[quote]BetaBerry wrote:
nomorewar wrote:
Brazil just won.
So its set…
USA VS BRAZIL, SUNDAY, 11:30 A.M, CHAMPIONSHIP GAME!!!!!
=)[/quote]
You know you were worried when The U.S was up 2-0.
The only thing that can relive me right now is an anger bang with a Brazilian bitch.
[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:
nomorewar wrote:
I hope USA wins tomorrow so all you haters can get annoyed by all the press the U.S will receive. Believe me, Its gonna be a lot.
And it’ll be forgotten by Monday.[/quote]
True, they just don’t get that most Americans find it boring.
[quote]LiveFromThe781 wrote:
khatari wrote:
GL U.S.A
It will be very tough for U.S to beat Brazil.It will be an interesting game.
not as hard as it will be for most Americans to find Brazil on a map.[/quote]
Ha. I l’edol…a little.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
He’d last maybe all of 20 minutes at a typical American high school JV football practice before he’d walk off the field to go have afternoon tea.[/quote]
What would the 20 minutes consist of?
I ask this because, I just took a soccer coaching class. For half of the class I had to participate in training drils and 20 minutes of tactical/technical practice kicked me ass.
I’m not talking about running straight sprints, or doing grass drills or just straight out ‘conditioning’. I’m talking about ‘game-based’ drills.
I don’t honestly want to compare the 2 sports, I’m just curious what your theoretical 20 minutes would consist of? I played jv and v football in high school (87 MD State Champs, word)and during the season we’d do static stretching for a warmup followed by learning the game plan for the week’s game and then 10 minutes of conditioning at the end of practice. We’d hit a lot in pre-season practice, but that was the fun part.
[quote]Andy63477 wrote:
On the other hand you will find nobody, who is able to learn soccer in a couple of months, because it requires a lot of practice. [/quote]
I’ve played soccer at a Division I school in the USA and coached kids from U4 up to U19. Several of my players have gotten scholarships to Division I schools.
Gimme 11 kids that have never played soccer before and you take 11 kids that have been playing all their lives…I’ll bet you dollars to euros my kids will kick your kids asses.
On the other hand…I’ve never coached football before (but as most of you know, I was and remain a HS State Champion player), but I’ll bet you I could take 11 kids that have never played before and teach them to play in a couple months and beat someone else’s kids that have been playing all their lives.
Above examples are assuming our players are the same ceterus parabus except for having played the respective sport before.
Both games are fucking simple. Score a goal/touchdown while stopping the other team from doing the same.
[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:
TDub301 wrote:
Not really. It’s like winning in cricket. Who gives a fuck, it’s cricket.
Then you don’t know what you’re talking about.[/quote]
Um, you may not and your friends may not care, but the rest of the world would care. That’s billions of people. Literally. This is what I was talking about earlier, one of the reasons why the rest of the world doesn’t like us that much, because a lot of people like you seem to think the world revolves around them and what they like and can’t take it when a reality check hits them, so they say things like “we don’t’ give a fuck about them”. Speak for yourself, some of us actually do and you’re making the rest of us look bad.
Also, you don’t consider England, China, Russia, etc. to be superpowers? I’m really curious about that one. What is the definition of superpower exactly? They may not be as powerful as our country, but compared to the rest of the world, I feel like they’d be in that category.
[quote]MaximusB wrote:
Cockney Blue wrote:
TDub301 wrote:
red04 wrote:
TDub301 wrote:
Do you realize how much more muscle and overall weight American football players carry vs soccer players? Do you also realize how much more physical American football is? Both delivering or receiving a hit is very draining on the body. Did you happen to know Jerry Rice used to run against race horses as a form of his training? You just cannot compare these two sports at all.[/quote]
That’s part of the point I was making. Football players are bigger than soccer players, so that’s a factor you have to include when you talk about the differences. It’s silly to think that the most popular sport in the world, by far, hasn’t produced any players that are as fast as football players. These guys are sought out by multiple countries and paid contracts that would make NFL players switch to soccer if they could actually keep up. And you don’t think ANY of them are as fast as NFL players? At all? I’m not saying they all are, but there has to be at least a percentage that are, there’s no way it’s not possible. And you can compare the 2 sports, in certain ways. But I would argue that speed is specific to the player, not the sport.
[quote]red04 wrote:
Andy63477 wrote:
For American football, you just need to be big. Everything else you can learn pretty fast. I have a friend who was clueless about football when he went to the US, but ended up playing varsity for a school with 2 or 3k students, only because he was tall. On the other hand you will find nobody, who is able to learn soccer in a couple of months, because it requires a lot of practice. It’s really amazing, what some soccer player can do with the ball. And maybe it’s true, that some receivers are faster than soccer players. But they were selected for their speed, while soccer player need to have skill, too.
If you actually knew anything about football, you would know how terrible your first sentence is on it’s own, even before you did such a fantastic job contradicting it yourself.[/quote]
I agree. Idiotic statement. However many of the statements on soccer in this thread have been equally ignorant…
[quote]malonetd wrote:
Andy63477 wrote:
For American football, you just need to be big.
