Women's Euros 2022 Winners: England.

HT. 1-0 Sweden started well, but then I'd say it's been fairly even.

That was a finely taken goal by England.

Not interested. Sky sports news is shoving it down our throats no matter what though.

Equality.

Giving it the same bullshit build up they give to the men's team.

Only watched the England games, genuinely more watchable than the men's team.

2-0 England

3-0... fantastic goal.

Crikey, a back heel goal!

Cheeky!

Nice finish though.

Four!

In the final and a tough game against either Germany or France, who have looked good.

FT England 4-0 Sweden

Very good result against who I think were the favourites yo win the competition.

Belter of a second half display by England that.

Nice to see a positive, forward-thinking England football side.

Nice to see a positive, forward-thinking England football side.

Yup, enjoyable game of football played in a spirit of attacking freedom. Couldn't quite believe it when Russo backheeled it in through the goalie's legs.

Just casually looking at the number of posts on this tread I get the sense that a lot of people who frequent this forum, like me, are of the opinion that the women's game is.......how can I put it....Not an easy watch.

I'm not trying in any way to denigrate those of you who enjoy it. Not that anyone would give a toss what I think, but I don't care for it.

Just casually looking at the number of posts on this tread I get the sense that a lot of people who frequent this forum, like me, are of the opinion that the women's game is.......how can I put it....Not an easy watch.

I'm not trying in any way to denigrate those of you who enjoy it. Not that anyone would give a toss what I think, but I don't care for it.

first game I have watched for 90 mins or so. Some really good stuff but some keystone Cops moments too. Seeing the Goalkeeper doing a Pickford and then hearing that awful F***ing song was cringeworthy. However I really enjoyed the atmosphere until the coming home crap.
Better than i thought it would be for quality but not something I would want to watch week in week out but then we have been spoiled I guess Everton supporters would see it as an improvement .

first game I have watched for 90 mins or so. Some really good stuff but some keystone Cops moments too. Seeing the Goalkeeper doing a Pickford and then hearing that awful f**king song was cringeworthy. However I really enjoyed the atmosphere until the coming home crap.
Better than i thought it would be for quality but not something I would want to watch week in week out but then we have been spoiled I guess Everton supporters would see it as an improvement .

Let's be honest, it's just dire...watching Everton

Just casually looking at the number of posts on this tread I get the sense that a lot of people who frequent this forum, like me, are of the opinion that the women's game is.......how can I put it....Not an easy watch.

What aspects of the women's game make it not easy to watch?

I watch Canadian women play from time to time, find the women technical skill on the ball pretty good but the pace of the game is slow because they just don't run as fast as the men.

Entertainment wise it is okay but I am with walton4 that I wouldn't watch it on a regular basis. The women game at the club level is gaining momentum based on crowds they have been getting which is good for them.

Let's be honest, it's just dire...watching Everton

And yet still a better watch than the sh*te that is the men's national team.

I think the problem is comparing it (whether consciously or subconsciously) with men's football. But it's all relative. Women's tennis isn't better or worse than men's tennis, it's different (sometimes I prefer to watch an exciting back and forth rally than 170mps aces - not that there aren't any exciting men's rallies). Likewise women's boxing, or rugby. If you put an 11stone male boxer in with an 11stone female boxer, I think the male wins 9 times out of 10 (but what do I know). But an 11stone female boxer against an 11stone female boxer can be a great boxing match. And I don't mean in the way that, two bad boxers can serve up an exciting spectacle by sheer lack of skill; I'm reminded of the recent boxing match between Ireland's Katie Taylor and Liverpool's very own Natasha Jona - what a fight that was!

I found the first half against Sweden was played at a break-neck speed, and the technical side of things was great. Never mind the cheeky back-heeled goal (worth the price of admission, alone), there was a moment when one of the England players played a forward pass from midfield with the outside of the foot having just won the ball in a duel. That was as good as anything I've seen in the men's game. Sure there were mistakes, but then, we've seen male footballers commit some real howlers. I even remember Big Virg making a mistake once! (but I might have dreamed that last part ).

What the women might lack in power and pace they make up for in technical skill (again, the tennis example). And as far as pace is concerned - if the 100m sprint world records tell us anything, they aren't that far behind: Usain Bolt 9.58s and Florence Griffith-Joyner 10.49s. Yes, almost a second is seen as quite a gap in 100m sprints, but my point is, they are no slouches.

Watching England v Sweden last night, there were exciting moments and on the whole, it was enjoyable (apart from when the scoreline hit 4-0 and the match was effectively over - but unless it's Liverpool 4-0, I think most games are pretty much over at that point). Will it ever rival my love for watching LFC, I seriously doubt that. But I could see myself picking a women's football team and following their matches. No problem. 

Anyway, that's how I feel about it.

