Football
There is currently 1 person viewing this thread.
Anyone got any views? Feeling like putting a few quid on the home side for interest as much as anything else. Would be great to see them do it.
sort by:
Show
per page
Replies: 628
|
By:
quite fancied Spain but having seen the prices no real value, maybe a speculative punt on France.
Spain 4.7 England 5.7 France 7.2 Netherland 7.4 Sweden 7.8 Germany 9.4 19 bar |
|
By:
The standard is not even under 15 boys standard, wouldn't dream of having a bet.
|
|
By:
FIFA rankings are:
Sweden France Netherlands Germany Spain England Norway Italy Basically lay England at those odds  |
|
By:
press are going for it big time - must be bored - the great lionesses - let's get behind our girls !! if you know what I mean!!!
|
|
By:
Please don't be offended but I won't be watching. Good luck to the lionesses anyways.
|
|
By:
Alexia Puetellas (Spanish Captain) out injured with ACL on the eve of the tournament - big miss for Spain I would have thought, one of the top players in the womens game...
|
|
By:
THE top player in the women's game. Well in Europe at least
|
|
By:
Media
“Record breaking euros” Not even started and that theyve come out with that guff ffs No fooker is interested and yet they say that as gospel its tedious |
|
By:
Putellas a big miss for Spain. They still have the quality to hurt teams but England won't ever get a better chance now
there must be some juice in the top scorer prices for Spanish players now with Putellas and both their original number 9s ruled out |
|
By:
I thought the French girl or, Hegerberg at a bigger price, were the picks for that. England play NI last at which point they may well have already won the group and they look like they have goals throughout the team in any event. Overounds prolly massive mind
|
|
By:
England playing quite well but hardly a block buster opener yet...they do have a tendency for late goals
|
|
By:
I didn't even realise that it had started
|
|
By:
solid opening result in a high pressure game but will need to be better to win it.
|
|
By:
"women play football #not women's football" appears to be the hashtag for this tourney. They have to have something don't they?
France or Holland for me. |
|
By:
this really bbc one time tv god help us
|
|
By:
End up like the mens second prize
|
|
By:
Tickets are £40/25/15 for England group matches, 20/15/10 for all other group games, rising to 50/30/15 for the final. All tickets half price for u/16s. Hence the crowd sizes. Racist against England imo.
|
|
By:
The problem with women's football is that the pitches and the goals are too big for them, they were designed in the mid 1800's by men for men taking into account average heights of a man, the second problem is body shape, they have aerodynamacy drawbacks that makes sudden actions seem slower and amateurish, women have wider hips to prepare them for giving birth and so when they make the movements footballer are required to make, the twisting and turning and the contortion needed for free kicks, corners etc, it draws mockery as it's stood up against the men's game that everyone has been watching since day one. That's why the standard is often criticised, but it's not really the standard, it just is what it is, there's not going to be a new breed of super female players that will take today's game into another dimension in the future. They're already as fit and as technical as they can be. So you just take it as you find it rather than criticise even though some passages of play really can be slapstick.
The third problem is saturation. Sport is a crowded market and there's only so much of it you can realistically watch, you'd have to present something new to make it more marketable, a USP, but it's just more football and nobody has the time to follow both games. Compare and contrast to the rise of MMA, something different, born in the 90's it's had a far sharper rise in popularity. The media don't really know whether to stick or twist with it, they've promoted the women's game in recent years but it's kinda half hearted, putting a feeler out there to see if there's a market whilst keeping the feminists at bay at the same time, hasn't really caught the imagination despite the illusion that full crowds bring, your next door neighbour couldn't name a female player with a gun to his head. At best women's football is probably just a good filler, to fatten up sports packages with Sky and give a few more column inches in the paper, which sounds derogatory but the truth is you're never going to wait in anticipation for the news WSL season to start are you. Tennis is the best sport a women can venture into, in terms of popularity, monetary gain and worldwide recognition. Kind Regards. |
|
By:
Some very good points made ,mesmerised,still the BBC will big up the tournament like crazy ,today they reported an "incredible win" by England against Austria even though they were about 2-5 to win the game .
|
|
By:
It's a godsend for bbc, who have so little sport.
The publicity will encourage greater take up in the game. Women's game is years behind men's game in development, so, still playing catchup... Tika taka suits, but they can't seem to kick it far enough to have a good route one game. |
|
By:
Made me laugh when the Northern Ireland women celebrated their goal like it was a last minute winner.... The goal got them back to only 3-1 down
|
|
By:
Top girl athletes are pushed into either tennis or athletics by parents, primarily because that's where the money and competition are. I'm talking about stand-out athletes who would excel at a number of sports. If you look at the top female athletes in tennis and athletics they are capable of more than most men and a lot more than nearly all of these women footballers.
