Anonymous



Do we really need more kids in soccer? The amount of travel soccer teams in the area is already unbearable. What's wrong with a country liking more than one sport? I think it must be boring to live in a country where only one sport is played competitively.

This is the problem with the US. The traveling team model does not develop players. It cost a lot of money(hotel, travel etc.) and time. The Europeans start development at 11 to 12 and it's a full time job.

International sports have always puzzled me. We should be able to dominate in baseball, but we don't necessarily in international competitions. A few years ago, the Netherlands beat the Dominican Republic in an international competition. Yet we kill it with Olympic basketball. Does Canada dominate curling, sort of, but what else do they do up there?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Costa Rica has fewer than 5 million people and still can manage to qualify for the World Cup. I think it has to do with kids watching soccer and playing pick up games everyday that makes the difference. I have to pay if I want my 7 year old to

The rest of the world has limited resources (so they flock to the sport with one piece of equipment), and very limited other options (baseball, basketball, football, lacrosse, hockey, etc, etc).

I am very confident that if the US had the same focus on soccer that we would be among the elite in the world, but luckily this will never happen because we have so many other great things to focus on.


Long story short - other countries are great at soccer because they have to be - we aren't great at it because we don't have to be.

Great points, PP, that put it in perspective. (And I say this as a lifelong American soccer fan.)

Also, we have the best or one of the best women athletes in soccer. It's amazing to see how few women play soccer in some of these countries where the sport is so heavily played by men. In the US, the sport is popular with both women and men and they both have similar training opportunities here.

Anonymous wrote:Costa Rica has fewer than 5 million people and still can manage to qualify for the World Cup. I think it has to do with kids watching soccer and playing pick up games everyday that makes the difference. I have to pay if I want my 7 year old to

The rest of the world has limited resources (so they flock to the sport with one piece of equipment), and very limited other options (baseball, basketball, football, lacrosse, hockey, etc, etc).

I am very confident that if the US had the same focus on soccer that we would be among the elite in the world, but luckily this will never happen because we have so many other great things to focus on.


Long story short - other countries are great at soccer because they have to be - we aren't great at it because we don't have to be.

Costa Rica has fewer than 5 million people and still can manage to qualify for the World Cup. I think it has to do with kids watching soccer and playing pick up games everyday that makes the difference. I have to pay if I want my 7 year old to

Anonymous wrote:Do we really need more kids in soccer? The amount of travel soccer teams in the area is already unbearable. What's wrong with a country liking more than one sport? I think it must be boring to live in a country where only one sport is played competitively.

This, exactly.

Do we really need more kids in soccer? The amount of travel soccer teams in the area is already unbearable. What's wrong with a country liking more than one sport? I think it must be boring to live in a country where only one sport is played competitively.

OP here. Good thoughts. Certainly the system itself plays an enormous part in development. I guess the analog here in the US is comparable (though not identical or as immersive) as the European model for soccer is year-round training for football. Many players in FL for instance play nearly year-round honing their skills from age 10 onward. So, a system like that for soccer would surely increase our nation's potential.

I agree also that population alone is not a deciding factor. But my larger point is that there are a lot of incredible athletes in the US; it's just that most choose not to dedicate their time and energy from a young age to develop those skills specifically for soccer.

As for all football players being 'fat' or basketball players being 'gangly' or whatever, I think a PP nailed it pointing out that there are specific positions within those sports that are specialties (linemen in football, centers in basketball) that feature skill-sets not translatable to soccer but other positions that would translate nicely I would guess.

Hell, as a great example, football punters flop in similar fashion to soccer players when any degree of collision occurs to draw penalties

Anonymous wrote:This subject came up at work when a coworker said that the US would be the best in the world if only our best athletes were not syphoned into so many other sports after their youth. So, if the US fielded a team of guys who went on to excel at other sports besides soccer, would the US dominate?

My thinking is that we would - for two reasons. First, our country is just massive at 325+ million population. Also, I think it is true that many great athletes go on to play football, baseball, and basketball rather than soccer because thats where the money and social status is. Thoughts?

not unless there was a change in the 16-22 training.

The US would be better, yes, if guys like deion sanders, chris paul, etc played soccer -

but not markedly so as the issue with US soccer isn't athletic ability but training from 16 (or 14) to age 22.

It isn't the same level as being groomed full time at a top european club.

This article explains why European soccer players are better than those who grow up in the us. It's a completely different system.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/06/magazine/06Soccer-t.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

Large population doesn't necessarily increase your odds. China has 1.5 billion people but was never able to beat South Korea in soccer.

China is crazy about soccer. Soccer stars are treated like movie stars. China won so many Olympic medals. Yet, not even once was it able to beat South Korea.

It's an intriguing question, and you'd think just by the odds we'd have significantly more skilled players than a smaller country like Germany, for example.

But it's more than that - look at the fact that some of our starters (3?) spent some of their young years in Germany, playing soccer. (I know at least one player had a father in the military stationed in Germany). Surely the pool of kids in the US who spent time in Germany is relatively small, so why the disproportionate representation on the US team?

So in addition to more kids playing in the US, there's also something about training and learning that soccer powerhouses do differently.

But don't necessarily agree that our best athletes are shaped differently than soccer players - some football players are large because the position they play demands it. But plenty of football players - quarterbacks, running backs, safeties, receivers - would make excellent soccer players - look at the number of collegiate football players who run track. Basketballers are taller and ganglier, but not all of them. Point guards would probably make excellent soccer players.

I guess there's probably a point where kids who have great skills choose - and despite all the suburban soccer fields, the same pipeline doesn't exist, probably because of money.

I don't know if we'd be better because football is full of 300lb fatties, baseball is full of lazy dudes who can't run, and basketball is full of 7' tall dudes who also are slow and gangly.

This subject came up at work when a coworker said that the US would be the best in the world if only our best athletes were not syphoned into so many other sports after their youth. So, if the US fielded a team of guys who went on to excel at other sports besides soccer, would the US dominate?

My thinking is that we would - for two reasons. First, our country is just massive at 325+ million population. Also, I think it is true that many great athletes go on to play football, baseball, and basketball rather than soccer because thats where the money and social status is. Thoughts?