The Soccer Thread (Version 9)

What was the roster for that USWNT loss?

 

I mean, yes, but it also stands to reason. At 11 or 12—I coached a scrimmage between 11-year-old boys and 12-year-old girls last week—they're still pretty even, physically. In fact, because girls mature faster, a 12-year-old girl will, odds on, be bigger than an 11-year-old boy. Then puberty comes along and turns the tables. Most athletic 15-year-old boys—good enough to make an MLS academy team—will be faster and stronger than most adult women. Speed is such a big part of attacking football, and while non-believers might not think so, it's also a physical game. Turn those boys into college-aged men, and it will never be close. It's just biology. It's why all those comparisons between the results of the USWNT and the USMNT were so stupid and maddening. Put the USWNT against French men or German men or Brazilian men and see how they fucking do. The USMNT should perform better than they do, but the quality of their opposition is stratospheres beyond what the women face. It's barely the same sport.

 

Can't find anything online. Some articles are saying that the now-unavailable FC Dallas post called it a scrimmage. In the Russia friendly four days later for which this was preparation, Crystal Dunn, Allie Long, Carli Lloyd, Rose Lavell, Samantha Mewis, Mallory Pugh, and Alex Morgan were the names I saw mentioned in a game story, so it seems likely that at least most of them played against the boys.

 

As someone who didn’t play much soccer 40 years ago, doesn’t follow now and never had a child involved in the game, I enjoy watching the women Play because I have no idea what’s good. The differences I see are the men strike the ball so much harder and the ball travels further and faster and they are able to make crisper passes. Women have a much harder time clearing the ball from the defensive end.
Men’s basketball and women’s basketball appear much farther apart. The best women’s college and WNBA teams couldn’t beat a boys HS team

Top seeded women in tennis couldn’t win a match at a men’s college tennis tourney.

I don’t know why women couldn’t compete in golf they played from the members’ tee and men played the championship tees. I don’t golf but it is said men are better putters. I have no idea why this could be true.

If we stopped comparing the performances the women would stand a better chance of getting more respect. But it’s insulting to the men and patronizing to the women

 

So does John T. Reed have a point?

 

This is a little off-topic, but as I understand it, Laura Ingram played on a state championship field hockey team in high school. She said her team played a field hockey game against the school's boys varsity soccer team, which was a mediocre team. She said that even though the boys soccer team had never picked up a field hockey stick prior to that game, it won easily.

Does that even sound plausible? Stick skills are not easy to master and it takes a while to understand the rules of the game. Could just sheer strength and athletic ability be enough to overcome those things?

 

For our high school coverage area, occasionally elite girls will record track and swim times better than mediocre boys. I figured with the women being world class athletes that train 365 a year. the age at which that physical edge was clear would be older than 15

 

The average 15-year-old, sure. The sort of 15-year-old who would play at an MLS academy? I can't say for certain, but I don't think so. Even in footy, size and build are factors. Players are taller than ever before. Those kids would be serious athletes.

 

It's a one-off, but when Annika Sorenstam played against the men at the Colonial, it was her putting that let her down. Otherwise, tee-to-green she was good enough to make the cut, at least.

 

I'm sure the best women's college and WNBA teams could beat a bad boys HS team - just not a good one.

I root for talented and competitive women like Sorenstam who want to test themselves against men, probably more than I do the ones who argue that they should be paid as much as men just because (as opposed to because they generate more revenue, which the USWNT can legitimately claim now, but won't be able to when the USMNT makes the WC, but I'm digressing).

A few years ago, the Canadian women's Olympic hockey goalie played on our city's minor league men's hockey team in the SPHL, which I think is third or fourth division, for a couple of seasons between Olympic years, usually as the second goalie playing about a third of the games. A couple of the players on the team in 2014 had played with her growing up, convinced management she could contribute (and draw fans), and recruited her to join them. Her goals/game and saves/shots averages put her below most of the league's starting goalies but above most of the league's backups. I got the impression that she didn't much care whether people saw her as a trailblazer, she just wanted to play hockey, but she was always gracious about signing autographs and doing fan events. Easy to root for, and I was glad my son got to meet her several times.

 

Never.

 

For the first time ever last year, we had a woman compete in our Mid-Amateur Championship. She won the U.S. Women's Mid-Am in 2015, and the course for our Mid-Am set up well enough for her (6,200 yards, which is about what the top women play at the USGA level). She finished T21. There were a bunch of guys who were upset she was even allowed to play, mostly because they were petrified that she'd beat them. But even with the most favorable course setup possible, she couldn't crack the top 20 against a bunch of mostly 35-45 year old men. I say this not to denigrate her, but just to show the biggest differences between men's and women's golf.