This kind of dialogue is not okay. Ever. Anywhere. To the topic, I think I understand what you are trying to communicate. You define competitive as "a better or stronger team." Using that definition, then I mostly agree with your statements. I don't use that definition for competitive. Here are two definitions from Miriam-Webster dictionary: "inclined, desiring, or suited to compete" "as good as or better than others of the same kind : able to compete successfully with others" I don't see all the teams within the French league "suited to compete" or "able to compete successfully with others" within the league. Please don't take this as bashing a league. I'm just trying to make sure we understand what each other are saying. Quite frankly I enjoy your insight, debzy.
To me if you try to make teams equal, you actually remove the competitiveness part. Instead of selecting teams by the top in term of quality, it drives all the teams towards the same middle ground mediocrity in the way, rather than pushing all the teams towards excellence. Regarding those points : -Your best teams are better than the best teams from other leagues : that can be compared -Your mid-table teams are better than the mid-table teams from other leagues : no real data except friendlies -Your bottom teams can, not uncommonly, surprise your best teams : I am sure about that criteria and what it means ? -Your top players are world-caliber players : fair point -Your average players are better than the average players from other leagues : very difficult to compare is Becky Edwards better than Laura Coombs or Aminata Diallo ? -Your talent floor is higher than the talent floor from other leagues : fair point I really don't think it is possible to rank Leagues properly.
Well, it depends on what you're comparing your "competitive" against. If you're looking at the league, by itself, then competitiveness within the league is the same as keeping the league balanced. If you're looking at the league as it competes against other leagues, then yes there is an element of "regressing to the mean" that other leagues might not impose on themselves. However, I don't think pushing in-league competitiveness necessarily handicaps a league - middle ground within a single league doesn't have to be mediocrity. I think it's perfectly possible to support both balance within the league and strong performance against other leagues in the sense that "a rising tide lifts all boats" - with the proper standards, it would be very easy to have both. Sorry if this was confusing! I can spell out what I effectively wanted: If you have a league where every team plays each other twice, home and away, you would expect 18 games pitting one of the top 3 teams against one of the bottom 3 teams. Obviously you would expect the top 3 teams to win a majority of those 18 games, but the balance within the league would determine the extent of that majority. And unbalanced league would see the top 3 teams win 16+ of those 18 times, while a balanced league would see the top 3 win maybe 11-13 of those 18 times. My argument is that, if you want to say the league as a whole is high-quality, that means even the worst teams are good enough to earn points against the best teams with some regularity. Agree, this is very hard to compare, but we do have some data points in the handful players that opt to seek other opportunities each year. But, in general, most leagues come out even based on that scant data. So I included this point more for completeness, as opposed to thinking it would be (currently) useful to differentiate leagues. If it *does* become useful at some point, though, that would be telling.
Regarding average players I think a good comparison points is watching the u23 teams play each other or against the B teams
Somewhat, yes.... I mentioned earlier though that using any NT still isn't quite representative of the whole player pool. It's definitely better than nothing, though, especially if you start talking B teams. I just wish more nations used B teams! Give more players the chance to were their nation's jersey.
Going back to the OP's points, and the tone of the correlating blog article which discussed the dawning reality of the way American's should potentially assess the future quality of it's professional women's soccer league, I don't see how anybody here who follow's the French league can honestly come to the conclusion D1F (from top to bottom) matches or improves on the current standards of quality witnessed within the NWSL... By their intrinsic natures it's clear both leagues are designed to be very different in the way they addresses the issues of healthy competition, offering the same pro's and cons witnessed all across the globe whenever we view the female games numerous competitions still attempting to balance financial stability, and the constant pursuit to create/further advance attitudes in wider professionalism. The NWSL having a (lets say morally dubious lol) non paying world class pro athletics college system in place, allows the league to focus it's gaze on the needs of it's various FA/FED's who financially back it, meaning the concerns of ever developing a natural ladder system doesn't even exist next to the more important desires of pushing a (still artificial) sense of marketable competitive parity. So following the traditions and culture of European football, how is a D1F going to be on the same level as a NWSL when it has young teens playing within the same competition as established senior pro's, knowing 95% of it's teams nationally that can barely call themselves semi pro will end up facing it's one super team filled with women who can typically earn six figures a year lol.
I've long argued the Olympic's should be a U-23's tournament for the women too, where the men's (more interesting) rule of teams only having three overage players makes perfect sense within the current climate of improving club football and the extra physical demands it's placing on the games top games top players. Yes, I know the old argument of North America's different developmental concerns will constantly arise when you propose this to North American wnt's fans, but looking at the constant wilderness that exists between U-19/20 and senior football for a lot of players, I think it only makes sense to eventually adjust all of this towards being the same as the men. I mean with everybody else already having their own Olympic qualifiers in place, Europe could actually hold a legitimate one of their own if things ever progressed towards a genuine U-23 Olympic cycle calendar; and this could be a BIG deal if we truthfully asses the general quality of the Olympics tournament for women, and then compare that to the far more entertaining and competitive female youth tournaments witnessed in recent years.
