Women goalkeepers

[jayffc]

But we can't and should never go by an average. Les Green was a keeper for Derby at five foot eight inch. The Women's game has keepers of six foot and more. A sensible conversation is fine and the debate is fine but ultimately misguided.

Do we have to make everything smaller in Womens sport? How far do we go. Do we decide only on the average of height and weight. Sorry but it is a non debate. It reminds me of the old argument that men had when they said Women were not equipped to run long distances.

Sport should not be messed about to suit the average height and weight of society. Otherwise over the years the goal and the rest would increase as the average height grew higher.

Averages do matter

There might be a few 6 footers but the percentage of 6ft female athletes is comparibly way lower compared to the male. Counterparts whom the game was designed around... so the talent pool is even smaller to pick from of "tall women"

Its the same for both teams of course but of the opinion it'd be more competitive with suitable net sizes but at least thanks for proving reasonable and interesting counterpoint

Well I vehemently disagree but interesting debate. Now off to make tennis courts smaller, Rubgy pitches smaller, off to measure the average school boy and girl so we have different size pitches and goals.

Good point about school children. For a time during growth, girls are taller than boys on average so goals should be made smaller for boys for those years. Or maybe we should measure and adjust for the average heights of various nationalities when competing. E.g. Japan vs. Sweden.

Not a good point. A strawman argument

Firstly
School Kids often play in smaller nets than fullsize and are mostly just there having a bit of fun, not competing as professionals.

And as has already been made very clear

There are loads of sports that do adjust apparatus to accept the biological facts that there are differences so why are people so desperate to make out its such a weird thing to suggest when so many sports already make distinctions.

And no there is no precedent for adjusting for nationalities for gods sake... There are no other sports that adjust for this in international sports so it's not the same thing remotely and just an attempt to make a reasnable suggestion with precedent in other sports sound like it's weirder than it is in reality.

[jayffc]

If the goals are made smaller then it would be required to move the penalty spot closer to the goal, the next requirement would be for a smaller pitch.

and a smaller ball, and a smaller referee and a smaller red and yellow card, and a smaller crowd, and a smaller dugout, and a smaller football report, and smaller dressing rooms.

By the way i don't hear any ladies complaining about goal sizes.

No they can kick a ball, how fast or hard is by the by the by. Although if it were the norm already no one would care. Different to goal size though, and not one I think that impares them, not like the balls are remotely heavy.
Funnily enough - in volleyball they have smaller balls and smaller nets and no one says the women's are inferior for this they just get why. In the case of this and basketball though I'd say the difference in hand size is probably more an issue for the sports than size of ball to foot is

Cards- stupid strawman argument f all to Do with the performance in game

Smaller dugout - the performance aren't hampered by or limited by having more space on the bench.

Smaller referee - size of referee has no consequence to the game and likelihood is-if theyre female, they'll already have smaller referees on average as it is.

Smaller crowd etc... All further attempts to make a reasonable point based in biological fact sound silly. It isn't, but acting like these suggestions are the same thing is.


I'm not suggesting they would complain about it if it's just the way it is and all they've ever known... But I also don't hear any of the woman in sports where the distinction is clearly made and adjusted for complaining they want it changed to the men's equivalent because they feel belittled. If they'd grown up with it being the other way round they wouldn't bat an eyelid about it but people making out its some insult to suggest it is exactly why I image they too would be resistant to the Convo.

All of this is completely overruled by the absolute fact that there are tons of sports, as people keep adding, that have distinctions between the twos apperatus.

By all means don't agree that you think it'd improve the game and why, absolutely fine, but making such false equivolancies is a non argument

[WOTM]

The simple reason behind only simple adaptions being made (such as smaller balls in some sports) is that no one has wanted to invest in women's sports. So the girls and women have to adapt instead and then we are being compared to men and found lacking.

Just stop the comparison.

[jayffc]

The simple reason behind only simple adaptions being made (such as smaller balls in some sports) is that no one has wanted to invest in women's sports. So the girls and women have to adapt instead and then we are being compared to men and found lacking.

Just stop the comparison.

They aren't judging women for being different heights when they lower the nets in volleyball or badminton they're just appropriately adjusting for reality.

My partner understands this concept vehemently and doesnt take offence at it when she plays (volleyball) or feel compared to men.

I agree would be nice to be invested equally at grass roots for both sexes and this is a fair point. I actually think conversely my argument to slightly adjust goal size *relatively*, actually points to investing in things fairly and contributes towards stopping the direct comparison and allowing the women's game to be the women's game and more tailored.

