Football hiding given by U15 side

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.

Stargazer

If school boy games are broadcasted because they're the stars of the future, then that just proves my point. Favouritism for boys sports because there's a professional pathway. To me that's just plain wrong. Sport is about a lot more than the select few who get to play for money.
 
You're missing a far more important point: girls'/women's rugby is growing. More and more girls are playing the sport. The NPC, Black Ferns and NZ women 7s players are THEIR role models. They are entitled to see their role models play now and then on tv. I mean, it's not that we're talking about many games, are we?
 
My mate's 9 year old plays rugby. She plays mostly at halfback. Yes, she loves Aaron Smith, but she LOVES Kendra Cocksedge, the Black Ferns halfback and 2015 world women's player of the year. Kendra is her role model, her example. Why can't my mate's girl see her role model on tv? Because only a few NPC games per year are televised. Black Ferns games are often not televised and it seems they're not even getting any matches this year. She can only see the women's 7s team when they play a final because rights-holder Sky only broadcasts the women's finals and has WorldRugby geo-block the livestream, also of the pool games, QF and SF that are not broadcasted. My mate lives in Taranaki, which doesn't have a NPC team. He takes his girl to Wellington and Waikato games if they play Canterbury (Kendra's team) at home. That's all she gets to see from her role models. His son on the other hand ...

Stargazer

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="Frank" data-cid="583006" data-time="1464249691">
<div>
Nah, men are waaaaay better at sport.
</div>
</blockquote>
 
I'd love to watch if you ever get the chance to say that to Valerie Adams :biggrin:

SammyC

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="Stargazer" data-cid="583010" data-time="1464250947">
I'd love to watch if you ever get the chance to say that to Valerie Adams :biggrin:</blockquote>
 
Valerie would probably agree with him 
She throws a lighter shot, and still doesn't throw it as far as the men

taniwharugby

Pretty sure there was a women golfer that got a shot at the PGA 5 or 10 years ago? 
 
She didnt fare too well, obviously better than joe hackers like us, but didnt make an impact.
 
Assume golf courses are set up differently when they have mens and womens events, but on a normal course, womens tees are invariably in fornt of the mens, or if behind usually made it a harder rated or higher par.
 
Golf is prett y sexist, not to mention Muirfield wont allow women....

Tordah

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="Stargazer" data-cid="583009" data-time="1464250589">
<div>
If school boy games are broadcasted because they're the stars of the future, then that just proves my point. Favouritism for boys sports because there's a professional pathway. To me that's just plain wrong. Sport is about a lot more than the select few who get to play for money.
 
You're missing a far more important point: girls'/women's rugby is growing. More and more girls are playing the sport. The NPC, Black Ferns and NZ women 7s players are THEIR role models. They are entitled to see their role models play now and then on tv. I mean, it's not that we're talking about many games, are we?
 
My mate's 9 year old plays rugby. She plays mostly at halfback. Yes, she loves Aaron Smith, but she LOVES Kendra Cocksedge, the Black Ferns halfback and 2015 world women's player of the year. Kendra is her role model, her example. Why can't my mate's girl see her role model on tv? Because only a few NPC games per year are televised. Black Ferns games are often not televised and it seems they're not even getting any matches this year. She can only see the women's 7s team when they play a final because rights-holder Sky only broadcasts the women's finals and has WorldRugby geo-block the livestream, also of the pool games, QF and SF that are not broadcasted. My mate lives in Taranaki, which doesn't have a NPC team. He takes his girl to Wellington and Waikato games if they play Canterbury (Kendra's team) at home. That's all she gets to see from her role models. His son on the other hand ...
</div>
</blockquote>
 
you could say the exact same thing about boys wanting to become male models, where are their role models? It's just silly using biological sex as the defining factor in what ought to be a role model, sexes are different and that's no problem, as long as any person is allowed to do the same stuff as anyone else (based on sex, certainly). Forcing equity through silly quotas or whatever is never the right way, when there's not enough demand for a thing, there's usually a reason for that. Imagine your mate had a little boy who wants to play netball, do you want to force netball teams to build male squads so he can have role models of the same sex?
 
topic: same thing happened in Germany a couple of years ago, U17 side (Borussia Dortmund) thrashed the national team 7-0. Women's football is horrible to watch (IMO).

The Silver Fern

Football hiding given by U15 side