Athleticism and USA Soccer

[Dr. Cheese]

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/28/sp...tml?ref=sports

This editorial by William Rhoden for the NYT says exactly what I feel that USA soccer needs to become truly competitive on the world stage.

[Mark Latimour]

Originally Posted by Dr. Cheese

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/28/sp...tml?ref=sports

This editorial by William Rhoden for the NYT says exactly what I feel that USA soccer needs to become truly competitive on the world stage.

OTOH the English team is a team of "Kobe Bryants" and look where it got them.

[Gopherbassist]

There is so much nothing at the beginning of that article that I can't bring myself to read it. Anyone wanna summarize?

[i_got_a_mohawk]

Originally Posted by Dr. Cheese

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/28/sp...tml?ref=sports

This editorial by William Rhoden for the NYT says exactly what I feel that USA soccer needs to become truly competitive on the world stage.

Surely it would be better to have a solid team as opposed to relying on a couple stars to do all the work?

[Mark Latimour]

Originally Posted by i_got_a_mohawk

Surely it would be better to have a solid team as opposed to relying on a couple stars to do all the work?

I think the point of the article (although its pretty meandering in its thoughts), is that a "superstar" US player in soccer would inspire young people to take up the sport and carry the momentum of the games development in the US forward. I don't think the point is that the US needed a superstar to win, but that they need a hero to attract the attention of the masses.

[i_got_a_mohawk]

Ahh, I follow now

[MJ5150]

The excitement of the WC is benefiting USA soccer. Just this morning, I purchased four tickets for the Sounders FC and Celtic FC match in Seattle.

-Mike

[Dr. Cheese]

Originally Posted by Mark Latimour

I think the point of the article (although its pretty meandering in its thoughts), is that a "superstar" US player in soccer would inspire young people to take up the sport and carry the momentum of the games development in the US forward. I don't think the point is that the US needed a superstar to win, but that they need a hero to attract the attention of the masses.

Mark, you seem to both acknowledge and miss the fact that you and William Rhoden are talking apples and oranges. Your initial response focused on this years World Cup, while Rhoden is concerned with growing football in the USA. By far, the greatest US athletes gravitate towards NFL football, basketball, and baseball. A smaller number play hockey. Almost none choose soccer (football.) When I look at teams like England, Germany, Ghana, Uruguay, etc. it is obvious that these teams feature their country's premier athletes.

I think soccer allows the sort of individualism that basketball players, and NFL running backs, and wide recievers, and defensive backs love. I think many baseball outfielders or football quarterbacks could be great goalies since they have the height, and great arms for ball throwing.

Given American sports infrastructure, all the USA needs to become regular World Cup contenders is the participation of its best athletes.

[Mark Latimour]

Originally Posted by Dr. Cheese

Mark, you seem to both acknowledge and miss the fact that you and William Rhoden are talking apples and oranges. Your initial response focused on this years World Cup, while Rhoden is concerned with growing football in the USA. By far, the greatest US athletes gravitate towards NFL football, basketball, and baseball. A smaller number play hockey. Almost none choose soccer (football.) When I look at teams like England, Germany, Ghana, Uruguay, etc. it is obvious that these teams feature their country's premier athletes.

I think soccer allows the sort of individualism that basketball players, and NFL running backs, and wide recievers, and defensive backs love. I think many baseball outfielders or football quarterbacks could be great goalies since they have the height, and great arms for ball throwing.

Given American sports infrastructure, all the USA needs to become regular World Cup contenders is the participation of its best athletes.

Actually, we are talking about the same thing. My first post was a bit of a "be careful what you wish for" message. The ENglish team is a team of superstars who can't play together. Other than the US Hockey Teams and "the Dream Team", its not a common phenonmenon in US sports since you don't play "state or origin" matches at home in Football and Baseball (or basketball for that matter). The problem with having "superstars" is they tend to spend less time focusing on the national team and more time worrying about their club future. Rhoden's article is somewhat naive in this respect because he (and perhaps Kobe) don't seem to acknowledge the distinction between a great national "team" and a gruop of great players from your nation. The reality is any excellent US player is likely to be signed with a club in South America or Europe and would have very little time to actually play with the "US" team (its the same problem Australia face).

I agree (as per my second post) that having a David Beckham from the US would help keen the momentum going and couldn't hurt. But growing football until you get a team of champions doesn't mean you will get a champion team. England proves that on a fairly regular basis.

[Papersen]

Interesting article.

I also believe that having a star in the sport will increase its popularity. The US has the infraestructure, organization, population and money to develop a world class team.

However, sometimes it`s not enough.

First of all, the notion of "team sport" is essential in soccer, IMO. You can find great names in its history (Beckenbauer, Pele, Cruyff, Maradona) who were tremendous players, but always had class players around them. To trace something similar, Michael Jordan needed a good team surrounding him to get his 1st NBA ring, although he`d been the scoring leader during 5 or 6 seasons already.

See Lebron James as the opposite example.

The US can improve a lot finding a Kobe Bryant, but need more than that to be one of the best teams in the world.

OTOH, the 4 most powerful local leagues are in Italy, England, Spain and France. 3 of those 4 countries are already out of the WC and Spain had a hard time qualifying to the 2nd round.

They have the names, the money and the leagues but countries like Ghana, Paraguay or Slovakia advanced when they didn`t. That`s the interesting part about soccer: not always the most powerful wins.

