Toggle navigation
Toggle navigation
Home
DCUM Forums
Nanny Forums
Events
About DCUM
Advertising
Search
Recent Topics
Hottest Topics
FAQs and Guidelines
Privacy Policy
Your current identity is: Anonymous
Login
Preview
Subject:
Forum Index
»
Soccer
Reply to "Yahoo story: Why the world's game is a white game in the U.S."
Subject:
Emoticons
More smilies
Text Color:
Default
Dark Red
Red
Orange
Brown
Yellow
Green
Olive
Cyan
Blue
Dark Blue
Violet
White
Black
Font:
Very Small
Small
Normal
Big
Giant
Close Marks
[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous] This is back to my earlier point on urban and rural kids. Not enough of them play. Its mostly suburban and they just aren't hungry enough because they already have a comfy life. It is cultural and economic. Yes, yes - we also don't have the coaches the top, top, top soccer countries have, but not many do (only France, Spain, Germany, Brazil, and Italy have won the world cup since 1990). We need 4 Pulisics, 4 Weahs, a couple Renyas, a Friedl or Keller and one super, super star to get to the semis or to win. Those guys only come from very poor upbringing.[/quote] What in the world are you going on about? Pulisic *is* the very model of a suburban, middle-class white kid. Reyna and Weah are little princes *who had access to good facilities, coaching, and competition* from a young age. How many of the Germany national team winners from 2014 came from "very poor upbringings?" 2 or 3? Just stop.[/quote] You’re still not comprehending my point. A great suburban kid is rare. The aforementioned players are good internationally, they are not great. You need greatness to win world cups. And greatness typically comes from a position of disadvantage and struggle. Hence my point about a super, super star. The Pulisic and Weahs are foundational only to a great team, but they don’t put the team over the top. For the US they are the best players. For great teams they’d be role players. What don’t you understand about this? Have you ever paid attention, at all?[/quote] I understand what you're saying. I just think you're full of sh*t. Here are the main points on which we disagree: 1) You don't need a "super, super star" to win the World Cup. Who was the "super, super star" on Germany's 2014 team? Who was the "super, super star" on Croatia's 2018 finalist team? Can you even name a player on the 2016 Euro Iceland team that beat England? Or one from the 2018 Sweden team that went deep into the competition? 2) Having a "super, super star" doesn't guarantee success. See Messi, Lionel. Hell, the Argentina team is stacked with players starting at top European clubs. 3) For you, who are the "super, super stars?" We can probably agree on Messi and Cristiano Ronaldo, neither of whom came from particularly destitute backgrounds. For every guy like Romelu Lukaku, there's a Gerard Pique. So, since it's clear that a team can be great without any "super, super stars," and that having "super, super stars" doesn't guarantee success, where does that leave your arguments? FWIW, I do agree that Pulisic is not a *great* player yet and Weah might not even be a good one. Convince me, though...I can think of two "super, super stars" who did come from destitute backgrounds (Pele and Maradona) and two that didn't (Messi and Ronaldo). Although I still don't believe that the US or any other team needs a "super, super star" (in quotations because it's a pretty stupid phrase), can you give me more examples of players that would fit your theory?[/quote]
Options
Disable HTML in this message
Disable BB Code in this message
Disable smilies in this message
Review message
Search
Recent Topics
Hottest Topics