What do you think of the state of Women's football??

[fatshaft]

even when he's gone to his grave.

Wimmin's football is a farce & if the BBC had any money & weren't forced to be PC we'd see nothing of it ... which would still be too much.

correct

[Gooner Girl]

Some of the comments on here about womens football are similar to what used to be said about womens tennis. Now I reckon the power of some of the top women is equal of SOME of the blokes.

why do women not play five-set matches then, like the men?

as plenty of women run the marathan which is probably a bigger test of endurance and stamina I don't see why they shouldn't play 5 sets? I expect one day they will change it.

[Gooner Girl]

As for coaching. I was the only female on my level 2 FA course of about 30 people - only about 15 qualified - it was a flipping hard course and loads of the men couldn't stand the pace. I don't see any difference between men and womens coaching ability and i would be more then happy for someone like Hope Powell to be given a chance at the Arsenal job once Sir Wenger retires.

How would you boys feel about a coach such as Hope Powell taking over Bolton at some point in the future? If you remember she was linked with a managers job in the football league a few months ago.

and given the reaction on your arsenal board when the very idea that Hope Powell might become Grimsby Manager (I believe I was one of the very very few who didn't think the world would explode if it happened), then despite the fact that Arsenal have the most successful Womens' Football Team of all time (I believe), then the message about womens football has failed to catch on - even there - what chance elsewhere?

I know I am in the minority here bish - I just think that even if women may not ever be as 'good' as men at playing there's no reason why they can't be coaching wise.

[fatshaft]

Yes, men may be faster and stronger and the argument for slightly smaller goals and pitches may make womens football more interesting to watch but the lack of good facilities, training time, quality coaching and equipment are really whats holding womens football back here and its all down to money. We lose most of our best female players to America where they DO get paid.

And there goes your argument right there. I believe the USA are more or less the best women's team right? And yet, basically, they are the same poor standard as all the rest.

[fatshaft]

I know I am in the minority here bish - I just think that even if women may not ever be as 'good' as men at playing there's no reason why they can't be coaching wise.

Totally agree, as coaching is obviously a mental job rather than physical, no reason at all.

And, if like Cherie Lunghi, they want to get their tits out as well, then all the better imo.

[Gooner Girl]

Yes, men may be faster and stronger and the argument for slightly smaller goals and pitches may make womens football more interesting to watch but the lack of good facilities, training time, quality coaching and equipment are really whats holding womens football back here and its all down to money. We lose most of our best female players to America where they DO get paid.

And there goes your argument right there. I believe the USAS are more or less the best women's team right? And yet, basically, they are the same poor standard as all the rest.

actually Germany beat brazil in the last womens world cup final unless I am very much mistaken.

[fatshaft]

Yes, men may be faster and stronger and the argument for slightly smaller goals and pitches may make womens football more interesting to watch but the lack of good facilities, training time, quality coaching and equipment are really whats holding womens football back here and its all down to money. We lose most of our best female players to America where they DO get paid.

And there goes your argument right there. I believe the USAS are more or less the best women's team right? And yet, basically, they are the same poor standard as all the rest.

actually Germany beat brazil in the last womens world cup final unless I am very much mistaken.

So, better coaching and training facilities isn't that important at all then?

[bobo the clown]

Some of the comments on here about womens football are similar to what used to be said about womens tennis. Now I reckon the power of some of the top women is equal of SOME of the blokes.

Ha, ha, ha, ha. You crack me up.

Even the Williams brothers wouldn't hold a set against any one of the top 100 men. They just wouldn't.

Look at the serve speeds of Venus Williams and Lleyton Hewitt for example. Not a lot in it. Hence the power is actually not far apart.

At what point did I say they'd hold a set or beat the men?

Fair enough, you didn't .... nor did you infer it.

... & her & his brother are examples of real power, with Lindsay Davenport, all 6' 2" of her, being another who may be able to hit a serve to match a moderate top man, & they'd still never hold their own in a match, not that you inferred they would of course.

[bobo the clown]

i would be more then happy for someone like Hope Powell to be given a chance at the Arsenal job once Sir Wenger retires.

