-
LIVE: St Kilda v Western Bulldogs - 7:30PM Thu
Squiggle tips Saints at 51% chance -- What's your tip? -- Team line-ups »
Women's Footy AFLW Fremantle - 2020 #1 Team - Season Cancelled
- Thread starter CrowdedHouse
- Start date
- Tagged users None
- Sep 27, 2018
- 2,302
- 4,607
- AFL Club
- Fremantle
- Other Teams
- brisbane lions
I like the league expanding may as well go all in. Many of these players just played footy for fun and now with it being semi professional I expect the players to develop as well and therefore the quality of the game. Think about how far mens has developed professional in the past 40 years.
In women’s sport, no major australian competition has more than 8 teams except AFL.
Then you think that our Soccer team is ranked 6th in the world, Netball ranked 1st and basketball came 2nd in the last World Cup.
Seriously, having more than 10 teams is crazy and the standard won’t improve if more teams come in.
As a sport, AFL is a long way off other female sports.
Taylor
Community Leader
- Moderator
- #2,279
It's at the point where I feel like I could go down and run a few laps and be a walk up start somewhere just to get a body on the field that can move.
The standard of the game when it was Bulldogs v Melbourne wasn't exactly silky but the women were cracking in at the contest. I guess that can be expected no matter how many sides there are.
I think AFLX should be what the AFLW play, or the ground should be 50m shorter.
That would be way more expensive though and it feels like someone is paying to broadcast per game, so more teams is more games and as long as they don't overlap the men and women's season people with footy starvation will watch it.
..but they will watch anything AFL over AFLW still.
When it expands by 4 in 2020, it will have more paid spots than soccer, basketball and netball put together (420, at least).
I don't think you should underestimate how powerful that will be in attracting girls to the sport. Perth will have 60 pro AFLW players.
Quite a few of the younger AFLW players have passed up opportunities in other sports to pursue AFLW.
Depth will improve faster than expansion.
It will suck players out of other sports (I am fine with this, I don't care about those sports).
Wages will keep rising.
Playing lists will grow.
It will overlap AFL.
When their are 500+ players getting reasonable money, and it still costs thousands to be in a soccer academy, these sports female components will be in trouble, which is the entire point.
A generation of mums used to the idea of playing footy, is worth the expense to the AFL.
Sent from my XT1068 using Tapatalk
- Mar 2, 2007
- 43,126
- 61,322
- AFL Club
- Fremantle
- Other Teams
- Liverpool, Cowboys, Packers, Scorchers
Don't think it's as easy as it looks. A couple of the girls in my 9s team play WAFL, one of them in particular is an absolute gun and when I watch her on the field I wonder how she hasn't got a call up based on the standard I see on tv (though she did play in that WA North v South rep game or whatever it was last year).
You make a lot of great points.
Consider the WNBA has only 12 teams and the NWS 9 teams with a population of 300m in the US.
Women just don’t have the same amount of athletes than males do.
With some many teams, it spreads the talent too thinly and games won’t be at World class level.
I think you have the same effect if you had 10 teams but the players getting paid good money(a decent living ).
Last edited:
There are more athletes coming out of a given number of men than women, certainly.
However, it raises a question.
What is the criteria to be thought of as an 'athlete'?
The same bell curve that applies to men applies to women. So, if top level male sprinters come from the top 0.01% of the population with the physique and fast twitch fibres, then there is also a top 0.01% of women in these categories as well. If this 0.01% is producing less sprinters for women than men, why?
It seems even women with the physical capacity to be top level athletes are less likely to get into sport than men with those attributes.
Is it women are less into sport on average.
Does a lack of role models or media attention mean girls do not see a future in sport the way men do (can you ever imagine a female sprinter being treated like Bolt).
Is it a simple case that their are fewer options and pathways all the way through meaning more women give up?
I suspect if you were able to give a test which revealed innate footballing talent, most of the women with the highest levels of talent will not be playing footy, will never have played, and it quite possibly never even crossed their to play.
Sent from my XT1068 using Tapatalk
Taylor
Community Leader
- Moderator
- #2,286
I agree with your point about access pathways but this point isn't accurate in my opinion.
The measure I use to reduce a person's (male or female) chance to be an athlete is height. It compares most to strength and strength is a fair indicator of athletic performance.
In this particular metric men have a 14% larger standard deviation. Women are more like each other than men are, it's not by much but it's enough.
I know of so many semi-professional women who have to have a second job outside their sport to make ends meet, so having a much clearer path to a full time and rewarding career in sport will attract more talent but the pool is smaller.
That's why I think the AFL should allow all the AFLW clubs to poach two cross sport players, outside the list and outside the cap. Just take the best basketballers, pay them better than they get now - take the best hockey players and put them on the wing, play the soccer players across half back and put the rugby girls in the stoppages.
Invest $15,000,000 and cripple every woman's sport except AFLW, although AFL will always be diminished by not having the chance to represent your country.
- Mar 2, 2007
- 43,126
- 61,322
- AFL Club
- Fremantle
- Other Teams
- Liverpool, Cowboys, Packers, Scorchers
What took your interest?
- Mar 2, 2007
- 43,126
- 61,322
- AFL Club
- Fremantle
- Other Teams
- Liverpool, Cowboys, Packers, Scorchers
Other than Dana you mean?
I just hadn't seen one that showed and explained so much of the facility before. I've probably missed a few though.
Such an important year for the club.
West coast will have to take 4 or 5 players next year, we really need to finish top 4 this year.
West coast will have to take 4 or 5 players next year, we really need to finish top 4 this year.
Yeah I'm cautiously optimistic. I think we have one of the best midfields in the comp (Donnellan, Bowers, Hooker, Miller). We were the #1 clearance team last season despite being last for hit-outs and that was without Bowers. We were also the #1 tackling team so can apply good pressure. But thought we often stuffed around with the ball and had no semblance of a forward line to kick to (just like the men's). Think the back line was and still is pretty strong with Antonio, Williams and Bresland as the key pieces. Think it comes down to Houghton being that key target up forward (so Antonio can stay back) and seeing more of Gibson (who is probably our best forward and only managed one game) plus Sharp, Atkins etc all gelling better and being more dangerous as a team. And O'Sullivan improving on her 13% goal accuracy from last year will help a bit
All the noises so far coming from Trent Cooper sound good to me - back to basics, better forward gelling etc. That game at the Stadium last year was great - play similar with a better forward line and Freo should worry all the other teams.Similar threads
