Anonymous wrote:Well...experiencing hardship and being “destitute”...where’s the line?

One of the things that impressed me in “The Last Dance” was MJs ability to create motivation out of imagined grievances. Sounds exhausting but hey, whatever it takes 🤷‍♂️. Solid middle-class kid, btw.

But I really am curious about who the PP considers “super, super great” other than the 4 that I mentioned.

I loved MJ’s competitiveness and the chip he would carry for people he thought slighted him.

I’ve seen my own kid after getting screwed over carry a chip that spurred intense training on his own time. Wanting to prove them wrong/make them sorry was a way I always found motivation too. And if you get a chance to play against a coach/team that screwed you: look out

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You did me the courtesy of a long reply which was mostly somewhat coherent...So let me see if I can sum up your argument.

The US is not good enough in world football because the US does not have any "super, super great" players. "Super, super great" players only come from circumstances of hardship which force them to develop, train, and play with a desperate intensity. Therefore, in order to succeed in international football (shall we call "success" consistent appearances in the World Cup semi-finals?) the US must somehow find, develop, train, and effectively employ at least one of these "super, super great" players which MUST come from desperate circumstances. Does that fairly represent your viewpoint?

The best I can give you is this: you might not be wrong. But this argument is also completely useless. You can talk yourself in circles--any player who falters, well, clearly they weren't desperate enough. Never mind the *literally tens of thousands* of young men from horrifying situations who do not succeed as professional footballers. You can also re-define the destitution however you want, so there's not much of a point to arguing with you. Again, you might not be wrong--but it's completely irrelevant. What, is US Soccer supposed to go through the records of Child Protection Services looking for the really bad cases to try to make them into footballers?

Your lists of "super, super great" players...Well, again, I appreciate that you put it together. But Griezmann? Pogba? Mueller? Schweinsteiger? Also, the fact that you think that Pogba was the "super, super great" player in the French midfield without a mention of Kante makes your level of judgment clear. Very good players all, to be sure. Pulisic has the potential to surpass them all in terms of individual quality (two notes here--1) I was a Pulisic skeptic for a long time. But you can't argue with what he's done at Chelsea this year, and 2) He does seem a bit fragile and even a small injury could knock him off course).

But even if we just accepted your judgment of these players as "super, super great," have all of them suffered the tragic trauma that you deem necessary to attain that status? Of course not. So "white kids" from a middle-class background who never lacked for anything in life such as Mueller, Schweinsteiger, and Neuer can, with the proper training and environment, become world-beaters. You refute yourself.

Last time, even if you're not entirely wrong, your argument is entirely irrelevant. It's not like US Soccer can start grading the level of personnel tragedy a 7-year-old has suffered as a predictor of their future success. What they CAN do is improve their coaching, provide more access to quality coaching, and work on developing a coherent national strategy for how the US plays, which they can then teach to young players.

"Grow up, read a book, observe life, and pay attention." LOL...sure thing, chief.

I think we should be good in a few years. The current crop of teenagers are growing up under COVID which should provide all the hardship they need. Go USA.

Joke. Right?

They are playing less and training less—on their own and with teams.

COVID is a huge setback. In the younger ages, I’m seeing more chubby/fat kids on the field—even in high brackets.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:A lot of valid points here, and rings true all over the DMV

https://sports.yahoo.com/the-privilege-of-play-why-the-worlds-game-is-a-white-game-in-the-us-150024228.html?soc_src=social-sh&soc_trk=tw

I have to say this hasn't been my experience in Northern VA. I don't think my daughters ever played on a single team which was all white. Nor did the majority of the girls on the team attend private schools - in fact I can only remember three girls - in fifteen years - who did, although I may have forgotten one or two here and there. In general my daughters' teams had anywhere between one and three black girls on the roster - which is about proportionate.

For boys it's even less true with huge numbers of central and south american kids playing, especially at the higher levels of youth soccer. My son's team for example has three black kids, four hispanic kids, one asian kid, and nine or ten white kids.

And pretty much all soccer programs offer financial aid to kids who could not otherwise afford to play. In some cases this is 25% or more of the roster.

