Football hiding given by U15 side

Hooroo

<a data-ipb='nomediaparse' href='http://www.stuff.co.nz/sport/football/world-game/80405759/australian-womens-football-team-thumped-70-by-newcastle-under15-boys-team'>http://www.stuff.co.nz/sport/football/world-game/80405759/australian-womens-football-team-thumped-70-by-newcastle-under15-boys-team</a>
 
Aussie Womens team thumped by an U15 boys club side.
 
I sort of laughed at this as it would be gutting and probably a bit surprising to them but is the gap between mens and womans football that great? I mean that is a huge gap?
 
Of course in my true colours, I just read the headline and assumed the article. Research at its finest

Tim

:mocking: :mocking: :mocking: :mocking:

mariner4life

surely there is more to this story. That really doesn't seem right.

hydro11

I remember that Canadian woman's hokey team played a bunch of high school teams and lost all of them.

Hooroo

TO be fair on them, these things are more difficult when you are a woman

mariner4life

oh we've got a theme now.

antipodean

Easily believable. I remember when my brother was that age being invited for rep teams - the skill level and speed was well beyond what you see from the women.
 
This is why I keep trolling the SJWs and feminists who crap on about equal funding or television access in professional sports. There needs to be demand and there's not going to be much if the product sucks.

hydro11

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="Hooroo" data-cid="582806" data-time="1464221913">
<div>
TO be fair on them, these things are more difficult when you are a woman
</div>
</blockquote>
Well, yeah.

mariner4life

women's sport is shit. Especially cricket.

Dice

To be fair, kids do develop faster these days.
 
<img src="http://2static1.fjcdn.com/comments/Heres+my+birth+certificate+_bf4e30b27b4dceb83c186eed7195e4dd.jpg" alt="Heres+my+birth+certificate+_bf4e30b27b4d">

pukunui

Before I clicked the link I thought it was a rugby game and thought hmm 15 year old boys playing a womens rugby team. I could see a lot of flopping into rucks and not rolling away happening.
 
I know it's not PC but I don't really get the hype about womens sports. Im all for equality but elite sports is meant to be about the best player competing against each other. Some womens stuff is as entertaining as watching lower grade suburban sports.
Obviously there are some exceptions like netball where there aren't men playing so the women are the elite players and Olympics etc but cricket, rugby and soccer are perfect examples.
 
Now don't let my wife see this or i'll be in deep shit.

NTA

Something about it being a big squad rotation for the women's side with a few overseas players missing.
 
Not a good look, but they're up against an A-League academy side who are probably more skilled than your average park footy lads.

Hooroo

Still an Under15 age goup club side!

antipodean

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="NTA" data-cid="582921" data-time="1464231185">
<div>
Not a good look, but they're up against an A-League academy side who are probably more skilled than your average park footy lads.
</div>
</blockquote>
 
Exactly. My brother wasn't much older when he put a hat trick past Mark Schwarzer. Although as he modestly puts it, all he had to do was get the ball behind some pretty shit defence, use his pace and then it was a one on one. If the women's team were missing some stars, it's entirely believable.
 
Still fucking embarrassing, no matter what spin they put on it.

Chris B.

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="NTA" data-cid="582921" data-time="1464231185">
<div>
Something about it being a big squad rotation for the women's side with a few overseas players missing.
 
Not a good look, but they're up against an A-League academy side who are probably more skilled than your average park footy lads.
</div>
</blockquote>
 
Yeah - in hindsight, probably not surprising that some of these kids were doubtless bigger, faster and stronger than the women.
 
In my opinion, women's tennis is a more watchable product than men's tennis. It was an awesome product when Serena, Venus, Hingis, Capriati and Davenport were all at a similar level and battling for ascendancy. They mainly hated one another's guts and the sniping in the media was outstanding.
 
Unfortunately, Serena got too good and the others gave up rather than get their arses continually handed to them.

Sapetyvi

This reminds me of a night when I was out with two of my friends, the other had her work mate with her who at the time was about 40, might have been a year or two younger and she had played about 100 games for the National football team of Finland. 
Now the other mate of mine plays rugby with me and is a bit of a misogynist and bigot and as one can expect these two got into an argument after a couple of drinks about which is better, womens or mens sports.... 
Me and the girl werent too bothered with it until the 40 y/o told the 115kg mate of mine that if he has a rugby ball, they can go outside and take a couple of 1 on 1's. 
At that point I had to remind her that the womens National team play u15 teams annually and have never won against them so how can she expect beating a full grown man in a sport she has never tried, killed out the heated argument pretty quickly.

Frank

Very disappointed Stuff didn't provide a comments section for that article. A brilliant trolling opportunity gone to waste.
 
Surprised it was reported at all because it doesn't fit the SJW narrative.

Stargazer

With respect to rugby, there goes a lot more funding towards boys rep teams than girls rep teams, if girls rep teams even exist (there are 9 provinces with NPC teams, and - as far as I know - no age grade rep teams in all or most provinces).
Boys age grades start at about U11 or U12, then U13/14, U16, U18/19, U20, NPC, Super Rugby. For girls, it's straight from school/club to NPC. None of them get paid. Academies are often reluctant to admit girls, even if they are very talented, because they're basically developing a player without professional prospects. For the same reason, girls teams don't always have the best coaches, often have to play at the worst fields, play not as many games as boys etc etc. As they get older, they will focus more than boys on education and work, again because there are hardly professional prospects.
 
So it's quite unfair to compare boys/men's and girls/women's rugby for that reason alone. It speaks for itself that for physical reasons (lean muscle/fat ratio for example) there are quite a lot of differences, too.
 
