USMNT vs Ecuador Game Thread

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The USMNT struggles have less to do with coaching and more to do with talent. The top countries have full rosters of starters playing in top Euro or SA leagues. The US have a handful of guys that struggle to start in Europe and no one that is a bona fide international star on a top EPL, La Liga, Bundesliga, or Serie A team. That is the difference. Even Costa Rica has a couple guys that play big time ball, like Navas that played with Madrid. US has never had anyone close to a starting role on a team like that.

MLS has done a decent job of raising the median level of pro US players, but at the top of the international game it will never compete due to money differences. Many of the US top youth athletes don’t stick with soccer as they get into their teenage years. Instead they switch to other, more lucrative sports in the US. They don’t seem too want to stick with soccer and try to earn the milllions that Europe offers, preferring to try more traditional US pros sports with the same level of money. Add that to the fact that US Youth soccer is a pay to play sport and that the money is not there to consistently pay for top young talent to play like it is in AAU ball (again due to the limited financial upside for those that might pay for those kids). So the entire poor rural and inner city populations are driven out of the equation. We are then left with suburban kids, that have decent homes and lives already and don’t have the hunger to practice and train like fiends to become world class.

In a nutshell, the USMNT will always struggle due to alternative pro sports that offfer more money and drive the potential superstars to play other sports at critical ages. This is why the USWNT is so much more successful than the men, those alternatives, largely, do not exist ... so the top women athletes stick with soccer. Hence, the US wins at women’s internationally.

It isn't about money, it is about talent and the ability to develop talent at a consistent level over a long period of time. The odds of an athlete breaking into the NFL, NBA or MLB are actually worse.

Kids play the sports they love and generally good at. They are not picking sports based on earning potential. It is just a ludicrous argument.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The USMNT struggles have less to do with coaching and more to do with talent. The top countries have full rosters of starters playing in top Euro or SA leagues. The US have a handful of guys that struggle to start in Europe and no one that is a bona fide international star on a top EPL, La Liga, Bundesliga, or Serie A team. That is the difference. Even Costa Rica has a couple guys that play big time ball, like Navas that played with Madrid. US has never had anyone close to a starting role on a team like that.

MLS has done a decent job of raising the median level of pro US players, but at the top of the international game it will never compete due to money differences. Many of the US top youth athletes don’t stick with soccer as they get into their teenage years. Instead they switch to other, more lucrative sports in the US. They don’t seem too want to stick with soccer and try to earn the milllions that Europe offers, preferring to try more traditional US pros sports with the same level of money. Add that to the fact that US Youth soccer is a pay to play sport and that the money is not there to consistently pay for top young talent to play like it is in AAU ball (again due to the limited financial upside for those that might pay for those kids). So the entire poor rural and inner city populations are driven out of the equation. We are then left with suburban kids, that have decent homes and lives already and don’t have the hunger to practice and train like fiends to become world class.

In a nutshell, the USMNT will always struggle due to alternative pro sports that offfer more money and drive the potential superstars to play other sports at critical ages. This is why the USWNT is so much more successful than the men, those alternatives, largely, do not exist ... so the top women athletes stick with soccer. Hence, the US wins at women’s internationally.

It isn't about money, it is about talent and the ability to develop talent at a consistent level over a long period of time. The odds of an athlete breaking into the NFL, NBA or MLB are actually worse.

Kids play the sports they love and generally good at. They are not picking sports based on earning potential. It is just a ludicrous argument.

It's not ludicrous, it's cultural. And it's factual that kids (and parents) choose football, baseball, and basketball over soccer, throughout the course of their young lives. For various reasons. Coaches aren't minting talent in other countries, they identify it. Messi being the iconic example.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The USMNT struggles have less to do with coaching and more to do with talent. The top countries have full rosters of starters playing in top Euro or SA leagues. The US have a handful of guys that struggle to start in Europe and no one that is a bona fide international star on a top EPL, La Liga, Bundesliga, or Serie A team. That is the difference. Even Costa Rica has a couple guys that play big time ball, like Navas that played with Madrid. US has never had anyone close to a starting role on a team like that.

MLS has done a decent job of raising the median level of pro US players, but at the top of the international game it will never compete due to money differences. Many of the US top youth athletes don’t stick with soccer as they get into their teenage years. Instead they switch to other, more lucrative sports in the US. They don’t seem too want to stick with soccer and try to earn the milllions that Europe offers, preferring to try more traditional US pros sports with the same level of money. Add that to the fact that US Youth soccer is a pay to play sport and that the money is not there to consistently pay for top young talent to play like it is in AAU ball (again due to the limited financial upside for those that might pay for those kids). So the entire poor rural and inner city populations are driven out of the equation. We are then left with suburban kids, that have decent homes and lives already and don’t have the hunger to practice and train like fiends to become world class.

In a nutshell, the USMNT will always struggle due to alternative pro sports that offfer more money and drive the potential superstars to play other sports at critical ages. This is why the USWNT is so much more successful than the men, those alternatives, largely, do not exist ... so the top women athletes stick with soccer. Hence, the US wins at women’s internationally.

It isn't about money, it is about talent and the ability to develop talent at a consistent level over a long period of time. The odds of an athlete breaking into the NFL, NBA or MLB are actually worse.

