US Soccer Dream Team

[mikey]

http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercurynews/sports/special_packages/world_cup/14889703.htm


.

 

[dalero]

They would have spured alot more public interest than what we sent. If we are ever going to embrace soccer here, we're going to need a much better product on the field and maybe just a little pr.

 

[BelichickFan]

If we are ever going to embrace soccer here, we're going to need a much better product on the field and maybe just a little pr.

It'll never happen. Never. It's just too boring. Not trying to antagonize the soccer fans here but it has no chance.

 

[dalero]

It'll never happen. Never. It's just too boring. Not trying to antagonize the soccer fans here but it has no chance.

Believe me I'm no Soccer fan. I find it almost as entertaining as Ladies Senior Citizen Bowling on cable access but I respect the people who enjoy it.

 

[upstater1]

It'll never happen. Never. It's just too boring. Not trying to antagonize the soccer fans here but it has no chance.

That's like saying baseball will never catch on either. Believe me, soccer is a lot easier to get to enjoy than baseball. Try showing appreciation for the intricacies of baseball to someone who doesn't know much about the game.

I think a lot of soccer can be boring, and the kind we get in the US is about as interesting to me as NFLE. I never watch either.

But the world cup is incredibly exciting. There's just so much tension and desperation on the field.

 

[FreeTedWilliams]

When I was a kid, I remember everyone saying that in twenty years soccer would be the biggest sport in America, and we would all be using the metric system.


Both have made small inroads, the women's soccer team got interesting once that chick took her shirt off, and of course, the 2 liter bottle of Pepsi, but that's about it.

 

[dalero]

That's like saying baseball will never catch on either. Believe me, soccer is a lot easier to get to enjoy than baseball. Try showing appreciation for the intricacies of baseball to someone who doesn't know much about the game.

I think a lot of soccer can be boring, and the kind we get in the US is about as interesting to me as NFLE. I never watch either.

But the world cup is incredibly exciting. There's just so much tension and desperation on the field.

Soccer is the up and coming sport in the U.S.A. and always will be.

 

[BelichickFan]

That's like saying baseball will never catch on either. Believe me, soccer is a lot easier to get to enjoy than baseball. Try showing appreciation for the intricacies of baseball to someone who doesn't know much about the game.

I think a lot of soccer can be boring, and the kind we get in the US is about as interesting to me as NFLE. I never watch either.

But the world cup is incredibly exciting. There's just so much tension and desperation on the field.

I guess we all have our opinions but I find the world cup incredible boring. I'll have it on it there's no other sports on but that's it. And this comes from someone who was born in England and liked soccer until I was 12 as much as I like Football now.

It's boring as hell and will never, ever be popular here.

 

[primetime]

Soccer is the up and coming sport in the U.S.A. and always will be.

Because every other sport is already established. Hahaha.

Tom Brady, holding midfielder -- Outstanding overall athlete who has the grit to win balls and the vision to distribute them.

I don't know about that. He's not fast enough to play midfield, or really soccer in general. He's playing the right position in the right sport already.

It's really not fair, because the best soccer players in the US tend to be the third-tier pro guys, behind sports like basketball and football (and even some hockey and baseball). Most youth soccer players in the US double as track athletes (or other sports in different seasons, but track seems to be the main one), and usually find track to be their true calling. If we took all our best athletes and trained them from youth to be soccer players and soccer players only, like Brazil does, there's no doubt we would field a team that would blow any challengers out of the water.

Really, most soccer players hover around 5'10" and 160-170 lbs. The smallest corner in the NFL has a good 10 lbs on your average soccer player, and the same goes for basketball players (who have a dozen inches and a couple dozen lbs. on them). A team with physical freaks like Lebron (who's as tall as Peter Crouch, one of the tallest strikers in the world, but is much faster, stronger, and can jump much higher) could outjump and outpace just about every other team out there.

Then again, the same goes for the other European game. Train a team of NFL all-stars to play rugby for a years and I don't think they'd have any problems handling the British Lions. Those guys are big and fast, yes, but they're not the freaks that guys like Urlacher, Ray Lewis, Rodney, and so on are.

 

[BelichickFan]

Soccer is the up and coming sport in the U.S.A. and always will be.

Yep, it was up and coming back in 1980 when I played in high school. It's 25 years later now.

 

[PlattsFan]

It'll never happen. Never. It's just too boring. Not trying to antagonize the soccer fans here but it has no chance.

No chance of what? Being the top sport in American? Yes. Being an established sport with a dedicated fan base and huge youth participation? Probably there already.

It'll almost surely not be as big as the NFL, the NBA, or MLB any time soon. But I'd bet in the next decade it'll be bigger than the NHL in the US.

