|
Home |
Q: Isn't soccer low-scoring and dull? Yes and no. It's is often low-scoring. It's not usually dull. "It's end to end stuff, but from side to side" |
A Short History of Women's Soccer
Early HistoryWomen participated in mob games in the 12th century, and probably before, but there is little accurate record. Organized games for women date back at least to 18th century Scotland where an annual match between the married and single women would attract as many as 10,000 spectators. The First Golden AgeThe modern game developed in the late 19th century and the women's game achieved a measure of popularity, with teams in England, France and Canada. That first 'golden age' of women's soccer came to an end in 1921, when the all-male English Football Association, perhaps threatened by the growing popularity of women's football, banned women's teams from their grounds, leaving women's teams with few places to play. Renewed InterestA rebirth of the women's game began in the 1950's, as soccer became a popular game for girls, even in England. Meanwhile, there was a massive youth soccer movement in the United States -- and girls were more than welcome, thank you. An unofficial European Championship was held in Germany in 1957. During the 1960s, eastern European communist countries encouraged women to participate in sports, including soccer. In 1969 the English FA lifted its ban on women's teams. By 1971, there was organized women's soccer in some 34 countries. An unofficial World Championship was held in Mexico. Official RecognitionThe Women's World CupBy 1991, 65 countries fielded women's teams, and FIFA staged an official Women's World Cup in China, although, at that time, FIFA was reluctant to use the term 'World Cup'. That first Women's World Cup was a tremendous success, with exciting games, a high level of play, capacity crowds, and a worldwide television audience. In England, the English FA (Football Association) merged with the Women's FA and the organization which had dealt the crushing blow to the women's game in 1921 was actively promoting women's soccer, even if half-heartedly, at times. A second women's World Cup was held in Sweden in 1995. Less successful than the first in terms of attendance, the second WWC did feature exciting games and a high level of play. The OlympicsA major breakthrough for women's soccer came at the 1996 Olympics in Atlanta, where women's soccer was included as a full medal sport for the first time. Crowds were very good; the level of play was, as it had been in the Women's World Cups, very high. Several of the games were very exciting. The final, between the US and China, drew a crowd of 80,000 enthusiastic fans, the largest crowd ever to attend a women-only sporting event. The final, which the US won in dramatic fashion, was well played and exciting. Unfortunately, none of the games were televised in the US, although NBC did show small portions of the final. The 1999 Women's World CupIn 1999, women's soccer captured lightening in a bottle with the staging of Women's World Cup in the United States. FIFA's original plans had been conservative - a modest tournament to be staged in small stadiums on the east coast to reduce costs. Instead, the United States Soccer Federation, encouraged by the success of the 1996 Olympic tournament, made plans for a full-scale tournament in large stadiums across the country. It was a daring plan. To say that it was a success would be an understatement. Early round games drew large crowds of so-called 'pony-tailed hooligans' (adoring teen-aged female fans of the U.S. team). US team practices drew wild crowds of thousands. The story was picked up by newpapers, TV stations and magazines across the country. The final, which was played before a huge crowd in the Rose Bowl, turned out to be more a spectacle than a soccer game. The quality of play was low but the game was riveting nonetheless. TV ratings surpassed those of the 1994 men’s World Cup final (also held in the US but not involving a US team). 2000 OlympicsThe 2000 Olympic tournament in Australia was another success although it was half a world away and attracted little attention in the U.S. The U.S. team suffered a heartbreaking loss to Norway (as they had in the 1995 Women's World Cup) 2003 Women's World CupThe 2003 Women's World Cup was originally scheduled for China but was moved China to the United States due to the SARS epidemic. The U.S. fell in the semi-final. The tournament attracted nowhere near the attention that the 1999 tournament had. 2004 Olympics |