So would I.

Though I'd prefer to see her given the Stretford job ... or possibly better still, replace El Prick when Liverpool brave up to binning him.

That would be good to see.

[Gooner Girl]

Yes, men may be faster and stronger and the argument for slightly smaller goals and pitches may make womens football more interesting to watch but the lack of good facilities, training time, quality coaching and equipment are really whats holding womens football back here and its all down to money. We lose most of our best female players to America where they DO get paid.

And there goes your argument right there. I believe the USAS are more or less the best women's team right? And yet, basically, they are the same poor standard as all the rest.

actually Germany beat brazil in the last womens world cup final unless I am very much mistaken.

So, better coaching and training facilities isn't that important at all then?

where did I say Germany or brazil had crap training facilities and coaching? I expect most of our players go to the U.S rather then Germany or brazil because it's possibly a more attractive country to live in and they speak the same language.

[thebish]

Some of the comments on here about womens football are similar to what used to be said about womens tennis. Now I reckon the power of some of the top women is equal of SOME of the blokes.

why do women not play five-set matches then, like the men?

as plenty of women run the marathan which is probably a bigger test of endurance and stamina I don't see why they shouldn't play 5 sets? I expect one day they will change it.

do they run it slower than the men?

[Gooner Girl]

Some of the comments on here about womens football are similar to what used to be said about womens tennis. Now I reckon the power of some of the top women is equal of SOME of the blokes.

why do women not play five-set matches then, like the men?

as plenty of women run the marathan which is probably a bigger test of endurance and stamina I don't see why they shouldn't play 5 sets? I expect one day they will change it.

do they run it slower than the men?

not a massive amount in it now. Their times are catching up I believe. Am fairly sure paula Radcliffe could run it faster then you!

[thebish]

As for coaching. I was the only female on my level 2 FA course of about 30 people - only about 15 qualified - it was a flipping hard course and loads of the men couldn't stand the pace. I don't see any difference between men and womens coaching ability and i would be more then happy for someone like Hope Powell to be given a chance at the Arsenal job once Sir Wenger retires.

How would you boys feel about a coach such as Hope Powell taking over Bolton at some point in the future? If you remember she was linked with a managers job in the football league a few months ago.

and given the reaction on your arsenal board when the very idea that Hope Powell might become Grimsby Manager (I believe I was one of the very very few who didn't think the world would explode if it happened), then despite the fact that Arsenal have the most successful Womens' Football Team of all time (I believe), then the message about womens football has failed to catch on - even there - what chance elsewhere?

I know I am in the minority here bish - I just think that even if women may not ever be as 'good' as men at playing there's no reason why they can't be coaching wise.

I don't think that was denied ever - was it? The question was about what we think of the standard of womens football - not whether they should be allowed to play or coach...

your arguments are valid - because ONE element must be about resources...

but - you yourself acknowledge that Womens football is not the draw that mens is - and not as entertaining or exciting or compelling.

Arsenal mens team tickets are hard to come by
Arsenal womens team tickets are easy to come by

but - how many games have you been to respectively of each? I'll wager it's the mens game that holds your attention - you often tell me about Arsenal mens games you have been to - but I have NEVER heard you talk about attending an Arsenal ladies game at all. The reason? the standard is poor and it is all a bit tedious to watch. If YOU - as a coach and a former player don't want to watch womens football - why would you expect anyone else to - and why would you expect the TV to pump millions into it?

you used to play - (before you got so old ) - but I'll wager playing is far more exciting than watching! (even if I would pay to see you play! )

[thebish]

Some of the comments on here about womens football are similar to what used to be said about womens tennis. Now I reckon the power of some of the top women is equal of SOME of the blokes.

why do women not play five-set matches then, like the men?

as plenty of women run the marathan which is probably a bigger test of endurance and stamina I don't see why they shouldn't play 5 sets? I expect one day they will change it.

do they run it slower than the men?

not a massive amount in it now. Their times are catching up I believe. Am fairly sure paula Radcliffe could run it faster then you!

if the best racing partner you can imagine to challenge Paula Radcliffe is ME - then I think you make my point for me!