Almost any sport is boring if you don't know much about it. I watched the NFL with a bunch of Brits in England once, and they hated it. "A few seconds of indecipherable mayhem followed by nearly a minute of nothing" was how one guy described it. Soccer, otoh, flows constantly with far more of the real action visible on the screen, they said.

Then you should've seen them try to interest me in cricket ... good lord, but that's a boring sport.

Personally, I love soccer. The constantly changing angles, the open creativity, the incredible athletes ... it's a great sport. I understand how people can find it boring, but I also understand how people find football or baseball boring, too, and I love those sports. Hell, I understand how some people can't stand watching sports at all.

Soccer's doing fine in this country. It's here to stay, but it's not going to challenge the big boys any time soon.

 

[lutontown_fc]

Because every other sport is already established. Hahaha.

Tom Brady, holding midfielder -- Outstanding overall athlete who has the grit to win balls and the vision to distribute them.

I don't know about that. He's not fast enough to play midfield, or really soccer in general. He's playing the right position in the right sport already.

It's really not fair, because the best soccer players in the US tend to be the third-tier pro guys, behind sports like basketball and football (and even some hockey and baseball). Most youth soccer players in the US double as track athletes (or other sports in different seasons, but track seems to be the main one), and usually find track to be their true calling. If we took all our best athletes and trained them from youth to be soccer players and soccer players only, like Brazil does, there's no doubt we would field a team that would blow any challengers out of the water.

Really, most soccer players hover around 5'10" and 160-170 lbs. The smallest corner in the NFL has a good 10 lbs on your average soccer player, and the same goes for basketball players (who have a dozen inches and a couple dozen lbs. on them). A team with physical freaks like Lebron (who's as tall as Peter Crouch, one of the tallest strikers in the world, but is much faster, stronger, and can jump much higher) could outjump and outpace just about every other team out there.

Then again, the same goes for the other European game. Train a team of NFL all-stars to play rugby for a years and I don't think they'd have any problems handling the British Lions. Those guys are big and fast, yes, but they're not the freaks that guys like Urlacher, Ray Lewis, Rodney, and so on are.

Sorry but your comment about training up a team of NFL pro's to 'handle' the Britsh Lions reeks of both ignorance and arrogance.

Its fine that North Americans dont like 'soccer' for whatever reason, but it is the the most widely played game on the face of the planet and for good reason.

I could lecture you on how rugby players from the two different discilpines (rugby league and rugby union) struggle to cross the divide between codes - let alone some NFL player - but I dont think I will.

NM

 

[primetime]

I could lecture you on how rugby players from the two different discilpines (rugby league and rugby union) struggle to cross the divide between codes - let alone some NFL player - but I dont think I will.

Oh, that's a lecture I'd love to hear, especially when I've played rugby in both disciplines (as well as sevens).

You train a side of 13/15 top NFL players in the intricacies of the game of rugby for a year straight and I guarantee they handle any team you want (the best players from New Zealand beat the Lions in 2005 and you're saying, if America was to train its top athletes in rugby, that we couldn't - with a far, far larger pool to choose from - handle them?) Keep in mind, the Eagles only lost to the Wallabies 26-22 in 1994, fielding a team with very few internationally renowned athletes on it.

Rugby players who play for those teams are physical monsters, yes. But the NFL and the NBA have the largest pool of the most freakishly athletic human beings on the planet. If you were to train them in the game of rugby, they would be dominant. Yes, it's a tough sport to learn, and even tougher to excel in. But why are non-Americans capable of learning it and Americans not?

It goes both ways, too. There are many All-Blacks, Wallabies, and Lions from each of the four unions (as well as many league players) capable of playing in and excelling in the NFL, if they had been or were trained to play in it.

 

[BelichickFan]

It'll almost surely not be as big as the NFL, the NBA, or MLB any time soon. But I'd bet in the next decade it'll be bigger than the NHL in the US.

Has soccer's popularity grown at all since 1980 ? I would be shocked if it had. It's a very easy sport to pick up and play and is popular to the rest of the world for historical reasons (because they grow up with it) but it's not an inherently interesting sport.

 

[PlattsFan]

Has soccer's popularity grown at all since 1980 ? I would be shocked if it had. It's a very easy sport to pick up and play and is popular to the rest of the world for historical reasons (because they grow up with it) but it's not an inherently interesting sport.

I dunno, what's the metric? The ratings have gone up, certainly. MLS is profitable. World Cup qualifying games are televised, as are friendlies. I don't know about youth participation, but I'd guess it's gone up.

My point is that almost no sport is "inherently interesting." They all take acculturation to appreciate. Football is unspeakably boring to most of the world. Baseball is, too. Soccer is fascinating and exciting to them.

In fact, of all the major team sports in America (football, baseball, basketball, hockey, soccer), football is far and away the least popular world-wide. And it's not for lack of trying on the NFL's part. It's popular here because we "grew up with it," no?

