Beckham and US Soccer (Football)

Off Topic
81

[quote]Airtruth wrote:
Kuz wrote:
Airtruth wrote:
It’s not fun.

You’ve probably never played then… or at least weren’t very good when you did.

Played in gym class…was horrible. It was cool for its 2 week session but compared to basketball and football it just wasn’t as much fun. Waste of having 2 hands.

Being less fun for the majority of athletes in America this leads to the best athletes choosing football or basketball. Which leads to people watching a sport with majority second teir athletes. Which is why it just won’t cut in America. Just like nobody watches the WNBA (well except me sometimes and 3 other people). In Europe you have there number 1 athletes playing soccer of course they will like it better.

And before you argue that american soccer players are top notch athletes, please explain how MLS seeks aging oversees players past their prime to completely dominate.[/quote]

You are making some big logical leaps above.

  1. Why is soccer still the most popular participant sport for kids in the U.S. if it is “not fun”? Kids might shy away from continuing with it at some point because it has always been “Well, how far can I go?” For a long time, it was not that far for an American player, but that is certainly changing as MLS improves and you are seeing a lot more Americans in top level European leagues.

I am not sure what you mean by:

Examples please. Beckham is not the same as he was at 27, but as I pointed out earlier in this thread, Real Madrid does not win La Liga without his extraordinary level of play the latter half of the season.

And don’t confuse MLS with only being American soccer players. Again, some of the best Americans have been playing overseas quite a bit (Keller, McBridge, Oneywu, McBride, Dempsey, etc.) because there has obviously been more money there. So why is it that American Soccer players are not top notch athletes? Your point doesn’t get to the argument you are trying to make at all.

82

[quote]lmari wrote:
Kuz wrote:
And before you make it seem like the US National Team is terrible or always has been terrible, we have been ranked in the FIFA Top 10 in the last 3 years.

If you hate soccer, fine. No skin off my nose… but please don’t just make shit up.

Sorry bro but the US soccer team is pretty bad…They do play a very physical game. FIFA ranking is crap. It’s mathematical formula…There are plenty of holes in it. Also, look at who the US is playing to get points, here is a list of recent wins:
Denmark, Mexico, Ecuador, Guatemala, China, Guatemala, Trinidad and Tobago, El Salvador, Panama, Canada, and Mexico

Their recent losses are to Arjentina and Uruguay. The US rarely goes up against European powerhouses. A country like Italy has to play a lot stiffer competition to get points.

I’m not saying the US will never go anywhere but I am saying is they have a LONG way to go. They are getting better but last World Cup survived on momentum and not consistent scoring. All of their recent wins have been 2-1 or 1-0 victories…

As for Beckham, he is a fantastic soccer player, I can’t believe that is even being contested. No we can’t compare him to Kaka, Ronaldinho, or Pirlo but Beckham has contributed a ton to Man U, Real, and England. He lacks consistency but works hard and has a field vision that is amazing.

[/quote]

Overall, good points and I think the current US National Team is not getting it done at all. They have lost a tremendous amount of momentum from their 2002 World Cup team that really made some serious headway and they have since failed to live up to those flashes of potential.

Their biggest issue is a distinct lack of finishers. Eddie Johnson is one of the fastest players I can think of, but it’s like when it comes time to finally put one home… ehh. Just not there.

I will still firmly disagree on the U.S. somehow being an overly physical team. I never see that, so I would be more than a little curious as to who on that team you think plays that way.

I think the FIFA rankings can be suspect, for sure, but given that fact, I would still not say that the U.S. (as the other poster did) is “terrible” and should not even play in international soccer:

http://www.fifa.com/worldfootball/ranking/lastranking/gender=m/fullranking.html

14 is still not too shabby.

The U-20 team gives me some hope for the future.

83

Prime age for athletic development is between 8 and 16. If I’m in America with god given 4.2s 40 speed which is useful in nearly every sport I’m choosing either football or basketball depending on my height.

If not then I’ll play another sport maybe soccer. I’ll play soccer for 10 years so I will have reasonably good skill for an athlete that trains every day, but not the same god given talent that a natural would have. Now this isn’t the view at every school, but it is the view at a large percentage of American schools. So while one great kid might come out of America every 5 years, enough top notch athletes to base a league off of just won’t happen.

For example Serena williams. Her quickness, strength, agility and speed gives her an excellent advantage in any sport. Purely by chance her father raised her to play tennis, but if her father would have been the average every day american she would either be in the WNBA, playing softball, or at work reminiscing on her highschool days. Female American Tennis would suck almost as bad as male american tennis.

