PDA

View Full Version : Really, "what if" the Lebrons and Reggies played soccer?



GrandeDavid
06-13-2006, 06:52 PM
Seriously, if the U.S.'s finest athletes migrated toward soccer early on and stayed with it, say the Lebron Jameses and Reggie Bushes, how formiddable or not would the U.S. be? Sounds like a no-brainer, but I'm curious how America's finest natural athletes would translate into the world's most popular sport. Which pro American athletes today could you see being magnificent on the soccer field?

Reggie Bush comes to mind.

MaNuMaNiAc
06-13-2006, 07:03 PM
There is more to soccer than being a good athlete. It takes passion for the sport, and Americans in general simply don't have any when it comes to football.

GrandeDavid
06-13-2006, 07:05 PM
ManuMania, I agree. But the assumption I'm making is that the passion would exist, hence my comment about "migrating" toward soccer. That's a basic assumption that they'd be into the sport, my friend.

So to further clarify, say America's finest athletes gave their hearts and souls to soccer, how would they fare?

MaNuMaNiAc
06-13-2006, 07:13 PM
well, I don't think being good at basketball translates well into being good at football. So whatever makes LeBron great in baketball wouldn't really matter. However, taking into account that the US has a population of about 290 million, and if we suppose they became as passionate for the sport as Brasilians, Argentinians, and the English are, then I suppose yeah, they could be preety darn good. The US has some of the best athletes in the world, its logical to assume they'd be good if they applied themselves.

NuGGeTs-FaN
06-13-2006, 07:22 PM
soccer takes more skill

GrandeDavid
06-13-2006, 07:34 PM
What made me think that a big guy like Lebron could be good in soccer is the fact that Koller of the Czech Republic is a 6'8" scoring MONSTER. Dude made Landon Donovan look like a hobbit!

MaNuMaNiAc
06-13-2006, 07:36 PM
What made me think that a big guy like Lebron could be good in soccer is the fact that Koller of the Czech Republic is a 6'8" scoring MONSTER. Dude made Landon Donovan look like a hobbit!
How many Kollers do you see out there? Just because LeBron is tall doesn't mean he would have been as good as Koller if he had taken to football instead of basketball. Either way, we will never know.

GrandeDavid
06-13-2006, 07:39 PM
To also clarify, this isn't one of those "if America's best athletes played soccer, they'd never lose a World Cup" threads. I just hope that soccer grows in the U.S. and I'm curious what people think about that mysterious "what if", because most likely, soccer will continue to remain a second tier sport in America. I'm a big international soccer fan, so I hope that more elite American athletes opt for soccer. But I am skeptical, naturally.

GrandeDavid
06-13-2006, 07:42 PM
One thing is for sure, if America's top athletes did play soccer, speed would not be an issue.

MaNuMaNiAc
06-13-2006, 07:46 PM
One thing is for sure, if America's top athletes did play soccer, speed would not be an issue.
yes I agree, how fast they'd get blown out would not be an issue...
























http://spurstalk.com/forums/images/smilies/smilol.gif Sorry, cheap shot! Seriously though, I agree http://spurstalk.com/forums/images/smilies/smispin.gif

FromWayDowntown
06-13-2006, 07:55 PM
I understand the point -- it certainly assumes that there would be more kids playing soccer at earlier ages and staying with the game in an effort to develop skill as they progressed through the ranks. I think you could make some sort of assumption that there are guys who are born with inherent athletic ability and they can make themselves elite by choosing which sports to pursue. From that point, it's a matter of developing skill, which is the product of endless practice combined with some degree of talent. If kids across America were taking to sandlots to play soccer, rather than going to parks to play basketball, I'd think the American side would be among the better ones in the world.