Again, Im saying this as someone here watching and supporting and the suggestion is not made remotely as an insult

[Eton White]

The simple reason behind only simple adaptions being made (such as smaller balls in some sports) is that no one has wanted to invest in women's sports. So the girls and women have to adapt instead and then we are being compared to men and found lacking.

Just stop the comparison.

Lack of investment is not the reason at all. It would be just as cheap, or cheaper, to just use the same size ball as men do.
 
It simply improves the game to use a smaller ball in sports like basketball and volleyball when you're not 7ft tall and haven't got hands like shovels.

[toshes mate]

Haven't heard the players protesting and Earps hasn't made excuses. I remember the times when male keepers of some reputation let the ball pass through their legs leading to all manner of advice from spectators. I thought the Columbian shot was a difficult one to judge and Earps just couldn't quite get deep and central enough in her goal to get up and force the ball over the bar.

Were James's shots in the China match unstoppable because they were pretty hard hit or just placed where it is toughest to get to?

Blaming the tools of their trade is what some men do isn't it?  I mean look at referee consistency and VAR ... it really isn't gender dependent - it is rife.

[Holders]

Someone has really got an axe to grind in this thread!

Just ask the women: I expect they'd be offended by the condescension of the specious argument.

[H4usuallysitting]

Well I vehemently disagree but interesting debate. Now off to make tennis courts smaller, Rubgy pitches smaller, off to measure the average school boy and girl so we have different size pitches and goals.

This is an interesting discussion, and while I don't think there's any need to reduce the size of goals in women's football, there are other sports that do take into account the differences in men's and women's physiology.

The most obvious example is athletics. Hurdles are lower for women in both the 400m hurdles and the high hurdles (which incidentally is run at different distances for men and women to account for differences in stride length - 110m vs 100m) and steeplechase barriers are also lower for women. In the throwing events, the shot put and hammer are lighter for women and the javelin is both lighter and shorter for women than for men.

You could argue whether these variations are necessary, but there are plenty of examples of sports where the difference in men's and women's physical stature and strength are taken into account.

Exactly

Thank you

It's almost like the athletics board understand there are clear biological differences and so change the apparatus accordingly without anyone taking offence at it in relevant sports.

Acting like it's a "ludicrous" suggestion to take into account clear and factual biological disadvantages for female GKs playing in same sizes goals, or framing it as belittling is so predicatably and tiresomely virtuous when there's no need for it

There is legitimate precedent for it being taken into account.

Appreciate you feel you wouldn't change the goalposts personally, I would, but that's fine at least ya get where the suggestion comes from.

For me it makes sense to adjust the game to the key biological realities.


Women's volleyball nets are lower and less wide than men's - why

Same for badminton men's nets higher and wider... Why

Often a woman's par 5 is a man's Par 4 on the same professional golf course - why

Etc etc.

There are legitimate and obvious reasons why and people acting like they don't exist is so over the top. Ya might not agree and think it's fine as it is, as in this case . Personally I think it'd improve the women's game but hey... I'm just being condescending apparently.

I can't find anyone saying it's belittling or knights in shining armour.....the female goalkeeper was wrong footed, like the male goalkeeper a couple of weeks ago....should the goal have been shorter for Peter Bonetti who I understand was around 5'9" ....the answer is no.....all goalkeepers make mistakes (David James was called Calamity, and he was around 6'5"), all player's make mistakes.... absolutely nothing to do with making the pitches or goals smaller....

[jarv]

Alan Hodgekinson, Sheff Utd and England was only 5 ft 8 in I believe.  He playeed prior to Banks I recall.

[jayffc]

No axe
Already explained why "ask the Women" thing isnt the point. (although have since had this chat with a semi pro female footballer, albeit not a GK, and she had the maturity to not take it as an insult and could see the point just fine. Didn't think it unreasonable as a suggestion, but was just happy to accept it as it is)
Again, if it's all you've known in a sport and with all the making out its an insult stuff in here I wouldnt be suprised if some were insulted. But then I wouldn't expect all women to think the same, because that actually would be mysoginistic

Moving on now,
Sick of people making out its something it's not over and over

[jayffc]

Alan Hodgekinson, Sheff Utd and England was only 5 ft 8 in I believe.  He playeed prior to Banks I recall.

The outlier is not the rule. Completely Different time, different talent pool to pick from.

[jayffc]

Well I vehemently disagree but interesting debate. Now off to make tennis courts smaller, Rubgy pitches smaller, off to measure the average school boy and girl so we have different size pitches and goals.

