The mancityfans.net football forum

I know there won’t be many who are interested but are England in a final, again?

Superb effort and no coincidence that they did well before RatBoy2 and are now doing well after him. The under qualified Rag fucker brought it all down.

Now, let’s cast our eye to Southgate.

Final.

Three semi’s and now on par with the mens team. Let’s see how they get on but gotta be proud of our ladies.

Beefymcfc wrote:Final.

Three semi’s and now on par with the mens team. Let’s see how they get on but gotta be proud of our ladies.

good to see the City contingent firing on all cylinders - Keira Walsh & Lauren Hemp absolutely top drawer

already a thread for this beefy viewtopic.php?f=121&t=56659

How about that back heel!!

dazby wrote:How about that back heel!!

Her first attempt makes Sterling look world beater, not sure how much she meant it on second attempt. I want to enjoy it but she plays for the rags, the media jizzing took the shine out of it.

Outcast wrote:

dazby wrote:How about that back heel!!

Her first attempt makes Sterling look world beater, not sure how much she meant it on second attempt. I want to enjoy it but she plays for the rags, the media jizzing took the shine out of it.

Plus the fact I'd expect my 5 year old grandson would have saved it.

stupot wrote:

Outcast wrote:

dazby wrote:How about that back heel!!

Her first attempt makes Sterling look world beater, not sure how much she meant it on second attempt. I want to enjoy it but she plays for the rags, the media jizzing took the shine out of it.

Plus the fact I'd expect my 5 year old grandson would have saved it.

Is the goalkeeping standard always that bad? I went to watch City vs Chelsea womens and the keepers were terrible. Proper 5 year old dives 20 minutes after the ball had gone passed.

Saw a few goals from last night on the news and the keeper looked awful again.

Mase wrote:

stupot wrote:

Outcast wrote:

dazby wrote:How about that back heel!!

Her first attempt makes Sterling look world beater, not sure how much she meant it on second attempt. I want to enjoy it but she plays for the rags, the media jizzing took the shine out of it.

Plus the fact I'd expect my 5 year old grandson would have saved it.

Is the goalkeeping standard always that bad? I went to watch City vs Chelsea womens and the keepers were terrible. Proper 5 year old dives 20 minutes after the ba had gone passed.

Saw a few goals from last night on the news and the keeper looked awful again.

I have no idea how Mary Earps is a goalkeeper, More like pukka pie gatekeeper. It's like watching a panda dive sideways. Another Rag favoristim, she's lucky Bright is playing in front of her otherwise she'll get find out. Roebuck should be ahead of her. It's good entertainment, quality still lacking but has improved from 10 years ago.

Mase wrote:

stupot wrote:

Outcast wrote:

dazby wrote:How about that back heel!!

Her first attempt makes Sterling look world beater, not sure how much she meant it on second attempt. I want to enjoy it but she plays for the rags, the media jizzing took the shine out of it.

Plus the fact I'd expect my 5 year old grandson would have saved it.

Is the goalkeeping standard always that bad? I went to watch City vs Chelsea womens and the keepers were terrible. Proper 5 year old dives 20 minutes after the ball had gone passed.

Saw a few goals from last night on the news and the keeper looked awful again.

The Swedish keeper was appalling. At fault for the last three goals with only the excuse that her line of sight was blocked for the first.

Your kids and especially your grand kids are going to be so embarrassed of you.

sexist specs off...
it's watchable but then so are the games in my sons u12 league (u10 not so much!)
obvious that the game going professional has seen a massive improvement in the standard but it's still littered with very basic mistakes
keepers being 170/175cm will always be an issue as they simply don't have the reach to get to anything that isn't pretty much straight at them
england have done brilliantly but there is way too much bandwagon jumping going on
will i watch the final - probably
will i ever go out of my way to watch a women's game after the euros - no

I think the important question is , "Would you pay to go to a women's footy match?"
I quite enjoyed the 10/15 minutes of the semi which I watched bits of around walking my dogs, but l agree with NT about the goalkeeping.
Wouldn't pay to watch though.

rosbif cuisson 'bleu' wrote:I think the important question is , "Would you pay to go to a women's footy match?"
I quite enjoyed the 10/15 minutes of the semi which I watched bits of around walking my dogs, but l agree with NT about the goalkeeping.
Wouldn't pay to watch though.

You get City women's games free with the Season Ticket.
A few times when they've played Sunday at 1 and we've been the 4-30 game we've paid £15 corporate which gets you parking at the Academy Stadium and a decent lunch. We then walk over the bridge to our game. Well worth it.

stupot wrote:

rosbif cuisson 'bleu' wrote:I think the important question is , "Would you pay to go to a women's footy match?"
I quite enjoyed the 10/15 minutes of the semi which I watched bits of around walking my dogs, but l agree with NT about the goalkeeping.
Wouldn't pay to watch though.

You get City women's games free with the Season Ticket.
A few times when they've played Sunday at 1 and we've been the 4-30 game we've paid £15 corporate which gets you parking at the Academy Stadium and a decent lunch. We then walk over the bridge to our game. Well worth it.

Not trying to be smart, but that's free, subsidised parking and a decent lunch for 15 quid, so isn't that not paying? I'd probably go myself under those conditions, but not regularly.

rosbif cuisson 'bleu' wrote:I think the important question is , "Would you pay to go to a women's footy match?"
I quite enjoyed the 10/15 minutes of the semi which I watched bits of around walking my dogs, but l agree with NT about the goalkeeping.
Wouldn't pay to watch though.

I paid to take my daughter to watch us against Chelsea early in the year. It wasn’t a great standard at all, especially when you’re used to watching how brilliant our mens team is. My friend brought his daughter and all she kept asking was, “after this can we watch the proper team?”.

Would I pay again to watch them? Probably not, unless my daughter wanted to go then obviously I’d take her.

rosbif cuisson 'bleu' wrote:

stupot wrote:

rosbif cuisson 'bleu' wrote:I think the important question is , "Would you pay to go to a women's footy match?"
I quite enjoyed the 10/15 minutes of the semi which I watched bits of around walking my dogs, but l agree with NT about the goalkeeping.
Wouldn't pay to watch though.

You get City women's games free with the Season Ticket.
A few times when they've played Sunday at 1 and we've been the 4-30 game we've paid £15 corporate which gets you parking at the Academy Stadium and a decent lunch. We then walk over the bridge to our game. Well worth it.

Not trying to be smart, but that's free, subsidised parking and a decent lunch for 15 quid, so isn't that not paying? I'd probably go myself under those conditions, but not regularly.

I've done it 3 times, definitely preferred the lunch and easy parking to the football but it's a good, cheap day out.

dazby wrote:How about that back heel!!

The one where Stephen hawking could of saved ?

That one ?

carl_feedthegoat wrote:

dazby wrote:How about that back heel!!

The one where Stephen hawking could of saved ?

That one ?

It’s coming home …

Well done England, let’s see what the lads can do now.