Maybe they had an off night...

yeah....2 or 3 to nil, off night. 7-nil, you suck.

---

ΜΟΛΩΝ-ΛΑΒΕ
we're doomed

Australia? Ha.

Only 4 teams have ever won the WC. Australia isn't one of them. AUS has played 22 games in the WC. They've won 5.
They last qualified for the olympics in 04. In the two olympics they've played (and 00), they've played 7 games. They've won 1.

Women's association football has a similar, but smaller, problem softball had. Softball got killed in the olympics because over the 4 olympics, only 4 countries got medals (AUS, US, JPN, China). Only 2 countries got golds (US and Japan). But Australia's team was on the inside looking out, unlike their soccer team - in the 4 olympics for softball, they medaled every time.

Go boys! Yay!

Remember how much shit John McEnroe took when he said during a live broadcast that any men's college first singles player from a respectable school could beat Serena Williams?

I got flamed on this very forum for suggesting my high school boys team could beat the women's national team.

Now it seems everyone agrees with me.

---

Civilize the mind, but make savage the body.

- Chinese proverb

There is no doubt that a good boys HS team would beat the USWNT. A good HS basketball team would beat any WNBA team and on and on. Strength. speed, etc. Many college women's basketball teams get guys from the student body to act as a practice squad. They have to handicap the guys to keep it safe and fair. These are beer drinking college students who probably played basketball in HS.


There are a few ground rules. While only a few of the male players are taller than 6 feet 4 inches, dunking is still frowned upon. The same goes for blocking shots. Common sense also says that an out-of-control fast break may be dangerous, so such highlight-reel play is discouraged.
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/03/05/sports/college-basketball-for-these-men-lots-of-guts-but-little-glory.html?_r=0




Because men, at least those who gravitate to competitive round ball, are generally built bigger, stronger, and faster than women, teams use them as a form of overload training. It's like wearing ankle weights when running. "As far as the speed and the strength, you're not going to find teams better," Moore says, comparing the UConn practice squad with her game-day opponents. "We have to have something extra to keep up with them."
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2011-03-10/winning-women-practice-versus-men

That;s pretty interesting.

I was just looking up some women's vs boy's times in track and field, since they tend to be a little more objective. In the 2012 US Olympic Trials, the top 4 were 49., 50., 50. and 50. My high school 4x4 team was really good (not amazing, but I think finished second in DI Delaware state meet) and they were around 49, 52, 52, 52.

Soccer, I'm assuming (never played it) requires a level of strength and coordination, and I'm sure height and jumping ability makes a difference for headers and the goalie.

Women tend to be better than men at reflexes and balance (I believe) as well as lower leg strength per pound and they are close in endurance, which is why they do well at wrestling. I think coordination is pretty close as well.

Men overwhelmingly overpower them in total muscle mass, height, jumping ability, upper body strength, and total lower body strength.

---

-----------------------------Baron Von Speedypants
-----------------------------RunTraining articles here:
http://forum.slowtwitch.com/...runtraining;#1612485

Yes I do.

---

________
It doesn't really matter what Phil is saying, the music of his voice is the appropriate soundtrack for a bicycle race. HTupolev

Same thing with the WNBA conversation and I only reference it b/c invariably someone finds a way to bring it up during a broadcast about how amazing these women are and how they can compete with anyone. I just howl at the notion they could hang with a college program on the mens side it's easy to say when they know no one will call them out on a broadcast for it. I go to a couple of big games a year at Montverde Academy boys high school down the road it would be a hammering. The WNBA Champs would get blown out of the building by half against a team with a bunch of kids not legal to drink. It wouldn't even be close. You look at the set shots they take barely a jump shot, flat trajectory jumpers.....they would be hard pressed to get shots off from anywhere w/o having them swatted into the stands. Good luck getting the ball into the paint or a rebound.

I don't understand why they would play this game. Where's the upside?

If you win, well, you beat a bunch of 15 year old boys. Big deal. But if you lose... 7-0...

---

How does Danny Hart sit down with balls that big?

just for the record, you know that the newcastle jets u-15s aren't "a local high school team," but the development squad for a professional club. right?

-mike

---

____________________________________
https://lshtm.academia.edu/MikeCallaghan

http://howtobeswiss.blogspot.ch/

I'm all for woman's sports...as long as I don't have to watch.

You might be watching the wrong sports

---

---

---

Take a short break from ST and read my blog:
http://tri-banter.blogspot.com/

Just the stupid people agree with you. I'll keep it short.

