Daleboy91Watp
Well-Known Member
Looks like the kinda woman that's sporting a growler from the 70's to me. Filth tap n hairy legs no thank you, over to you thumb.FFS.
Burn the OP alongside his witch.
Looks like the kinda woman that's sporting a growler from the 70's to me. Filth tap n hairy legs no thank you, over to you thumb.FFS.
Burn the OP alongside his witch.
With that comment a think a woman's likely to take a free kick at your baws.Women's football???
A bit like a dog walking on its back legs; seldom done well, but, then again, one is surprised it's done at all.
Feels like it’s being rammed down our throats. BBC especially. It’s sheidt and will never ever be anything close to the men’s game.
The BBC ram it down your throat because it's the only sport, or just about the only sport that they can afford to buy for broadcast. The games where they have had big crowds that they boast about tickets were priced much less than half the price you pay for a Premier league game. Thousands of tickets also given away free just to make the crowd look bigger.
Women tennis players are some of the best coached on the planet and yet the William's sisters couldn't beat a guy ranked 200 in the worldYou’re making up stuff that I haven’t even said. Why would women’s team replace men’s teams?
My point is simply that women’s football is poor because of lack of investment and proper coaching. Unfortunately the female coaches now most likely weren’t very good because of the same reasons, so poor footballers and coaches are coaching them.
With time and proper investment the standard of football would shoot right up. That includes technique, positional sense, stamina, pace (despite what you might think, women can learn to read maps and you don’t need a map to play football).
They’d never match the physicality of men so wouldn’t be able to compete with the top teams but that doesn’t mean every men’s team could beat ever woman’s team simply because of physicality (e.g. Stranraer vs Barca Women’s 2030). They wouldn’t compete anyway so it doesn’t matter, my point is simply that the standard could get to a level that it would draw interest and that it’s a valid endeavour.
Not sure prominence is the word. Contrived exposure would be the phrase I'd use.
I had the same with Helen Flanagan once she married Sinclair.I find it physically impossible to fancy Celtic players. As soon as players are associated with them they automatically become repulsive to me
Women tennis players are some of the best coached on the planet and yet the William's sisters couldn't beat a guy ranked 200 in the world
Punishable by castrationOh and knocking one out inspired by one of them should be a banning offence.
You do paint a pretty picture I had a good laugh at thatLooks like the kinda woman that's sporting a growler from the 70's to me. Filth tap n hairy legs no thank you, over to you thumb.
Haha brilliant it does paint a vivid image in the mind lol.You do paint a pretty picture I had a good laugh at that
A quintessential anti-viagra face.Not acceptable at all. If you are tempted just try and imagine Anton Rogan's face instead of hers
This. Football is a male dominated sport, enjoyed by the working classes and as such, gender must be made an issue to teach us a lesson that "women can do it too!"
They can play football. Just not to a standard that I would pay money to watch.
Ever wondered why the BBC aren't bending over backwards to show women's cricket or rugby?
Some folk on here go as far as marrying them so as dirty as you might feel afterwards it could be alot worseWith the female game getting more and more coverage, and our own attempts, as well as the scums, at making a serious go of this, I see a great dilemma on the horizon.
I see they have just signed one Sarah Teegarden, an attractive specimen by all accounts (google her, can't seem to post pics just now).
Now fellow bears, where do we stand in this? Is a ham shank acceptable if the filly has adorned the green and grey?
Womens football needs to be played on pitches and goals 50-70% smaller than mens to compensate for their lack of physicality.
This pretence that they are 'equal' being rammed down our throats from the likes of the BBC is delusional.
I prefer menUm, rules?
(not sure if this applies but anyway)
I prefer female goalies who go down quicker, ba boomInteresting take here on why changing the size of the Goals may not change the game that much. In mens at least smaller goalkeepers actually have better saving stats as they are more mobile and can get down quicker.