the questThe search for the true meaning continues. "Undoubtedly, the initial appeal for the spectators was the novelty of seeing women play football and, at first, the crowds were inclined to be amused." -Sue Lopez, writing about women's soccer in England during the First World War -from her book, women on the ball "Ladies, I apologise unreservedly and wholeheartedly. I went to Wimbledon to watch England play Italy expecting to snigger. I went with all the usual male predjudices about soccer being 'unfeminine'; that girls would break down and cry if someone kicked them or if the referee was a bit nasty and did not allow a goal. I saw instead the best game of football I have seen since those famous Wolves managed by Stan Cullis terrorised Europe in the 1950s." - John Morgan, columnist for the Daily Express, following a game in 1977 The search for the true meaning of women's soccer continues, a quest to understand why it is so alluring a phenomenon. A TV commentator says, "Without being derogatory about the women's game...," then reveals a 'terrible truth' about women's soccer. Yada, yada, yada. A referee proposes a theory: "The only difference between women's and men's soccer is what they protect in the wall." A coach explains: "The women are more such and such, while the men rely more on ..." At a women's college game: A man, asked what it all means, replies, "No one knows for sure." Another says, "this would've been a good game for my daughters to watch" "This is a good game for anybody to watch." A high school boy yells: "Hey, those women are kickin' butt!" My own initial amusement didn't last long. I'm over the novelty of it now. I'm hooked, and I'm not getting over it. I haven't found the true meaning but I have stopped looking for it. SoccerAnyone can play it. You don't have to be big, tall, muscular or agile. You don't have to be male. It is for all races, creeds and cultures. There is no age limit. You don't need goals, or 22 players. Or a field. Or referees. Or even a ball. Kids play it in the streets with tin cans. One or twenty to a side. ... the point is that soccer is as fiendishly difficult as it is simple. First, you go out in a tearing wind and kick a round ball around, and try to get it to go where you want. Hell, you go out in a flat calm and try it. And now try it with big men striving all around you, with uncompromising phisicality, to stop you doing any such thing....It's no longer simple...And the average fan knows that. So they're thrilled, at those rare moments when people get it right. And the point is that, sometimes, the people who get it right are women. The genie is out of the bottle; it will not be put back in. The old myths have been proven wrong. A growing number of people are taking women's sports seriously. |
College Player of the Year
|
* Prior to 2002, separate MAC (Missouri Athletic Club) and Hermann Awards were given. The same player always won both awards. Prior to 1991, there was only a Hermann Award. Since 2002, the awards have been combined. |
| AIWA Championship | ||||
| 1981 | North Carolina | defeated | Central Florida | 1-0 |
| NCAA Championship | ||||
| 1982 | North Carolina | defeated | Central Florida | 1-0 |
| 1983 | North Carolina | defeated | George Mason | 4-0 |
| 1984 | North Carolina | defeated | Connecticuit | 2-0 |
| 1985 | George Mason | defeated | North Carolina | 2-0 |
| 1986 | North Carolina | defeated | Colorado College | 2-0 |
| 1987 | North Carolina | defeated | Massachusetts | 1-0 |
| 1988 | North Carolina | defeated | N.C. State | 1-0 |
| 1989 | North Carolina | defeated | Colorado College | 2-0 |
| 1990 | North Carolina | defeated | Connecticut | 6-0 |
| 1991 | North Carolina | defeated | Wisconsin | 3-1 |
| 1992 | North Carolina | defeated | Duke | 9-1 |
| 1993 | North Carolina | defeated | George Mason | 6-0 |
| 1994 | North Carolina | defeated | Notre Dame | 5-0 |
| 1995 | Notre Dame | defeated | Portland | 1-0 overtime |
| 1996 | North Carolina | defeated | Notre Dame | 1-0 overtime |
| 1997 | North Carolina | defeated | Connecticut | 2-0 |
| 1998 | Florida | defeated | North Carolina | 1-0 |
| 1999 | North Carolina | defeated | Notre Dame | 2-0 |
| 2000 | North Carolina | defeated | UCLA | 2-1 |
| 2001 | Santa Clara | defeated | North Carolina | 1-0 |
| 2002 | Portland | defeated | Santa Clara | 2-1 |
| 2003 | North Carolina | defeated | Connecticut | 6-0 |
| 2004 | Notre Dame | tied | UCLA | 1-1 (decided by PKs) |
| 2005 | Portland | defeated | UCLA | 4-0 |
| 2006 | North Carolina | defeated | Notre Dame | 2-1 |
| 2007 | USC | defeated | Florida State | 2-0 |
|
Q: Isn't soccer low-scoring and dull? Yes and no. It's is often low-scoring. It's not usually dull. 'It's end to end stuff, but from side to side' 'Zero-zero is a big score.' Low scoring games can be quite exciting if there are a lot of scoring chances. An inch or two either side of the post and it would have been a goal.' Solskjaer never misses the target. That time he hit the post. High-scoring games can be boring if they are one-sided. 'Winning's about playing football and scoring goals...' It's real end-to-end stuff, but unfortunately it's all up at Forest's end. To be a great game, one of the teams has to score first Q: What if a game ends in a tie? In many leagues, a game that ends in a tie is called a draw, and everyone goes home. It's now 1-1, an exact reversal of the scoreline on Saturday.' Well, either side could win it, or it could be a draw. Q: Why don't they play overtime? In many cases they do, particularly in the US. Both sides have scored a couple of goals, and both sides have conceded a couple of goals. Q: How are league standings calculated? In nearly all cases, league standings are based on points, with teams getting 3 points for a win, 1 point for a tie and 0 points for a loss. Won/lost percentage is irrelevant. One point from an away game is no longer considered a victory. This system is fair and very logical if you think in terms of points rather than wins and losses. I would not be bothered if we lost every game as long as we won the league. |
