Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:US is mainly white. Did you know polo in China is dominated by Chinese people, and it can be further separated by economics and weather.

I hear soccer in South America is dominated by Latinos. Go figure.

In the US, all players are Americans.

No, no, no! You're supposed to divide "Americans" into different socio-economic and racial groups and then pit them against each other! Did you not get that memo from the media?!?

How are we supposed to distract people from the fact that a handful of billionaires own most of the wealth in the country of we can't constantly distract people by manipulating them into hating each other!

+1

Yeah, that explains all of our problems, along with a lack of education, historical perspective, or independent thought among the people voting every two years. Inequality is a major problem. But our illness is far worse than that. It is mass stupidity and the cultural sewer that the majority of Americans create and support every hour of every day. You think somebody else is making people hate each other? You really ought to get to know your fellow citizens a little better than that.

Why do you think there is a cultural sewer, and a lack of education, historical perspective and independent thought? It wasn't always this way.

But - yes - these lacks make it easier for the oligarchs to divide society into groups and turn each group against the other fighting over an ever decreasing pile of scraps, when those groups should unite against the people who are robbing them blind.

Nonsense. The problem is mass prosperity, a universal sense of entitlement from people who do little to compete internationally, and an utter absence of courage or public sacrifice from elites (like military or public service). There are no bonds holding society together. The oligarchs have zero to do with it. They are giving people what they want. Are they not supposed to do that? Says who? Other would-be oligarchs? Americans don’t work hard enough to live the way they want and many Americans have no respect for other groups of Americans they view as entitled (all are pretty much right on that count). When economic growth slows, all of these fissures become schisms. Get rid of all the oligarchs, and you think we are all gonna sit around the campfire singing together? Absolutely not.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The best athletes in this country most certainly do not play soccer. Go to most any high school and ask who are the best athletes and see how many of them play soccer. Yeah, yeah, yeah, I know it's not just about speed and strength in soccer. There are tactics and game IQ. yada, yada. The same could be said about any other sport. But with enough of a player pool, they all have good game IQ and speed and strength. Basketball and football just have a larger player pool. Not at the younger ages but in high school and older.

At the highest levels, national teams and professional ranks, where all have the dedication and time to learn the tactics and skills, the differences of just a few freakishly superior athletes can make a difference. In Europe the very best freakishly good athletes are playing soccer at the professional level. Consider the top athletes in the US. People like Lebron James or Saquon Barkley or Lamar Jackson. These are athletes with 1 in 10 million physical traits. Not saying they would automatically be good at soccer, but imagine if kids with these physical gifts were playing soccer in greater numbers from a young age.

Assuming that you're not being intentionally obtuse, this is worth a listen:
https://www.ted.com/talks/david_epstein_are_athletes_really_getting_faster_better_stronger?language=en

Your argument is badly flawed. Lebron James is good at basketball not only because of his athleticism, but also because of his physical characteristics--which I doubt would translate well to soccer. Why not go with, "If only Michael Phelps had played soccer?" Simone Biles? Justin Gatlin?

Our player pool is big enough--much bigger than Belgium's or Croatia's. So what, then, really is the problem? Some thoughts...

1) Maybe there really is no problem--we go to the World Cup most of the time and we've been to the round of 16 several times. Maybe it's just not as easy to win an actual world championship in a sport that lots of other countries do as it is to win a "World Championship" in a sport that we've created (like basketball and baseball).

2) Our structures are not effective at finding and creating world-class players. I could go on for a while about the differences between US youth soccer structure and Europe, but the bottom line is that the discrimination that exists in US youth soccer isn't just about ability to pay--it's more about ability level. In the US, a U9 who is big, fast, and aggressive will be identified as a top-tier player and have much greater access to quality coaching and facilities. In Europe, they also like big, fast, and aggressive U9s. But the kids who aren't there yet WILL STILL have professional coaches, high-level training, sports psychologists, camps, uniforms, and access to progress in the form of pro-rel league structures. Simply not the case in the US.

Why are you using LeBron James as your example? Instead, you should have used Tyreek Hill or other extremely fast/athletic NFL players. Remember that NFL players also wear padding and other gears that can slow them down due to its weight and bulk.