[thebish]

Some of the comments on here about womens football are similar to what used to be said about womens tennis. Now I reckon the power of some of the top women is equal of SOME of the blokes.

why do women not play five-set matches then, like the men?

as plenty of women run the marathan which is probably a bigger test of endurance and stamina I don't see why they shouldn't play 5 sets? I expect one day they will change it.

do they run it slower than the men?

not a massive amount in it now. Their times are catching up I believe. Am fairly sure paula Radcliffe could run it faster then you!

the last 8 years have seen a speed-up in the rate at which women's times are catching up - but there is still a good 10mins in it...

but then - it does pretty mucgh mirror the rate of improvement at the start of mens times - and will tail off at a similar rate i would imagine.

[Gooner Girl]

why do women not play five-set matches then, like the men?

as plenty of women run the marathan which is probably a bigger test of endurance and stamina I don't see why they shouldn't play 5 sets? I expect one day they will change it.

do they run it slower than the men?

not a massive amount in it now. Their times are catching up I believe. Am fairly sure paula Radcliffe could run it faster then you!

if the best racing partner you can imagine to challenge Paula Radcliffe is ME - then I think you make my point for me!

Ok hun - i'll take you on! What do you fancy? Marathan? Triple jump? Beach football?

[thebish]

Ok hun - i'll take you on! What do you fancy? Marathan? Triple jump? Beach football?

beach volleyball - and i'll pick out the outfits..

then arm-wrestling and a game of rugby

[Gooner Girl]

not a massive amount in it now. Their times are catching up I believe. Am fairly sure paula Radcliffe could run it faster then you!

the last 8 years have seen a speed-up in the rate at which women's times are catching up - but there is still a good 10mins in it...[/quote]


Thats what i said - they are catching up - and look at when men first started doing the marathon compared to women - YEARS before! They may never beat the men but the distance between them is narrowing and as the quite interesting (well to an athletics coach!) article says below - the best women runners are alreading beating the hell out of all but the very best men.

WILL WOMEN MARATHONERS CATCH THE MEN?
In the months since Paula Radcliffe broke the world best time for the women’s marathon, many comparisons have been made between the men’s and women’s marathon records. As in 1983, when Joan Benoit Samuelson slashed the women’s best by running 2:22:43 at Boston, there is talk of the best women eventually beating the best men. The case is based on analysis of trends in the record books and physiological differences between the sexes. Let’s see if the argument stacks up.

In 1985, the women’s marathon world best was Ingrid Kristiansen’s 2:21:06, and the men’s mark was Carlos Lopes’ 2:07:12. Today, the women’s record is 2:15:25, and the men’s mark is 2:04:55. The difference between the men’s and women’s world best times, therefore, was 13 minutes and 54 seconds in 1985 and is 10 minutes and 30 seconds today. This change in the gap between the men and women is an indication of the relative maturity of the event for each gender. Given the relative newness and increasing depth of women’s marathoning, one might have expected the gap to narrow more over the past 18 years than it has. Of course, although no woman is likely to run a 2:04 marathon, the best women runners already beat the hell out of all but the very best men marathoners.

Another favorite pastime of the historians among us is comparing the men’s and women’s World Records at various distances, with the assertion that the gender gap decreases on a percentage basis as the distance gets longer. In actuality, the remarkable thing about the percentage difference between men’s and women’s best performances from 100 meters through the marathon is the consistency of the gap, which is roughly 9 to 10% across the range of distances. Fair comparisons may be confounded by the likelihood that some of the World Records were set with the aid of performance enhancing drugs. There is, however, no evident trend in the percent gap between men’s and women’s best performances over the range of Olympic running distances.

