Imagine thinking Brazil's success has ever been based on superior athleticism
We dominate any team sport we care about except hockey, which is dominated by basically an extension of the US. The only reason the US wouldn't dominate soccer is because its the only sport most of the rest of the world takes seriously but we'd certainly win our share of World Cups.
Imagine thinking Brazil's success has ever been based on superior athleticism
You're ignorant if you don't think that's a significant factor.
Just amusing to see that Caltex2 not only have basketball takes but just takes in general.
Not going to come from the Latino demographic either, unless Mexico, Puerto Rico and the Dominican Republic have become soccer powers while I wasn't paying attention.
I don't really agree w/there not being a crossover between basketball talent and soccer, btw. There are probably a lot of small, quick guards- not just in the NBA, but in college basketball too- who could probably play both sports at a high level. You don't think Allen Iverson could have been a great soccer player had that been his sport?
It comes from the culture in general, from childhood on.
I think the US soccer players would be NFL cornerbacks and the small recievers tbh. Those are the guys that have the frame for it.
I do agree I think some of the smaller guards could be very good as well.
I can't take you serious. That's the typical stupid American thinking
Oh and btw, no the US would not dominate. They would and will not even win 1 le.
Isn't this kind of "typical stupid European thinking?"
Now, if you mean we wouldn't win a le in a decade if our best young athletes started to play soccer today, I agree. But if soccer became culturally important here and our soccer infrastructure/passion was equivalent to Europe/South America, drawing the best and brightest athletes, the US would win a World Cup eventually. You see it as "American arrogance," I see it as logical. Caltex is right. The US tend to excel at any sport played somewhat seriously. When we flirted with rugby (and only one small region of the US in NorCal cared about rugby), we beat Australia when they were the best in the world and won the Olympic Gold twice in a row, beating a tier 1 side in France. Tennis, Boxing, Golf, Olympics, the list goes at non-homegrown sports we've succeeded at.
I'll reiterate. This has nothing to do with Murrican pride, but the fact we have a huge population with a diverse climate that's conducive to playing a variety of sports. The same logic applies to any densely populated 1st world country. You're German? Yeah, if Germany started caring about American football, they would likely produce elite players and have a strong national team that could maybe challenge the US. Only disadvantage would be Germany doesn't have as many people of West African descent as the US does, and people of that ethnicity are the fastest in the world. Many American football positions rely on pure sprint speed.
That's some kind of MAGA re ation level tbh
You clearly have no idea what you're talking about
midnightpulp
The key is population size.
Sure the argument has it's place against Euro elitists who want to talk nonstop; but otherwise the argument is low brow. Give credit where credit is due.
FIFA actively sabotaging US in 02, 06, 14 though cos they know that US success at WC kills billions in profits in Euro though, tbh.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)