You guys said it: they have the money and infrastructure, but so far it's been 25 years since 1994 and male football hasn't taken off in the USA. Conclusion: they-don't-care.
How dominant USA would be in comparison to Brazil, France or Spain if their main sport is football?
- Thread starter deafepl
- Start date
The US would not dominate. The US sports culture works for the sports that don't have to compete with the world, but in football the high school college system does not work. Then there's also the fact that poorer kids don't get the best football education due to having to pay to be in traveling squads.
I disagree and replied twice to you. I certainly wouldn’t recommend traveling to an USMNT or MLS match and telling people they “don’t care”. Or, I changed my mind, book your trip now. Tell me how it went.
Had we kept developing the sport after our 3rd place finish at the first World Cup as our “other” pastime behind baseball, which was already established, instead of making American football that 2nd sport, then I don’t think it would be outrageous to think we would be up in the top 8-10 nations globally.
We're bad but not that bad now. We almost qualified to the 2nd round of AFC Cup but for a last minute penalty, drew with China away when they had Lippi as their head coach and have made steady rise in the rankings as well.
True - because they’d become excellent technicians through brilliant coaching combined with natural talent. Would they of been better if they’d been stronger and faster?
Nigeria are the potential football super power in there. They're absolutely football daft over there, if they get the infrastructure right they will be a major player. The Chinese government are investing billions into the game over there with the specific intent of winning the world cup so they are one to look out for.
It's 2018 now and I think Bangladesh and Nigeria have switched places, but there's some interesting countries out there with a massive potential talent pool that aren't settled names in football yet. The USA could of course be one of the most dominant countries if they really made it their main national sport, but that's not realistic.
The real beauty about football is also that ultimately you can only start with 11 players. Even a country like China could have 50 or 60 elite level players available at one time, but if a smaller country's best 11 is marginally better it doesn't matter how much in dept quality the bigger country have. On top of that there's also large variance in knock-out tournament football so smaller countries would always have a chance.
That goes without saying!I think "douchey" would be a perfect way to describe it. But mate, this site has really worn you down if that's what you equate the op to.
Seriously though, this thread wouldn't be taken seriously if it was made about China or India.
There in lies the problem. Due to the amount of kids that play at the youth level, the pay to play system is only effective at developing those that can afford it. There are exceptions of course but then you have kids losing interest at the age where we need them to be more interested. Lots of athletes switch sports at high school or quit altogether due to burn out from being drug all over the place for training and games. Clint Dempsey’s story is that he traveled something like 4 or 8 hours a day for his club training. He made it by US standards but was no where near the top by world standards. It’s a cultural thing and won’t be solved anytime soon. I doubt I’ll see the USA advance any further than the quarters in a WC in my lifetime. I’m 45.
Who knows. If Iniesta and Silva were much taller and stronger their ability would be completely different. Would Messi be as good as he is if he was 6ft 6? I don’t think so.
If athleticism was so important every national team in the world would be filled full of 6ft4 sprinters but that’s not the case.
Every sport develops the type of athlete required to play that sport at the highest level. It wouldn't generally be the name basketball players dominating, they would mostly be too big, in the NBA I would be looking at guys like Lou Williams, Ish Smith, Patrick Beverley as having the body type to translate well to football, Steph Curry as well, but even they would be on the tall side. Most footballers are extremely lean, excess muscle hurts the stamina, and in the 5"10-6"2 range, light on their feet and able to run all day.
Until the US start prioritizing technique over athleticism their potential will be capped, but it is a country that really does fetishize freak athletes. However as the MLS continues to develop, basic salaries go up it will offer another avenue for the more normal sized man.
Until the US start prioritizing technique over athleticism their potential will be capped, but it is a country that really does fetishize freak athletes. However as the MLS continues to develop, basic salaries go up it will offer another avenue for the more normal sized man.
You are obviously a far bigger country but is it possible that it has its drawbacks when developing kids who in Europe travel to tennis, rugby, hockey and football academies but shorter distances?
Do you do most of the development of your sporting talent at colleges/Universities via scholarships?
In tennis the williams sisters were coached by their father weren't they and I think Gauff is as well? Do you think that success can be translated to other sports or are there some factors that would prevent that?
It works in the women's game because the pitch is too big for the women to cover with them being slower than men. The American's hit a lot of long balls into space and chase them down.