1. Australia is barely a country let alone a legitimate soccer power
2. Substituting the Australian NT for the USWNT is like substituting the Sixers for the Cavs
3. Substituting the Newcastle Jets for your high school boys team is like substituting the Cavs for the local YMCA rec-league team
4. The Australian NT was missing about half their starters and were experimenting with player combinations and positions

But, yeah, I guess you are right because there was a story on the internet.

But think of the commercial opportunities, a la Billie Jean King vs. Bobby Riggs.

Other than the women's World Cup or the Olympics, women's soccer is a fringe sport with a pretty small fan base. Why not put on a match with the USWNT up against a high school "all star" boys team? Or against one of Duffy's SoCal club teams? King vs. Riggs in 1973 was certainly "entertaining".

"The match had an audience of an estimated 90 million worldwide (50 million in the US). The attendance in the Houston Astrodome was 30,472, as of 2012 the largest audience to see a tennis match in the US. Even after many years, Battle of the Sexes is the most watched tennis match in history."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_the_Sexes_%28tennis%29

---

"Human existence is based upon two pillars: Compassion and knowledge. Compassion without knowledge is ineffective; Knowledge without compassion is inhuman." Victor Weisskopf.

Because there is no upside for the USWNT. They win and so what? They lose and they weaken their argument for equal pay and stature and basically set women's soccer back 20 years.

There is some potential upside.

They play and they lose. They earn money from TV and they gain exposure.

They play and they win. King winning vs. Riggs was one argument leading to increased (and sometimes matching) purses for women's tennis.

As far as setting women's soccer back 20 years, the women could keep doing what they're doing now. Some interest once every four years during their World Cup. Less interest once every four years during the Olympics. Even less interest in the US Women's Soccer League.

Soccer (men's and women's) is not going to challenge the NFL, MLB, the NBA, or even the NHL in the US when it comes to money. But the women could produce a little juice by playing some amateur boy's and men's teams.

---

"Human existence is based upon two pillars: Compassion and knowledge. Compassion without knowledge is ineffective; Knowledge without compassion is inhuman." Victor Weisskopf.

There's a huge difference between playing an older pro and playing a high school team. One was to shut him up the other is demeaning in that it implies the highest level of women's soccer is no better than a boy's HS team (which is not to say that is inaccurate, but how does establishing that as a fact help them?)

Totally. Beach volleyball is very watchable!

Good girls teams play with ball control and movement while good boys teams play with speed and aggression so if the girls try to "take them on" they lose but if they play smart the boys over pursue and get frustrated.

Our club team played up and against boys to get tough competition and the contrast is pretty consistent.

Until the teams are on the field together, it's hard to determine the relative speed between the two but if the woman's team played ball control and could hold off a few hard charges, the game could go either way.

But again how does a 50/50 game against HS kids help them in any fashion?

Nice stereotyping. You obviously haven't seen my local HS team play.

---

Civilize the mind, but make savage the body.

- Chinese proverb

Doesn't the Canadian women's hockey time regularly play bantam teams?

I believe they play AAA midget teams. I couldn't find a recent article, but here's one from a couple years ago.

http://www.torontosun.com/...10/12409826-sun.html

No, I have not spent much time at your high school watching the girls or boys. People go to prison for that.

Of course I was stereotyping and your area does have quality soccer but you're also stereotyping in your statements... It's not always bad to stereotype and I stick by my generalization.

Boys and girls have a different style of play. Do you not agree with that stereotype?

Do you have video links to your high school games? Let's see how good these kids are instead of just telling us how great they are.

Here's a glimpse of one of our team players that competed for 2 seasons against the boys at travel level.

http://socrpro.com:8090/playback/1262

In the article they stated that they play the boys because they need the competition and there are no women teams to play that are good enough.

There is nobody stating that the women are superior or even equal, they play those boys because they are better than any other women available.

Your third point is a ridiculously stupid exaggeration. The difference in quality between the Jets U15 side and a quality hs team is nowhere near as vast as between a rec league team and the Cavs.

The team is a u15 development squad for an Australian A League side. It's probably similar in quality to a good U15 club/travel team in the US. And when you consider this is largely kids younger than high schoolers, it's probably equivalent to a quality high school team.

For clarity, I'm not trying to challenge you to "prove" you have good teams, I already know your area has good teams. I truly like watching club soccer / HS soccer because I'm involved in it.

I think I made this point years before you ever did on here, so everyone's agreeing with me and not you.