This is an interesting discussion, and while I don't think there's any need to reduce the size of goals in women's football, there are other sports that do take into account the differences in men's and women's physiology.

The most obvious example is athletics. Hurdles are lower for women in both the 400m hurdles and the high hurdles (which incidentally is run at different distances for men and women to account for differences in stride length - 110m vs 100m) and steeplechase barriers are also lower for women. In the throwing events, the shot put and hammer are lighter for women and the javelin is both lighter and shorter for women than for men.

You could argue whether these variations are necessary, but there are plenty of examples of sports where the difference in men's and women's physical stature and strength are taken into account.

Exactly

Thank you

It's almost like the athletics board understand there are clear biological differences and so change the apparatus accordingly without anyone taking offence at it in relevant sports.

Acting like it's a "ludicrous" suggestion to take into account clear and factual biological disadvantages for female GKs playing in same sizes goals, or framing it as belittling is so predicatably and tiresomely virtuous when there's no need for it

There is legitimate precedent for it being taken into account.

Appreciate you feel you wouldn't change the goalposts personally, I would, but that's fine at least ya get where the suggestion comes from.

For me it makes sense to adjust the game to the key biological realities.


Women's volleyball nets are lower and less wide than men's - why

Same for badminton men's nets higher and wider... Why

Often a woman's par 5 is a man's Par 4 on the same professional golf course - why

Etc etc.

There are legitimate and obvious reasons why and people acting like they don't exist is so over the top. Ya might not agree and think it's fine as it is, as in this case . Personally I think it'd improve the women's game but hey... I'm just being condescending apparently.

I can't find anyone saying it's belittling or knights in shining armour.....the female goalkeeper was wrong footed, like the male goalkeeper a couple of weeks ago....should the goal have been shorter for Peter Bonetti who I understand was around 5'9" ....the answer is no.....all goalkeepers make mistakes (David James was called Calamity, and he was around 6'5"), all player's make mistakes.... absolutely nothing to do with making the pitches or goals smaller....

Shining armour and belittling is in the tone and use of false equivalences, not Stated explicitly "poor souls" "maybe they should have little  Cards too" like that's the same thing. It's all there. People are literally calling it condescending. I can only presume the same people believe volleyball, golf, badmington, hurdles and all the other sports where there are differences are all insulting and condescending to women as none of those in here have even noted or accepted this point and accepted why differences exist in many sports and that it's not about being condescending for Christ's sake.


As for this specific case... Already explained, wider point being made not just about this specific save, albeit do think it a contributing factor.

Talking about adjusting for averages not individual outliers *****as they do in multiple sports****** as explained already.

Can't get around the extremeties of the goal the same. Is what it is, not an insult. All this has been explained in the thread already

[WOTM]

The simple reason behind only simple adaptions being made (such as smaller balls in some sports) is that no one has wanted to invest in women's sports. So the girls and women have to adapt instead and then we are being compared to men and found lacking.

Just stop the comparison.

Lack of investment is not the reason at all. It would be just as cheap, or cheaper, to just use the same size ball as men do.
 
It simply improves the game to use a smaller ball in sports like basketball and volleyball when you're not 7ft tall and haven't got hands like shovels.

I didn't mean the ball. I meant the argument to adapt everything according to size. Pitch sizes etc. The Jamaican team had to do a go-fund me to even get to the world cup. No one is going to build pitches specifically for them.

[jarv]

I was just saying.  Talent pool was the best in the country (English first division) at that time. Can't take anything away from that. We had our own, Haynes, Leggat, Mullery, Cohen....

[jayffc]

I was just saying.  Talent pool was the best in the country (English first division) at that time. Can't take anything away from that. We had our own, Haynes, Leggat, Mullery, Cohen....

Sure

There are outliers to the general rule and with comingling of genetics and dietary changes we've probably got taller over the years on average in the world (haven't googled that could be completely making it up ha)


Might be an interesting debate there about whether a relative change in sizes in the men's game over the years should affect things, I wouldn't shut it down necessarily as stupid though even if I think it unnecessary.

Also. Worth noting those people you name will still have on average bigger and quicker jumping capacity than their female equivalant (relevant to the task of "keeping" a goal)


But again the point is about averages, the sub Columbian keeper was 5foot 4....(global average height for women)

[H4usuallysitting]

No axe
Already explained why "ask the Women" thing isnt the point. (although have since had this chat with a semi pro female footballer, albeit not a GK, and she had the maturity to not take it as an insult and could see the point just fine. Didn't think it unreasonable as a suggestion, but was just happy to accept it as it is)
Again, if it's all you've known in a sport and with all the making out its an insult stuff in here I wouldnt be suprised if some were insulted. But then I wouldn't expect all women to think the same, because that actually would be mysoginistic

Moving on now,
Sick of people making out its something it's not over and over

Who's insulted.... can't find anyone on here who's insulted, it's about a goalkeeper male or female that's been wrong footed....your opinion is goals should/could be smaller for women, my opinion is - it's nothing to do with the size of the goal.... having played in goal you know immediately if your standing in the wrong position as soon as the ball leaves the opponent's foot....and there's little to nothing you can do about it....