You using an NBA player as your example made me think you don’t understand sports and completely ruined the rest of your argument.

I used Lebron James because the PP used Lebron James. Or were you addressing your comment to the PP?

The TED talk that I linked to makes (and supports) the argument that athletes self-select into sports and are best suited for their body types. You think that there aren't 6'3" sprinters anywhere but the US?

The real-world counterpoint to your Tyreek Hill example is Usain Bolt, who had a background in soccer, was literally the fastest man on the planet--with all that entails, such as reflexes, balance, etc--and he could not make it as a pro soccer player.

Like up the best 10 players in the world right now. Will there be a common body type? Best 5 of all time include a Black brazilian, two short Argentinians (who even between them don't have the same body type), a tall Portuguese, and...well, actually, who would that be? Now look at WR in american football. A few exceptions, but mostly the same body types. Linemen. Tight ends. Safeties. Pretty much all with similar body types. Basketball players: not much diversity in body types.

The point remains: the US has enough of a player pool.

Yes. Yes. Yes. How do we get through to everyone. We have a big enough player pool. The problem with US soccer is NOT that we don't have enough elite athletes playing it. It is not that it's not the #1 or #2 most popular sport in america. We CURRENTLY have plenty of elite athletes playing it. We need to get past that. They are not the problems. Is the problem coaching? Identification? Not playing enough? One reason I feel strongly about is the pure competitiveness of training. My kids have played on various teams and clubs and practices are good but they rarely go 100%...I mean go 100% with full intensity. That's how you get better. Not jogging through drills. When I was younger and played football, we wanted to kill each other even though we were best friends off the field. Maybe kids don't feel it because why should they kill each other when the best they could do is a $80K/year MLS gig. Kids from other countries see soccer as a way out of their current socio-economic statuses...I mean not all of course.

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.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The best athletes in this country most certainly do not play soccer. Go to most any high school and ask who are the best athletes and see how many of them play soccer. Yeah, yeah, yeah, I know it's not just about speed and strength in soccer. There are tactics and game IQ. yada, yada. The same could be said about any other sport. But with enough of a player pool, they all have good game IQ and speed and strength. Basketball and football just have a larger player pool. Not at the younger ages but in high school and older.

At the highest levels, national teams and professional ranks, where all have the dedication and time to learn the tactics and skills, the differences of just a few freakishly superior athletes can make a difference. In Europe the very best freakishly good athletes are playing soccer at the professional level. Consider the top athletes in the US. People like Lebron James or Saquon Barkley or Lamar Jackson. These are athletes with 1 in 10 million physical traits. Not saying they would automatically be good at soccer, but imagine if kids with these physical gifts were playing soccer in greater numbers from a young age.

Assuming that you're not being intentionally obtuse, this is worth a listen:
https://www.ted.com/talks/david_epstein_are_athletes_really_getting_faster_better_stronger?language=en

Your argument is badly flawed. Lebron James is good at basketball not only because of his athleticism, but also because of his physical characteristics--which I doubt would translate well to soccer. Why not go with, "If only Michael Phelps had played soccer?" Simone Biles? Justin Gatlin?

Our player pool is big enough--much bigger than Belgium's or Croatia's. So what, then, really is the problem? Some thoughts...

1) Maybe there really is no problem--we go to the World Cup most of the time and we've been to the round of 16 several times. Maybe it's just not as easy to win an actual world championship in a sport that lots of other countries do as it is to win a "World Championship" in a sport that we've created (like basketball and baseball).

2) Our structures are not effective at finding and creating world-class players. I could go on for a while about the differences between US youth soccer structure and Europe, but the bottom line is that the discrimination that exists in US youth soccer isn't just about ability to pay--it's more about ability level. In the US, a U9 who is big, fast, and aggressive will be identified as a top-tier player and have much greater access to quality coaching and facilities. In Europe, they also like big, fast, and aggressive U9s. But the kids who aren't there yet WILL STILL have professional coaches, high-level training, sports psychologists, camps, uniforms, and access to progress in the form of pro-rel league structures. Simply not the case in the US.

