem football?). It's pretty patronising tbh. There are literally thousands of (men's) football teams in England alone which deserve to be on television based on their athletic achievements more than any English women's football club.

So are you suggesting that we no longer have women competing in the Olympics as their best times at events such as the 100m are not as good as distinctly average men's times? What's the difference here?

So are you suggesting that we no longer have women competing in the Olympics as their best times at events such as the 100m are not as good as distinctly average men's times? What's the difference here?

I think he was saying that it is a lot easier to achieve success in women's football than the male equivalent and that this devalues the achievement of women in the sport. I think.

The point it’s about what distinction or measurement do you use. The BBC have got behind women’s football in attempt to create some balance on a gender level as they have chosen to use gender as there point of distinction. Skill could be the point of distinction and balance could be created by giving coverage to a less skillful man’s league, a league that some may argue is more skillful than women’s football and followed by more people. After all us male **** footballers are underrepresented on national TV.

Each sport has to fight for its place in the nation’s psyche, so fair play to women’s football for securing the level of coverage that they have. But just because it’s the women’s equivalent to a men’s sport doesn’t mean it has an automatic right to be regarded in the same way.

I was listening to a football report on women’s football and a women footballer was chastising men for not coming to watch their sport, saying the failure of men to engage in women’s football is the only reason why it’s not taking off. My first thought is it is the mans wife’s and girlfriends, who are generally women, who are the gatekeepers to how their men spend their free time. It’s hard enough to get to all the men’s games you want to go to, let alone slipping in to a few ladies matches as well.

I think he was saying that it is a lot easier to achieve success in women's football than the male equivalent and that this devalues the achievement of women in the sport. I think.

Is that a serious statement.

I would promote equality + not have separate men+women sports. I would just have one 100m olympic gold medal, one wimbledon etc and best PERSON wins. Equal rights pls!

BBCs WSL goal of the season

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/29633504

main thing I take from that is there is no defending in woman's football....

Is that a serious statement.

I didn't say I agreed, just that that is what I think he was saying.

Oh well, the message I'm getting here is that women should stick to washing up?

I would promote equality + not have separate men+women sports. I would just have one 100m olympic gold medal, one wimbledon etc and best PERSON wins. Equal rights pls!

Oh well, the message I'm getting here is that women should stick to washing up?

There are few things more irritating than a woman at football. Apart from the vast majority being unattractive and stupid when it comes to talking about the game, they are even denser than the 'get it fooooooorwarrrd' brigade. One used to sit behind me in the kingsland, spent the first half of Lamberts first season shouting 'go on Richie Lampard, kick it' every five minutes. When they are not showing themselves as utterly clueless about the game they are getting moist at the sight of their current flavour of the months arse cheeks in his shorts.

Generally there are three types of women at football, the geezer bird who is vulgar and best ignored. The sad desperate, insecure type that can't bare their chap to enjoy a day out without her so insist on coming with him, ruining his day and social life in the process. And the single girl who thinks a football stadium will be a good place to pick up men. They have no place inside a football ground, particularly when the match is sold out as it means there is a good lad sitting in a pub somewhere missing out due to a sad, insecure, vulgar or girl on the pull taking his place.

There are few things more irritating than a woman at football. Apart from the vast majority being unattractive and stupid when it comes to talking about the game, they are even denser than the 'get it fooooooorwarrrd' brigade. One used to sit behind me in the kingsland, spent the first half of Lamberts first season shouting 'go on Richie Lampard, kick it' every five minutes. When they are not showing themselves as utterly clueless about the game they are getting moist at the sight of their current flavour of the months arse cheeks in his shorts.

 

Generally there are three types of women at football, the geezer bird who is vulgar and best ignored. The sad desperate, insecure type that can't bare their chap to enjoy a day out without her so insist on coming with him, ruining his day and social life in the process. And the single girl who thinks a football stadium will be a good place to pick up men. They have no place inside a football ground, particularly when the match is sold out as it means there is a good lad sitting in a pub somewhere missing out due to a sad, insecure, vulgar or girl on the pull taking his place.

LOL. Nice try Turkish.

There are few things more irritating than a woman at football. Apart from the vast majority being unattractive and stupid when it comes to talking about the game, they are even denser than the 'get it fooooooorwarrrd' brigade. One used to sit behind me in the kingsland, spent the first half of Lamberts first season shouting 'go on Richie Lampard, kick it' every five minutes. When they are not showing themselves as utterly clueless about the game they are getting moist at the sight of their current flavour of the months arse cheeks in his shorts.