My boys were one of two Caucasians in their u13 and u16 teams. As blondes, they are very east for me to spot with my bad distance vision.

The higher up they’ve risen, the less white the team becomes.

Anonymous wrote:Whenever my kid needs some humility, I remind her that there are 500 girls in the county that are better than her, but they cannot afford to play.

Probably not. True for boys, not girls.

It’s still a machismo sport for those cultures. The women still aren’t playing in high numbers.

Anonymous wrote:You did me the courtesy of a long reply which was mostly somewhat coherent...So let me see if I can sum up your argument.

The US is not good enough in world football because the US does not have any "super, super great" players. "Super, super great" players only come from circumstances of hardship which force them to develop, train, and play with a desperate intensity. Therefore, in order to succeed in international football (shall we call "success" consistent appearances in the World Cup semi-finals?) the US must somehow find, develop, train, and effectively employ at least one of these "super, super great" players which MUST come from desperate circumstances. Does that fairly represent your viewpoint?

The best I can give you is this: you might not be wrong. But this argument is also completely useless. You can talk yourself in circles--any player who falters, well, clearly they weren't desperate enough. Never mind the *literally tens of thousands* of young men from horrifying situations who do not succeed as professional footballers. You can also re-define the destitution however you want, so there's not much of a point to arguing with you. Again, you might not be wrong--but it's completely irrelevant. What, is US Soccer supposed to go through the records of Child Protection Services looking for the really bad cases to try to make them into footballers?

Your lists of "super, super great" players...Well, again, I appreciate that you put it together. But Griezmann? Pogba? Mueller? Schweinsteiger? Also, the fact that you think that Pogba was the "super, super great" player in the French midfield without a mention of Kante makes your level of judgment clear. Very good players all, to be sure. Pulisic has the potential to surpass them all in terms of individual quality (two notes here--1) I was a Pulisic skeptic for a long time. But you can't argue with what he's done at Chelsea this year, and 2) He does seem a bit fragile and even a small injury could knock him off course).

But even if we just accepted your judgment of these players as "super, super great," have all of them suffered the tragic trauma that you deem necessary to attain that status? Of course not. So "white kids" from a middle-class background who never lacked for anything in life such as Mueller, Schweinsteiger, and Neuer can, with the proper training and environment, become world-beaters. You refute yourself.

Last time, even if you're not entirely wrong, your argument is entirely irrelevant. It's not like US Soccer can start grading the level of personnel tragedy a 7-year-old has suffered as a predictor of their future success. What they CAN do is improve their coaching, provide more access to quality coaching, and work on developing a coherent national strategy for how the US plays, which they can then teach to young players.

"Grow up, read a book, observe life, and pay attention." LOL...sure thing, chief.

Thank you. The insult was a response to your insult. Forums like this tend to bring that out. Anyhow, I was not trying to say what the US can or must do, I was simply saying what history has typically shown. That’s all. Germany is an exception to the rule (as are a few other Euro countries) in that their cultures live breath and eat soccer and the pro teams and leagues and nations there plow money into the sport and the development of their best players. We do not have that here, and not sure we ever will given all the other competing sports and activities. So, we most likely need hungrier players (who tend to, but not always, come from worse situations) rising up to take us to the next level. I like Pulisic a lot. I hope he continues to make strides and is utilized correctly by our national team coaches. Same with Weah and Reyna. We can get to quarters with talent like that.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You did me the courtesy of a long reply which was mostly somewhat coherent...So let me see if I can sum up your argument.

The US is not good enough in world football because the US does not have any "super, super great" players. "Super, super great" players only come from circumstances of hardship which force them to develop, train, and play with a desperate intensity. Therefore, in order to succeed in international football (shall we call "success" consistent appearances in the World Cup semi-finals?) the US must somehow find, develop, train, and effectively employ at least one of these "super, super great" players which MUST come from desperate circumstances. Does that fairly represent your viewpoint?

