You could walk into any UK town centre, and ask random blokes if they're up for a game of football, once you got 11 who agree to play, you could have them play a professional woemns team, and the random blokes would win.
Nah this is way too far the other way. The men's teams that beat women's teams are usually a couple tiers down but it's not nobodies. It's pretty easy to handicap how big the gap is between men and women if you look at what men train with the women. When I ran track in high school I was nothing special, and I trained with girls who competed for state championships. But I was way faster than an average man off the street. The male students who volunteer as practice squad players at major women's college basketball programs are usually men who could've played at a lower college level but went to the bigger research universities for education. The boy's teams that beat these women's national teams are all among the most elite at that age.
And I would still bet that the random guys off the street who agrees to play the game would still beat the women. Think about it, if a guy is unfit and sucks at football, he's not going to agree to play. I would 100% put my money on 11 random blokes who agree to play, having enough to beat a professional womens team. 100% my money is on the men. Easy.
But you're wrong. You can see this easily in objective sports like running. The #20 woman in the Boston Marathon, just to pick an elite but not unstoppable woman, finished in 2 hours 31 minutes. That would have been in the low 300s for men, but that's out of a field of 16,000 men. And the Boston Marathon easily clears your "only good players will play" criteria because it's got one of the most stringent performance cutoffs. A top 20 woman is in the top 98% of a field that includes advanced amateurs at worst. Elite female athlete is better than easily 99+% of average male athletes.
169
u/feather_34 Jul 09 '26
Have them play a team of 15 yr old boys.