[H4usuallysitting]

Absolutely shocking goalkeeping again in the England Columbia game

Is it unreasonable to suggest the Women should be playing in slightly smaller goals than the men give they are on average considerably smaller?

England keeper is 5ft 8,
A bit unreosnable to expect her to get about the same sized goal as her 6ft 1 counterpart pickford

It's all there in your first post.... absolutely shocking goalkeeping.... it's got absolutely nothing to do with the size of a player.... it's if your in the wrong starting position....like the Brentford keeper against us, and the Wet Spam keeper about 10 day's ago....we all make mistakes on the football pitch, nothing to do with how tall we are

[Eton White]

As I've said on here, I think this is an interesting topic and while I personally think there's no need to make changes to goal sizes in women's football, I can't understand some of the sarcastic replies to the OP's suggestion.

Whether you agree with it or not, there's no doubt that some sports benefit in recognising the differences in men and women's height, weight and strength, so to discuss it for football is fair enough I think.

Just to finish on a slight tangent, there are lots of other areas in life where ignoring the physical differences between the sexes can actually be harmful. There's recently been lots of media attention about the fact that crash test dummies in car safety tests are modelled on an average man's height and weight, meaning that cars are actually less safe for women. They're now starting to use two dummy sizes to make sure that the tests are valid for both men and women.
It's not condescending to acknowledge physical differences. It's sometimes necessary.

[jayffc]

No axe
Already explained why "ask the Women" thing isnt the point. (although have since had this chat with a semi pro female footballer, albeit not a GK, and she had the maturity to not take it as an insult and could see the point just fine. Didn't think it unreasonable as a suggestion, but was just happy to accept it as it is)
Again, if it's all you've known in a sport and with all the making out its an insult stuff in here I wouldnt be suprised if some were insulted. But then I wouldn't expect all women to think the same, because that actually would be mysoginistic

Moving on now,
Sick of people making out its something it's not over and over

Who's insulted.... can't find anyone on here who's insulted, it's about a goalkeeper male or female that's been wrong footed....your opinion is goals should/could be smaller for women, my opinion is - it's nothing to do with the size of the goal.... having played in goal you know immediately if your standing in the wrong position as soon as the ball leaves the opponent's foot....and there's little to nothing you can do about it....

Again

Wider point that just happened to come up born from from watching many matches and an accumulation of such things. Just raised it yesterday after watching another round ofsomething I've noticed consistsantly

"Who's insulted "

I didn't say people here were personally...

People have quite literally said the suggestion is insulting/condescending to women.
Read the thread it's right there.

[jayffc]

As I've said on here, I think this is an interesting topic and while I personally think there's no need to make changes to goal sizes in women's football, I can't understand some of the sarcastic replies to the OP's suggestion.

Whether you agree with it or not, there's no doubt that some sports benefit in recognising the differences in men and women's height, weight and strength, so to discuss it for football is fair enough I think.

Just to finish on a slight tangent, there are lots of other areas in life where ignoring the physical differences between the sexes can actually be harmful. There's recently been lots of media attention about the fact that crash test dummies in car safety tests are modelled on an average man's height and weight, meaning that cars are actually less safe for women. They're now starting to use two dummy sizes to make sure that the tests are valid for both men and women.
It's not condescending to acknowledge physical differences. It's sometimes necessary.

Thank you
sincerely
Genuinely appreciate that

Its seemingly such a sensative emotionally driven argument that sees people jump into virtiousness and leaping to defence arguing about something that isn't being argued about.


Asked a question " is it unreasonable. To suggest..." didn't deserve being used as some suggestion of "axes to grind" and over the top sarcasm completely misrepresenting what was questioned.

Fine for people to disgaree as you do that it should be changed but the overboard jumping all over it is so unnecessary as ever online. It becomes arguing over what people think is being said and some idiological stance rather than what is actually being said.

Don't mind people disagreeing and saying why what so over , I agree it's an interesting conversation to be had and am open to arguments for and against wherever put reasonably... but won't stand for all the misrepresentation, posturing and sarcasm though.