I still think that the Americans could be better than they are, even with the players currently in place. I'm convinced that American soccer on an international level took a step backwards with the creation of MLS. What had helped American soccer advance up until 1994 was growing confidence gained by the fact that so many of the players were abroad with club teams to get their seasoning. Even if they weren't playing, they were at least getting an opportunity to learn from those who play the game best. After 1994, Americans played more domestically in a vastly inferior league that had basically the castoffs from other leagues -- guys who were old, who were suffering from diminishing skills, who were seeking a last paycheck. In 1998, that bit the U.S. in the backside, I think. After 1998, more of the core of the American team went abroad -- or, at least the team that was eventually chosen for 2002 was made up of more guys who were under contract in European A leagues. That seemed to help propel the team forward and the result in 2002 was promising. But now, some of those guys who were abroad before 2002 have come back stateside seeking more playing time, again putting a significant part of the American team in a relatively poor league with sparse competition. I think the U.S. can be consistently competitive in international tournaments, but the best way to do that -- it seems to me -- is to emphasize that kids go to Europe or South America and play in those A leagues. Even if they don't get into many matches, they will at least have the benefits of training with those teams and those players, and learning the game from the very best.

In a way, the demise of MLS might be the best thing that could ever happen to American soccer.

GrandeDavid
06-13-2006, 08:01 PM
FromWayDowntown, great take! But I disagree with your position on the creation of MLS. Hell, even Ronaldo was offered a $120 million contract by New York to play there. He indicated that he'd play out his two more years in Real, then probably make the jump. Even Beckham says he wants to play in America. Sure they'll be past their prime, but they are names. I think that MLS gives the marginal talent a chance to play competitively. Sort of like the minor leagues, if you will. The great talent will always go to Europe to play, but I like the MLS and hope that someday some great players will join the league.

ManuMania, funny comment! :lol

GrandeDavid
06-13-2006, 08:03 PM
And I do NOT think the U.S. has taken a step backwards! Their draw in 2002 was much easier than this year's. Even my Brazilian diehard buddies shiver at the thought of Brazil drawing Czech and Italy so early. I think that if the U.S. wins on Saturday and take care of business against Ghana, then that aforementioned progress will be revealed.

But the U.S. does have young talent. They are leaps and bounds better than they were in 1994 as far as soccer as an organization. With guys like Freddy Adu in the waiting, there's some young talent. I hear that coaching is in question, though.

GrandeDavid
06-13-2006, 08:03 PM
How about Shaq as a goalie or Karl Malone in his prime blindsiding guys as a fullback. :lol

Okay, just having some fun! ha ha

FromWayDowntown
06-13-2006, 08:15 PM
And I do NOT think the U.S. has taken a step backwards! Their draw in 2002 was much easier than this year's. Even my Brazilian diehard buddies shiver at the thought of Brazil drawing Czech and Italy so early. I think that if the U.S. wins on Saturday and take care of business against Ghana, then that aforementioned progress will be revealed.

But the U.S. does have young talent. They are leaps and bounds better than they were in 1994 as far as soccer as an organization. With guys like Freddy Adu in the waiting, there's some young talent. I hear that coaching is in question, though.

I'm still not sold on MLS -- even if Ronaldo or Beckham are in the offing soon, they are still guys who are winding it down, rather than guys who are at the top of their games (which is not to say that they aren't still great players and among the very, very best in the world). I'll be sold if a guy like Ronaldinho or Henry makes that jump. Until then, it's like the guys who are nearing the end and can still be draws to American fans are the only international players who play in MLS.

I don't know that my doom-and-gloom is based on what happened against Czech Republic; I'm aware that the group is very difficult and most sides would be uncomfortable with that draw. And I agree that the success in 2002 was exaggerated a bit by that draw, particularly the result over Portugal, which was pretty abysmal despite its talent. Still, I don't know that this team is actually as good as the 2002 team. I guess we'll find out.

I do agree that coaching is a problem. It wouldn't break my heart to see U.S. Soccer go out and recruit a non-American manager to bring a different view of the game to the American landscape.

ALVAREZ6
06-13-2006, 08:23 PM
Lebron would suck.



