Discussion in 'Football Forum' started by deafepl, Jul 7, 2019.
Does anyone think the giants would be good at soccer? Is this even up for debate? I don't think anyone is arguing that. Only about half of the players in the NFL would be considered giants.
I'm not arguing anything, just asking a question.
Point being was that it was a film from 35 yrs ago and in it you see how strong the push is with women playing the game over there, where as, we seen all the pele's, best's etc go over prior and still do and it hasn't pushed the males game on, even getting an ex world cup winner as manager did nothing.
To be fair most of them do not move like Peter Crouch they are much more athletic. That being said Barry Sanders would have been an interesting footballer.
Lukaku probably would make a better NFL linebacker.
It all sounds great in theory but a guy like Barry Sanders (or any Running Back/Wide Receiver) would be gassed after 15 min playing football.
The reason you are not putting up an argument is that you can't do so. My point in the initial post attacked by you was that if football was America's main sport they would be among the world leading nations because of their approach to doing things they really like. The word "main" in the context of the thread I understand as main as in England or Germany where football revenues account at least for 50% of total sports revenue. Get the numbers and make analysis if you are able to analyze at all. Sports is business today. Have a look at 10 most valuable sport enterprises, 7 or 8 are American. If Football were Americas main sports that would be 7 or 8 largest football clubs. Their NT would have performed accordingly because of amount of talents domestically.
In the context of discussion, I mentioned Army and State among others as civilizational attributes they've managed to create . Sports are in the same category.
You started the political agenda by criticizing Army expenses and other things far from football. And then embedded a video full of out of the context stats performed in a very emotional way. I can give far more convincing stats in favor of US within a proper context. This video is used by CIS dictators propaganda to zombie people about how bad America is.
Seriously, I don't give a sh*t about people who start a fight and then don't show up.
Not if he conditioned for it.
The huge guys? No.
But there does seem to be this weird belief on the Caf (not by you) that every football player is 300lbs.
Barry Sanders as a winger
Allen Iverson as a striker
Alvin Kamara as a striker
Chris Paul as a deep lying midfielder
Devin Hester as fullback
Ed Reed as a defensive mid
The late Sean Taylor as CB
John Lynch as a CB
This is fun
Either of the Barber twins as the other fullback.
Deion Sanders on the other wing.
Kareem as GK
Any of the Wes Welker, Danny Amendola, Hunter Rendfrow, Danny Woodhead, Darren Sproles, Warrick Dunn types could have made great tiki-taka players with the added addition of being ungodly quick over a 10 yard space.
Barber twins would be the Fabio/Rafael equivalent
How could I forget about Primetime. Primetime would be some type of Alves/Bale hybrid wingback.
I would go with Jason Kidd in goal. Good reflexes and distribution. Perhaps Garnett or Hakeem (Hakeem was a soccer player so that's sorta cheating)
I added these guys into the mix, too...
There’s your midfield maestros.
Also... Kareem Abdul Jabar played soccer at some point?
Those are all pretty good. Especially Sproles. I remember him destroying my alma mater repeatedly with his insane quickness.
I would add Russell Westbrook (I think he would translate extremely well), De'Aaron Fox, Isiah Thomas (both of them lol), and Tony Parker as far as basketball players go.
Hakeem (not Kareem) Olajuwon
New Zealand is the only country on Earth that prioritises rugby. It’s meaningless.
How dominant would UK be if their main sport was NFL?
I mean, they got more than half of US's Olympic medals last olympics, with 1/6th of the population.
It's all hogwash. US is not into football and being good at it has no correlation with GDP, population, etc. It does depend on Infrastructure and how the game is viewed. That takes years of building a solid framework starting from grass root level and moving up - putting more money without thought will not help (case in point: China). It all stems down to a basic love for the game which US just doesn't have.
Barry Sanders was what, 75 Kgs(165 lbs)? If he were a footballer he'd likely have been some 15lbs lighter, too EDIT: quick search says he was 200 lbs honestly really doubt that's true
A guy like Odell Beckham would weight in that same region(165) if went into football instead of NFL, too
Thought you guys were talking about Bernie Sanders for a minute there.