Why are you using LeBron James as your example? Instead, you should have used Tyreek Hill or other extremely fast/athletic NFL players. Remember that NFL players also wear padding and other gears that can slow them down due to its weight and bulk.

You using an NBA player as your example made me think you don’t understand sports and completely ruined the rest of your argument.

I used Lebron James because the PP used Lebron James. Or were you addressing your comment to the PP?

The TED talk that I linked to makes (and supports) the argument that athletes self-select into sports and are best suited for their body types. You think that there aren't 6'3" sprinters anywhere but the US?

The real-world counterpoint to your Tyreek Hill example is Usain Bolt, who had a background in soccer, was literally the fastest man on the planet--with all that entails, such as reflexes, balance, etc--and he could not make it as a pro soccer player.

Like up the best 10 players in the world right now. Will there be a common body type? Best 5 of all time include a Black brazilian, two short Argentinians (who even between them don't have the same body type), a tall Portuguese, and...well, actually, who would that be? Now look at WR in american football. A few exceptions, but mostly the same body types. Linemen. Tight ends. Safeties. Pretty much all with similar body types. Basketball players: not much diversity in body types.

The point remains: the US has enough of a player pool.

Yes. Yes. Yes. How do we get through to everyone. We have a big enough player pool. The problem with US soccer is NOT that we don't have enough elite athletes playing it. It is not that it's not the #1 or #2 most popular sport in america. We CURRENTLY have plenty of elite athletes playing it. We need to get past that. They are not the problems. Is the problem coaching? Identification? Not playing enough? One reason I feel strongly about is the pure competitiveness of training. My kids have played on various teams and clubs and practices are good but they rarely go 100%...I mean go 100% with full intensity. That's how you get better. Not jogging through drills. When I was younger and played football, we wanted to kill each other even though we were best friends off the field. Maybe kids don't feel it because why should they kill each other when the best they could do is a $80K/year MLS gig. Kids from other countries see soccer as a way out of their current socio-economic statuses...I mean not all of course.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The best athletes in this country most certainly do not play soccer. Go to most any high school and ask who are the best athletes and see how many of them play soccer. Yeah, yeah, yeah, I know it's not just about speed and strength in soccer. There are tactics and game IQ. yada, yada. The same could be said about any other sport. But with enough of a player pool, they all have good game IQ and speed and strength. Basketball and football just have a larger player pool. Not at the younger ages but in high school and older.

At the highest levels, national teams and professional ranks, where all have the dedication and time to learn the tactics and skills, the differences of just a few freakishly superior athletes can make a difference. In Europe the very best freakishly good athletes are playing soccer at the professional level. Consider the top athletes in the US. People like Lebron James or Saquon Barkley or Lamar Jackson. These are athletes with 1 in 10 million physical traits. Not saying they would automatically be good at soccer, but imagine if kids with these physical gifts were playing soccer in greater numbers from a young age.

Assuming that you're not being intentionally obtuse, this is worth a listen:
https://www.ted.com/talks/david_epstein_are_athletes_really_getting_faster_better_stronger?language=en

Your argument is badly flawed. Lebron James is good at basketball not only because of his athleticism, but also because of his physical characteristics--which I doubt would translate well to soccer. Why not go with, "If only Michael Phelps had played soccer?" Simone Biles? Justin Gatlin?

Our player pool is big enough--much bigger than Belgium's or Croatia's. So what, then, really is the problem? Some thoughts...

1) Maybe there really is no problem--we go to the World Cup most of the time and we've been to the round of 16 several times. Maybe it's just not as easy to win an actual world championship in a sport that lots of other countries do as it is to win a "World Championship" in a sport that we've created (like basketball and baseball).

2) Our structures are not effective at finding and creating world-class players. I could go on for a while about the differences between US youth soccer structure and Europe, but the bottom line is that the discrimination that exists in US youth soccer isn't just about ability to pay--it's more about ability level. In the US, a U9 who is big, fast, and aggressive will be identified as a top-tier player and have much greater access to quality coaching and facilities. In Europe, they also like big, fast, and aggressive U9s. But the kids who aren't there yet WILL STILL have professional coaches, high-level training, sports psychologists, camps, uniforms, and access to progress in the form of pro-rel league structures. Simply not the case in the US.