All he could be is a goalie.


Generally speaking, you don't want to be really tall in soccer. Look at all the players on the Argentine National team, they're all midgets.

Dre_7
06-13-2006, 09:29 PM
If America's best athletes played soccer, the USA would probably be a force. If soccer was popular and the Reggie Bush's of the country played it from the time they were young, USA would be the real deal!

TDMVPDPOY
06-13-2006, 09:54 PM
arg the what if game, go eat shit

MaNuMaNiAc
06-13-2006, 09:58 PM
arg the what if game, go eat shit
dude, what the fuck is wrong with you? did get molested by an American when you were little or something? what makes you hate the US so much?

austinfan
06-13-2006, 10:05 PM
What will be interesting to see--if the U.S. ever embraces soccer as a first-tier sport--is to see what kind of style or approach we would bring to the game. At this point, we're such apprentices that we don't have our own identity yet. But I wonder if we'd tend to be more like the Europeans with their focus on organization and defense, or if we'd resemble the South Americans, with their emphasis on offense and creativity? Or maybe something else entirely?

MaNuMaNiAc
06-13-2006, 10:17 PM
What will be interesting to see--if the U.S. ever embraces soccer as a first-tier sport--is to see what kind of style or approach we would bring to the game. At this point, we're such apprentices that we don't have our own identity yet. But I wonder if we'd tend to be more like the Europeans with their focus on organization and defense, or if we'd resemble the South Americans, with their emphasis on offense and creativity? Or maybe something else entirely?
I would think those are the only two choices http://spurstalk.com/forums/images/smilies/smilol.gif What other approach is there?

TDMVPDPOY
06-13-2006, 10:34 PM
i dont hate the usa, just that stupid threads like what ifs, could'ves etcc....

timvp
06-14-2006, 03:21 AM
If the US made soccer the number one sport and number one passion, the World Cup would be renamed America's Cup. The US has the fastest, strongest and probably most importantly, the best training/coaching/practice facilities in the world.

As it is, only B rate athletes play soccer here. If you are too weak to play football, too short to play basketball, without the hand-eye coordination to play baseball and not quite fast enough to run track, you play hockey. If hockey is unavailable in your area, you either give up sports or play soccer.

I know a couple guys who got soccer scholarships to big name schools and they weren't what I'd consider good athletes at all.

If it were up to me, I'd outlaw US citizens from playing soccer. Leave it up to the rest of the world. We don't GAF. We will never GAF.

What I want to see is a World Cup of real football. That'd be fun to watch :rollin

Dre_7
06-14-2006, 03:35 AM
Its too bad Americans dont GAF about Soccer. Its a great game.

polandprzem
06-14-2006, 03:36 AM
Hey.

Just imagine Shaq in Ski Jumping :lol


-------------------
BACK TOP THE TOPIC
It's whole a lot different sports and you need diferent skillls, coordination is different and when someone is a good athlete doesn't mean he will be good in some sports like big muscles doesn't mean you are strong.

What about American "if we would care" :blah :blah :blah
If poland had more money on sports then WE WOULD CARE. Damn

ALVAREZ6
06-14-2006, 08:03 AM
If the US made soccer the number one sport and number one passion, the World Cup would be renamed America's Cup. The US has the fastest, strongest and probably most importantly, the best training/coaching/practice facilities in the world.

Why didn't they win the world baseball classic then???



Even if the US concentrated on soccer for a bunch of decades, Brazil would still own them.


Just because the US has the most money doesn't mean shit. If Argentina had the population that the US has and basketball was as big down there as it is here, they would assrape the US. So would Slovenia.

austinfan
06-14-2006, 08:23 AM
If the US made soccer the number one sport and number one passion, the World Cup would be renamed America's Cup. The US has the fastest, strongest and probably most importantly, the best training/coaching/practice facilities in the world.