An additional argument that has re-emerged in the aftermath of several women running sub 2:20, is that women’s higher essential fat stores and/or higher ability to use fat as fuel may provide an advantage in long distance events. Well, higher fat stores may be an advantage for buoyancy and heat retention in swimming the English Channel, but if it was an advantage in the marathon then Paula, Naoko and Catherine should put on some weight. For a runner, higher fat stores would only be an advantage in an event in which she or he is at risk of running out of fat. Considering that a pound of fat provides 3,500 kilocalories of energy and that roughly 100 kilocalories of energy are burned per mile of running, no one is going to run out of fat during a marathon. Quite simply, women’s higher essential fat stores are a disadvantage for marathon running because the extra weight must be carried for 26.2 miles.

Recent studies have provided evidence that women can utilize slightly more fat for fuel during endurance exercise than men, which may be related to women’s higher estrogen levels. The ability to use fat is an advantage for the marathon because the body can only store about 2,000 to 2,500 kilocalories of glycogen (carbohydrate), so a contribution from fat is required in covering 26.2 miles. Fortunately, one of the major adaptations of marathon training for both sexes is an increased ability to utilize fat during exercise. Any highly trained marathoner who does a reasonable job of carbohydrate loading prior to the marathon is not likely to run out of glycogen when running 26.2 miles. Taking a carbohydrate drink during the marathon provides a further cushion against glycogen depletion, so higher fat utilization is not necessary for an elite marathoner (although it may be useful for the less well-trained).

The marathon is simply not long enough to nullify the physiological advantages that men have in testosterone level, maximal oxygen consumption, and hemoglobin level. Given that over 99% of the energy used in the marathon is produced aerobically, women’s lower hemoglobin level (which mean women can transport less oxygen per unit of blood) is a distinct disadvantage.

Back in 1983, I remember watching Joan Benoit Samuelson with admiration as the first woman runner I had ever seen train as hard as the men. Ingrid Kristiansen was the only woman in the world at that time with similar talent and a similar willingness to absorb hard work. Today, perhaps 15 women have reached that level of training, and a few are attempting to take training a further step. For example, Naoko Takahashi trains over 130 miles per week during her marathon build-ups, often at high altitude, and has had the occasional training day of over 40 miles.

Will the gap between men and women’s marathon world best times get smaller? Perhaps, but not by much. Even with the best 10,000 meter runners such as Paul Tergat and Haile Gebrselassie now turning to the marathon, the record is unlikely to drop by more than another minute in the next decade. While less than a handful of women have been under 2:20 to date, with the increasing depth of women’s distance running worldwide, particularly from the strong African nations, we will likely see the women’s mark fall by another minute or so in the next 10 years.

[Gooner Girl]

I know I am in the minority here bish - I just think that even if women may not ever be as 'good' as men at playing there's no reason why they can't be coaching wise.

I don't think that was denied ever - was it? The question was about what we think of the standard of womens football - not whether they should be allowed to play or coach...

your arguments are valid - because ONE element must be about resources...

but - you yourself acknowledge that Womens football is not the draw that mens is - and not as entertaining or exciting or compelling.

Arsenal mens team tickets are hard to come by
Arsenal womens team tickets are easy to come by

but - how many games have you been to respectively of each? I'll wager it's the mens game that holds your attention - you often tell me about Arsenal mens games you have been to - but I have NEVER heard you talk about attending an Arsenal ladies game at all. The reason? the standard is poor and it is all a bit tedious to watch. If YOU - as a coach and a former player don't want to watch womens football - why would you expect anyone else to - and why would you expect the TV to pump millions into it?

you used to play - (before you got so old ) - but I'll wager playing is far more exciting than watching! (even if I would pay to see you play! )

Fair points - though i still see some of that as media bias - if when i started supporting football at the age of 9/10 and you could get panini albums full of womens teams to pore over in the playground things might have been different! I don't go cos its tedious to watch, i guess i don't go cos i care more about the mens team having put so many years into supporting them.

[Gooner Girl]

Ok hun - i'll take you on! What do you fancy? Marathan? Triple jump? Beach football?

beach volleyball - and i'll pick out the outfits..

then arm-wrestling and a game of rugby

Can see you in a mankini bish

You might beat me at an arm wrestle but if we can play TAG rugby i'd whup your arse old man, you can't move your zimmer frame fast enough to catch me even if you could flatten me