84

[quote]Airtruth wrote:
Prime age for athletic development is between 8 and 16. If I’m in America with god given 4.2s 40 speed which is useful in nearly every sport I’m choosing either football or basketball depending on my height.

If not then I’ll play another sport maybe soccer. I’ll play soccer for 10 years so I will have reasonably good skill for an athlete that trains every day, but not the same god given talent that a natural would have. Now this isn’t the view at every school, but it is the view at a large percentage of American schools. So while one great kid might come out of America every 5 years, enough top notch athletes to base a league off of just won’t happen.

For example Serena williams. Her quickness, strength, agility and speed gives her an excellent advantage in any sport. Purely by chance her father raised her to play tennis, but if her father would have been the average every day american she would either be in the WNBA, playing softball, or at work reminiscing on her highschool days. Female American Tennis would suck almost as bad as male american tennis.
[/quote]

I think we might just need to agree to disagree. I agree that since there are a lot of sports kids play in the U.S., there is always going to be a high level of competition for where they end up giving their focus. That’s just a reality and the fact that places like Brazil people play soccer or maybe basketball makes for an environment where there can be more focus on soccer.

I just do not see how you make the leap in your 2nd paragraph that these kids who focus on soccer will never have a chance to move to greatness. If kids like soccer, they will play soccer and if they like football, they will play football. The assumption of yours I am focusing on is what you might personally do, not every other kid.

85

[quote]Kuz wrote:
Airtruth wrote:
Prime age for athletic development is between 8 and 16. If I’m in America with god given 4.2s 40 speed which is useful in nearly every sport I’m choosing either football or basketball depending on my height.

If not then I’ll play another sport maybe soccer. I’ll play soccer for 10 years so I will have reasonably good skill for an athlete that trains every day, but not the same god given talent that a natural would have. Now this isn’t the view at every school, but it is the view at a large percentage of American schools. So while one great kid might come out of America every 5 years, enough top notch athletes to base a league off of just won’t happen.

For example Serena williams. Her quickness, strength, agility and speed gives her an excellent advantage in any sport. Purely by chance her father raised her to play tennis, but if her father would have been the average every day american she would either be in the WNBA, playing softball, or at work reminiscing on her highschool days. Female American Tennis would suck almost as bad as male american tennis.

I think we might just need to agree to disagree. I agree that since there are a lot of sports kids play in the U.S., there is always going to be a high level of competition for where they end up giving their focus. That’s just a reality and the fact that places like Brazil people play soccer or maybe basketball makes for an environment where there can be more focus on soccer.

I just do not see how you make the leap in your 2nd paragraph that these kids who focus on soccer will never have a chance to move to greatness. If kids like soccer, they will play soccer and if they like football, they will play football. The assumption of yours I am focusing on is what you might personally do, not every other kid.[/quote]

ok.

86

[quote]Airtruth wrote:
Prime age for athletic development is between 8 and 16. If I’m in America with god given 4.2s 40 speed which is useful in nearly every sport I’m choosing either football or basketball depending on my height.

If not then I’ll play another sport maybe soccer. I’ll play soccer for 10 years so I will have reasonably good skill for an athlete that trains every day, but not the same god given talent that a natural would have. Now this isn’t the view at every school, but it is the view at a large percentage of American schools. So while one great kid might come out of America every 5 years, enough top notch athletes to base a league off of just won’t happen.

For example Serena williams. Her quickness, strength, agility and speed gives her an excellent advantage in any sport. Purely by chance her father raised her to play tennis, but if her father would have been the average every day american she would either be in the WNBA, playing softball, or at work reminiscing on her highschool days. Female American Tennis would suck almost as bad as male american tennis.
[/quote]

Dude… have you ever BEEN a kid in America? Because it doesn’t sound like it. You basically grow up playing what those around you play. You grow up in the city, you play basketball. You grow up in the country, you play football or maybe baseball. You grow up in an affluent suburb, you play soccer (lacrosse in some parts of the country).

Not saying set in stone like that, but there are great athletes playing a great many sports. As far as money and fame goes, a golfer is by far the wealthiest and most famous athlete ever, so it’s not like EVERY great athlete is playing football and basketball.

