What makes it a different and, in some respects, a better kind of experience than the men?

Being a basketball fan first myself. I have found it hard to watch the NBA and now even the NCAA. Now the WNBA I have become a huge fan of.
As the gentleman mentions in the article about the Breakers and women's soccer about it being "Pure Soccer" That is what I have found and enjoyed about the WNBA it is a Pure Basketball. Or how some say about basketball playing "the right way" passing ball movement, fundamental play, etc. Playing below the rim is basketball that I played and enjoyed and enjoy watching. Some players can play above the rim and dunks are fun but constant

 

Good thread idea, ceezmad, and a good opening reply by cflsteve. I was thinking of starting one myself using this very same quote.

I think that's fair to call women's soccer a more pure sport. It's subjective but that's what it is for many of its fans, I believe.

I would use that word, pure. I would also say it captures for us, its fans, something from a more innocent time.

I don't think we have to insist on the word "better". Just different, capturing a different part of whatever it is we turn to sports for. "Better" at capturing or evoking innocence -- I think we can state that as a truth for its fans. Not commercialized to death. Not this constant loud din blaring over the TV, the in-stadium screens, talk radio and the Internet 24/7. Not having rivalries ramped up to a level of hate and endless rancor -- these are women, these are girls, after all. It keeps things more humanized and civil, like we think American society used to be.

I think we can still think of women's soccer, even the professional, as more of a romance. I don't think we can say that of sports in general anymore but we can say it of our sport. And I like to think there's a place for certain writers, certain journalists, certain announcers, to speak of it that way and give those feelings voice.

 

I personally think it's the feminine nature of the sport.
Women in tennis, volleyball (including beach), and soccer, tend to look more natural at times for their sport.
Women that play baseball (softball), tackle football, basketball, hockey, etc., it doesn't look as natural.

There are plenty of young girls that play soccer... it seems more than boys in many geographic locations.
The passion, joy, and fundamentals are there. And a speedy women's player in soccer is more of an iconic presence in her sport, as that is more of a (redundant) dime a dozen type in the men's game. Lisa De Vanna types don't grow on trees in the women's game, we'll put it that way. Same for Marta. Wambach types are a big deal in women's soccer as well, as her style has already created its own "brand" for her gender in this sport (there are plenty of "Wambach type of player" references that are given to tall and air present players in today's women's college game, and even the youth level these days). "She has an Abby Wambach type of game". I just heard that in a college game on TV earlier tonight.

Also, it just has that "character" presence to it more than the men's game. Each of the 11 players on the pitch seem to have their own "unique" character and identity in the women's game, as this can seem more "clone-like" in the men's game.

I believe these all contribute to why there are fans out there that enjoy women's soccer as much (or even more) than the men's side. The players are more differentiated from one another, and even the talent is more differential on the pitch as well between the best vs. least talented player on the pitch from each team on the field in the women's game. That makes strategy, overall tactics, and creative chess-like moves on the pitch even more dramatic.

Everything just aligns better, from the fundamentals, to how important coaching is, to the rare like qualities of the superstar type players, to the personalities, character, and identity of all players on the team, to the differentiated talent levels, to the way teams can win with a spectacular dramatic moment, or equally as much from a controversial boneheaded mistake by a player or goalkeeper. Quite honestly, there is more "variety" to watch and discuss in women's soccer. And there are plenty of fans (and they are increasing by the day) who enjoy that.

 

Very nicely said. excellent analysis. The WNBA made a breakthrough wih the backing of the NBA and ESPN for Women's pro sports league. NWSL with the backing of US soccer as well as Soccer Canada has gotten the NWSL started and MLS clubs and ESPN are very quickly jumping in. NWSL has all the makings of being the second Women's pro sports league to hit a sustained level. For the Women's side they will be the "Big 2" sports in relation of the "Big 4" NFL, NBA, MLB, and NHL.
Getting into the better venues is a priority that is going to happen. The WNBA had that from the start made it a nice TV product. Now the WNBA has clubs in quaility arena's that are not NBA.
NWSL is now in two MLS venues and are looking like there will be other quality venues becoming options like a USLPro venue option that RSL will have in place for 2016.
There are just naturally more arena/basketball venues that are available due to the usage for both hockey and basketball at pro, college, and minor league hockey.
For soccer that is changing very quickly with SSS venues and multi sport with soccer in mind at minor league levels.
Its happening. Trailblazing ESPN already out ahead of the pack with ESPNW tied right to all of ESPN mainstream sports is a natural to add NWSL to WNBA.
I am sold on it, excited, and am watching an following the NWSL as I did and am the WNBA

 

Sarah Gehrke, who writes for the SoccerDesk, said this on Twitter about the Boston Globe article:

I'm not sure I would go that far but certainly the part of it that triggered ceezmad's thread is worth serious thinking about.

On a sidenote, there was one interesting, cryptic comment in the Comments section that intrigued me.