I don't think it's all about training. Or, more importantly, it's about the kind of training, especially the training that children get from an early age. I can't speak to the kind of training that kids get in Argentina or Italy, but in Brazil, the emphasis is on kids learning technique, rather than winning games. It's only when they get to be around 10 or 12 years old that they start playing in more organized leagues, and I think this is one of the secrets of Brazil's long-term success: they let kids be kids and approach the game with creativity and improvisation when they're young. And that experience of soccer as something playful and to be enjoyed with friends never leaves them when they're adults.

Here in the U.S., from the conversations I've had with the parents of kids who play soccer, there's much more of an emphasis on winning from a young age. And in the long run, I'm not sure that that's the best thing for a player's development.

ALVAREZ6
06-14-2006, 08:25 AM
Very good point austinfan.


It's kind of like they learn the "streetball" moves, I guess you could say, just like kids here in the US when it comes to basketball.

austinfan
06-14-2006, 08:28 AM
I would think those are the only two choices http://spurstalk.com/forums/images/smilies/smilol.gif What other approach is there?

I guess what I mean is, would we see more of a defensive approach or more creativity, and what would the ratio be of those? Would the U.S. develop its own style that would be distinctively and automatically recognized as "American"?

SPARKY
06-14-2006, 09:24 AM
If the US made soccer the number one sport and number one passion, the World Cup would be renamed America's Cup. The US has the fastest, strongest and probably most importantly, the best training/coaching/practice facilities in the world.

As it is, only B rate athletes play soccer here. If you are too weak to play football, too short to play basketball, without the hand-eye coordination to play baseball and not quite fast enough to run track, you play hockey. If hockey is unavailable in your area, you either give up sports or play soccer.

I know a couple guys who got soccer scholarships to big name schools and they weren't what I'd consider good athletes at all.

If it were up to me, I'd outlaw US citizens from playing soccer. Leave it up to the rest of the world. We don't GAF. We will never GAF.

What I want to see is a World Cup of real football. That'd be fun to watch :rollin


I would have to agree. What matters is whether a sport is 'the people's sport'. That is, is it a sport played across the social spectrum in a country? In the US, the people's sport is first and foremost (American) football. It's played by the poor, middle class, and affluent. It's played in rural areas as well as in suburbia and in urban areas. There are substantial fanbases for teams at the high school ,collegiate, and professional level. Fathers pass on a love of the sport to their children. It's a part of the culture. This is also true for basketball and baseball. Not so much for futbol. I believe the easiest way to gauge the promise of a sport in a country is whether or not the poor play it. This is true for the powerhouses of national team futbol today. Not exactly for the US.

MaNuMaNiAc
06-14-2006, 01:05 PM
If the US made soccer the number one sport and number one passion, the World Cup would be renamed America's Cup. The US has the fastest, strongest and probably most importantly, the best training/coaching/practice facilities in the world.

As it is, only B rate athletes play soccer here. If you are too weak to play football, too short to play basketball, without the hand-eye coordination to play baseball and not quite fast enough to run track, you play hockey. If hockey is unavailable in your area, you either give up sports or play soccer.

I know a couple guys who got soccer scholarships to big name schools and they weren't what I'd consider good athletes at all.

If it were up to me, I'd outlaw US citizens from playing soccer. Leave it up to the rest of the world. We don't GAF. We will never GAF.

What I want to see is a World Cup of real football. That'd be fun to watch :rollin
I have to call bullshit on this Timvp. Money doesn't buy everything. You could probably have the best training facilities thats true, but football skills cannot be trained with machines. The Brasilians learn from the passion their parents instill, and they hone them in the streets, parks, anywhere they can get enough space. Brasilians don't have the best training facilities, and yet they rule the football world. I think if the US cared enough to make soccer a prioritie it could become a great football nation, but to say they would rule everyone is stupid and uninformed.

