Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
So you would be better than Germany, Spain, France, Holland, Italy, Portugal, Argentina, Brazil, Uruguay etc. I doubt it. Being exposed to football, having good training facilities and being athletic doesn't mean you will be good at football!
I think so. I don't see why we wouldn't. Most professional athletes were dominant in more than one sport. Randy Moss, for example, was an All-American in basketball, football, baseball and track. Allen Iverson was the top high school basketball and football prospect in the nation. Charlie Ward had a long and prosperous career in the NBA and won a Heisman trophy at Florida State (he was also one of the top baseball prospects in the country coming out of HS). Athleticism, dexterity, spatial orientation, spontaneity and improvisation, and a capacity for longitudinal thought generally carry over to other sports. The patience that allowed someone like Ray Allen to develop a stellar jumpshot would also allow him to develop a killer serve in tennis.
And I'm really perturbed by the "Well, soccer is a tactical and thinking man's sport, whereas sports like basketball are for athletes." Nobody thought that when it was inconceivable to have five black guys starting on a college basketball team in a national championship game. In the 40s and 50s, basketball was considered an intelligent man's game. It was a thinking game. That's where we get the expression "Xs and Os" from after all, right? As the players have grown darker over the years, basketball has all of a sudden become a sport for "athletes." Dwayne Wade, Rajon Rondo, Lebron James and Allen Iverson are exceptional because they are good athletes. But they are also exceptional because they are intelligent players.
If America had a soccer culture where inner city kids played the sport, then yes, we would start winning some World Cups.
And that actually proves my point. After decades of exposure in this country, after tens millions of American kids have kicked around soccer balls, after hundreds of millions of dollars in sponsorship and all the public relations in the world for America's World Cup team, and after getting air time on ESPN, soccer STILL does not have traction and STILL can't come even close to filling a stadium. Meanwhile, lacrosse has had next to zero exposure and still manages to fetch close to 10,000 a game.
Hey, I'm not even arguing that lacrosse is about to surpass soccer in popularity. But if, after years of relentless marketing and elitist glitterati oohing and aahing over it, soccer can't do that well versus a Johnny-come-lately league in a sport that most people aren't even familiar with, then that speaks volumes for the sport's true popularity. But I do know that in my prosperous suburb, the local youth soccer league simply stopped having teams for kids over age 12 because all the older kids were opting out of soccer signing up for lacrosse instead.
Want further proof? Heck, the average Nielsen rating for MLS in the United States after all these years is 0.3. That is a pathetic number. Just to give you some context, the Nielsen rating for the GoDaddy.com bowl, the bottom feeder of all college football bowls, the most irrelevant bowl of all, managed to rack up a 1.24, four times the viewership. If that isn't evidence that Americans just don't give a rip about soccer, I don't know what does.
Actually, the entire thread is a troll thread, guys. You guys just took the bait by even posting on it. I just happened to get on it because I thought the subject was pretty stupid and the reason for it is self-evident.
American soccer does suck considering: (1) our resources; (2) our size (300 million+ people); and (3) the fact that other countries have closed the gap in American-centric sports, but the U.S. has failed to reciprocate.
Think about it. The world watched in awe as Michael Jordan, Magic Johnson, and Larry Bird pounded the competition at the Barcelona Games in 1992. In only 12 years, Puerto Rico defeated the U.S. Men's Team by 19 points. Then Argentina (minus Manu Ginobili) blew out the American team in the semi-finals. We went from basketball supremacy to utter humiliation in a matter of 12 years.
So if you look at it that way, should we really be jumping up and down about the U.S. being ranked No. 28 in the FIFA rankings? Much smaller countries are beating us at a US-centric sport yet we, as the fourth largest country in the world (and the wealthiest), are ranked lower than Ghana, the Czech Republic, Ivory Coast, Croatia, and even Australia in the world soccer standings.
No. 28. Wow. That's some big accomplishment there.
Size and resources of a country dont matter. It is performance on the field. The US is not bad at soccer. They aren't great but i wouldn't say they suck. Your logic is stupid.
As for basketball the us national team doesn't have the best players anymore. They could care less about playing international games for national pride.
Size and resources of a country dont matter. It is performance on the field. The US is not bad at soccer. They aren't great but i wouldn't say they suck. Your logic is stupid.
Size and resources do matter. A country that has better nutrition, more people and a higher standard of living has a better chance of producing quality athletes than a small, poor country like Togo. The size and wealth of a country may not be determinative, but those factors absolutely can (and do) make a difference. This is a major reason why the U.S. produces better track and field athletes than West Africa.