Why are you using LeBron James as your example? Instead, you should have used Tyreek Hill or other extremely fast/athletic NFL players. Remember that NFL players also wear padding and other gears that can slow them down due to its weight and bulk.

You using an NBA player as your example made me think you don’t understand sports and completely ruined the rest of your argument.

I used Lebron James because the PP used Lebron James. Or were you addressing your comment to the PP?

The TED talk that I linked to makes (and supports) the argument that athletes self-select into sports and are best suited for their body types. You think that there aren't 6'3" sprinters anywhere but the US?

The real-world counterpoint to your Tyreek Hill example is Usain Bolt, who had a background in soccer, was literally the fastest man on the planet--with all that entails, such as reflexes, balance, etc--and he could not make it as a pro soccer player.

Like up the best 10 players in the world right now. Will there be a common body type? Best 5 of all time include a Black brazilian, two short Argentinians (who even between them don't have the same body type), a tall Portuguese, and...well, actually, who would that be? Now look at WR in american football. A few exceptions, but mostly the same body types. Linemen. Tight ends. Safeties. Pretty much all with similar body types. Basketball players: not much diversity in body types.

The point remains: the US has enough of a player pool.

Anonymous wrote:If the athlete is focused on soccer, their ball skills would be on point. So, I’d rather the elite athlete pool be focused on soccer than football, basketball, yada, yada. Inherent in the counter argument is that there is some factor to success at soccer that is excluded from elite athletes. There’s no such thing. In a population, there will be a subset of elite athletes who have the right factors, including intelligence, to be top tier soccer players. The difference between the US and other countries though is that soccer is sport number 4 or 5 on the list, not 1 or 2. The argument that we are too focused on athletes in soccer as a country is a red herring.

I agree with some of what you are saying, but I would express it slightly differently.

If we define "athleticism" as strength, speed, throwing, and jumping then elite athletes excel at a subset of the skills which are useful in soccer. The other necessary physical skills - foot-ball-eye coordination and agility - are also innate skills, but they are not related to athleticism. Yes practice will improve those skills for anyone, but the ceiling for some is higher than for others just as everyone gets a faster 5K time with practice but most of us are not in the running for an olympic medal no matter how much practice we put in.

This is true of american football as well. An elite athlete who can't catch is not going to be a very good wide receiver - and the ability to catch is not related to how fast you can run. And - just as for soccer skills - practice can improve catching ability - but not without limit.

So the ideal soccer player has a balance of all the necessary skills. Therefore it is of course going to improve the pool of soccer players if we add more excellent athletes to the pool of potential players since we know they already have many of the necessary abilities - and by random chance some of them will also have the remaining necessary abilities as well. As a group they will be much better at soccer than average joes. However they still would not be as good as a pool of people selected for a blend of all the necessary skills as opposed to just some of them.

So I completely agree with your point that losing a lot of potential players to other sports - when there is a large overlap between the people who excel at other sports and the people who excel at soccer - clearly impacts our competitiveness at soccer.

However I think we also do a poor job of identifying at a young age some of the skills which make a good soccer player. It is easy to identify speed and strength - perhaps because these skills have an outsize impact on wins and losses at younger ages - and so these kids are often promoted to the best teams and given the best coaching when kids whose ultimate potential might be higher are not as easily noticed at the younger age groups by many coaches.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The best athletes in this country most certainly do not play soccer. Go to most any high school and ask who are the best athletes and see how many of them play soccer. Yeah, yeah, yeah, I know it's not just about speed and strength in soccer. There are tactics and game IQ. yada, yada. The same could be said about any other sport. But with enough of a player pool, they all have good game IQ and speed and strength. Basketball and football just have a larger player pool. Not at the younger ages but in high school and older.