Real football?? http://spurstalk.com/forums/images/smilies/smilol.gif I know you probably meant it as a joke LJ, but seriously "real football" is what you people "soccer", American "football" is a halfbreed form of Rugby http://spurstalk.com/forums/images/smilies/smilol.gif. I know rugby and American "football" are different, but at least they are closer in nature than football is to American "football"

ALVAREZ6
06-14-2006, 01:22 PM
Training facilities have nothing to do with it. If anything, they could possibly make it worse.

If you want your country to be good at a sport, your poor population needs to have that sport as their #1 priority. Blacks in the US don't have really nice training facilities, yet they are by far the best basketball players in the world. All they do is 24/7 basketball, and that's why they're good. They will play anywhere too, they're always around the game.


Until soccer becomes an urban pass time in the US, the USA team will never be that good.

MaNuMaNiAc
06-14-2006, 01:26 PM
Training facilities have nothing to do with it. If anything, they could possibly make it worse.

If you want your country to be good at a sport, your poor population needs to have that sport as their #1 priority. Blacks in the US don't have really nice training facilities, yet they are by far the best basketball players in the world. All they do is 24/7 basketball, and that's why they're good. They will play anywhere too, they're always around the game.
WTF? http://spurstalk.com/forums/images/smilies/smilol.gif seriously ALVAREZ... WTF? Being poor has nothing to do with it

austinfan
06-14-2006, 01:44 PM
I wonder how much futsal has to do with Brazil's overall soccer success? Several of the big Brazilian stars (including Ronaldinho Gaucho) have come up through the futsal system. Is it big in Argentina as well?

I think the smaller court size in futsal and the fact that the ball is heavier (right?) has a lot to do with sharpening players' technical skills and their instincts on the court. When they transfer from that to the wide expanse of a regulation soccer field, it must feel like weights being taken off your arms and legs, or being allowed to breathe in big lungfuls of air after being asked to hold your breath.

Which makes me wonder: do you think the same thing could be used in training in basketball--at least the part about training on a smaller court, not the heavier ball--to quicken players' reaction times, practice faster transitions, etc.? Of course the basketball court is already so small that there's probably no discernible advantage in training on a reduced-scale version of it. What do you guys think?

j-6
06-14-2006, 01:48 PM
Is "futsal" indoor soccer?

austinfan
06-14-2006, 02:31 PM
Is "futsal" indoor soccer?

Yes, it's a specific type of indoor soccer. Here's (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Futsal) the wikipedia description of it, including this:

Futsal is played between two teams of five players, one of which is the goalkeeper; in addition each team may have a number of substitutes. Unlike some other forms of indoor football, the field is delimited by lines, and not nets or boards which the ball may be played off. The ball used tends to be heavier, and thus promotes better ball control skills as well as passes on the ground. Furthermore, the smaller play area forces players to improve their skills and decision making.

Other forms of indoor football games, which are played by somewhat different rules, exist and may be referred to as indoor football, five-a-side football or indoor soccer. Those games predate the formulation of official rules of futsal.

ALVAREZ6
06-14-2006, 04:43 PM
WTF? http://spurstalk.com/forums/images/smilies/smilol.gif seriously ALVAREZ... WTF? Being poor has nothing to do with it
Poor people = play a lot of one sport, 24/7.

If that sport is their only hope, and all they do is play it, then chances are there will be more successfull players.

MaNuMaNiAc
06-14-2006, 04:54 PM
Poor people = play a lot of one sport, 24/7.

If that sport is their only hope, and all they do is play it, then chances are there will be more successfull players.
really?? you think poor people have all the time in the world to play sports?? what universe are you living in?? :lmao you should get out more

German_Spursfan
06-14-2006, 05:51 PM
Afaik is Steve Nash a good soccer player?
Otherwise the US-Team is a good soccer team which is respected by the european teams.

ALVAREZ6
06-14-2006, 06:00 PM
really?? you think poor people have all the time in the world to play sports?? what universe are you living in?? :lmao you should get out more
Yes.

