Where would the current best female players fit in the men's game?

Andersonisgod · 06-07-2015 1:10pm

Up to a point girls can compete. Physicality is less of an issue up to probably under 13's I'd say. I've seen a couple under 13's sides where the best player is a girl and they were more than able to hold their own, boy or girl it doesn't really matter at that stage once they are talented players.
As you get a bit older and physicality becomes a greater part of the game then you can see the difference, though I'd say that the best girls at amateur level are technically every bit as good as their male counterparts it's just the physical side where there's a difference.
At the top level, the amount of money pumped into the mens game, the amount they train, professionals compared to some women who are still semi professionals there's a greater discrepancy both in physicality and technical ability.

garra · 06-07-2015 4:28pm

In the massage room

Milkers · 06-07-2015 4:44pm

To attempt to answer the OP's question I would look at athletics where you can directly compare men's and women's physical capabilities in an objective way. Let's take the 100m, the best women in the world can run ~10.7. This is likely faster than any bloke you know unless you happen to be Paul Hession's neighbour. So the best women sprinters in the world would make the final of the Irish National Champs 100m, with a decent chance of winning a medal. But they wouldn't be able to compete internationally. They wouldn't even come close to qualifying for the European Championships let alone the Olympics or World Champs on the men's side.

I'm sure the same would roughly apply across most sports that involve running, jumping and some level of strength. The gap in physicality would be too big for women to compete anywhere near the top of the men's game.

As an aside, it's somewhat surprising to me that there hasn't been a world class female snooker or darts player who is competitive vs men. Probably only a matter of time.

dreamers75 · 06-07-2015 4:54pm

Billy86 wrote: »

Which colleges have under 15s teams?

It was supposed to be US under 15 team the womens national team lost 8-2 to.

I cant find any confirmation that match was ever played. Maybe someone else can?

CSF · 06-07-2015 5:12pm

Andersonisgod wrote: »

Up to a point girls can compete. Physicality is less of an issue up to probably under 13's I'd say. I've seen a couple under 13's sides where the best player is a girl and they were more than able to hold their own, boy or girl it doesn't really matter at that stage once they are talented players.
As you get a bit older and physicality becomes a greater part of the game then you can see the difference, though I'd say that the best girls at amateur level are technically every bit as good as their male counterparts it's just the physical side where there's a difference.
At the top level, the amount of money pumped into the mens game, the amount they train, professionals compared to some women who are still semi professionals there's a greater discrepancy both in physicality and technical ability.

Under 13s is probably a bit high I reckon. By that stage it's very physical. 11 a side and all. 6 foot lads in defence to bully smaller strikers out of the game.. At DDSL Premier level, you've teams setting up to kick the best skilful and technical players out of the game and all. I stopped seeing girls playing near the top leagues around under 11s.

764dak · 06-07-2015 7:17pm

Milkers wrote: »

To attempt to answer the OP's question I would look at athletics where you can directly compare men's and women's physical capabilities in an objective way. Let's take the 100m, the best women in the world can run ~10.7. This is likely faster than any bloke you know unless you happen to be Paul Hession's neighbour. So the best women sprinters in the world would make the final of the Irish National Champs 100m, with a decent chance of winning a medal. But they wouldn't be able to compete internationally. They wouldn't even come close to qualifying for the European Championships let alone the Olympics or World Champs on the men's side.

I'm sure the same would roughly apply across most sports that involve running, jumping and some level of strength. The gap in physicality would be too big for women to compete anywhere near the top of the men's game.

As an aside, it's somewhat surprising to me that there hasn't been a world class female snooker or darts player who is competitive vs men. Probably only a matter of time.

To add to your point there are 13 & 14 year old boys in Jamaica that probably make the 100m final for women. There was a world number one tennis player called Chris Evert and she couldn't beat her younger brother who was just a low level college player at the time.

You should just compare women with each other.

kfallon · 07-07-2015 4:50pm

Well the women's game can be physical enough

https://twitter.com/BBCSporf/status/618361685238280193

Andersonisgod · 07-07-2015 4:54pm

CSF wrote: »

Under 13s is probably a bit high I reckon. By that stage it's very physical. 11 a side and all. 6 foot lads in defence to bully smaller strikers out of the game.. At DDSL Premier level, you've teams setting up to kick the best skilful and technical players out of the game and all. I stopped seeing girls playing near the top leagues around under 11s.

Tbh I'm thinking of one under 13 team and one player in particular when I was writing that because in an outstanding team she was the outstanding player and was as good, if not better, than practically any player she played with or against.
Though inevitably as you go on physicality becomes more important.

Corholio · 07-07-2015 5:02pm

I played for a bit a few years ago in one of the mixed leagues in New York, reasonably competitive and to a decent standard. It was probably the first time I had ever played against girls in any way competitive and to be honest it surprised me how good they were. Physically they gave as much as they got and took me a while to realise I could tackle them pretty fairly as much as any of the men.

The one area that I think womens football is behind, and it's quite a specific thing I know, is foot speed. Something I've noticed watching is the speed of passing a ball or shooting is a good bit slower than the mens game. I don't know if it's purely a physical thing or a technique thing but there's quite a difference between the 2 sexes in that regard.

NIMAN · 08-07-2015 11:08am

... that and the fact that the goalies in the womens games are pants.

Chancer3001 · 13-07-2015 12:19pm

NIMAN wrote: »

... that and the fact that the goalies in the womens games are pants.

Except for Hope Solo (not just cos she's hot)

Where would the current best female players fit in the men's game?

Comments