At the highest levels, national teams and professional ranks, where all have the dedication and time to learn the tactics and skills, the differences of just a few freakishly superior athletes can make a difference. In Europe the very best freakishly good athletes are playing soccer at the professional level. Consider the top athletes in the US. People like Lebron James or Saquon Barkley or Lamar Jackson. These are athletes with 1 in 10 million physical traits. Not saying they would automatically be good at soccer, but imagine if kids with these physical gifts were playing soccer in greater numbers from a young age.

Assuming that you're not being intentionally obtuse, this is worth a listen:
https://www.ted.com/talks/david_epstein_are_athletes_really_getting_faster_better_stronger?language=en

Your argument is badly flawed. Lebron James is good at basketball not only because of his athleticism, but also because of his physical characteristics--which I doubt would translate well to soccer. Why not go with, "If only Michael Phelps had played soccer?" Simone Biles? Justin Gatlin?

Our player pool is big enough--much bigger than Belgium's or Croatia's. So what, then, really is the problem? Some thoughts...

1) Maybe there really is no problem--we go to the World Cup most of the time and we've been to the round of 16 several times. Maybe it's just not as easy to win an actual world championship in a sport that lots of other countries do as it is to win a "World Championship" in a sport that we've created (like basketball and baseball).

2) Our structures are not effective at finding and creating world-class players. I could go on for a while about the differences between US youth soccer structure and Europe, but the bottom line is that the discrimination that exists in US youth soccer isn't just about ability to pay--it's more about ability level. In the US, a U9 who is big, fast, and aggressive will be identified as a top-tier player and have much greater access to quality coaching and facilities. In Europe, they also like big, fast, and aggressive U9s. But the kids who aren't there yet WILL STILL have professional coaches, high-level training, sports psychologists, camps, uniforms, and access to progress in the form of pro-rel league structures. Simply not the case in the US.

Why are you using LeBron James as your example? Instead, you should have used Tyreek Hill or other extremely fast/athletic NFL players. Remember that NFL players also wear padding and other gears that can slow them down due to its weight and bulk.

You using an NBA player as your example made me think you don’t understand sports and completely ruined the rest of your argument.

Correct. LeBron as goalkeeper might be pretty solid. Odell Beckham was actually a star soccer player in high school, I think. I think speed is important, but you need balance so Mostert on the 49ers (elite speed plus youth national surfing champion) would be on my development squad. Barry Sanders might have been pretty good at soccer given balance and agility.

If you don't think freak athletes play soccer in the US then you are wrong. Period. All these athletes that you name are freak athletes and trained for their sport. You don't need legs legs like Saquon and Barry Sanders to play soccer at the highest levels. You don't need Lebron's build to play GK. Look at decathletes. They do not look like any of the athletes that you mentioned and decathletes are freak athletes. But my point has been...let's just say you concede the top 15% of all US athletes to other sports just for the sake of argument....the talent pool is so huge that you still have plenty of freak athletes playing soccer. Using these athletes we should still be more competitive with other nations than we are.

Decathlon athletes do not require the start/stop/change direction of soccer. Different sport, different athlete. Natural athletes with explosive power will succeed in most sports, but it's most difficult in soccer because you MUST have technical proficiency with the ball, unlike football where can you have poor hands and still be top talent (LB, free safety). Best athletes in America are not playing soccer. Because America is so big (geographically, economically, culturally), the USMNT system will likely always be about athletic prowess (and we should embrace that). Maybe in a generation of sending LOTS of players to Europe we will get to the point of competing for a World Cup.

If the athlete is focused on soccer, their ball skills would be on point. So, I’d rather the elite athlete pool be focused on soccer than football, basketball, yada, yada. Inherent in the counter argument is that there is some factor to success at soccer that is excluded from elite athletes. There’s no such thing. In a population, there will be a subset of elite athletes who have the right factors, including intelligence, to be top tier soccer players. The difference between the US and other countries though is that soccer is sport number 4 or 5 on the list, not 1 or 2. The argument that we are too focused on athletes in soccer as a country is a red herring.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The best athletes in this country most certainly do not play soccer. Go to most any high school and ask who are the best athletes and see how many of them play soccer. Yeah, yeah, yeah, I know it's not just about speed and strength in soccer. There are tactics and game IQ. yada, yada. The same could be said about any other sport. But with enough of a player pool, they all have good game IQ and speed and strength. Basketball and football just have a larger player pool. Not at the younger ages but in high school and older.