SPARKY
06-14-2006, 07:23 PM
WTF? http://spurstalk.com/forums/images/smilies/smilol.gif seriously ALVAREZ... WTF? Being poor has nothing to do with it

The "poor" certainly have something to do with it. They make up a sizable portion of most countries' population. If a sport doesn't appeal broadly, then the talent base is small and likely the market for that sport is small within a country. It's a numbers thing more than anything else. If you look at a country such as the US it has been the sports of the "poor" (who since moved up the economic ladder) which are the most popular sports. The lone exception is golf, but its popularity is tied more to social and business considerations (playing soccer isn't exactly conducive to getting a deal done).

I think soccer will be a second-tier sport in the US for a long time. If soccer is to grow in popularity in the US it will need a cultural catalyst, such as the ever growing Hispanic segment of the population providing the raw #s to give the sport critical mass.

GrandeDavid
06-15-2006, 05:31 AM
Lebron would suck.



All he could be is a goalie.


Generally speaking, you don't want to be really tall in soccer. Look at all the players on the Argentine National team, they're all midgets.

Hence, why guys like Reggie Bush, Dominick Davis, even Earl Boykins would be fit for the game. :)

Bro, Koller of the Czech Republic is huge! Big guys definitely play soccer today, holmes. :)

ALVAREZ6
06-15-2006, 05:35 AM
Bro, Koller of the Czech Republic is huge! Big guys definitely play soccer today, holmes. :)
How many Kollers are there???




I'll tell you right now, your average soccer player isn't 6'8".

Phenomanul
06-15-2006, 12:16 PM
If the US made soccer the number one sport and number one passion, the World Cup would be renamed America's Cup. The US has the fastest, strongest and probably most importantly, the best training/coaching/practice facilities in the world.

As it is, only B rate athletes play soccer here. If you are too weak to play football, too short to play basketball, without the hand-eye coordination to play baseball and not quite fast enough to run track, you play hockey. If hockey is unavailable in your area, you either give up sports or play soccer.

I know a couple guys who got soccer scholarships to big name schools and they weren't what I'd consider good athletes at all.

If it were up to me, I'd outlaw US citizens from playing soccer. Leave it up to the rest of the world. We don't GAF. We will never GAF.

What I want to see is a World Cup of real football. That'd be fun to watch :rollin

All you need for soccer is a soccerball.... that is what makes it popular... you really can't play basketball unless the surface is flat... but it too doesn't require much... thats why, it too is popular.

Soccer can be played on any terrain, barefooted whatever... Football (NFL version) requires 100's of dollars on equipment costs alone. That's why most countries don't buy into it -- it's too expensive.... same goes for hockey -- that and the 'ice part' is difficult create in the tropics....

And I disagree that soccer is delegated for the weakest athletes and most unskilled athletes... Any major sport requires athleticism... with the possible exception of some positions such as the designated hitter in baseball... But the heart of soccer is skill and vision... and you can't breed that no matter how rich a country is... Point of the matter is Brazil... they're a second-world country and yet they still manage to produce the best soccer players in the world. Passion and idols such as Pele and now Ronaldinho fuel future generations there.

Soccer doesn't sell in the U.S. due to media limitations... a two and a half hour program with only 15 minutes of commercials doesn't bode well for the industry becuase they can't fit enough sponsorships in that span... Football, Basketball, and Baseball break multiple times for commercial breaks... This fact alone has shaped two whole generations of apathy for the sport as a whole in this nation. Now with 100's of channels to surf the limitation is no longer as crutching considering that the franchises such as ABC, NBC, or CBS use to transmit on one channel... now they boast many..

Extra Stout
06-15-2006, 05:04 PM
And I disagree that soccer is delegated for the weakest athletes and most unskilled athletes... Any major sport requires athleticism...
You completely missed timvp's point. He wasn't saying that soccer is a sport for bad athletes. He was saying that in the U.S., the best athletes end up playing other sports.

The guys who are left are still terrific athletes, just not world-elites.

