Really, "what if" the Lebrons and Reggies played soccer?

[ALVAREZ6]

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 . 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]

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]

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]

I would think those are the only two choices 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]

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

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]

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

I have to call bull 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?? 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 . I know rugby and American "football" are different, but at least they are closer in nature than football is to American "football"

[ALVAREZ6]

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]

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? seriously ALVAREZ... WTF? Being poor has nothing to do with it

[austinfan]

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]

Is "futsal" indoor soccer?

[austinfan]

Is "futsal" indoor soccer?

Yes, it's a specific type of indoor soccer. Here's 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 subs utes. 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]

WTF? 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]

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?? you should get out more

[German_Spursfan]

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]

really?? you think poor people have all the time in the world to play sports?? what universe are you living in?? you should get out more

Yes.

[SPARKY]

WTF? 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]

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]

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]

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

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

ManuMania, I guess not everyone thinks I'm a dumb .

[SPARKY]

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.