[MJ5150]

In the USA....athletes make big money playing football, basketball, and baseball. Until soccer salaries match up to those sports, the USA will not be full of soccer stars. So for now in the USA, soccer is that fun sport to play while you are growing up.

Heck, many of the really good USA players all run off to Europe right now anyway since there is more money even there.

-Mike

[Dr. Cheese]

Originally Posted by MJ5150

In the USA....athletes make big money playing football, basketball, and baseball. Until soccer salaries match up to those sports, the USA will not be full of soccer stars. So for now in the USA, soccer is that fun sport to play while you are growing up.

Heck, many of the really good USA players all run off to Europe right now anyway since there is more money even there.

-Mike

There is really huge money in foreign soccer. The Premier League in the UK, and other top European Leagues already pay at or better than the NFL or Major League Baseball level.
I think soccer would be a great alternative for American athletes whose skills don't quite fit our major sports.

[finalrequiem]

The BIGGEST problem with U.S. Soccer is how the federation handles youth development. With the population of this country, we have MORE than enough athletes to go around. The NBA/NFL/MLB/NHL argument doesn't hold water. The game is made inaccessible beyond high school for anyone but the wealthy (via clubs and academies) or whoever lands a scholarship somewhere. The college system is AWFUL for preparing players for the world game. There is no telling how many potentially great and very good players we've lost because they didn't have the money to go overseas (a la Giuseppe Rossi), spend their summers at the right camps, or pay for college. Honestly, it's a giant cluster right now and is the rumored reason that Klinsmann didn't get the job instead of Bradley- apparently he wanted control of the youth programs (that's probably from BigSoccer though so who knows lol).

IMHO, YMMV, etc...

[MJ5150]

Originally Posted by finalrequiem

The NBA/NFL/MLB/NHL argument doesn't hold water....

What about it is leaky?

-Mike

[finalrequiem]

Originally Posted by MJ5150

What about it is leaky?

-Mike

According to the July 2009 Census Bureau info, the population of the U.S. was 307,006,550. They NFL, NBA, and NHL take 525 players a year in their drafts. The MLB has 1525 selections or so but the vast majority attend college after being drafted. Someone do that math on the percentage of people drafted out of the U.S. population...

I'm NOT saying that the popularity of the other sports doesn't have an affect, only that it's not an excuse. The fact is, there are kids out there with talent and desire and it falls on the federation to figure out how to get them, instead of them getting to high school and having no where to go afterwards or changing sports because they are too athletic to not play something professionally.

Look how competitive Argentina is in basketball. They are competing with the most popular, lucrative sport on earth and they still find a way to field competitive teams. Yes, I know there are some differences there but the fact that they have a population of around 40 million offsets that they don't have 3 or 4 different, major sports to compete with.

[jmorbita]

Originally Posted by finalrequiem

According to the July 2009 Census Bureau info, the population of the U.S. was 307,006,550. They NFL, NBA, and NHL take 525 players a year in their drafts. The MLB has 1525 selections or so but the vast majority attend college after being drafted. Someone do that math on the percentage of people drafted out of the U.S. population...

I'm NOT saying that the popularity of the other sports doesn't have an affect, only that it's not an excuse. The fact is, there are kids out there with talent and desire and it falls on the federation to figure out how to get them, instead of them getting to high school and having no where to go afterwards or changing sports because they are too athletic to not play something professionally.

Look how competitive Argentina is in basketball. They are competing with the most popular, lucrative sport on earth and they still find a way to field competitive teams. Yes, I know there are some differences there but the fact that they have a population of around 40 million offsets that they don't have 3 or 4 different, major sports to compete with.

Well, It's interesting you bring up Argentina. Argentina generally comes up with very good national teams for team sports. Soccer to start with, but also Basketball, Rugby, Hockey, Volleyball. On the other hand, except for a few exceptions, Argentina has no big athletes competing in olympic athletic disciplines (100 mts, swimming, gimnastics, etc.) This is mostly due to lack of government support, sponsors, money.
As far as I know, the USA works the other way around? USA is prominent in many team sports but are not top at those widely played internationally, except for basketball (correct me if I'm wrong).

[MJ5150]

I can't think of any international team sport where the USA is the dominant team. Maybe basketball, but not so much like it was in the 90's.

-Mike

[Mark Latimour]

Originally Posted by MJ5150

I can't think of any international team sport where the USA is the dominant team. Maybe basketball, but not so much like it was in the 90's.

-Mike

American teams usually win the "World Series"

[jmorbita]

Bottom line is, I think, big money might make great athletes, but it won't make great teams.

[i_got_a_mohawk]

Originally Posted by jmorbita

Well, It's interesting you bring up Argentina. Argentina generally comes up with very good national teams for team sports. Soccer to start with, but also Basketball, Rugby, Hockey, Volleyball. On the other hand, except for a few exceptions, Argentina has no big athletes competing in olympic athletic disciplines (100 mts, swimming, gimnastics, etc.) This is mostly due to lack of government support, sponsors, money.
As far as I know, the USA works the other way around? USA is prominent in many team sports but are not top at those widely played internationally, except for basketball (correct me if I'm wrong).

I think a lot of that is down to the attitude, in most of those sports they aren't just out to make money. They are there for love of the game, love of country and the skill they represent.

(I remember hearing something like two of the front rows on the argentinian rugby team were doctors? Scarey, scarey doctors!)