Extra Stout
06-15-2006, 05:05 PM
Soccer doesn't sell in the U.S. due to media limitations... a two and a half hour program with only 15 minutes of commercials doesn't bode well for the industry becuase they can't fit enough sponsorships in that span... Football, Basketball, and Baseball break multiple times for commercial breaks... This fact alone has shaped two whole generations of apathy for the sport as a whole in this nation. Now with 100's of channels to surf the limitation is no longer as crutching considering that the franchises such as ABC, NBC, or CBS use to transmit on one channel... now they boast many..
I call BS on this point. The English Premier League is a TV powerhouse in Europe and Asia.

Phenomanul
06-15-2006, 05:22 PM
I call BS on this point. The English Premier League is a TV powerhouse in Europe and Asia.

Because they've managed to be creative.... plus the sponsorship in said countries is conducted by the teams since they are the ones that sport 'brands' on the front of their jerseys... they don't in the MLS for example.

The clincher there, however was that soccer was already a popular sport in England well before the TV era began.... you can't say the same for the US...

Trust me, it's not B.S., I remember reading about it directly from the mouths of ABC executives. They hated the fact, they couldn't fit their sponsors adds during soccer matches because they were continual, long and with only one intermission.

And I guess the point I needed to emphasize was that the problem was created in the past.

SPARKY
06-15-2006, 07:07 PM
It's not a matter of game broadcasts, it's a matter of if the interest is there among the viewing public. A common complaint that I've heard/read about soccer is that it's "boring". Well how thrilling exactly are baseball broadcasts? The thrill comes from playing the game as a child, it comes from watching pro games with one's dad growing up, etc. Watching a sport is far more exciting when one is familiar with it. I don't see the US position in world soccer as being due to a lack of money as much as a lack of the interest at the grassroots. It's also not like soccer hasn't had time to emerge as a popular sport in the US. We've had decades of millions of kids playing the sport in this country. That has not yet translated into legions of American soccer fans. I played it for a while growing up. I've paid scant attention to it as an adult other than the World Cup. Maybe the MLS will be make those who, like me, played it once interested again. I'm not so sure. I also played other sports and have a greater fondness for those.

ALVAREZ6
06-15-2006, 07:11 PM
ManuMania, I guess not everyone thinks I'm a dumb fuck. :lol

SPARKY
06-15-2006, 07:25 PM
I'm not sure why this is that controversial. If a sport is relegated to a minor slice of the population, then it's not hard to expect that the sport will not do well commercially in a country as well as that the country would not be a power on the national team level. A sport that comes to mind is lacrosse. There's nothing intrinsic about lacrosse that would make it a sport that couldn't make for thrilling broadcasts and a successful pro league. But it's the fact that so few have played that sport growing up which makes it a minor sport in the US.

If soccer and lacrosse enjoyed the popularity at the grassroots level that football, basketball and baseball do in the US, then we would see the best athletes attracted to those sports. You don't start from the top down.

ALVAREZ6
06-15-2006, 07:29 PM
Lacrosse is actually very popular now though. So many people play in in high school now, at least in my area. It should get more popular as time goes by.


But you are right, it still is a relatively unpopular sport. I am a sports fan and I can only name 1 professional lacrosse team, the Philadelphia Wings, and that's because it's just my area.

MaNuMaNiAc
06-15-2006, 07:34 PM
ManuMania, I guess not everyone thinks I'm a dumb fuck. :lol
I never said you were a dumbfuck, and Sparky isn't agreeing with you. He's talking about portion of the population, not the fact that they are poor. You stipulated that countries like Brasil, Argentina, and the like are good at football simply because their poor play it since they have all the time in the world to play as much as they possibly can. I think that is bullshit. I agree that in both countries the majority of the people play the game, and a large portion of that majority is poor, but being poor is not a prerequisite, and certainly poor people do NOT have all the time in the world to play sports.