 

Generally there are three types of women at football, the geezer bird who is vulgar and best ignored. The sad desperate, insecure type that can't bare their chap to enjoy a day out without her so insist on coming with him, ruining his day and social life in the process. And the single girl who thinks a football stadium will be a good place to pick up men. They have no place inside a football ground, particularly when the match is sold out as it means there is a good lad sitting in a pub somewhere missing out due to a sad, insecure, vulgar or girl on the pull taking his place.

I remember about 30 years ago my mate lending me an old Beta tape about ladies football in Sweden. It did mostly focus on the changing room after a match but was very interesting. It put ladies football in a very favourable light tbh.

Incidentally, this weekend it's AFC Bournemouth Lesb...I mean, Ladies v Saints Ladies if you're interested?

http://www.afcb.co.uk/news/article/2014-10-16-ladies-to-take-on-saints-in-cup-tie-2019192.aspx

Doesn't sue whistle play football? I'm sure I saw her mention it once. Perhaps she could get involved in setting a team up?

I love coming back on this thread from time to time just to do a bit of Dinosaur spotting

I would like to know what people mean by the term quality?

If it is simply who would win in a head to head match, then yes, the quality is at non league level, due to the differences in strength between men´s and women´s bodies.

If by quality, you actually mean skill, then I would strongly argue that the womens game at the top level (the national teams of US, Japan, Sweeden etc) is at least at championship level. Because of the lower levels of strength, you see, a greater emphasis on passing and dribbling. It is true that the level falls off quickly and the depth in the game is not there. It is also true that the goalkeepers are pretty useless. However, having watched a fair bit of womens football i find the "its like a pub league" comments to be laughably ignorant.

I would like to know what people mean by the term quality?

 

If it is simply who would win in a head to head match, then yes, the quality is at non league level, due to the differences in strength between men´s and women´s bodies.

 

If by quality, you actually mean skill, then I would strongly argue that the womens game at the top level (the national teams of US, Japan, Sweeden etc) is at least at championship level. Because of the lower levels of strength, you see, a greater emphasis on passing and dribbling. It is true that the level falls off quickly and the depth in the game is not there. It is also true that the goalkeepers are pretty useless. However, having watched a fair bit of womens football i find the "its like a pub league" comments to be laughably ignorant.

The few games i have watched when there have literally been nothing else on have been most amusing. The goalkeepers are hilarious, It reminds me of under 9s football when any shot over head height either ends up in the net or with the keeper frantically flapping at the ball and hoping it doesn't hit them in the face.

The few games i have watched when there have literally been nothing else on have been most amusing. The goalkeepers are hilarious, It reminds me of under 9s football when any shot over head height either ends up in the net or with the keeper frantically flapping at the ball and hoping it doesn't hit them in the face.

There is a reason of course, much harder for female keepers with the use of standard size goals. There are not many female keepers around with a similar stature to Desparate Dan. But Monkou is correct, individual skill level (for outfield players) is very high, there are many girls around who have technical ability equal to boys of similar age, despite some of the obstacles put in their way. The womens game is a "different" game in some respects, it relies more on individual skill rather then the physicality of the men's game. Would I go and watch it in preference to the men's game, no, but thats not the issue (I watched many girls league games as I was a coach for a few years). The big clubs (with the notable exception of Mid Table United) all have in-house womens teams now (Man City even had theirs parachuted into the WSL which was a disgusting treatment of Doncaster Belles), and you will find them completely integrated if you go to their web sites (look at Liverpool as an example, OK I know I said the big clubs). I think Saints, with their proud tradition in the female game should also be following this lead.

Bigger crowd at Adams Park last night to watch the Continental Cup final between Manchester City ladies and Arsenal ladies than the norm for Wycombe Wanderers.

So are you suggesting that we no longer have women competing in the Olympics as their best times at events such as the 100m are not as good as distinctly average men's times? What's the difference here?

I can't remember the last time I watched any athletics of either gender, but in the interests of debate - I wouldn't regard many of those competing in the Olympics as anything other than elite athletes. Even if the women are not as good as the blokes at it, they're still the best women in the world in a measurable event (where there are no grey areas like your colleague letting you down). Maybe that's easier to define as important because it's not a team sport - just like the Olympic relay team might be the fastest group of 4 100m runners from the same country, but that's nothing like as impressive as being one of the 4 fastest individuals in the world, so it gets a lower priority.

Somewhere in here there's some kind of quality criteria in which I can accept all blokes who feature in this are there on merit, but that not all women are - but when I saw hypo put it like that I disagreed with the sentiment... so I'm not sure that's exactly what it is. There's also some kind of question to be had about historical importance and media values which informs the frequency and proportionality of coverage.