Quote:
Originally Posted by cry_havoc
As for basketball the us national team doesn't have the best players anymore. They could care less about playing international games for national pride.
Actually, this is stupid. You do realize that Kobe Bryant, Lebron James, Kevin Durant, Chris Paul, Dwight Howard, Dwyane Wade, Russell Westbrook, Kevin Love and Carmelo Anthony are all on the U.S. Olympic basketball team, right? And what makes you think they could "care less about playing international games for national pride?"
Size and resources do matter. A country that has better nutrition, more people and a higher standard of living has a better chance of producing quality athletes than a small, poor country like Togo. The size and wealth of a country may not be determinative, but those factors absolutely can (and do) make a difference. This is a major reason why the U.S. produces better track and field athletes than West Africa.
Actually, this is stupid. You do realize that Kobe Bryant, Lebron James, Kevin Durant, Chris Paul, Dwight Howard, Dwayne Wade, Russell Westbrook, Kevin Love and Carmelo Anthony are all on the U.S. Olympic basketball team, right? And what makes you think they couild "care less about playing international games for national pride?"
The good athletes aren't playing soccer. You have no real argument. First you said the US sucks then you had to backpedal to state they don't suck but suck given their size. My point is the us does not suck at soccer. It either is good or it isn't and it is good team. You can argue given the number of samba dancers Brazil has it sucks at soccer given that situation but that doesn't change the fact they are an awesome tea:m.
Take all the national teams in the world and see what percentage the us falls into. They are probably in the top 20%. That is not bad given any sport.
If size and resources matters so much why is Uruguay 2nd in the world with players like Cavani, Suarez, Forlan, Ramirez, Godin, Gargano and Pereira and winning the Copa America all with a population of 3 million? Why is Croatia great and only have a population of under 4 and a half million? Why is Holland producing players like van Persie, Huntelaar, van der Vaart, Afellay, de Jong, Robben and Sneijder all with a population of 16 and a half million? Portugal with players like Ronaldo, Danny, Pepe, Bruno Alves, Coentrao, Moutinho, Veloso, Quaresma, Nani, Meireles and Oliveira with a population of 10 and a half million. It is because they study football all their lives play it at anytime they have spare time, touch and technique have nothing to do with being a good athlete.
If size and resources matters so much why is Uruguay 2nd in the world with players like Cavani, Suarez, Forlan, Ramirez, Godin, Gargano and Pereira all wit a population of 3 million? Why is Croatia great and only have a population of under 4 and a half million? Why is Holland producing players like van Persie, Huntelaar, van der Vaart, Afellay, de Jong, Robben and Sneijder all with a population of 16 and a half million? Portugal with players like Ronaldo, Danny, Pepe, Bruno Alves, Coentrao, Moutinho, Veloso, Quaresma, Nani, Meireles and Oliveira with a population of 10 and a half million. It is because they study football all their lives play it at anytime they have spare time, touch and technique have nothing to do with being a good athlete.
What part of "size and resources are not outcome determinative" do you not understand? Do you know what that means? The word "determinative?" It means that that single factor alone will not determine a certain outcome.
For example, you could have a 4.0 grade point average, but that would not be the determining factor as to whether you're admitted to medical school. You could very well bomb the MCAT and not be admitted anywhere. So a perfect GPA is not outcome determinative although it's a certainly a factor that could tip the scale one way or the other.
Similarly, size and resources not determinative, but they are factors that can tip the scale one way or the other. The probability that a star athlete emerges from a country of one billion people is greater than the probability of one emerging from a country of 100,000.
And I've already stated that Americans are not good at soccer because they do not "study football all their lives" and "play it anytime they have spare time." I just said that if the enthusiasm towards basketball in inner cities could be translated over to soccer in any meaningful capacity, then the U.S. would see a seismic shift in international performance, particularly in light of the financial and numerical advantages we enjoy.
The good athletes aren't playing soccer. You have no real argument.
That's part of my argument, Einstein.
Quote:
Originally Posted by cry_havoc
First you said the US sucks then you had to backpedal to state they don't suck but suck given their size.
No. I said that we suck. Then I said we that we suck even more considering our size, resources, and seeming inability to close a gap in a global sport when the rest of the world has quickly closed the gap in American-centric sports (i.e., basketball). Perhaps we have different definitions of "suck." No. 28 in the world is nothing to boast about, particularly when you consider the fact that a signficant portion of the human population eats less than a meal a day on average.
Quote:
Originally Posted by cry_havoc
You can argue given the number of samba dancers Brazil has it sucks at soccer given that situation but that doesn't change the fact they are an awesome tea:m.
This analogy makes no sense. I'll give you C-D points for trying, though.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