I can't make out who or what this reader is replying to. It's a reply to a comment but I don't know which one. Or is it the title of the article itself that he's referring to, "Why do fans ignore women's sports?" Oddly, for some reason I've never seen the movie except for a couple bits and pieces. Yet I even thought that might be one of the answers on how to market the game, to draw on that "league of their own" aspect. But this reader, perhaps, is saying that the movie itself dispels the notion of a "league of their own" succeeding.

 

This league is here to stay IMHO. Like the WNBA it now is getting the backing of the right organizations and will need to just sort through the right communities for best fit. It is refreshing to have a more approachable team to a community. The WNBA has shown that.
basketball had an advantage of having an infrastructure of arena's already in place. The rise of USLPro will help put an infrastructure in place for stadiums as an alternative to the MLS venues.
In CHI the Sky have found a home in Rosemont where D1 Depaul has as a home arena. In the NBA arena's you see NBA players and coaches as regular spectators at games. Depaul coach is also a regular at Sky games.
NWSL will see it from MLS clubs but a bit harder because it is during the same season. In places like North Carolina the University soccer coach could be among regular spectators and supportors if a club should arise there. JMO

 

The more they take the aggressive physical part out of the game, and rely more and more on the finesse part, the more the women's game will establish it's own identity. The problem is the teams that don't match up well with teams like Seattle and KC, are forced to play an overly aggressive game in order to win. If I wanted to watch the aggressive physical style, then I would become a big fan of the men's game. I enjoy really good technically sound possession soccer, the more the better. Some teams rely on playing ugly soccer, and as long as the league condones it, the harder it will be for the women's game to come out from under the shadow of the men's game.

 

It's not leagues condoning it, it's the LOTG. Women have the same rules men do.

 

There's a grey area where rules can be interpreted and enforced in a way so that the women's game isn't completely forced to remain in the shadow of the men's game.

 

What makes it different...better...interesting question.
Here's the simple reality as I see it. Soccer is to sports what chess is to board games. There is fluidity. There is strategy. There is skill. It doesn't matter if its a man or a woman playing, the sport in and of itself is beautiful. If you can truly appreciate that beauty, it doesn't matter who is playing it. It's fun to watch.
But what makes the women's games better are these two things:
1) It's cheaper. Why pay twice as much to watch men do something women do just as beautifully? (Don't get me wrong, I'm someone who holds season tickets to a MLS team, and NWSL team and a WPSL team. But it amazes me that people will shell out a fortune to go see the Dynamo but not spend a fraction of the amount for better seats to see the Dash in the same stadium.)
2) The women appreciate the fans waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaayyy more. In the WPSL and the NWSL,the women stay around after the game to sign autographs and take photos. You don't have to get a special season ticket holder invite to a special event with a mile-long line to get a single item autographed by a single player who injured his knee so he got stuck with signing duty. I've got pictures of my kids with most of the Dash players. I'm 3 or 4 autographs short of having the whole team's autographs on my jersey. So it my son and my daughter. I've got a US national team banner with several autographs of national team players who hung around after the games against the dash to sign autographs FOR THE FANS OF THEIR OPPOSING TEAM! And lets not forget the WPSL. The Houston Aces hang around and sign autographs after every game. We have balls, jerseys, photos. And, they spend their free time making appearances at our children's hospitals, schools, soccer clubs. Maybe a better way to say this would be to say that the female professional players have class.

That's my 2 cents on the subject.

 

This should be split what is different about women's soccer because of the context and economics, and what is different because they are female athletes. And virtually all of this is the former and not the latter.

 

Their legs are not as gross to look at in high definition.
But in all seriousness (actually that should say... also in seriousness to the above), the play is more clean.
I think that is the #1 reason why there are quite a few fans out there that watch it more than the men's game.
The game is cleaner to the eyes who want to watch a clean soccer game without the extra antics involved.

There are only a rare few out there that only follow the women's game without following the men's game at all.
Most women's soccer fans out there tend to have about a 70-30 split in terms of % of time in watching each gender.
70% of viewing for one gender, and 30% toward the other. Some have 70% toward women, others 30% for women.

 

1. You can lob the keeper 90% of the time.
2. Much worse goal celebrations (if any).
3. Less stealing time.
4. Much less faking fouls and injuries.
5. Less often one player is able to win the match.
6. Much less arguing with ref.
7. Worse overall skills level (except Japanese women).
8. Players are much nicer and amiable towards fans.
9. Much more hierarchical.
10. Much more appreciative, loving the game and down-to-earth people.

Love 4 and 10, hate 9.

 

I think it's time to bump this thread because it asks an ever-pertinent question, especially in the wake of another successful World Cup which raised the interest of many in women's soccer. There weren't many replies but they were thoughtful and, fortunately, didn't see it necessary to dwell on and quibble with the use of the word "better" in relation to the men's game.