Womens EURO's

[Omegstrat6]

Well those last 3 subs have made a difference, especially Kelly and Ageymang. 2-2 now after two goals within minutes -game on!

[Omegstrat6]

Extra time. After a poor first half and the domination of Sweden, the last 3 subs especially have rescued England's chances of still going through.

Second half the Lionesses showed far more urgency and physicality so have earned their opportunity in this coming 30 mins. Momentum may be on England's side but either could win this. Good watch

[Omegstrat6]

England through on penalties! But Jes us, after such a generally good game, I have never seen so many awful penalties from both sides! Luckily for us, Lucy Bronze and Chloe Kelly managed to keep their nerve.

Sweden will feel pretty devastated as they could have had this but whilst the penalties could so easily have gone either way, credit to the Lionesses for coming back from such a poor first half to win this.

[On Balance]

England through on penalties! But Jes us, after such a generally good game, I have never seen so many awful penalties from both sides! Luckily for us, Lucy Bronze and Chloe Kelly managed to keep their nerve.

Sweden will feel pretty devastated as they could have had this but whilst the penalties could so easily have gone either way, credit to the Lionesses for coming back from such a poor first half to win this.

I would have to say we were generally second best. However, we won, somehow.

As for the penalties. I can only say, it was exciting.

I agree Omeg, it was a shocking display of how to take penalties.

That said, in all fairness, the pressure must be immense.

Well done England. In the end.

[baggieal]

Well done girls as watched the last 20 minutes around the pool in LA. Yes it was on Live there which was a pleasant surprise.

[boingy]

The difference in quality now to when womens football first started is huge. That whole match was well worth the watch. Internationals are always better.. Best players on show. Great win against a team in good form. Gutsy.

[Omegstrat6]

The difference in quality now to when womens football first started is huge. That whole match was well worth the watch. Internationals are always better.. Best players on show. Great win against a team in good form. Gutsy.

I agree that the match was gutsy-from both sides-and it was an entertaining watch. Certainly, the Women's game has improved tremendously over recent years, though I personally feel that there is still a way to go in terms of over-all quality to match the men's game-defensively especially.

Reading the comments on the BBC sports page however shows one of the key differences between the two games-the level of misogyny there is reflective of the toxic masculinity that marrs the men's game. Us gents can certainly be critical-if not scathing-of our own teams and players but the level of mockery and vitriol in some of these comments cross the line.

Were too many of the penalties dire? Certainly. Did the game lack quality in areas? Yes. Was Jess Carter overmatched at the back or Lauren James comparatively ineffective? Yes-but did Carter deserve the level of abuse she received online? No.

For those who claimed the game was entertaining only for the "comedic" penalties, I disagree. Maybe the men's game could learn something from the Women's and be a little kinder when making its criticisms.

[boinggazmic]

I agree that the match was gutsy-from both sides-and it was an entertaining watch. Certainly, the Women's game has improved tremendously over recent years, though I personally feel that there is still a way to go in terms of over-all quality to match the men's game-defensively especially.

Reading the comments on the BBC sports page however shows one of the key differences between the two games-the level of misogyny there is reflective of the toxic masculinity that marrs the men's game. Us gents can certainly be critical-if not scathing-of our own teams and players but the level of mockery and vitriol in some of these comments cross the line.

Were too many of the penalties dire? Certainly. Did the game lack quality in areas? Yes. Was Jess Carter overmatched at the back or Lauren James comparatively ineffective? Yes-but did Carter deserve the level of abuse she received online? No.

For those who claimed the game was entertaining only for the "comedic" penalties, I disagree. Maybe the men's game could learn something from the Women's and be a little kinder when making its criticisms.

Good summary.I enjoyed it but constantly bemused by the need to compare it to the men?s game..it?s totally a different sport almost..good luck to the ladies in the semis , however the Spanish on a different level.

[Omegstrat6]

Good summary.I enjoyed it but constantly bemused by the need to compare it to the men?s game..it?s totally a different sport almost..good luck to the ladies in the semis , however the Spanish on a different level.

You're right, we don't make such comparisons in other sports like tennis or gymnastics for example. Maybe it's because women's football is comparatively new to this level of media exposure?

England must avoid a repeat of last night's lacklustre first half performance and Wiegman may have to reconsider her starting XI, but I still think they have a chance of beating Italy to go through to the final. Spain, however-as you say-are almost on another level.

[Dubbag]

You're right, we don't make such comparisons in other sports like tennis or gymnastics for example. Maybe it's because women's football is comparatively new to this level of media exposure?