I think the problem is comparing it (whether consciously or subconsciously) with men's football. But it's all relative. Women's tennis isn't better or worse than men's tennis, it's different (sometimes I prefer to watch an exciting back and forth rally than 170mps aces - not that there aren't any exciting men's rallies). Likewise women's boxing, or rugby. If you put an 11stone male boxer in with an 11stone female boxer, I think the male wins 9 times out of 10 (but what do I know). But an 11stone female boxer against an 11stone female boxer can be a great boxing match. And I don't mean in the way that, two bad boxers can serve up an exciting spectacle by sheer lack of skill; I'm reminded of the recent boxing match between Ireland's Katie Taylor and Liverpool's very own Natasha Jona - what a fight that was!

I found the first half against Sweden was played at a break-neck speed, and the technical side of things was great. Never mind the cheeky back-heeled goal (worth the price of admission, alone), there was a moment when one of the England players played a forward pass from midfield with the outside of the foot having just won the ball in a duel. That was as good as anything I've seen in the men's game. Sure there were mistakes, but then, we've seen male footballers commit some real howlers. I even remember Big Virg making a mistake once! (but I might have dreamed that last part ).

What the women might lack in power and pace they make up for in technical skill (again, the tennis example). And as far as pace is concerned - if the 100m sprint world records tell us anything, they aren't that far behind: Usain Bolt 9.58s and Florence Griffith-Joyner 10.49s. Yes, almost a second is seen as quite a gap in 100m sprints, but my point is, they are no slouches.

Watching England v Sweden last night, there were exciting moments and on the whole, it was enjoyable (apart from when the scoreline hit 4-0 and the match was effectively over - but unless it's Liverpool 4-0, I think most games are pretty much over at that point). Will it ever rival my love for watching LFC, I seriously doubt that. But I could see myself picking a women's football team and following their matches. No problem. 

Anyway, that's how I feel about it.

I wasn't consciously or unconsciously comparing it to the men's game, I thought I was commenting on it as a standalone sporting endeavour.
I'm genuinely glad you enjoyed it, and you make some interesting points with comparisons within the greater sporting world. However I don't share your analysis. Just picking on one (of many) aspect(s) to make my point, technical ball skill, which you identify as being great, to my eyes looks at best clumsy.
It would be a boring world if we all liked/disliked the same thing. Enjoy the final

I can see no reason why the female body cannot perform technically, just as well as the man's body. Both have the same number of appendages and all that. Aside from the power of course, and perhaps, speed (though it's not like all males clock 9:58s and all women clock 10:49s - so I expect there will be some female footballers faster than their male counterparts).

And the game can only improve over time. Coincidentally, yesterday I was thinking about why the women's USA international football team is the best in the world, and then I remembered how the US school kids have been playing "soccer" for a long time, now. I think the boys are picked up for NFL and all that.

Anyway, the second best goal I have ever seen:

www.youtube.com/watch?v=18XwLJlwVUo

Maradonna's against England in 86' is the best.

EDIT: By the way, I wasn't implying you, personally, were comparing games, but that some (me included) might have done.

I can see no reason why the female body cannot perform technically, just as well as the man's body. Both have the same number of appendages and all that. Aside from the power of course, and perhaps, speed (though it's not like all males clock 9:58s and all women clock 10:49s - so I expect there will be some female footballers faster than their male counterparts).

And the game can only improve over time. Coincidentally, yesterday I was thinking about why the women's USA international football team is the best in the world, and then I remembered how the US school kids have been playing "soccer" for a long time, now. I think the boys are picked up for NFL and all that.

Anyway, the second best goal I have ever seen:

www.youtube.com/watch?v=18XwLJlwVUo

Maradonna's against England in 86' is the best.

EDIT: By the way, I wasn't implying you, personally, were comparing games, but that some (me included) might have done.

All I was doing was to pass comment on it in isolation, not relating to, or making any general reference to men at all. The initial point was to do with how few people seem interested in it (forum comments etc.) in contrast to the exaggerated saturation we see in the press.
I suspect once this tournament is over and all the Lioness frenzy is put to bed, we won't be hearing too much about the Women's game, just like we won't hear so much about the women's Tour de France for example...I'm not saying it's right, or wrong, it just reflects the publics interest.

Secondly: I'm not sure you're right with the "...same number of appendages"...again I'm no expert
..and lastly: US Soccer... If the performance of the team corresponded to the length of time you began playing, then surely England's men would be by far the best in the world ( Eton wall game and all that)....all the time...which they are not.

I suspect once this tournament is over and all the Lioness frenzy is put to bed, we won't be hearing too much about the Women's game, just like we won't hear so much about the women's Tour de France for example...I'm not saying it's right, or wrong, it just reflects the publics interest.

Apart from the coverage of the WSL on sky and cup games on the BBC, which was getting shown last season and will obviously continue this season!!