The best I can give you is this: you might not be wrong. But this argument is also completely useless. You can talk yourself in circles--any player who falters, well, clearly they weren't desperate enough. Never mind the *literally tens of thousands* of young men from horrifying situations who do not succeed as professional footballers. You can also re-define the destitution however you want, so there's not much of a point to arguing with you. Again, you might not be wrong--but it's completely irrelevant. What, is US Soccer supposed to go through the records of Child Protection Services looking for the really bad cases to try to make them into footballers?

Your lists of "super, super great" players...Well, again, I appreciate that you put it together. But Griezmann? Pogba? Mueller? Schweinsteiger? Also, the fact that you think that Pogba was the "super, super great" player in the French midfield without a mention of Kante makes your level of judgment clear. Very good players all, to be sure. Pulisic has the potential to surpass them all in terms of individual quality (two notes here--1) I was a Pulisic skeptic for a long time. But you can't argue with what he's done at Chelsea this year, and 2) He does seem a bit fragile and even a small injury could knock him off course).

But even if we just accepted your judgment of these players as "super, super great," have all of them suffered the tragic trauma that you deem necessary to attain that status? Of course not. So "white kids" from a middle-class background who never lacked for anything in life such as Mueller, Schweinsteiger, and Neuer can, with the proper training and environment, become world-beaters. You refute yourself.

Last time, even if you're not entirely wrong, your argument is entirely irrelevant. It's not like US Soccer can start grading the level of personnel tragedy a 7-year-old has suffered as a predictor of their future success. What they CAN do is improve their coaching, provide more access to quality coaching, and work on developing a coherent national strategy for how the US plays, which they can then teach to young players.

"Grow up, read a book, observe life, and pay attention." LOL...sure thing, chief.

I think we should be good in a few years. The current crop of teenagers are growing up under COVID which should provide all the hardship they need. Go USA.

Are you serious? Covid is not a hardship for most teens? You obviously have never traveled/worked in many of these locations.

Travel soccer is not only a white privileged sport but also one that typically is filled with parents with little economic sense. Yes, there are those that feel that their kid is doing it for the fun, comraderie, etc. However, for the average American who is shelling out thousands of dollars of year so little Larla can play soccer instead of putting the money in a college fund or funding their own retirement is asinine. 99% of these kids will not get college scholarships and many will quit before high school. But we do it anyway. It is a very interesting study in what Americans value.

Anonymous wrote:You did me the courtesy of a long reply which was mostly somewhat coherent...So let me see if I can sum up your argument.

The US is not good enough in world football because the US does not have any "super, super great" players. "Super, super great" players only come from circumstances of hardship which force them to develop, train, and play with a desperate intensity. Therefore, in order to succeed in international football (shall we call "success" consistent appearances in the World Cup semi-finals?) the US must somehow find, develop, train, and effectively employ at least one of these "super, super great" players which MUST come from desperate circumstances. Does that fairly represent your viewpoint?

The best I can give you is this: you might not be wrong. But this argument is also completely useless. You can talk yourself in circles--any player who falters, well, clearly they weren't desperate enough. Never mind the *literally tens of thousands* of young men from horrifying situations who do not succeed as professional footballers. You can also re-define the destitution however you want, so there's not much of a point to arguing with you. Again, you might not be wrong--but it's completely irrelevant. What, is US Soccer supposed to go through the records of Child Protection Services looking for the really bad cases to try to make them into footballers?

Your lists of "super, super great" players...Well, again, I appreciate that you put it together. But Griezmann? Pogba? Mueller? Schweinsteiger? Also, the fact that you think that Pogba was the "super, super great" player in the French midfield without a mention of Kante makes your level of judgment clear. Very good players all, to be sure. Pulisic has the potential to surpass them all in terms of individual quality (two notes here--1) I was a Pulisic skeptic for a long time. But you can't argue with what he's done at Chelsea this year, and 2) He does seem a bit fragile and even a small injury could knock him off course).

But even if we just accepted your judgment of these players as "super, super great," have all of them suffered the tragic trauma that you deem necessary to attain that status? Of course not. So "white kids" from a middle-class background who never lacked for anything in life such as Mueller, Schweinsteiger, and Neuer can, with the proper training and environment, become world-beaters. You refute yourself.