ALVAREZ6
06-15-2006, 08:03 PM
:lol , I was just messing with you, I wasn't being serious.



I never mentioned Argentina or Brazil, I was mainly, mainly refering to the black community of the US. Go to any hood, you will find them playing bball, a lot.

GrandeDavid
06-15-2006, 09:54 PM
I'd like to see Yao turn around China's national soccer team. Just have him stand in the middle of the goal, spread his arms and legs and tell him not to move a muscle for 90 minutes.

Phenomanul
06-15-2006, 10:59 PM
With immigrants and all, I could probably guess that more people are watching WC games than they are the NBA Finals.... at least 80 million people have watched a WC game in this year's edition... out of 290 million... that's a pretty decent share for a country that supposedly doesn't support the sport.

Extra Stout
06-15-2006, 11:14 PM
Trust me, it's not B.S., I remember reading about it directly from the mouths of ABC executives. They hated the fact, they couldn't fit their sponsors adds during soccer matches because they were continual, long and with only one intermission.
ABC has no idea how to broadcast sports of any kind.

Also, fifteen years ago pro soccer in England was in shambles and wasn't making any money. Visionary leadership emerged, several prominent teams bonded to form the Premiership, and suddenly money was being made.

The U.S. doesn't get visionary leadership. It gets ABC.

Phenomanul
06-15-2006, 11:24 PM
ABC has no idea how to broadcast sports of any kind.

Also, fifteen years ago pro soccer in England was in shambles and wasn't making any money. Visionary leadership emerged, several prominent teams bonded to form the Premiership, and suddenly money was being made.

The U.S. doesn't get visionary leadership. It gets ABC.


And they are making a mockery of the NBA Finals... I wish TNT would pony up enough money to get the Finals once ABC's contract is up... and before Charles and Kenny leave the network...

GrandeDavid
06-16-2006, 06:16 AM
Dude, I haven't even thought NBA Finals. I'm only watching the World Cup. Furthermore, since San Antonio isn't in it, I don't want to drive up ratings and help justify the scandal created by the thieving, incompetent refs in the Spurs-Mavs series.

ALVAREZ6
06-16-2006, 07:18 AM
I haven't watched a second of the NBA finals. Once the Spurs are done, I'm done.



I could care less, I don't want either of these lousy teams to win the title.

samikeyp
06-16-2006, 10:51 AM
If the US made soccer the number one sport and number one passion, the World Cup would be renamed America's Cup. The US has the fastest, strongest and probably most importantly, the best training/coaching/practice facilities in the world.


Why didn't they win the world baseball classic then???

Same reason...baseball used to be the #1 sport in the US, football and basketball have surpassed that. Youth soccer in this country is very strong but then those kids grow up and change sports because the best opportunities to make a living at sport in the US is not in soccer. In other countries, where futbol is king..., those kids don't go anywhere else and in some countries there is no where else to go to make a successful career out of playing a sport.


I haven't watched a second of the NBA finals. Once the Spurs are done, I'm done.

I'm with ya there.

MaNuMaNiAc
06-16-2006, 10:55 AM
If the US made soccer the number one sport and number one passion, the World Cup would be renamed America's Cup. The US has the fastest, strongest and probably most importantly, the best training/coaching/practice facilities in the world.

:lmao what the fuck?? since when does the US have the best coaching and training in football??? You may be right about facilities but the rest is bullshit!

nkdlunch
06-16-2006, 12:14 PM
I haven't watched a second of the NBA finals. Once the Spurs are done, I'm done.



I could care less, I don't want either of these lousy teams to win the title.

I ain't watching but I am impressed by Heat and Dallas. I give them props they are very, very good teams.


i don't understand how Spur fans can't admit that Dallas is a great team as great as the Spurs this year. face it

cheguevara
06-16-2006, 12:55 PM
Which pro American athletes today could you see being magnificent on the soccer field?


magnificent? :lol are u serious????

absolutely no current athlete could compete. come on...