 

[BelichickFan]

My point is that almost no sport is "inherently interesting." They all take acculturation to appreciate. Football is unspeakably boring to most of the world. Baseball is, too. Soccer is fascinating and exciting to them.

In fact, of all the major team sports in America (football, baseball, basketball, hockey, soccer), football is far and away the least popular world-wide. And it's not for lack of trying on the NFL's part. It's popular here because we "grew up with it," no?

That's fine, football may not be inherently interesting either. That wasn't my point. My point was that soccer will never be popular. If you want a point of reference, I'll say it'll never surpass the NHL in spectater popularity.

Football is no popular worldwide ? Their loss.

 

[lutontown_fc]

Oh, that's a lecture I'd love to hear, especially when I've played rugby in both disciplines (as well as sevens).

You train a side of 13/15 top NFL players in the intricacies of the game of rugby for a year straight and I guarantee they handle any team you want (the best players from New Zealand beat the Lions in 2005 and you're saying, if America was to train its top athletes in rugby, that we couldn't - with a far, far larger pool to choose from - handle them?) Keep in mind, the Eagles only lost to the Wallabies 26-22 in 1994, fielding a team with very few internationally renowned athletes on it.

Rugby players who play for those teams are physical monsters, yes. But the NFL and the NBA have the largest pool of the most freakishly athletic human beings on the planet. If you were to train them in the game of rugby, they would be dominant. Yes, it's a tough sport to learn, and even tougher to excel in. But why are non-Americans capable of learning it and Americans not?

It goes both ways, too. There are many All-Blacks, Wallabies, and Lions from each of the four unions (as well as many league players) capable of playing in and excelling in the NFL, if they had been or were trained to play in it.

Being such a keen fan of rugby. and a player to boot you will be aware of the cross code games between the champions of England a few years back then?

Then, im sure you will be able to explain to me why the Union team smashed the league team at their own game and vice versa - it wasn't even close.

Its takes alot more than a 'year or two' in order to establish yourself as a force going from one code to the other - I dont care what size of freakish genes you are picking from.

If you were willing to completely re-train someone then im sure its possible they could be competent - but that would take alot more than a year.

Seems to me that the USA still has a relatively large pool of players to select a 'soccer' team from - still waiting for some kind of success there.

NM

 

[primetime]

Being such a keen fan of rugby. and a player to boot you will be aware of the cross code games between the champions of England a few years back then?

Then, im sure you will be able to explain to me why the Union team smashed the league team at their own game and vice versa - it wasn't even close.

Seems to me that the USA still has a relatively large pool of players to select a 'soccer' team from - still waiting for some kind of success there.

The union game is based around the ruck, with the entire pack tending to be expert ruckers. Bringing the guy to ground then bringing strong guys into the ruck tends to be the biggest difference. In league, the pack focuses on strip tackling becuase it provides a change in possession far faster than the six possessions, except for the marker, who tends to be the fastest guy amongst them. As such, league forwards tend to be smaller and faster, though less capable of moving the pile, so to speak, than their union counterparts (uncontested scrums are another part that's completely different in league). As a flanker, this was one of the hardest lessons for me to learn when transitioning into the league game from union, which is the version played by universities in the US.

As for soccer, the US is handicapped, as I said, by the fact that US soccer players tend to be third-rate athletes, as the best athletes go to the NFL or NBA (or NHL or MLB, in some cases), as soccer tends to be a secondary sport played by guys who excel in some other sport. Many soccer players I know doubled as track athletes, and track was the sport they excelled in and eventually went to college for. Many more were two sport athletes in basketball or hockey.

What I'm saying is that if the US was to focus their athlete development on sports like soccer and rugby (like England, New Zealand, Australia, etc.), they would be more than capable of handling any team these other countries threw at them in these sports. Since the US focuses on sports that are pretty specific to itself and perhaps a select few countries worldwide (such as Canada with the NHL, Latin America with the MLB, and many countries with the NBA, though none can boast as many stars as the USA), these sports end up with the best athletes. Soccer is a third rate sport amongst these, and thus receives the third rate stars. If it was to receive the first rate stars, guys like Lebron James, Randy Moss, and so on, the US would be a world power in soccer.

 

[BelichickFan]

Our friend from Luton could be right that the U.S. should do better given the number of soccer players we have to choose from (remember our population is massive compared to most European countries so even our 3rd players should have some talent). But primetime is clearly correct that all but the tiniest percent of our top athletes play games other than soccer and we would be an extremely competive, if not dominant, team if all our best players played that sport.

 

[smg93]

Ghana 2 USA 1

Ghana Population 21.0 million
California Population 33.8 million
Total US Population 295.7 million

If just 8 percent of the total US population played football, that would be more than every man, woman, and child in Ghana.