Last time, even if you're not entirely wrong, your argument is entirely irrelevant. It's not like US Soccer can start grading the level of personnel tragedy a 7-year-old has suffered as a predictor of their future success. What they CAN do is improve their coaching, provide more access to quality coaching, and work on developing a coherent national strategy for how the US plays, which they can then teach to young players.

"Grow up, read a book, observe life, and pay attention." LOL...sure thing, chief.

I think we should be good in a few years. The current crop of teenagers are growing up under COVID which should provide all the hardship they need. Go USA.

You did me the courtesy of a long reply which was mostly somewhat coherent...So let me see if I can sum up your argument.

The US is not good enough in world football because the US does not have any "super, super great" players. "Super, super great" players only come from circumstances of hardship which force them to develop, train, and play with a desperate intensity. Therefore, in order to succeed in international football (shall we call "success" consistent appearances in the World Cup semi-finals?) the US must somehow find, develop, train, and effectively employ at least one of these "super, super great" players which MUST come from desperate circumstances. Does that fairly represent your viewpoint?

The best I can give you is this: you might not be wrong. But this argument is also completely useless. You can talk yourself in circles--any player who falters, well, clearly they weren't desperate enough. Never mind the *literally tens of thousands* of young men from horrifying situations who do not succeed as professional footballers. You can also re-define the destitution however you want, so there's not much of a point to arguing with you. Again, you might not be wrong--but it's completely irrelevant. What, is US Soccer supposed to go through the records of Child Protection Services looking for the really bad cases to try to make them into footballers?

Your lists of "super, super great" players...Well, again, I appreciate that you put it together. But Griezmann? Pogba? Mueller? Schweinsteiger? Also, the fact that you think that Pogba was the "super, super great" player in the French midfield without a mention of Kante makes your level of judgment clear. Very good players all, to be sure. Pulisic has the potential to surpass them all in terms of individual quality (two notes here--1) I was a Pulisic skeptic for a long time. But you can't argue with what he's done at Chelsea this year, and 2) He does seem a bit fragile and even a small injury could knock him off course).

But even if we just accepted your judgment of these players as "super, super great," have all of them suffered the tragic trauma that you deem necessary to attain that status? Of course not. So "white kids" from a middle-class background who never lacked for anything in life such as Mueller, Schweinsteiger, and Neuer can, with the proper training and environment, become world-beaters. You refute yourself.

Last time, even if you're not entirely wrong, your argument is entirely irrelevant. It's not like US Soccer can start grading the level of personnel tragedy a 7-year-old has suffered as a predictor of their future success. What they CAN do is improve their coaching, provide more access to quality coaching, and work on developing a coherent national strategy for how the US plays, which they can then teach to young players.

"Grow up, read a book, observe life, and pay attention." LOL...sure thing, chief.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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.

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?

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?

I am only doing champions since I don't want to spend that much time here. Superstars. Not all-time, but superstars (i.e. head and shoulders better than Pulisic with long successful international and club careers in top 20-30 players in the world over at least five years). Also - I did not say that having an all time great or even a superstar guarantees anything, but that winning necessitates at least one if not multiple superstars.

'18 France (Mbappe, Pogba, Griezmann)
'14 Germany (Mueller, Schweinsteiger, Neuer) also, just about every player on the starting team was better than Pulisic is now.
'10 Spain (Iniesta, Ramos, Casillas) - also, just about every player on the starting team was better than Pulisic is now.
'06 Italy (Cannavaro, Pirlo)
'02 Brazil (Ronaldo, Ronaldinho)
'98France (Zidane, Henry)
'94 Brazil (Romario, Bebeto)
'90 Germany (Matthaus, Klinsman)
'86 Argentina (Maradona)

Also - here is the background Messi came from ...
https://www.goal.com/en/news/2466/goal-50/2015/12/03/17852742/messis-childhood-struggle-much-more-than-a-few-injections
Also his dad worked at a steel factory and his mom was a cleaner. Hardly suburbia, dumb ass.