At the highest levels, national teams and professional ranks, where all have the dedication and time to learn the tactics and skills, the differences of just a few freakishly superior athletes can make a difference. In Europe the very best freakishly good athletes are playing soccer at the professional level. Consider the top athletes in the US. People like Lebron James or Saquon Barkley or Lamar Jackson. These are athletes with 1 in 10 million physical traits. Not saying they would automatically be good at soccer, but imagine if kids with these physical gifts were playing soccer in greater numbers from a young age.

Assuming that you're not being intentionally obtuse, this is worth a listen:
https://www.ted.com/talks/david_epstein_are_athletes_really_getting_faster_better_stronger?language=en

Your argument is badly flawed. Lebron James is good at basketball not only because of his athleticism, but also because of his physical characteristics--which I doubt would translate well to soccer. Why not go with, "If only Michael Phelps had played soccer?" Simone Biles? Justin Gatlin?

Our player pool is big enough--much bigger than Belgium's or Croatia's. So what, then, really is the problem? Some thoughts...

1) Maybe there really is no problem--we go to the World Cup most of the time and we've been to the round of 16 several times. Maybe it's just not as easy to win an actual world championship in a sport that lots of other countries do as it is to win a "World Championship" in a sport that we've created (like basketball and baseball).

2) Our structures are not effective at finding and creating world-class players. I could go on for a while about the differences between US youth soccer structure and Europe, but the bottom line is that the discrimination that exists in US youth soccer isn't just about ability to pay--it's more about ability level. In the US, a U9 who is big, fast, and aggressive will be identified as a top-tier player and have much greater access to quality coaching and facilities. In Europe, they also like big, fast, and aggressive U9s. But the kids who aren't there yet WILL STILL have professional coaches, high-level training, sports psychologists, camps, uniforms, and access to progress in the form of pro-rel league structures. Simply not the case in the US.

Why are you using LeBron James as your example? Instead, you should have used Tyreek Hill or other extremely fast/athletic NFL players. Remember that NFL players also wear padding and other gears that can slow them down due to its weight and bulk.

You using an NBA player as your example made me think you don’t understand sports and completely ruined the rest of your argument.

Correct. LeBron as goalkeeper might be pretty solid. Odell Beckham was actually a star soccer player in high school, I think. I think speed is important, but you need balance so Mostert on the 49ers (elite speed plus youth national surfing champion) would be on my development squad. Barry Sanders might have been pretty good at soccer given balance and agility.

If you don't think freak athletes play soccer in the US then you are wrong. Period. All these athletes that you name are freak athletes and trained for their sport. You don't need legs legs like Saquon and Barry Sanders to play soccer at the highest levels. You don't need Lebron's build to play GK. Look at decathletes. They do not look like any of the athletes that you mentioned and decathletes are freak athletes. But my point has been...let's just say you concede the top 15% of all US athletes to other sports just for the sake of argument....the talent pool is so huge that you still have plenty of freak athletes playing soccer. Using these athletes we should still be more competitive with other nations than we are.

Decathlon athletes do not require the start/stop/change direction of soccer. Different sport, different athlete. Natural athletes with explosive power will succeed in most sports, but it's most difficult in soccer because you MUST have technical proficiency with the ball, unlike football where can you have poor hands and still be top talent (LB, free safety). Best athletes in America are not playing soccer. Because America is so big (geographically, economically, culturally), the USMNT system will likely always be about athletic prowess (and we should embrace that). Maybe in a generation of sending LOTS of players to Europe we will get to the point of competing for a World Cup.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The best athletes in this country most certainly do not play soccer. Go to most any high school and ask who are the best athletes and see how many of them play soccer. Yeah, yeah, yeah, I know it's not just about speed and strength in soccer. There are tactics and game IQ. yada, yada. The same could be said about any other sport. But with enough of a player pool, they all have good game IQ and speed and strength. Basketball and football just have a larger player pool. Not at the younger ages but in high school and older.