87

[quote]Airtruth wrote:
For example Serena williams. Her quickness, strength, agility and speed gives her an excellent advantage in any sport. Purely by chance her father raised her to play tennis, but if her father would have been the average every day american she would either be in the WNBA, playing softball, or at work reminiscing on her highschool days. Female American Tennis would suck almost as bad as male american tennis.
[/quote]

I just noticed something odd about this post. That last sentence. I am not at all a tennis fan, but how in the world does male American tennis suck when the rankings over the past 25-30 years have mostly been dominated by Americans?

Sampras, Agassi, Courier, Roddick, Connors, McEnroe, etc. Federer is a machine now (no doubt), but that is making me wonder even more about your soccer arguments…

88

[quote]Kuz wrote:
Airtruth wrote:
Prime age for athletic development is between 8 and 16. If I’m in America with god given 4.2s 40 speed which is useful in nearly every sport I’m choosing either football or basketball depending on my height.

If not then I’ll play another sport maybe soccer. I’ll play soccer for 10 years so I will have reasonably good skill for an athlete that trains every day, but not the same god given talent that a natural would have. Now this isn’t the view at every school, but it is the view at a large percentage of American schools. So while one great kid might come out of America every 5 years, enough top notch athletes to base a league off of just won’t happen.

For example Serena williams. Her quickness, strength, agility and speed gives her an excellent advantage in any sport. Purely by chance her father raised her to play tennis, but if her father would have been the average every day american she would either be in the WNBA, playing softball, or at work reminiscing on her highschool days. Female American Tennis would suck almost as bad as male american tennis.

I think we might just need to agree to disagree. I agree that since there are a lot of sports kids play in the U.S., there is always going to be a high level of competition for where they end up giving their focus. That’s just a reality and the fact that places like Brazil people play soccer or maybe basketball makes for an environment where there can be more focus on soccer.

I just do not see how you make the leap in your 2nd paragraph that these kids who focus on soccer will never have a chance to move to greatness. If kids like soccer, they will play soccer and if they like football, they will play football. The assumption of yours I am focusing on is what you might personally do, not every other kid.[/quote]

Agreed…The U20 is making good progress…I watched four of the U20 games live. Great talent coming up for sure. The thing about soccer is this…Poverty breeds amazing soccer players. The US has too many sports for kids to play growing up, there isn’t the same dedication.

My father growing up in Italy never let go of a soccer ball. Juggled to school, kicked the ball under his desk in class, played soccer at recess, and juggled the ball home to play on the street with his friends. Every awake minute of the day they were touching a soccer ball. In the US the kids have soccer in the fall, baseball in the summer, and football in the spring. Plus homework, family time, and tv/video games.

Look at England in the late 1980’s they made large strides to structure soccer for kids in hopes of producing better soccer players. They had camps, junior leagues, and fields setup all over the place. Did it help them? No, it had the opposite effect. Their players lost the creativity and finesse. British soccer has gone downhill…Countries like Spain, Portugal, Brazil, Argentina, and African nations have ZERO youth sporting infrastructure.

Yet they continue to dominate with Africa constantly getting better and better at a scary rate. The only thing stopping the African teams from a World Cup is they haven’t developed the same creative soft touch that the Italians and Spanish (brazil, spain, and portugal) are famous for. The seamless integration of midfielders and forwards.

The US has a looooong way to go. An African nation will win a World Cup before them. My .02 anyway…

89

[quote]CantStop wrote:

Think about it, if he was any good and wanted to play at the highest level [/quote]

Wow. You really fucking hate Beckham don’t you? It’s almost irrational with you.

First, he is still very good, so much so that he got called back for England,and without him Real Madrid is not hoisting La Liga title.

Last time I checked he was playing at the highest level. La Liga has been top to bottom THE top league in Europe for the last 6-8 years.

because he’s going to make 250 MILLION over the next 5 years. Any footballer old or not would go to the Galaxy for that kind of scratch.

No it isn’t you pompous ass. The MLS would rate well in any European Second Division, and a top MLS squad could probably hang in the bottom rungs of any decent European first division.

[quote]
I’ll tell you, its because he chases the paycheck and knows he’s not good enough to compete with the best.[/quote]

Bullshit. That must mean England really sucks, I mean they do want him back for Euro 2008 after his run of form.

Doesn’t really matter, now does it? He’s very good at what he does, crosses and free kicks.

90

The argument regarding so many kids playing soccer in America doesn’t hold much water with me. Just because a lot of kids play it doesn’t mean it grow much more popular than it already is.

Soccer’s cheap and is seen as a safe sport. That’s why so many kids play it. All you need is a field and a ball.