You will get a new breed of relatively super players when the money is there and they've been playing competitively in a lot more countries since they were girls. That hasn't even started yet, apart from the US perhaps, and it will take 15+ years after that. Most of today's top players have probably rarely had much of a test playing since they were girls. That's why you see some of them with 200+ caps - they had to play at international level to get even a half decent game. Most countries can't even produce 11 decent quality players yet. They are always carrying at least a few heifers. Miedema has been playing women's football since she was 14. A lot of them are lesbians who were likely boyish girls and played with boys when they were young as there were probably very few girls teams. That is a tiny cross-section of the female population. There is a ridiculously high number of lesbians playing compared to the general population. Sam Kerr and Katie McCabe are two other examples but there are loads. Nothing wrong with that but it just shows you how few girls actually played the game when they were young. |
|
By:
Any transgender representation? Would be shocked if there's not.
|
|
By:
|
|
By:
already as fit and technical as they can be? Utter drivel, watch the matches, most of them are not top athletes, not super-fit and very poor technically. Women are physically capable of a lot more. The talent pool is made up of a relatively tiny number of people who have been playing for 15 years+ in uncompetitive leagues where they have no peers. The US is the only country where that is not the case and it will take another 15 years before it's the case in the big euro countries.
|
|
By:
they've been professional for years in England, their h2h results against America are garner very close results, barely been a goal between them in most games going back 20 years, you are missing the point regardless, there is a limit to how well they can play, if America is the golden standard then the level of popularity globally is not going to increase substantially, it's still going to be contain matches full of slapstick moments because of the way they move, dribble with the ball, shoot and attempt to save goals. All of that aside, sport is saturated and they joined the pro party too late in the day.
|
|
By:
Certainly in the short term it's all about show piece events like this in terms of driving meaningful audience levels.
The last Women's World Cup was a real success for the BBC ...nearly 12m people watched the England semi final in that tournament...that's good numbers by any standards. |
|
By:
Plenty of money making opportunities
|
|
By:
Would agree that the games have betting potential, but so does every sport; not sure I could sit through a game though. Surprised 12m thought otherwise.
|
|
By:
Lots of folk don't care about standard so
long as games or sport is competitive. Mens 100m is not very good compared to bolt How many know what mens 1500m world record is let alone wimmins. There's some good football judges on here who find woman's stuff tedious, fair enough, but the target audience for bbc likely don't know what the time of day is in woman's football so its same as show jumping, or darts, or celebrity masterchef. And seemingly cheaper to show. |
|
By:
BTW wimmins 1500m record is about what men
were running in 1920/30s! Dont seem to see much noticeable pace in woman's football nor aerially dominant centre forwards, it seems pretty much set pattern, with tactics developed from mens football used. Little individual flair. |
|
By:
viva espana!
|
|
By:
My money would be on France, I think.They are a strong, physical and experienced team. And I would back them to bully a team like Spain, if they meet.
|
|
By:
Is it just me ? ... or do all the goalkeepers look the same?
Or maybe the same girl is playing in goal for every team |
|
By:
I thought Germany looked very good last night: quick, dynamic, loads of options, experienced, good team spirit. Best team we've seen so far, albeit only half the teams have played.
France apparently have internal issues, the coach isn't liked, she's dropped a lot of players, it sounds a bit like the Domenech situation which didn't go great for the men's team... Still, they will have quality in their ranks. But at tournament level, where the teams are very close, it's fine margins, and coach situation makes a big difference, team spirit etc. Spain looked great in possession, bossed the game, but Finland were rank bad, Germany you feel would have put 6 or 7 past them. The Putellas injury actually could galvanise the team, they now have even more to play for. Good technically, very good in possession, will be hard to beat although they did look vulnerable defensively at times vs. Finland. and do they have the same depth as Germany/France? Probably not, i'd say they're a bad favourite. England will be very hard to beat, but for me lack dynamism. Team spirit is extremely good, players like the coach, that helps. They have some quality in reserve but comparing them to Germany, I think they fall short in most departments. But we'll see I imagine 1 or 2 of the big ties will go down to penalties, it's that close. I'm swaying towards Germany at this point but still got to see Sweden and France play. |
|
By:
Sweden's to lose for me.
|
|
By:
England too ugly to win this. Mead, White, Hemp, the holding mid, that big centre back, hideous.
|
|
By:
PORTugal game so important it is only on bbci - !!
agree about germany looking about the best so far |
|
By:
presentation team a bit sexist...should surely include at least one bloke
 Germany (all round) and Spain (technically) both impressive so far but plenty of good sides yet to kick a ball.. Netherlands v Sweden should be decent.. |