I am all for more women's sports on tv, especially rugby. After all, they're 50% of the population and the number of female rugby players are growing steadily. I don't get people who say women's rugby/sport is shit or think it's not worth watching? Do you compare a boxing match between fly weight boxers with a match between heavy weights? Do you compare an amateur basketball game with a pro game? I think you should assess each sport/game in its own category. A boys secondary school game is also shit compared to a Super Rugby game. They still get broadcasted. So why not broadcast women's rugby more? Because there is no professional pathway? They still train as hard as their school/work schedule allows, with the limited facilities they get. As to the lack of sponsors & viewers for women's sport/rugby: that's a vicious circle. Broadcasters don't get sponsorship for these games because sponsors expect nobody wants to watch these games; nobody watches these games, because they're not broadcasted and they basically don't know anything about the teams/players; and so it continues. If nobody watches "because the product sucks", then NZ rugby and the provinces are more to blame than anyone else, for not providing better training & facilities to female players.
 
I think the NZ women's 7s team is a good example that shows that if you invest more money in women's rugby, you WILL get a better product. They built a women's 7s team out of nothing during how many years? A core group of these players do get paid; it may not be as much as the men, but I assume it's good enough to live from for the duration of their rugby career (not sure about off-season). I find the NZ women's sevens team just as good a watch as the men's team.
 
I don't know about football, but my guess is that an U15 side from an A-League team has already had a lot of high level training via their academy. They've probably had more quality training, coaches & facilities than the Aussi women's team. The women's players, how many are pros? How many have to juggle work/school with football? How do they compare physically to that U15s side? 
 
Oh, and feminists scare me, but sometimes they have point.

antipodean

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="Stargazer" data-cid="582998" data-time="1464247812">
<div>
I am all for more women's sports on tv, especially rugby. After all, they're 50% of the population and the number of female rugby players are growing steadily. I don't get people who say women's rugby/sport is shit or think it's not worth watching? Do you compare a boxing match between fly weight boxers with a match between heavy weights? Do you compare an amateur basketball game with a pro game? I think you should assess each sport/game in its own category. A boys secondary school game is also shit compared to a Super Rugby game. They still get broadcasted. So why not broadcast women's rugby more? Because there is no professional pathway? They still train as hard as their school/work schedule allows, with the limited facilities they get. As to the lack of sponsors & viewers for women's sport/rugby: that's a vicious circle. Broadcasters don't get sponsorship for these games because sponsors expect nobody wants to watch these games; nobody watches these games, because they're not broadcasted and they basically don't know anything about the teams/players; and so it continues. If nobody watches "because the product sucks", then NZ rugby and the provinces are more to blame than anyone else, for not providing better training & facilities to female players.
</div>
</blockquote>
 
Just because they comprise half the population doesn't mean broadcasters should be forced to include it. A boxing match between flyweights, particularly over the last 20 years, is going to be better because technically they are better boxers. Heavyweight is a joke. I don't compare it, I just prefer the technically better, more skilled version.
 
The reason boys secondary schools have rugby broadcast is for two reasons as I see it;
<ol><li>sports stars of the future, and</li>
<li>the quality is still miles ahead of women's rugby.</li>
</ol>

Frank

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="Stargazer" data-cid="582998" data-time="1464247812">
<div>
With respect to rugby, there goes a lot more funding towards boys rep teams than girls rep teams, if girls rep teams even exist (there are 9 provinces with NPC teams, and - as far as I know - no age grade rep teams in all or most provinces).
Boys age grades start at about U11 or U12, then U13/14, U16, U18/19, U20, NPC, Super Rugby. For girls, it's straight from school/club to NPC. None of them get paid. Academies are often reluctant to admit girls, even if they are very talented, because they're basically developing a player without professional prospects. For the same reason, girls teams don't always have the best coaches, often have to play at the worst fields, play not as many games as boys etc etc. As they get older, they will focus more than boys on education and work, again because there are hardly professional prospects.
 
So it's quite unfair to compare boys/men's and girls/women's rugby for that reason alone. It speaks for itself that for physical reasons (lean muscle/fat ratio for example) there are quite a lot of differences, too.
 
I am all for more women's sports on tv, especially rugby. After all, they're 50% of the population and the number of female rugby players are growing steadily. I don't get people who say women's rugby/sport is shit or think it's not worth watching? Do you compare a boxing match between fly weight boxers with a match between heavy weights? Do you compare an amateur basketball game with a pro game? I think you should assess each sport/game in its own category. A boys secondary school game is also shit compared to a Super Rugby game. They still get broadcasted. So why not broadcast women's rugby more? Because there is no professional pathway? They still train as hard as their school/work schedule allows, with the limited facilities they get. As to the lack of sponsors & viewers for women's sport/rugby: that's a vicious circle. Broadcasters don't get sponsorship for these games because sponsors expect nobody wants to watch these games; nobody watches these games, because they're not broadcasted and they basically don't know anything about the teams/players; and so it continues. If nobody watches "because the product sucks", then NZ rugby and the provinces are more to blame than anyone else, for not providing better training & facilities to female players.
 
I think the NZ women's 7s team is a good example that shows that if you invest more money in women's rugby, you WILL get a better product. They built a women's 7s team out of nothing during how many years? A core group of these players do get paid; it may not be as much as the men, but I assume it's good enough to live from for the duration of their rugby career (not sure about off-season). I find the NZ women's sevens team just as good a watch as the men's team.
 
I don't know about football, but my guess is that an U15 side from an A-League team has already had a lot of high level training via their academy. They've probably had more quality training, coaches & facilities than the Aussi women's team. The women's players, how many are pros? How many have to juggle work/school with football? How do they compare physically to that U15s side? 
 
Oh, and feminists scare me, but sometimes they have point.
</div>
</blockquote>
 
Nah, men are waaaaay better at sport.

The Silver Fern

Football hiding given by U15 side