Reply With Quote
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
soccer takes more skill
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.
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.
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...
Sorry, cheap shot! Seriously though, I agree
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 compe ion. I think the U.S. can be consistently compe ive 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.
FromWayDowntown, great take! But I disagree with your position on the creation of MLS. , 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 compe ively. 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!
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.
How about Shaq as a goalie or Karl Malone in his prime blindsiding guys as a fullback.
Okay, just having some fun! ha ha
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.
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.
Last edited by ALVAREZ6; 06-13-2006 at 08:35 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!
arg the what if game, go eat
dude, what the is wrong with you? did get molested by an American when you were little or something? what makes you hate the US so much?
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 iden y 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
i dont hate the usa, just that stupid threads like what ifs, could'ves etcc....
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
Its too bad Americans dont GAF about Soccer. Its a great game.
Hey.
Just imagine Shaq in Ski Jumping
-------------------
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"
If poland had more money on sports then WE WOULD CARE. Damn
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