It’s a distant 5th behind the Big 4: NFL, NBA, MLB and that sport the Canadians play, but it’s increasing market share at a far higher rate than the big 4. https://www.thehoya.com/hampers-soccer-u-s-market-shows-encouraging-signs/
Last edited:
Not just the US who use that tactic, which is why at its worst it can resemble kids football. As the game continues to develop more teams will be able to match their preparation meaning different tactics and an improved game. I think that is why you have to stay away from making any drastic changes, size of pitch, goal, or ball, just accept that we are still in a development phase and allow these teething problems to pass.
Like i posted in the other thread, there's so much competition it's hard to tell. It's the number one sport in the world and there's no enormous economical barrier for poorer nations (like in some other sports).
So many countries breath football, even tiny ones. Countries that are almost non existent in other sports give the very best nations a game because football is ingrained in their culture. I mean i can't name a single Uruguayan athlete (besides maybe that one tennis player), but i can name loads of their footballers and they have a smaller population than Connecticut.
But of course the US would improve massively if they shifted their attention. Top 5 - top 10. Why not? Bar the 2018 fiasco, they were already like a consistent last 16 kind of team with the likes of Howard, Dempsey, Bradley and Donovan. And even a QF in 2002. However they wouldn't be as dominant as their women are now because of the reasons above.
I always liked the US national team for some reason. Heaps and heaps of exciting games at the WC featuring them. And i loved their 94 kit.
So many countries breath football, even tiny ones. Countries that are almost non existent in other sports give the very best nations a game because football is ingrained in their culture. I mean i can't name a single Uruguayan athlete (besides maybe that one tennis player), but i can name loads of their footballers and they have a smaller population than Connecticut.
But of course the US would improve massively if they shifted their attention. Top 5 - top 10. Why not? Bar the 2018 fiasco, they were already like a consistent last 16 kind of team with the likes of Howard, Dempsey, Bradley and Donovan. And even a QF in 2002. However they wouldn't be as dominant as their women are now because of the reasons above.
I always liked the US national team for some reason. Heaps and heaps of exciting games at the WC featuring them. And i loved their 94 kit.
With more and more instant replay creeping into the sport - and eventually more commercial breaks - it might just become popular in America.
Don't think they would be anywhere near major footballing countries.
A mate of mine was in Brazil working as a physio for a club and he told me he was most impressed with the level of every 8y old kid that shows up for recruitment. Basically they pick the ones they want just based on how smart and discipline they are since everyone is crazy good with the ball.
This happens because kids in Brazil play football since they can stand on two legs. There's not much else to do in favelas so they mostly play football all day and every day. That used to happen to lesser extents in South European and South American countries but no way it would change that drastically for USA.
A mate of mine was in Brazil working as a physio for a club and he told me he was most impressed with the level of every 8y old kid that shows up for recruitment. Basically they pick the ones they want just based on how smart and discipline they are since everyone is crazy good with the ball.
This happens because kids in Brazil play football since they can stand on two legs. There's not much else to do in favelas so they mostly play football all day and every day. That used to happen to lesser extents in South European and South American countries but no way it would change that drastically for USA.
Best. By far. If they dedicated their high school/college farming system towards soccer - Europeans/South American street footballers would have no chance
Just no.As it stands, our 3 biggest sports have talent developed between a mixture of high school & travel teams at youth level, transitioning to college teams after that (except for basketball, where you can go pro right out of high school).
Edit: and minor league baseball, which some of the top-top high school baseball prospects are drafted into.
I honestly think that college soccer hampers our national team development and think that the more players who go into professional team’s academies out of high school instead of going to college will help us greatly.
Yep. It’s growing for sure. I just think had the culture that exists for say the modern NBA or MLB had developed around a soccer league from 1930 on, wed be in a much better place internationally.
Last edited:
Thanks for that. I was just thinking how tactical your sports our and whether developing later was essential in order to be ready to learn all the moves for instance in American Football.
I was also thinking whether out of high school is perhaps too late and whether it would ever be possible to it earlier based on where football/soccer pro clubs would be and the distance kids would need to travel. A lot of the football kids across Europe are being picked up at a very young age and technically being developed by excellent coaches. In the UK they have to be within 100 miles of an academy to join it. It has taken us some time to realise that you need great coaches at a very young age to develop an all round player and not just as an athlete.
If football was about being composed of supreme athletes then african teams would have gotten close to winning the world cup
It is incredibly hard to reach the elite level of men's football unless the basics are there from a very young age. You can't just take a good athlete and expect him to adapt because he is a good athlete. Maybe for an outlier in goal or defense but not in the most technical positions. Hakeem Olajuwan is one of the most skilled Basketball players ever and only picked up the sport at 17. Starting at 17 in football will massively limit the top level you can get to. Kids need to be obsessing from 6/7, not just from their early teens.