They are not mostly in a long term because as I told they simply, due to their amateur/semi-pro status, can't financially compete with the full professional teams. The competition is there but is ruined by the enormous financial disparity between clubs which makes the league constantly unbalanced, the right word to describe D1F.
We will get some one-off data soon as Real Betis Femina currently 11th of 16 in the Spanish League will play Reading Women who finished 8th out of 9 in the FA WSL. Game in on the 29th of March.
It's still too soon to restrict one of the only major competitions for women to U-23. Until we get more than just the WC and the Olympics for non-European nations, I say keep it as is.
Like I said, fans of certain wnt's hate to hear this opinion, but i think when you look at the age of most quads entering the women's Olympic tournament, and take on board the way it's organised helps lower quality of football on display, the U-23 question is still a debate worth having considering the benefits it has for EVERYBODY, and not just the few strong wnt's from confederations with weak, poor, stagnant regional championships. See, without serious TV contracts or major sponsorships ever caring too much about football, let alone women's football during much of the Olympic's, the rule of using three overage players within squads of players under the age of 23 doesn't actually impact anything negatively in the wider landscape of women's football. More wnt's would get to appear, more wnt's would have a chance to win, and players who really need that extra time on the national teams radar would be able to take part in another high quality age group tournament, instead of simply being cast out into the wilderness to wander the U-19/20 to senior team wasteland.
Saying you don't understand the benefits of an U-23 tournament for women, seems a lot like hearing how people couldn't/didn't understand the point of a global female U-17 event before it was introduced... that's how I see this right now. It's the most obvious forward step in the right direction for the Olympic women's event, and the women's game globally, potentially igniting a stupidly neglected U-23 process that's seen way too many late developers cast into the wilderness if they simply fail to impress their national team coaches before turning 20.. ridiculous! I mean the only negatives I ever see around these ideas, always comes in the form of fraudulent associations with the Olympics somehow being of the same standard as the WC, supposedly helping nations that come from confederations that lack a tournament of the stature mirroring the Euro's lol. So as a vastly superior men's game continues it's work with youth develop up until the age of 23, the women should stop at 20 because... reasons....
I think the main reason is that the senior level needs big tournaments outside of the WC every 4 years. Give a good replacement tournament for the senior level and I think most people wouldn't mind making the Olympics U23.
Aren't pro leagues and healthy confederation wide development meant to do this...? Why bother establishing professional leagues if we're going to pretend international football is pushing the continued development of women's football. I can understand how the lack of stability and support structures within the north American pro club scene can/has shaped peoples negative stance towards opinions that would attack their status of the Olympic's, but in a thread asking if the NWSL the best league in the world, I think people who govern the women's game will soon need to wake up and address one of it's long standing stopgap's, aka the open age of the Olympic women's tournament. Is the biggest professional club match in women's football anywhere near as big as the Olympic final yet.. no. However, if I'm looking at FIFA's appropriate distrust of a potential rival female competitions, understanding the benefit's a superior men's game has with youth football continuing into the U-23's, I don't see how much longer the female Olympic tournament continues in it's watered down state. Same rules within a fully expanded event (the same size of the men's tournament), you see more competition, better football, and little to nobody caring if the women send senior teams anymore.
Your response focuses on club vs. national team which I think is irrelevant. No matter how strong or stable clubs are, you still want high level national competitions. Men's clubs are strong and stable but they still have World Cup, Confederations Cup, Gold Cup, Euros, Copa America, etc. on the international level. Now, to be sure a large part of making tournaments like those happen falls on the shoulders of the confederations in which UEFA is clearly taking a lead.
So you want hold back something that would benefit everybody, all because UEFA's the only confederation to establish a strong/visible women's championship...? lol, is this also based on the same logic that has a particular niche group always talking nonsense about the WWC improving if it were a biennial event post every single WWC final too..? This is all off the thread topic, but even if you don't want to admit the growing importance of club footballs influence on the further development of women's football, I'm still not seeing the reasoning behind the instant defense of the clearly handicapped Olympic women's tournament, or how any potential shift towards it following the men's approach would negatively effect anything we currently see now either. Gold Cup, Copa America, Asian Cup, African Cup of Nations, OFC Nations Cup, all exist in some form for the women, and all hold a certain level significance for the teams taking part, but we can't discuss the women's Olympic tournament being U-23 yet because of the supposed missed opportunity this would create for further exhibitions of the not so high level football LOL, or is it all about the huge star names the general public wouldn't get to see... Could women's football successfully run a Confederation's Cup between a host nation, the WC winners, and 6 champions from each continent... maybe; but look at how cheap aka adverse to losing money FIFA are when it comes to women's football, and think how much more beneficial another genuinely high level global event for females U-23 would be for showcasing an exciting game to a potential new audience. A vastly superior men's game gets U-17, U-20, U-23, with a prestigious WC finals as the last stage of an international players growth; but I'm here arguing the semantics of "high level national competitions" because followers of a niche women's sport can't possibly fathom a future where a staple event actually try to evolve beyond it's initial roots of being patronizing welfare assistance.