Oh, and you mentioned Croatia in 2018. Best player: Luka Modric. Here is an excerpt from his childhood, "However, his childhood coincided with the Croatian War of Independence—in 1991, when the war escalated, his family were forced to flee the area. Modrić's grandfather Luka was executed by Serb rebels who were part of the police of SAO Krajina in December 1991 near his house in Modrići, and after the family fled the house was burned to the ground."

You really are clueless and actually the one full of sh$t. Grow up, read a book, observe life, and pay attention.

Well...experiencing hardship and being “destitute”...where’s the line?

One of the things that impressed me in “The Last Dance” was MJs ability to create motivation out of imagined grievances. Sounds exhausting but hey, whatever it takes 🤷‍♂️. Solid middle-class kid, btw.

But I really am curious about who the PP considers “super, super great” other than the 4 that I mentioned.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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.

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?

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?

Totally agree with you PP (though Ronaldo did come from a destitute background in Madeira). Also, re “super, super stars” putting Pulisic aside, Reyna is starting and scoring for Dortmund at 17, there’s an international bidding war among top clubs for Dest, McKennie and Adams are highly rated by Juventus and Leipzig. We have the talent we need right now to do well with a mostly suburban, mostly comfortably raised group of guys and with so many kids are playing in Europe now, we will have more on the way. If only we had the coaching to match. I will go insane if Berhalter sticks with Michael Bradley and almost any of the rest of the very old guard.

Poverty doesn't make greatness.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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.

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?

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?

The player pool in the US is depleted of the very best athletes. With athletes I’m using the term broadly to mean those with superior speed, strength, coordination, determination, all the factors that matter at top levels with both physical and aspects. It’s a total package.

There is some selection based on body type (7 footers in basketball) but more so the athlete develops their body to be ideal for their sport. Lebron and MJ and Kobe were tall skinny kids who eventually bulked up in their 20s and 30s because it was needed for basketball. Beyond just physical attributes they were also superior in coordination and vision and determination that would apply to any sport.

The point is not that these 3 would have made great soccer players. The point is the top candidates with the natural abilities, physical and otherwise, at an early age, are not choosing soccer because it is the 4th or 5th choice.

It could apply at any level and player pool size. Take the very best candidates out of the pool and it propagates up the club, school, district, region, country level.

This is certainly not the ONLY reason for state of US soccer. Coaching, system, costs can all certainly contribute. But it is the primary reason that drives all the others. If the best of the best we’re going to soccer, the coaching and dollars and attention would follow

There's poverty....and then there's poverty. Its all relative.