Again all of this just seen from an athletic POV but football is so much more than just being a great athlete
The flip side is though, if more nations in the world took a big interest in sports which are the biggest in the US, there may be less dominance, Hakeem Olajuwon for example was a centre with unique technique to couple with his athleticism, he aides that partly to his upbringing as a Nigerian playing football as a goalkeeper, in fact he didn't even pick up a basketball till his late teens.
How many people start playing football at 16, and go on to become the best player in the world? None.
Exactly hence why Hakerm can play basketball at 16 and become the best player in NBA, the concept of that happening in football is nearly impossible.
they've never put the money/effort in that they could... you sound like countries in the 1930s who refused to see what they could do if pushed. remember men's "soccer" is about their fifth sport
so now you are a fortune teller... you must be hugely wealthy and successful
Sanders was every bit of 200.
But you touch on my point here. These NFL guys, had they trained for soccer their whole lives, would be leaner and be more conditioned for continuous running rather than short bursts. When folks say, “I think (_____) would have made a great footballer”, I don’t think any of them mean that athlete in the exact same state as they are/were in the sport they actually trained for. (At least I don’t)
Wait just one second with this Hakeem Olajuwon stuff...
He was good, a HoF guy, but he wasn’t even the best player in the draft the year he went pro.
1984 man... Michael Jordan
Ah yes! Read that wrong (it was late).
Yeah, him growing up playing soccer is what made him able to do “the Dream turn” on the court.
I really am...
Not very good if they started now. One of the top 5 teams if it had been their top sport for at least 20 years
I get that. It's just a good thought experiment.
All the guys mentioned by @Carolina Red and I would be good athletes on a football pitch.
Yes. Not enough money and effort has been put in to defeat Panama, with their population of 4m and a GDP probably the size of a small American town.
By the way, football isn't Panama's national sport either .. that's baseball. Followed by basketball and boxing. I'm not even sure football is top five.
Let's make a new thread all about how Panama would be dominant if football was their number 1 sport.
Probably yeah but that's probably the "easiest" part of being a footballer.
I wouldn't say that. There are limits to how much faster, stronger, agile, or durable a person can be in terms of their natural athletic ability. I would say it probably plateaus at a similar age to technical ability. Athletic outliers like Russell Westbrook and Allen Iverson (both of these guys have unbelievable endurance) aren't just lying around. I think the main difference is training to improve athletic ability is more general and requires less setup (ie. I can run sprints anywhere, but I would need a ball and a target to practice finishing. Improving football skills are no different than improving skills like dribbling or shooting in basketball, or catching or throwing in American football.
My bad, I meant to say that the easiest part of football is to be in shape or at least be in your best possible shape.
What you cannot teach through training is instinctive decision making, technical brilliance, intangibles like that.
Lower leagues/lower half of the prem is filled with players who can run all day or are incredibly/strong fast but aren't technically great.
So many of the best footballers are not athletic in the traditional sense (especially not compared to some of the best US athletes) but run rings round players who are.
Would Scholes have made it in the NFL as anything otherthan a punter?
Yet apparently there's all this untapped talent that would have rivalled him as a 'soccer' player in the NFL, NBA and the MLB...
The US will never dominate anything in the men's football. They have too many "national" sports to focus on anyway but traditions are generally incredibly important.
This thread reads as if the US are a giant people full of huge muscle men. As a member of the tallest nation in the world it's a bit puzzling.
NFL players are big because that's the goal in their sport not the other way around. Being a muscular 230lbs giant makes you a shite footballer.
Having said that, as a big rich country Im sure they'd do well, but they have too many other sports they focus on.
Imagine if all the coaches in America weren’t no body’s but instead former EPL players for example. The youth would be much better, making the competition fiercer and pushing each other to become even better.
But Hakeem was the best player in the league for the 1.75 years Jordan was "retired."
Btw, Nomar Garciaparra was a good soccer player from what I recall hearing in the past. Steve Nash as well, though he'd have played for Canada.
Separate names with a comma.