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.
Quote - 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.
Brazil has tons of poor people but produce world class football and mma stars? Ivory Coast is poor but produces world class footballers so does Argentina, Kenya is poor but produces world class long distance runners (who are the definition of athletes).
Quote - 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.
Brazil has tons of poor people but produce world class football and mma stars? Ivory Coast is poor but produces world class footballers so does Argentina, Kenya is poor but produces world class long distance runners (who are the definition of athletes).
This is apparently very challenging for you.
Hypothetical....
If Brasil were the same size as the United States, and had the same level of affluence as the United States, would it be more likely to produce (a) more soccer stars or (b) fewer soccer stars?
This is assuming that the cultural intensity for soccer remains a constant obviously.
I hate to keep stating the obvious here. But even if you were the biggest fan of soccer in the country, you'd have to acknowledge that soccer is just a distant also-ran in terms of team sports in the United States. Football, baseball, basketball, and even hockey way outdraw it. Given that people have been trying to make a go of professional soccer in the United States for decades and are still rewarded with miserable viewership and attendance should say everything. And that is not going to change. Not in our lifetime. Not in our grandchildren's.
And if soccer doesn't occupy sufficient share of mind in our sporting imagination that means it doesn't occupy a similar place in that of our athletes.
More than likely fewer as instead of playing on sand and concrete in their neighbourhoods with their t-shirts down as goalposts and ''fooling around'' and working on their skill and not taking it seriously they would probably have leagues and be concentrating on winning ''at any means necessary'' and lose some of their technique they gained from just playing for fun this is the problem my country had. I take you back to my earlier post -
Quote:
Originally Posted by paull805
Scotland produced greats like Dalglish, Jinky Johnstone, Archie Gemmill and Dennis Law etc. Scottish football has been in the doldrums of late. However, there was a time in the not so distant past where a lot of Scots were among the best footballers in the world. Maybe this was why.
Since we have started to make our youth concentrate on winning instead of expressing themselves and playing for fun, even at under 12 games parents and coaches shout, swear and fight all for a bunch of kids playing football.
In the 60s/70s and 80s before this win at all costs attitude came along Scotland produced great, skillful players because the youth played like the Brazilians, Argentines and Spainairds - on the street having a laugh and seeing who can do the best skill moves and beat the most players.
I think if you read the forums here you'll see that nobody here thinks soccer is the #1 sport and you'll also see how attendances for soccer are higher than hockey and basketball on avg.
I hate to keep stating the obvious here. But even if you were the biggest fan of soccer in the country, you'd have to acknowledge that soccer is just a distant also-ran in terms of team sports in the United States. Football, baseball, basketball, and even hockey way outdraw it. Given that people have been trying to make a go of professional soccer in the United States for decades and are still rewarded with miserable viewership and attendance should say everything. And that is not going to change. Not in our lifetime. Not in our grandchildren's.
And if soccer doesn't occupy sufficient share of mind in our sporting imagination that means it doesn't occupy a similar place in that of our athletes.
Yeah, but look at the rapid ascendance of American football in this country. Football wasn't always as big as it is today. Baseball was a much more popular sport during the 40s, 50s and 60s. This "Football as King" phenomenon is a product of recent years.
And look at the huge cultural shift in basketball. Today basketball is associated mostly with young, black, inner city, hip hop culture, but that really wasn't the case prior to 1990. The closest basketball came to being identified with inner city culture in the early 90s was Michael Jackson's song "Jam" featuring Michael Jordan. Then Shaq had his song with Fu Schnickens. Then came Little Penny. And then Iverson. And all of a sudden basketball was a hip hop, "urban" game. This was a completely different perception of the game than what existed just 20 years earlier.
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.
This analogy makes no sense. I'll give you C-D points for trying, though.
Your whole argument is stupid. The analogy was supposed to be bad. It was to show how easy it is to ignore.facts by throwing in BS criteria.
One could argue if you are #1 you suck and after that it doesn't matter.
Here are the facts: there are 209 fifa.recognized national teams. If you are correct than us is 28th. 28 out of 209 puts the us in the top 15% of national.teams. top 15% is usually not considered bad. Take the top 15% of Barclay's and la liga and see who that includes.
Here are the facts: there are 209 fifa.recognized national teams. If you are correct than us is 28th. 28 out of 209 puts the us in the top 15% of national.teams. top 15% is usually not considered bad. Take the top 15% of Barclay's and la liga and see who that includes.
Yes, the United States ranks ahead of Myanmar, Yemen, Curacao, Laos, Dominica, Tahiti, Pakistan, Mongolia, Lesotho, Grenada, Barbados, Turkmenistan, Burundi, Cyprus, Suriname, Kazakhstan, Liechtenstein, Nepal, Bahrain, Oman, Togo, Antigua, Guyana, Sudan, Libya, Slovakia, Armenia, Estonia, Montenegro, Trinidad and Tobago, Rwanda, Gabon, St. Kitts, Botswana, Luxembourg, Gambia, New Zealand and countless others. We should be really proud of working our way past war-torn nations and countries the size of Harlem.
Just imagine the shape the U.S. team would be in if it couldn't convince players with dual nationality to play for us.
Granted there are many countries much better than the US. I would say the US team is good, but not very good like some European and south American teams.
The US sucking at soccer is an outdated generalization similar to American beer sucking.
Have you actually watched the US team play recently?
Yeah, but look at the rapid ascendance of American football in this country. Football wasn't always as big as it is today. Baseball was a much more popular sport during the 40s, 50s and 60s. This "Football as King" phenomenon is a product of recent years.
And look at the huge cultural shift in basketball. Today basketball is associated mostly with young, black, inner city, hip hop culture, but that really wasn't the case prior to 1990. The closest basketball came to being identified with inner city culture in the early 90s was Michael Jackson's song "Jam" featuring Michael Jordan. Then Shaq had his song with Fu Schnickens. Then came Little Penny. And then Iverson. And all of a sudden basketball was a hip hop, "urban" game. This was a completely different perception of the game than what existed just 20 years earlier.
Yeah, but I think the rapid rises of football and basketball stem from a unique historical event: The introduction of television. Both are sports that are tailor-made for television in a way that baseball or even soccer are not. I realize we could argue this point all day, but both are just more telegenic sports in the opinion of viewing audiences. That would explain why, comparatively speaking, football and basketball enjoy good Nielsen ratings while soccer does not.
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.