1 Burundi 727
2 Central African Republic 823
3 Democratic Republic of the Congo 849
4 Eritrea 1,060
5 Niger 1,106
6 Malawi 1,240
7 Mozambique 1,303
8 Liberia 1,414
9 South Sudan 1,602
10 Sierra Leon 1,690
11 Madagascar 1,699
12 Togo 1,826
13 Haiti 1,878
14 Guinea-Bissau 2,019
15 Burkina Faso 2,077
16 Afghanistan 2,095
17 Kiribati 2,138
18 Yemen 2,280
19 Solomon Islands 2,303
20 Guinea 2,441
21 Rwanda 2,452
22 Mali 2,471
23 Chad 2,480
24 Ethiopia 2,511
25 Uganda 2,631
26 Zimbabwe 2,702
27 The Gambia 2,746
28 Comoros 2,799
29 Vanuata 2,957
30 Nepal 3,318
31 Sao Tomè and Prìncipe 3,387
32 Tanzania 3,402
33 Benin 3,446
34 Micronesia 3,562
35 Tajikistan 3,589
36 Lesotho 3,614
37 Senegal 3,853
38 Marshall Islands 3,868
39 Kenya 3,875
40 Cameroon 3,955
41 Papua New Guinea 3,983
42 Kyrgyz Republic 4,056
43 Sudan 4,072
44 Zambia 4,148
45 Tuvalu 4,277
46 Còte d'Ivoire 4,457
47 Cambodia 4,664
48 Mauritania 4,881
49 Bangladesh 5,028
50 Timor-Leste 5,254
51 Nicaragua 5,290
52 Honduras 5,395
53 Djibouti 5,568
54 Pakistan 5,872
55 Nigeria 6,054
56 Samoa 6,152
57 Tonga 6,486
58 Myanmar 6,707
59 Angola 6,752
60 Ghana 6,956
61 Republic of Congo 7,174
62 Moldova 7,703
63 Cabo Verde 7,729
64 Vietnam 8,066
65 Lao P.D.R. 8,110
66 Bolivia 8,172
67 El Salvador 8,313
68 India 8,378
69 Belize 8,664
70 Guatemala 8,705
71 Nauru 8,999
72 Uzbekistan 9,000
73 Guyana 9,094
74 Morocco 9,235
75 Libya 9,358
76 Philippines 9,471
77 Jordan 9,649
78 Jamaica 9,692
79 Ukraine 9,774
80 Bhutan 9,876
81 Armenia 10,866
82 Eswatini 11,160
83 Namibia 11,266
84 Ecuador 11,742
85 Dominica 12,008
86 Fiji 12,147
87 Georgia 12,227
88 Kosovo 12,322
89 St. Vincent and the Grenadines 12,454
90 Tunisia 12,661
91 Paraguay 13,584
92 South Africa 13,754
93 Sri Lanka 13,897
94 Albania 13,991
95 Indonesia 13,998
96 Egypt 14,023
97 Bosnia and Herzegovina 14,220
98 Mongolia 14,309
99 St. Lucia 14,492
100 Peru 14,719
101 Lebanon 15,049
102 Suriname 15,532
103 Colombia 15,541
104 Algeria 15,696
105 Palau 16,234
106 Brazil 16,462
107 North Macedonia 16,486
108 Grenada 16,717
109 Iran 17,662
110 Iraq 18,025
111 Costa Rica 18,037
112 Botswana 18,558
113 Serbia 18,564
114 Azerbaijan 18,616
115 Barbados 18,921
116 Gabon 19,057
117 Dominican Republic 19,411
118 China 19,504
119 Argentina 20,055
120 Montenegro 20,084
121 Thailand 20,365
122 Turkmenistan 20,411
123 Belarus 20,644
124 Mexico 20,868
125 Equatorial Guinea 21,300
126 Maldives 23,312
127 Uruguay 23,581
128 Bulgaria 24,595
129 Mauritius 24,996
130 Chile 26,317
131 Panama 26,822
132 Croatia 27,729
133 Romania 27,887
134 Turkey 28,264
135 Kazakhstan 28,849
136 Antigua and Barbuda 29,346
137 Russia 29,642
138 Greece 30,252
139 St. Kitts and Nevis 30,578
140 Latvia 31,402
141 Seychelles 31,693
142 Trinidad and Tobago 32,881
143 Malaysia 33,333
144 The Bahamas 33,665
145 Portugal 33,665
145 Poland 33,665
147 Hungary 34,046
148 Estonia 35,852
149 Slovak Republic 36,640
150 Lithuania 36,701
151 Slovenia 38,462
152 Czech Republic 38,834
153 Israel 39,121
154 Puerto Rico 40,067
155 Aruba 39,121
156 Italy 40,470
157 New Zealand 40,943
158 Cyprus 41,407
159 Spain 41,592
160 South Korea 44,704
161 Japan 45,546
162 United Kingdom 46,828
163 France 47,223
164 Oman 47,366
165 Malta 47,405
166 Finland 47,975
167 Belgium 49,529
168 Canada 48,246
169 Bahrain 49,529
170 Australia 50,725
171 Austria 50,931
172 Germany 53,558
173 Denmark 53,882
174 Sweden 54,628
175 Taiwan Province of China 55,078
176 Saudi Arabia 55,704
177 Iceland 56,066
178 Netherlands 58,341
179 San Marino 61,575
180 Hong Kong SAR 64,928
181 United States 65,112
182 Switzerland 66,196
183 Kuwait 66,387
184 United Arab Emirates 69,435
185 Norway 76,684
186 Brunei Darussalam 80,384
187 Ireland 83,399
188 Singapore 103,181
189 Luxembourg 108,951
190 Macao SAR 114,363
191 Qatar 132,886