The everyday blog of Richard Bartle.
RSS feeds: v0.91; v1.0 (RDF); v2.0; Atom.
12:57pm on Sunday, 23rd June, 2019:
Comment
I've been watching quite a bit of the Women's World Cup, and it's definitely growing on me. The rules are the same as for the men's game, but the way it's played is different in ways that emphasise why football is called "the beautiful game".
[No, this isn't about how the players look: it's about how the game looks.]
The root cause of the differences is the speed at which the game is played. The women play flat out to their maximum abilities, of course, but for the most part they're slower over the sprint than male players. This means they have longer on the ball, which in turn means they have more time to use it well. There have been some absolutely exquisite through balls in this competition that have scythed the defence apart; they're magnificent to see, but they simply wouldn't have been possible in the man's game. Either the attacker would have been closed down too quickly to make the pass or the defenders would have been able to cover the space into which the forward was running to stop the ball from being collected. In the women's game, it's as if there's more space on the pitch, which allows for this kind of accurate, visionary pass. It really does look awesome, and there are several players capable of making it happen, too.
Such passes require skill, of course, and this is again where the women's game has something over the men's. With just those few extra moments available to them before they're challenged, the players are able to put their ball control skills to good use. There's been some gorgeous two-footed play, with attackers dribbling past two or three defenders before taking a shot — or indeed not taking a shot. Where a male player might go for glory in the hope that he could power the ball through the keeper's hands, the female players tend to cut it back to an incomiong supporting player to have a crack at instead. This can lead to some quite exciting goalmouth scrambles.
The physical side of the game is still present, but not as disruptive as in the male game. If women in general weigh less than men and run slower than men, then their momentum will be lower. As a result, tackles are easier to ride, challenges will leave players on their feet more often, and play flows more smoothly. This is probably the most intractable difference between the male and female game. Lower-league games in male competitions are usually played at a slower speed than, say, the Premier League, because the players aren't as fit and the grounds aren't in great condition. This means that in theory, a male player with the same vision and ball control as a top female player should be getting the same kind of results from deploying his skills as the female player does. He wouldn't, though, because he's going to be sent flying off the ball by a strong challenge whereas she is not.
Another factor in making the game a better spectacle is that the goalkeepers are shorter than in the male game. OK, so they're taller than I am, but most male keepers are still going to have a longer reach than do the women. This means that shots from a distance and lobs are more viable in the women's game, because the keeper can't get to them as easily as a taller person would. Long shots and lobs look amazing when they work out, and are pretty special even when they don't, so the fact that the women's game encourages them more is another plus point.
Adding all this up, the football played does look breathtaking at times — more so than in the male game.
That said, the difference in quality between teams is lamentable. The USA did the competition a favour by hammering Thailand 13-0, as it exposed just how much work still needs to be done to bring everyone up to par. That means investment, FIFA, not trying to cram yet more teams into a competition that actually needs fewer until you can sort it out.
Also, it's important to keep real about this. No matter how good they are, the England women's team would still lose to the likes of Colchester United (which managed eighth place in the fourth tier of the men's game last season), primarily because of the physical aspect. I remember a watching a TV interview a few years ago in which a pundit asked England winger Rachel Yankey if she thought she could play in the men's league. She said no, of course not: a 16-year-old boy could stop her. The physical differences are simply too great.
Given, though, that it's these same physical differences that lead to the women's game being better to look at, I don't think that's a problem anyway.
Latest entries.
Archived entries.
About this blog.
Copyright © 2019 Richard Bartle (richard@mud.co.uk).