It’s also seen by many as not requiring a lot of skill. (This is debatable; I’m not interested in bringing it up now.) It comes off as a “simple” sport. Run and kick the ball in the net. Any kid can run around a field like a maniac and swing his legs at a ball. Not every kid can run a post pattern and catch the ball. Or make a fast break layup. As a result, just about every kid in America plays soccer some time in his or her life.

Also, because of all the above reasons, soccer leagues start at much earlier ages. There are leagues for 5 and 6-year-olds. A 6-year-old can’t dribble a basketball. And forget about 6-year-olds playing football.

I used to coach youth football for several years. Our games were played at a huge park that held the soccer matches, too. I would watch some of these “games” played by the younger kids. There would be 3 or 4 kids chasing and kicking at the ball and the rest of the players would be wrapped in their own thing. Some would be talking. Some would be staring at the sky. I even seen kids just bend down and start picking at the grass. If these are the kids that American soccer is banking its future on, they might want to look elsewhere.

Hey, a lot of kids play hide and seek, too.

91

[quote]malonetd wrote:
I used to coach youth football for several years. Our games were played at a huge park that held the soccer matches, too. I would watch some of these “games” played by the younger kids. There would be 3 or 4 kids chasing and kicking at the ball and the rest of the players would be wrapped in their own thing. Some would be talking. Some would be staring at the sky. I even seen kids just bend down and start picking at the grass. If these are the kids that American soccer is banking its future on, they might want to look elsewhere.

Hey, a lot of kids play hide and seek, too.[/quote]

Part of the problem is the age of the kids. They’re probably too young to have developed fine motor skills, especially for legs/feet (come on, how often are they gonna get chances to develop that). This, plus the fact that they have short attention spans, leads to a very sloppy game.

But then again, how many kids look like prodigies in other sports like basketball and baseball at that age?

92

[quote]burntfrenchfry wrote:
Part of the problem is the age of the kids. They’re probably too young to have developed fine motor skills, especially for legs/feet (come on, how often are they gonna get chances to develop that). This, plus the fact that they have short attention spans, leads to a very sloppy game.

But then again, how many kids look like prodigies in other sports like basketball and baseball at that age?

[/quote]

This is exactly the reason they’re playing soccer instead of basketball or football.

Soccer is a game that lends itself to children. Tell the kids, “Kick the ball into the net!” A 5 year old can understand that.

Most children do not have the size or coordination until their teens to do much with basketball, nor do young children organize well enough for football. So parents let their kids play soccer.

That’s it. That THE reason nearly every child in the US plays soccer at some point. Hell, I played soccer when I was little.

People that think that soccer’s popularity among American children will lead to nationwide popularity when they grow up need to think again.

The NFL, college football, NBA, college basketball, and MLB take up all 365 days in the calendar. For soccer to catch on, one of those sports is going to have to be replaced.

The only thing that will ever lead to soccer being a mainstream sport in America is the growing Hispanic population, and even they are generations away from having the kind of power to push soccer above those mainstream sports.

93

[quote]tGunslinger wrote:
This is exactly the reason they’re playing soccer instead of basketball or football.

Soccer is a game that lends itself to children. Tell the kids, “Kick the ball into the net!” A 5 year old can understand that.[/quote]

Then why are there more high-school and college-aged people playing soccer than football?

94

[quote]jtrinsey wrote:
tGunslinger wrote:
This is exactly the reason they’re playing soccer instead of basketball or football.

Soccer is a game that lends itself to children. Tell the kids, “Kick the ball into the net!” A 5 year old can understand that.

Then why are there more high-school and college-aged people playing soccer than football?[/quote]

They aren’t.

95

[quote]Kuz wrote:
Airtruth wrote:
For example Serena williams. Her quickness, strength, agility and speed gives her an excellent advantage in any sport. Purely by chance her father raised her to play tennis, but if her father would have been the average every day american she would either be in the WNBA, playing softball, or at work reminiscing on her highschool days. Female American Tennis would suck almost as bad as male american tennis.

I just noticed something odd about this post. That last sentence. I am not at all a tennis fan, but how in the world does male American tennis suck when the rankings over the past 25-30 years have mostly been dominated by Americans?

Sampras, Agassi, Courier, Roddick, Connors, McEnroe, etc. Federer is a machine now (no doubt), but that is making me wonder even more about your soccer arguments…[/quote]

Over decades it doesn’t suck but the last 2 years it has. Are you denying this? It’s definitely debatable but I feel like we should at least have a number 2 player. And the U.S. second ranked player really is not worthy of a 10 seed. Maybe I’m just sensative when the U.S. doesn’t completely anihiliate the rest of the world.