I'm also not sure why comparing men's sport against women's is "unfair", Col, I can watch any old crap for entertainment too, I suspect the issue I have with it is the desperate need to present it as if it's on a par, when it clearly isn't.

To bring it back to the main point about a Saints women's team, I guess overall I'm not bothered about it because at the end of the day, I would only care that they were better than the Skate equivalent, and THAT value is delivered by the rivalry, not the contest at all.

I'd be in favour if we somehow managed to increase the club's threshold for FFP spending by spunking a load on the women's team. As Bearsy might say. But I wouldn't be keen to be "wasting" money that could somehow incrementally improve the first team even by a microscopic amount.

I would promote equality + not have separate men+women sports. I would just have one 100m olympic gold medal, one wimbledon etc and best PERSON wins. Equal rights pls!

Legitimate point, really. Then we could have a proper argument about which sport is best without caring about the crappy minority versions that somehow end up on the tv.

I would like to know what people mean by the term quality?

 

If it is simply who would win in a head to head match, then yes, the quality is at non league level, due to the differences in strength between men´s and women´s bodies.

 

If by quality, you actually mean skill, then I would strongly argue that the womens game at the top level (the national teams of US, Japan, Sweeden etc) is at least at championship level. Because of the lower levels of strength, you see, a greater emphasis on passing and dribbling. It is true that the level falls off quickly and the depth in the game is not there. It is also true that the goalkeepers are pretty useless. However, having watched a fair bit of womens football i find the "its like a pub league" comments to be laughably ignorant.

No-one said "pub league", "parks football" includes anything up to county level, which is an alright-ish level (with the understanding it's about the 11th tier of men's football in England).

Your point about "lower levels of strength meaning a greater emphasis on passing and dribbling" is laughable. They're not competing against men, so levels of strength are only relative to other women players. The stronger players will still use their strength to their benefit, and if that's a rare quality, they'll probably be disproportionately successful until others come up to their level. No one is consciously choosing not to develop strength, and they'll just get stuffed by the first side that has strength as well as the usual levels of skill.

Basically, if you have an averagely skilled side in a league where no-one has strength, and choose to develop skill as opposed to strength, you're a moron, because the marginal benefit of developing the rare skill is much greater than the benefit of incrementing the existing skills.

I watched the USA v Japan Women's Olympic Final at Wembley and the skill levels were very good indeed, especially Japan who moved the ball around and ran off the ball as well as many PL teams but of course pace and strength were not their greatest assets. USA preferred long balls forward and in the end they won because the Japanese were caught too many times too far forward to recover their positions in time... plus they has bloody good goalkeeper who was er.... 'Woman' of the Match.

To answer the OP, don't ask 'why?' do something about it, there's a load of women up at SMS these days and more than a few I'll wager can kick a ball around for 90 minutes. Just needs people to get it moving and not necessarily women.

Bigger crowd at Adams Park last night to watch the Continental Cup final between Manchester City ladies and Arsenal ladies than the norm for Wycombe Wanderers.

Wycombe, £17 for a terrace ticket, 23 home games a season.

Women's Cup Final, £5 an adult ticket* or £10 for 2 adults and 2 children, one off event.

*plus 25 FREE tickets for any Charter Standard Club and additional tickets for Adults at £3 a head.

http://www.wherecanwego.com/event/834482-the-fa-wsl-continental-cup-final-at-wycombe-wanderers-adams-park-stadium/events.aspx

I watched the USA v Japan Women's Olympic Final at Wembley and the skill levels were very good indeed, especially Japan who moved the ball around and ran off the ball as well as many PL teams but of course pace and strength were not their greatest assets. USA preferred long balls forward and in the end they won because the Japanese were caught too many times too far forward to recover their positions in time... plus they has bloody good goalkeeper who was er.... 'Woman' of the Match.

 

To answer the OP, don't ask 'why?' do something about it, there's a load of women up at SMS these days and more than a few I'll wager can kick a ball around for 90 minutes. Just needs people to get it moving and not necessarily women.

There's already a Southampton women's team, it's just got nothing to do with Saints since getting the boot along with the Radio Station when we got relegated from the Premier League last time.

They don't appear to be very good at the moment, though, putting on a bit of a recovery after an administrative debacle in the late 2000s. I vaguely recall that their entire team upped sticks to play for Portsmouth at one point (or something like that). They're pretty Winchestery for a Southampton team too, I think.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southampton_Saints_Girls_%26_Ladies_F.C.

No-one said "pub league"

See Post #30, LGTL. Said it was worse than a pub league.