Q: What does it take to win? In nearly every case, you have to score at least one goal. 'In this sort of match, whoever scores the most goals wins' Believe it or not, goals can change a game As the saying goes, it's not how many shots you take that counts, it's how many go in. 'That's football Mike - Northern Ireland have had several chances and haven't scored, but England have had no chances and scored twice.' Time of posession sometimes counts for very little. 'Hodge scored for Forest after 22 seconds - totally against the run of play.' Q: What are formations and systems of play? They are team strategies. They didn't change positions, they just moved the players around. Hearts are now playing with a five man back four. To learn more, read a a few books and watch a few hundred games. You will either become hooked or fed up. "Soccer is a team sport filled with individual player decisions. You train players to be skillful, and if their decisions are bad to help them see better options so they can become better decision makers in games. Many coaches don't bother to see if their players are making a decent decision. They want the player to make their decision in certain situations - that doesn't make a player creative. Sometimes a good decision may be to be selfish at a particular time and space. ----- I have seen so many teams play a perfect team game, and lose to teams that are not trained as well, but have some players who know when and when not to give up the ball, and can finish a chance." And I have seen teams totally dominate virtually every aspect of the game except the one that counts: the score. And I have heard them say: "We outplayed them but we lost." That always amuses me. |
|
Q: How does women's soccer differ from men's? After years of observation I have concluded that: Women's soccer is played by women. Men's soccer is played by men. Most of the other differences people think they see are figments of their imaginations, with one notable exception: PACE - Men are bigger, stronger, faster, so the pace of men's soccer is considerably faster. The difference in pace can be quite startling. But once you adjust to the pace, the games are the same. |
Q. Aren't women's motivations different from men's? This seems to be true, as a generalization, and it may affect how women are coached. But it does not affect how the game appears to a spectator. What women do in the course of a game is pretty much the same as what men do, regardless of motivation. What it takes to win a game is pretty much dictated by the game. The strategies and tactics are the same; skill levels are comparable; and women's soccer is as exciting as men's. |
| 1984 | St. Mary's (CA) | ||||||
| 1985 | Westmont | ||||||
| 1986 | Rochester | 1986 | St. Mary's (CA) | ||||
| 1987 | Rochester | 1987 | Berry | ||||
| 1988 | Cal. St. Hayward | 1988 | William Smith | 1988 | Pacific Lutheran | ||
| 1989 | Barry | 1989 | UC-San Diego | 1989 | Pacific Lutheran | ||
| 1990 | Sonoma State | 1990 | Ithaca | 1990 | Berry | ||
| 1991 | Cal St Dominguez Hills | 1991 | Ithaca | 1991 | Pacific Lutheran | ||
| 1992 | Barry | 1992 | Courtland St. | 1992 | Lynn | ||
| 1993 | Barry | 1993 | Trenton St. | 1993 | Berry | ||
| 1994 | Franklin Pierce | 1994 | Trenton St. | 1994 | Lynn | ||
| 1995 | Franklin Pierce | 1995 | UC-San Diego | 1995 | Lynn | ||
| 1996 | Franklin Pierce | 1996 | UC-San Diego | 1996 | Simon Fraser | ||
| 1997 | Franklin Pierce | 1997 | UC-San Diego | 1997 | Mobile | ||
| 1998 | Lynn | 1998 | Macalester | 1998 | Azusa Pacific | ||
| 1999 | Franklin Pierce | 1999 | UC San Diego | 1999 | Westmont | ||
| 2000 | UC San Diego | 2000 | The Col. of New Jersey | 2000 | Simon Fraser | ||
| 2001 | UC San Diego | 2001 | Ohio Wesleyan | 2001 | Westmont | ||
| 2002 | Christian Brothers | 2002 | Ohio Wesleyan | 2002 | Westmont | ||
| 2003 | Kennesaw State | 2003 | Oneonta State | 2003 | Westmont | ||
| 2004 | Metro State | 2004 | Wheaton (IL) | 2004 | Lindsey Wilson | ||
| 2005 | Nebraska-Omaha | 2005 | Messiah | 2005 | Martin Methodist | ||
| 2006 | Metro State | 2006 | Wheaton (IL) | 2006 | Lindsey Wilson | ||
| 2007 | Tampa | 2007 | Wheaton (IL) | 2007 | Martin Methodist | ||
External links:
|
|
Pages below are either under construction or obsolete (the links probably won't work) |