England must avoid a repeat of last night's lacklustre first half performance and Wiegman may have to reconsider her starting XI, but I still think they have a chance of beating Italy to go through to the final. Spain, however-as you say-are almost on another level.

They used up a fair amount of luck last night. Poor finishing by Sweden and some terrible woeful English defending by Carter at the back....Want to improve dramatically.

[boingy]

I agree that the match was gutsy-from both sides-and it was an entertaining watch. Certainly, the Women's game has improved tremendously over recent years, though I personally feel that there is still a way to go in terms of over-all quality to match the men's game-defensively especially.

Reading the comments on the BBC sports page however shows one of the key differences between the two games-the level of misogyny there is reflective of the toxic masculinity that marrs the men's game. Us gents can certainly be critical-if not scathing-of our own teams and players but the level of mockery and vitriol in some of these comments cross the line.

Were too many of the penalties dire? Certainly. Did the game lack quality in areas? Yes. Was Jess Carter overmatched at the back or Lauren James comparatively ineffective? Yes-but did Carter deserve the level of abuse she received online? No.

For those who claimed the game was entertaining only for the "comedic" penalties, I disagree. Maybe the men's game could learn something from the Women's and be a little kinder when making its criticisms.

The penalties arent always that bad Omeg. Last night it added to the drama though.

[Dubbag]

I saw this week somebody paid a million quid for a striker and I am sure that's great for all involved. But I do wonder about one thing tho. I wonder do they have wrote into their contract anything about not getting pregnant for the duration of their contract?
Asking simply because who ever bought the striker would have more then injuries to be concerned....I am asking because I am genuinely interested.
I know in our work place that question can not be asked in an interview as it is not legal to ask a woman that...but in football???
Anybody?

[Omegstrat6]

I saw this week somebody paid a million quid for a striker and I am sure that's great for all involved. But I do wonder about one thing tho. I wonder do they have wrote into their contract anything about not getting pregnant for the duration of their contract?
Asking simply because who ever bought the striker would have more then injuries to be concerned....I am asking because I am genuinely interested.
I know in our work place that question can not be asked in an interview as it is not legal to ask a woman that...but in football???
Anybody?

Can't see it Dubs as the law is the law and the 2010 Equalities Act and pregnancy rights apply to members of HM Armed Forces so sure they will apply to football!

Interestingly, I only had a conversation about this the other day. It's relatively common for male footballers to play into their mid 30s but wouldn't surprise me if many women players decided to quit by 30 if not a little sooner if their biological clock calls. Even those who have a partner to do the majority of child care would have to take a break from the game during and after pregnancy making a return to playing more difficult. Of course many may equally not be interested in having kids and raising a family and be focussed on their career but it is what it is and shouldn't prevent girls taking up the sport and enjoying success in it even if they end up finishing their playing days earlier than men if their priorities change.

[Dubbag]

Can't see it Dubs as the law is the law and the 2010 Equalities Act and pregnancy rights apply to members of HM Armed Forces so sure they will apply to football!

Interestingly, I only had a conversation about this the other day. It's relatively common for male footballers to play into their mid 30s but wouldn't surprise me if many women players decided to quit by 30 if not a little sooner if their biological clock calls. Even those who have a partner to do the majority of child care would have to take a break from the game during and after pregnancy making a return to playing more difficult. Of course many may equally not be interested in having kids and raising a family and be focussed on their career but it is what it is and shouldn't prevent girls taking up the sport and enjoying success in it even if they end up finishing their playing days earlier than men if their priorities change.

I am just wondering from an investment point of view not a personnel point of view. You are a financial asset that has just cost one million to somebody. That's serious money. I am not talking about an individual's right to play. Anybody can play.
But in the professional game you are someone's asset. I am wondering more about the contract you sign. I am wondering is there a pregnancy clause. Since we signed Dike he has been out injured, which is part of the risk and why clubs take out the insurance on players. But with the money going into women's football, surely there must be some clause. If there isn't, then there isn't but you could be losing a player for a year. That is the business of the game today, either male or female.

[Omegstrat6]

My understanding is that such a clause would be illegal Dubs. Of course it's a risk but remember, we all sign contracts for work whether for a fixed period or not but things change and just as shifts in markets and profits can lead to employers having the right to end or alter contracts so too do employees have their rights, including those regarding pregnancy and maternity as well as being able to exit their contract with notice.

I don't see how you could legally recoup the money you've paid another club for a player who subsequently gets pregnant but I also don't see why- in theory at least- clubs could not take out insurance against the risk of losing a player to pregnancy just as they do against injury.