96

[quote]lmari wrote:
Kuz wrote:
Airtruth wrote:

Look at England in the late 1980’s they made large strides to structure soccer for kids in hopes of producing better soccer players. They had camps, junior leagues, and fields setup all over the place. Did it help them? No, it had the opposite effect. Their players lost the creativity and finesse.

[/quote]

Unfortunately this is happening to many sports in power house countries.

97

[quote]tGunslinger wrote:
burntfrenchfry wrote:

The only thing that will ever lead to soccer being a mainstream sport in America is the growing Hispanic population, and even they are generations away from having the kind of power to push soccer above those mainstream sports. [/quote]

Hey maybe the NBA ref scandal, Michael Vick dog fighting, Gary Player golfer, and steroids in Baseball is a plot by the federal government/MLS to help soccer gain mainstream acceptance.

There motto should “For the Love”.

98

[quote]jtrinsey wrote:
tGunslinger wrote:
This is exactly the reason they’re playing soccer instead of basketball or football.

Soccer is a game that lends itself to children. Tell the kids, “Kick the ball into the net!” A 5 year old can understand that.

Then why are there more high-school and college-aged people playing soccer than football?[/quote]

Same reason why more 5-6 yr olds play. Its cheap (all you need is a ball, some cones for a goal), its safe (most people don’t enjoy waking up bruised and sore), and its simple (kick ball towards net).

Trust, go to a college campus and look at all the uncoordinated kids who play soccer (usually the same ones who play ULTIMATE Frisbee (I still don’t get how that gets the name ultimate attached to it…))

I digress. I just joined up with a semi-pro football league, it cost me about 250-300 to get all the gear neccessary to play football (Helmet, mouthpiece, girdle, shoulderpads, 7 pads to fit in the girdle/pants, cleats, and football pants).

Most kids aren’t going to spend that much money on gear that they use one weekend morning. Not to mention you need 10 other guys for your team who understand football plays or else you spend 10 min trying to explain blocking schemes to everyone.

I’m talking purely on a college age level here- I know professional soccer players have their “plays” (2v1 game, touch and go, through passes, etc.)- but if your going to pick a sport where some scrub can walk out and enjoy instantly its going to be soccer over football.

Same thing with your weekend warriors. Not many people want to wake up on monday bruised, beaten, and limping when they go to work. Therefore its better to get out and play a low contact sport like soccer over football. So to everyone throwing out that number that soccer is the most popular recreational sport in young people, stop, it doesn’t prove anything.

Also, I would put my money on rugby running up and being popular in the US before soccer. The US teams have been improving in international play and I see some youth leagues sprouting up here and there.

And since in rugby you again only need a ball and a mouthpiece and a basic understanding of the game to go out and participate (again on a recreational level, I play rugby in college and the intricasies of any sport are amazing the more and more you are exposed to it, so just on a simple rookie level im talking). I would love to see more rugby.

That didn’t answer the Beckham question, but just wanted to address eveyone using the number of youth soccer players to say its going to rise in popularity, it won’t do much cuz most of those kids are unathletic and uninterested in sports, just goof around with friends.

99

[quote]TBoZ1244 wrote:
Same thing with your weekend warriors. Not many people want to wake up on monday bruised, beaten, and limping when they go to work. Therefore its better to get out and play a low contact sport like soccer over football. So to everyone throwing out that number that soccer is the most popular recreational sport in young people, stop, it doesn’t prove anything.[/quote]

Please explain to me how it doesn’t prove anything? It proves it’s an extremely popular sport. It doesn’t mean the MLS is going to be more popular than the NFL… because the product is not as good.

I mean, it’s cool and all that you think you’re hardcore because you play football and rugby. But nobody’s impressed.

It’s just simple facts, soccer is (I believe, from what the figures I read suggest) one of, if not the fastest growing sport in the country, which means it’s becoming more popular. Which means that the professional leagues are probably going to grow in popularity.

It won’t be in my lifetime that professional soccer becomes more popular than than professional football in America, if it ever happens (which I doubt), but to say that soccer isn’t and won’t continue to grow in popularity is pretty stupid.

100

My son plays soccer and has no interest in watching soccer when he isn’t playing it. He watches NFL, College football, basbeball, college basketball, some racing and other stuff.

I’m glad he’s playing a sport, but just because people are playing doesn’t necessarily mean it will be a force in this country to challenge the big sports.