Kids play the sports they love and generally good at. They are not picking sports based on earning potential. It is just a ludicrous argument.

It's not ludicrous, it's cultural. And it's factual that kids (and parents) choose football, baseball, and basketball over soccer, throughout the course of their young lives. For various reasons. Coaches aren't minting talent in other countries, they identify it. Messi being the iconic example.

In a nutshell, the USMNT will always struggle due to alternative pro sports that offfer more money and drive the potential superstars to play other sports at critical ages.

No, the argument was stated above. This isn't a cultural point, this was based on future economics. Soccer is not the cultural dominant sport in this country but your premise is based on potential earning potential. That kids at 13-15 years old are switching sports because they can make more money in the NBA or NFL.

That kids at this age, in droves honestly believe that they have a pro career in ANY sport is also what makes your point stupid.

Kids play what they like to play because they like to play it. It isn't any more complicated than that. If they decide to play football it is because they just want to not because of some unlikely distant contract.

I'm pretty sure Pulisic is making far more money playing soccer than any other American pro sport that his body type would allow him to even play.

[Anonymous]

What I find extremely humorous is that, as intelligent as you think you may be, you can’t see the link between culture and economics. Fascinating.

I won’t stoop to your level of calling others’ argument “stupid,” but the opposing point is more correct than yours. Coaches cannot train talent into players.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:What I find extremely humorous is that, as intelligent as you think you may be, you can’t see the link between culture and economics. Fascinating.

I won’t stoop to your level of calling others’ argument “stupid,” but the opposing point is more correct than yours. Coaches cannot train talent into players.

Not the PP...but you are moving the goal posts. To say kids play other sports because of earnings potential isn't cultural...it's economic. And I don't think that is correct at all.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What I find extremely humorous is that, as intelligent as you think you may be, you can’t see the link between culture and economics. Fascinating.

I won’t stoop to your level of calling others’ argument “stupid,” but the opposing point is more correct than yours. Coaches cannot train talent into players.

Not the PP...but you are moving the goal posts. To say kids play other sports because of earnings potential isn't cultural...it's economic. And I don't think that is correct at all.

What can I say....if you don’t get it, you don’t get it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What I find extremely humorous is that, as intelligent as you think you may be, you can’t see the link between culture and economics. Fascinating.

I won’t stoop to your level of calling others’ argument “stupid,” but the opposing point is more correct than yours. Coaches cannot train talent into players.

Not the PP...but you are moving the goal posts. To say kids play other sports because of earnings potential isn't cultural...it's economic. And I don't think that is correct at all.

What can I say....if you don’t get it, you don’t get it.

Oh no, I get it - your argument is weak and incorrect.

[Anonymous]

Navas is an anomaly. Come on now.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What I find extremely humorous is that, as intelligent as you think you may be, you can’t see the link between culture and economics. Fascinating.

I won’t stoop to your level of calling others’ argument “stupid,” but the opposing point is more correct than yours. Coaches cannot train talent into players.

Not the PP...but you are moving the goal posts. To say kids play other sports because of earnings potential isn't cultural...it's economic. And I don't think that is correct at all.

What can I say....if you don’t get it, you don’t get it.

Oh no, I get it - your argument is weak and incorrect.

Actually no, yours is. Coaching does not instill talent. Talent is innate.

[Anonymous]

No, talent is nurtured, or gets wasted.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What I find extremely humorous is that, as intelligent as you think you may be, you can’t see the link between culture and economics. Fascinating.

I won’t stoop to your level of calling others’ argument “stupid,” but the opposing point is more correct than yours. Coaches cannot train talent into players.

Not the PP...but you are moving the goal posts. To say kids play other sports because of earnings potential isn't cultural...it's economic. And I don't think that is correct at all.

What can I say....if you don’t get it, you don’t get it.

Oh no, I get it - your argument is weak and incorrect.

Actually no, yours is. Coaching does not instill talent. Talent is innate.

Well, the statue of David was innate to that block of Marble too.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:No, talent is nurtured, or gets wasted.

That’s true as well. That doesn’t mean you can train talent into a player.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What I find extremely humorous is that, as intelligent as you think you may be, you can’t see the link between culture and economics. Fascinating.

I won’t stoop to your level of calling others’ argument “stupid,” but the opposing point is more correct than yours. Coaches cannot train talent into players.

Not the PP...but you are moving the goal posts. To say kids play other sports because of earnings potential isn't cultural...it's economic. And I don't think that is correct at all.

What can I say....if you don’t get it, you don’t get it.

Oh no, I get it - your argument is weak and incorrect.

Actually no, yours is. Coaching does not instill talent. Talent is innate.

Well, the statue of David was innate to that block of Marble too.

Great analogy, I wonder if it could have been sculpted from a pile of hay.

Try harder, you’re failing miserably

[Anonymous]

LOL at the statue reference. As if any coach (or club for that matter) anywhere spends as much time and detail on any single player as an artist would spend on a life work!

This board is rich.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:LOL at the statue reference. As if any coach (or club for that matter) anywhere spends as much time and detail on any single player as an artist would spend on a life work!

This board is rich.

Then who is going to teach the kid who can't run fast to be able to run fast?