Not for about 10 years now.
In Rugby Unioni the best nation is by far New Zealand, they are better at all level. But they are far from the richest and don't have the biggest amount of registered players, what they have is the culture of Rugby and they also share and mix that culture with Pacific Islands which creates a special environment for the game. Unless the US develop a strong culture around football, I don't see them being the best. It's the same thing with sports like Handball.
One of the things that was discussed when Spain were dominating the game was the old 10000 hours practice is needed to be an exert thing. In Spain kids in academies were exposed to that level of work rate with the ball whereas in England there were laws restricting how many hours kids spent training sports, they fell well short of that.
Oh really did not know it had changed again. Has it gone back to the way it was?
I thought it was still very hard to get young British talent into an academy unless they were 'local'. So no repeat of being able to get the likes of Beckham for instance into our academy.
Agree. Never knew you're German thoughAlso i take exception to the premise. We've produced far more top players than Spain over the last few decades. More than France, too
Need to get drawn against each other in the R16 at the next Euros. Let's see you crack jokes thenAgree. Never knew you're German though
That last statement isnt true for Germany and they're as elite as it gets in world football. Sure it's a factor that helps in those countries, but it's clearly not the only factor nor a requirement.
The US have never produced a world class male footballer, despite having double the number of registered soccer players than Brazil. Population and resources count for a lot but culture stands for more. The great footballing nations have culture that stretches back decades if not centuries and the US are a long way from catching up on that.
You can see it watching MLS matches where players just lack the instinct and decision making that comes from understanding the game on an intimate level. Kids in South America and Europe play unstructured football for hours on end, every day as kids. I remember during holidays we used to start at 9 in the morning and stop playing when it got too dark to see. We'd take the odd break for food or to jump in the sea but otherwise we were relentless. We could play football before we ever got coached to.
I could be wrong but I just don't see American kids playing soccer on their own in the park as children. Those that play join teams and organised soccer clubs/tournaments where they are supervised, coached and directed from an early age. I see it when I watch the MLS - that lack of instinct and imagination in the play that comes from playing in the street with no rules.
You can see it watching MLS matches where players just lack the instinct and decision making that comes from understanding the game on an intimate level. Kids in South America and Europe play unstructured football for hours on end, every day as kids. I remember during holidays we used to start at 9 in the morning and stop playing when it got too dark to see. We'd take the odd break for food or to jump in the sea but otherwise we were relentless. We could play football before we ever got coached to.
I could be wrong but I just don't see American kids playing soccer on their own in the park as children. Those that play join teams and organised soccer clubs/tournaments where they are supervised, coached and directed from an early age. I see it when I watch the MLS - that lack of instinct and imagination in the play that comes from playing in the street with no rules.
A lot of what-ifs here.
This is the insanity in this thread I've given up on.
Is there academy system heavily influenced by wealth? As in, if you have enough money you can send your kids to youth academies, if not, then tough luck.
If that was the case they'd never develop some of the greatest players to have played the game as they would have been too poor to be trained.
If that was the case they'd never develop some of the greatest players to have played the game as they would have been too poor to be trained.
What a ballsy question to ask after not even qualifying to Russia in the almost easiest region to qualify from.
Any country can ask “how dominant would we be if we weren’t shit at soccer?”
Any country can ask “how dominant would we be if we weren’t shit at soccer?”
They'd be better than now but still not dominate, money and population doesn't carry over.
They also tend to dominate physical sports more than skill based sports.
They also tend to dominate physical sports more than skill based sports.
'How dominant would we be if the might of Panama wasn't holding us back?'
If soccer was the main sport in the USA, I think they'd be a powerhouse. As @Casanova85 said, they have the infrastructure and the money, so it's a mystery as to why it hasn't taken off. MLS is gaining ground and the men's national team has been an ever present at the last few world cups, but the game hasn't seriously challenged MLB, the NBA, or the NFL in terms of popularity.
They didn't qualify for the last one, got to the quarter finals of the one before, and then were knocked out in the first knockout round in the one before that. In what world is that 'ever present' ???
It's like calling England ever present at recent world cups for reaching one semi and getting knocked out first round a couple of times. It's just not true.
That and the simple fact that they have an easy route to qualification for the WC, for the last one all they had to do was finish ahead of by far the tournament's worst team in Panama, but they couldn't do it.