At the highest levels, national teams and professional ranks, where all have the dedication and time to learn the tactics and skills, the differences of just a few freakishly superior athletes can make a difference. In Europe the very best freakishly good athletes are playing soccer at the professional level. Consider the top athletes in the US. People like Lebron James or Saquon Barkley or Lamar Jackson. These are athletes with 1 in 10 million physical traits. Not saying they would automatically be good at soccer, but imagine if kids with these physical gifts were playing soccer in greater numbers from a young age.

Assuming that you're not being intentionally obtuse, this is worth a listen:
https://www.ted.com/talks/david_epstein_are_athletes_really_getting_faster_better_stronger?language=en

Your argument is badly flawed. Lebron James is good at basketball not only because of his athleticism, but also because of his physical characteristics--which I doubt would translate well to soccer. Why not go with, "If only Michael Phelps had played soccer?" Simone Biles? Justin Gatlin?

Our player pool is big enough--much bigger than Belgium's or Croatia's. So what, then, really is the problem? Some thoughts...

1) Maybe there really is no problem--we go to the World Cup most of the time and we've been to the round of 16 several times. Maybe it's just not as easy to win an actual world championship in a sport that lots of other countries do as it is to win a "World Championship" in a sport that we've created (like basketball and baseball).

2) Our structures are not effective at finding and creating world-class players. I could go on for a while about the differences between US youth soccer structure and Europe, but the bottom line is that the discrimination that exists in US youth soccer isn't just about ability to pay--it's more about ability level. In the US, a U9 who is big, fast, and aggressive will be identified as a top-tier player and have much greater access to quality coaching and facilities. In Europe, they also like big, fast, and aggressive U9s. But the kids who aren't there yet WILL STILL have professional coaches, high-level training, sports psychologists, camps, uniforms, and access to progress in the form of pro-rel league structures. Simply not the case in the US.

Why are you using LeBron James as your example? Instead, you should have used Tyreek Hill or other extremely fast/athletic NFL players. Remember that NFL players also wear padding and other gears that can slow them down due to its weight and bulk.

You using an NBA player as your example made me think you don’t understand sports and completely ruined the rest of your argument.

Correct. LeBron as goalkeeper might be pretty solid. Odell Beckham was actually a star soccer player in high school, I think. I think speed is important, but you need balance so Mostert on the 49ers (elite speed plus youth national surfing champion) would be on my development squad. Barry Sanders might have been pretty good at soccer given balance and agility.

If you don't think freak athletes play soccer in the US then you are wrong. Period. All these athletes that you name are freak athletes and trained for their sport. You don't need legs legs like Saquon and Barry Sanders to play soccer at the highest levels. You don't need Lebron's build to play GK. Look at decathletes. They do not look like any of the athletes that you mentioned and decathletes are freak athletes. But my point has been...let's just say you concede the top 15% of all US athletes to other sports just for the sake of argument....the talent pool is so huge that you still have plenty of freak athletes playing soccer. Using these athletes we should still be more competitive with other nations than we are.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:US is mainly white. Did you know polo in China is dominated by Chinese people, and it can be further separated by economics and weather.

I hear soccer in South America is dominated by Latinos. Go figure.

In the US, all players are Americans.

No, no, no! You're supposed to divide "Americans" into different socio-economic and racial groups and then pit them against each other! Did you not get that memo from the media?!?

How are we supposed to distract people from the fact that a handful of billionaires own most of the wealth in the country of we can't constantly distract people by manipulating them into hating each other!

+1

Yeah, that explains all of our problems, along with a lack of education, historical perspective, or independent thought among the people voting every two years. Inequality is a major problem. But our illness is far worse than that. It is mass stupidity and the cultural sewer that the majority of Americans create and support every hour of every day. You think somebody else is making people hate each other? You really ought to get to know your fellow citizens a little better than that.

Why do you think there is a cultural sewer, and a lack of education, historical perspective and independent thought? It wasn't always this way.

But - yes - these lacks make it easier for the oligarchs to divide society into groups and turn each group against the other fighting over an ever decreasing pile of scraps, when those groups should unite against the people who are robbing them blind.