Over the past week, I’ve had one friend of mine rave about women’s football after seeing GB’s women during the Olympics. Others I have spoken to however, have remained somewhat dismissive of it which I still find difficult to understand. Here, I’m going to try and show that women’s football is in its own way as entertaining as the men’s game and worth giving a chance to.
I should point out that I’m no expert when it comes to women’s football. I saw several matches of Euro 2005 and the 2007 World Cup but since then, I’ve only seen bits of the odd FA Cup Final as well as the GB-Brazil Olympic game earlier this week. My knowledge is therefore limited and a little dated but hopefully sufficient enough to reach a sound judgement (of sorts at least).
Myth 1: “The women’s game isn’t any fun as it’s too slow”
It goes without saying that that the men’s game will be quicker than the women’s. However, I’m not sure it’s fair to call the women’s game slow, especially as I’m certain that the likes of Eni Oluko are much quicker than many men I know.
But even if the women’s game is ‘slow,’ is that a problem? Most football fans I know are British and are therefore used to a diet of unbelievably fast paced Premiership football. However, that doesn’t stop us from eulogising about the Spanish and Italian national teams, both of whom play at a slower pace than Premiership teams, relying more on technique, control and possession. So, if we find ‘slow’ teams like Spain entertaining, then surely the perceived lack of pace in the women’s game shouldn’t be a problem? And women players have technique aplenty (see below)…
Myth 2: “Women footballers aren’t very skilful”
Once you see a handful of games you'll quickly see this is far from true. The standard of technical skill and positional play in the women’s football is equal to that of the men’s. In certain areas, I’d say the England women are better than their male counterparts. Since Gazza, England have lacked a world-class, technically skilled footballer with the ability to beat a defender (with the possible exception of Wayne Rooney). England women on the other hand have had Kelly Smith doing just this for the past 17 years. Some of friends are bored of me saying this but I maintain that she’s by some margin one of the best footballers this country has produced over the past couple of decades.
Also, until her recent retirement Faye White had always shown herself to be defender equal in ability to any of her male counterparts. Plus she’s set a better example of being England captain than John Terry has been.
Myth 3: “There’s no point in watching women’s football as it’s an inferior form of the game”
I’ve already argued that the women’s game is not inferior to the men’s game, simply different. However, if for argument’s sake we do say that women’s football isn’t as good as the men’s, that’s still no reason for football fans to neglect the women’s game.
Let’s face it, the quality of men’s matches is very patchy. Bar the odd World Cup or Champions League game, you can’t say that most football games are actually enjoyable to watch. Many fans though will still continue to watch football throughout the year, either out of habit or because they like the wider social side of it. Why else do you get people holding season tickets for non-league teams? In my case, why do I continue to watch so many Blackburn games given their terrible brand of football? Football fans regularly put up with lower-tier football, finding other qualities in it that can be enjoyed. Therefore, how can we claim that the women’s game can’t be entertaining when we give non-league football a chance?
I can’t claim to be an avid follower of women’s football but I won’t dismiss the possibility of watching it again in the future. All I know is that the women’s game can genuinely be enjoyable to watch and hopefully I’ve shown that there are plenty of reasons for its critics to take a more open-minded approach to the game.
I should point out that I’m no expert when it comes to women’s football. I saw several matches of Euro 2005 and the 2007 World Cup but since then, I’ve only seen bits of the odd FA Cup Final as well as the GB-Brazil Olympic game earlier this week. My knowledge is therefore limited and a little dated but hopefully sufficient enough to reach a sound judgement (of sorts at least).
Myth 1: “The women’s game isn’t any fun as it’s too slow”
It goes without saying that that the men’s game will be quicker than the women’s. However, I’m not sure it’s fair to call the women’s game slow, especially as I’m certain that the likes of Eni Oluko are much quicker than many men I know.
But even if the women’s game is ‘slow,’ is that a problem? Most football fans I know are British and are therefore used to a diet of unbelievably fast paced Premiership football. However, that doesn’t stop us from eulogising about the Spanish and Italian national teams, both of whom play at a slower pace than Premiership teams, relying more on technique, control and possession. So, if we find ‘slow’ teams like Spain entertaining, then surely the perceived lack of pace in the women’s game shouldn’t be a problem? And women players have technique aplenty (see below)…
Myth 2: “Women footballers aren’t very skilful”
Once you see a handful of games you'll quickly see this is far from true. The standard of technical skill and positional play in the women’s football is equal to that of the men’s. In certain areas, I’d say the England women are better than their male counterparts. Since Gazza, England have lacked a world-class, technically skilled footballer with the ability to beat a defender (with the possible exception of Wayne Rooney). England women on the other hand have had Kelly Smith doing just this for the past 17 years. Some of friends are bored of me saying this but I maintain that she’s by some margin one of the best footballers this country has produced over the past couple of decades.
Also, until her recent retirement Faye White had always shown herself to be defender equal in ability to any of her male counterparts. Plus she’s set a better example of being England captain than John Terry has been.
Myth 3: “There’s no point in watching women’s football as it’s an inferior form of the game”
I’ve already argued that the women’s game is not inferior to the men’s game, simply different. However, if for argument’s sake we do say that women’s football isn’t as good as the men’s, that’s still no reason for football fans to neglect the women’s game.
Let’s face it, the quality of men’s matches is very patchy. Bar the odd World Cup or Champions League game, you can’t say that most football games are actually enjoyable to watch. Many fans though will still continue to watch football throughout the year, either out of habit or because they like the wider social side of it. Why else do you get people holding season tickets for non-league teams? In my case, why do I continue to watch so many Blackburn games given their terrible brand of football? Football fans regularly put up with lower-tier football, finding other qualities in it that can be enjoyed. Therefore, how can we claim that the women’s game can’t be entertaining when we give non-league football a chance?
I can’t claim to be an avid follower of women’s football but I won’t dismiss the possibility of watching it again in the future. All I know is that the women’s game can genuinely be enjoyable to watch and hopefully I’ve shown that there are plenty of reasons for its critics to take a more open-minded approach to the game.
This is political correctness run amok. When the best women's team in the world (USA) routinely gets destroyed by teenage boys in scrimmages, you CANNOT say the level of play is comparable. Stop blaming men for their biological superiority in strength, agility and athleticism, we didn't create it, and no one wants to see scrubs who can't beat boys.
ReplyDelete