You lose all credibility with this statement.[/quote]
Really? Maybe not at the pro level, but any non-fatass who is 6’2"+ and 280+ and has decent coordination will be a monster in the high school level. Just like any 6’8" kid with decent coordination will be good at basketball at the high school level, and yes, any kid that is faster than all the other kids will be decent at soccer at the high school level.
I train high school athletes for a living, and I can testify that there are plenty of kids getting D1 scholarships who are strictly average technically, but are just so physically dominating that it doesn’t matter.
To be a professional athlete in any sport, you need an amazing combination of skill and physical ability, but even at the pro levels there are examples of guys who aren’t the best technically, but have freakish size/strength/speed and survive on that. I would say football more than any other sport is one where raw physical tools can make you a good player.
Jason Peters is a perfect example. He never even played offensive line in college and is generally regarded (by football people of which I am not one) as being pretty mediocre technically, but is such a freak athlete that he is a good, even Pro Bowl-caliber lineman.
It always cracks me up when anybody (not pointing you out as you didn’t really do this, more of a general comment) gets on the high horse about their sport and how outsiders cannot possibly comprehend the intricate details of it. The bottom line is that the truly great athletes would be good at any sport that they have the size to play.
I don’t think it’s a stretch to imagine Ronaldinho growing up in Hampton Roads and becoming an amazing point guard or to imagine Allen Iverson growing up in Brazil and becoming a world-class soccer player.
I have no idea what I’m even ranting about anymore, so I’ll just stop.
P.S. At least US can beat Brazil in the sport that really matters… Volleyball!
Poor USA,we got beat by a player named Kaka…how messed up is that?
[quote]MaximusB wrote:
Cockney Blue wrote:
TDub301 wrote:
red04 wrote:
TDub301 wrote:
But soccer has all that stuff, too, even the controlled collisions (to a lesser extent, obviously). There’s an immense amount of strategy, team play, and athleticism. There’s a lot more coordination involved because you are not carrying the ball in your hands, you have to keep it around your feet that don’t have an opposable thumb like your hands do. Also, I’m sure there are plenty of soccer players who are as fast as football players, except they can keep up the speed for 40 minutes, not just 10 seconds at a time…
Your first 2 sentences are fine, but after that not so much. Not only do I doubt ANYONE that plays International Football can sprint anywhere near as fast as the average skill position player(or most linebackers and edge linemen), but the second part of that bolded statement is a complete joke. I’m going to assume that you aren’t this dumb and just fell victim to rampant fanaticism towards your sport instead of thinking about how ridiculous that proposed athlete would actually be. The coordination part is probably debatable as well since you only covered handling the ball, which only 1 person at a time does in both games, while 10 others are doing other activities that require great coordination themselves.
But if you think it’s popular because it’s easy, perhaps you should try playing with some people who know what they’re doing since “any brokeass” can kick a ball around. Go out and when you get pawned, which you will, at least don’t go back and get all spiteful and continue insulting the sport because you got owned. You don’t have to like it, but the sport deserves respect. At least respect it.
He didn’t argue that it’s popular because it’s easy to play in the sense that it requires no skill(I don’t think so at least), but that the game is very easy to set up, which is the point of his comment about “any brokeass” kicking a ball around. It is unquestionably one of the cheapest sports to get into, which helps fuel it’s popularity by allowing more people(especially in impoverished countries) to experience and learn the game. American Football will never be as popular because funding a team is expensive, this says nothing about how “good” the sport itself is or how “easy” it is to be an athlete competing in it skill wise.
So can we produce some 40 times for any soccer players? Cuz I’m sure there are plenty who can run just as fast. And no it wasn’t a joke at all, they can run for 40 minutes. It’s not literally full speed the whole time, but they’re constantly moving and making at least short sprints if not long half-field runs regularly. The thing you’re not considering is the size difference. Those football players are bred to run for 15 seconds at a time or less (almost always less than that). So they are capable of running fast and maintaining their size while soccer players obviously don’t have as much mass, which helps them build the endurance to be able to do so. The skill players may be light, but 9 times out of 10, they’re still way more built than most soccer players, obviously in their upper body, since football obviously requires more upper body strength. I’ve played both, please don’t accuse me of being dumb unless you’re refering to that “brokeass” comment which I will admit I completely missed. Good point on that one.
Agreed, there are a number of players in Football that could outsprint a fair chunk of the American football players. David James who is a goal keeper went and trained with the Dolphins in his offseason as something to do and he was keeping up in all of the drills with the wide recievers. Bear in mind that the Goalkeeper position in football requires the least running.
Do you realize how much more muscle and overall weight American football players carry vs soccer players? Do you also realize how much more physical American football is? Both delivering or receiving a hit is very draining on the body. Did you happen to know Jerry Rice used to run against race horses as a form of his training? You just cannot compare these two sports at all.[/quote]
Having played both, at an abysmally low level, yes. They are different sports with very different demands. In Football you remain in motion for most of the 90 minutes with regular high energy moments of sprinting whereas in American Football it is a number of very short spint type activities (or physical grappling.) with long spaces of total inactivity.