To answer the OP, don't ask 'why?' do something about it, there's a load of women up at SMS these days and more than a few I'll wager can kick a ball around for 90 minutes. Just needs people to get it moving and not necessarily women.

The missus would be very suspicious of my motives.

Wycombe, £17 for a terrace ticket, 23 home games a season.

Women's Cup Final, £5 an adult ticket* or £10 for 2 adults and 2 children, one off event.

 

*plus 25 FREE tickets for any Charter Standard Club and additional tickets for Adults at £3 a head.

 

http://www.wherecanwego.com/event/834482-the-fa-wsl-continental-cup-final-at-wycombe-wanderers-adams-park-stadium/events.aspx

So Women's football has very sensible ticket pricing then. Not only is that ok, it is refreshing, particularly given the recent flapping about (men's) football ticket costs generally. I paid £10 to get into Maidenhead Utd, who are in the Conference South, last season. Not worth it at all

Ah well (sigh), I thought I'd better contribute as one of the few posters who plays women's football; mostly in goal although I did play half an hour up front last Sunday.

There seems to me to be two issues; the poor quality of women's football and whether Saints should have a team.

There's been a fair bit about the sorry state of grass-roots football recently, but there seems to be a lot of you on here who have been subverted by the Premiership or nothing ethos. Grass-roots participatory sport is a good thing in itself for society and football is a great game: there is a point in playing, whatever your standard. My club/team are at the base of the pyramid so we lose players to higher levels: one to Portsmouth this season and one off on a US university scholarship. Having a top local team gives everyone an aim, if they want to take things further: most of the players I know just want to play.

But there is rarely financial benefit at being good and training hard, no wonder the levels are generally lower. I recall chatting to the club accountant of Bognor Regis a few years ago and he described how the part-time players earned a useful match fee, enough to make a real difference to their salaries from their main job. It would be nice if for more women players there was even the prospect of expenses being paid, but you'd have to go pretty high to get that. As it is my team were really pleased when somebody's relative subsidised our team jackets. We get nothing for petrol when we cross Hampshire for away games, we pay monthly subs _and_ match fees.

Now the cost of running a higher level team would still be peanuts. The Barcelonas of this world have teams playing all sorts of sports, and it's part of their community ethos. Take it out of the PR budget if you like, or use any club fines towards it. Use the teams as a way of getting the younger players their coaching badges, and an appreciation of how well off they really are.

The pitiful amounts we couldn't afford in L1 should no longer be an issue, and the community benefits would be great and nor would there be any negative impact on the first team.

The final point: it wouldn't be compulsory to go and watch, although perhaps some of you should go: it would give you the chance to have a good moan.

Ah well (sigh), I thought I'd better contribute as one of the few posters who plays women's football; mostly in goal although I did play half an hour up front last Sunday.

 

There seems to me to be two issues; the poor quality of women's football and whether Saints should have a team.

 

There's been a fair bit about the sorry state of grass-roots football recently, but there seems to be a lot of you on here who have been subverted by the Premiership or nothing ethos. Grass-roots participatory sport is a good thing in itself for society and football is a great game: there is a point in playing, whatever your standard. My club/team are at the base of the pyramid so we lose players to higher levels: one to Portsmouth this season and one off on a US university scholarship. Having a top local team gives everyone an aim, if they want to take things further: most of the players I know just want to play.

 

But there is rarely financial benefit at being good and training hard, no wonder the levels are generally lower. I recall chatting to the club accountant of Bognor Regis a few years ago and he described how the part-time players earned a useful match fee, enough to make a real difference to their salaries from their main job. It would be nice if for more women players there was even the prospect of expenses being paid, but you'd have to go pretty high to get that. As it is my team were really pleased when somebody's relative subsidised our team jackets. We get nothing for petrol when we cross Hampshire for away games, we pay monthly subs _and_ match fees.

 

Now the cost of running a higher level team would still be peanuts. The Barcelonas of this world have teams playing all sorts of sports, and it's part of their community ethos. Take it out of the PR budget if you like, or use any club fines towards it. Use the teams as a way of getting the younger players their coaching badges, and an appreciation of how well off they really are.

The pitiful amounts we couldn't afford in L1 should no longer be an issue, and the community benefits would be great and nor would there be any negative impact on the first team.

 

The final point: it wouldn't be compulsory to go and watch, although perhaps some of you should go: it would give you the chance to have a good moan.

You mean laugh?

Why don't we all just admit that we don't watch women's sporting competitions for the sporting excellence

Does Les know best? http://www.dailyecho.co.uk/sport/saints/news/11754393.Les_Reed_gives_Southampton_Ladies_fresh_hope_of_re_establishing_link_with_Premier_League_club/?ref=mac