The top players in both sports are incredible athletes and I enjoy watching both sports. Incidentally, having owned and ridden several race horses I can assure you that Jerry Rice was not beating them over any distance past about 10 yards.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
MaximusB wrote:
Cockney Blue wrote:
TDub301 wrote:
red04 wrote:
TDub301 wrote:
But soccer has all that stuff, too, even the controlled collisions (to a lesser extent, obviously). There’s an immense amount of strategy, team play, and athleticism. There’s a lot more coordination involved because you are not carrying the ball in your hands, you have to keep it around your feet that don’t have an opposable thumb like your hands do. Also, I’m sure there are plenty of soccer players who are as fast as football players, except they can keep up the speed for 40 minutes, not just 10 seconds at a time…
Your first 2 sentences are fine, but after that not so much. Not only do I doubt ANYONE that plays International Football can sprint anywhere near as fast as the average skill position player(or most linebackers and edge linemen), but the second part of that bolded statement is a complete joke. I’m going to assume that you aren’t this dumb and just fell victim to rampant fanaticism towards your sport instead of thinking about how ridiculous that proposed athlete would actually be. The coordination part is probably debatable as well since you only covered handling the ball, which only 1 person at a time does in both games, while 10 others are doing other activities that require great coordination themselves.
But if you think it’s popular because it’s easy, perhaps you should try playing with some people who know what they’re doing since “any brokeass” can kick a ball around. Go out and when you get pawned, which you will, at least don’t go back and get all spiteful and continue insulting the sport because you got owned. You don’t have to like it, but the sport deserves respect. At least respect it.
He didn’t argue that it’s popular because it’s easy to play in the sense that it requires no skill(I don’t think so at least), but that the game is very easy to set up, which is the point of his comment about “any brokeass” kicking a ball around. It is unquestionably one of the cheapest sports to get into, which helps fuel it’s popularity by allowing more people(especially in impoverished countries) to experience and learn the game. American Football will never be as popular because funding a team is expensive, this says nothing about how “good” the sport itself is or how “easy” it is to be an athlete competing in it skill wise.
So can we produce some 40 times for any soccer players? Cuz I’m sure there are plenty who can run just as fast. And no it wasn’t a joke at all, they can run for 40 minutes. It’s not literally full speed the whole time, but they’re constantly moving and making at least short sprints if not long half-field runs regularly. The thing you’re not considering is the size difference. Those football players are bred to run for 15 seconds at a time or less (almost always less than that). So they are capable of running fast and maintaining their size while soccer players obviously don’t have as much mass, which helps them build the endurance to be able to do so. The skill players may be light, but 9 times out of 10, they’re still way more built than most soccer players, obviously in their upper body, since football obviously requires more upper body strength. I’ve played both, please don’t accuse me of being dumb unless you’re refering to that “brokeass” comment which I will admit I completely missed. Good point on that one.
Agreed, there are a number of players in Football that could outsprint a fair chunk of the American football players. David James who is a goal keeper went and trained with the Dolphins in his offseason as something to do and he was keeping up in all of the drills with the wide recievers. Bear in mind that the Goalkeeper position in football requires the least running.
Do you realize how much more muscle and overall weight American football players carry vs soccer players? Do you also realize how much more physical American football is? Both delivering or receiving a hit is very draining on the body. Did you happen to know Jerry Rice used to run against race horses as a form of his training? You just cannot compare these two sports at all.
No, of course he doesn’t understand. He’s a British guy living in Mexico and completely clueless about da USA except what’s he’s seen on TV. He’d last maybe all of 20 minutes at a typical American high school JV football practice before he’d walk off the field to go have afternoon tea.[/quote]
LOL! I’ll have you know that a cricket match goes on for hours before they break for tea. There is quite a lot of standing around though to be fair.
[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:
nomorewar wrote:
Eielson wrote:
Well, it started good.
noooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo shitiiiiiiiiiiittttttttttttt
fuck man!!! what the fuck!!! USA was up 2-0!!! but lost 3-2. Shit man this is the most crushing defeat ever. Damn I’m gonna need some good weed now.
Oh, oh no! Look, there’s riots in the streets because they lost! Those players faces will shrouded in shame for all eternity! They’ll never be able to walk the streets in their hometown again! It’ll be on the front page of all the papers! The horror, the horror.
Wait a second…[/quote]
snigger!
[quote]Andy63477 wrote:
pushharder wrote:
MaximusB wrote:
Cockney Blue wrote:
TDub301 wrote:
red04 wrote:
TDub301 wrote:
But soccer has all that stuff, too, even the controlled collisions (to a lesser extent, obviously). There’s an immense amount of strategy, team play, and athleticism. There’s a lot more coordination involved because you are not carrying the ball in your hands, you have to keep it around your feet that don’t have an opposable thumb like your hands do. Also, I’m sure there are plenty of soccer players who are as fast as football players, except they can keep up the speed for 40 minutes, not just 10 seconds at a time…
Your first 2 sentences are fine, but after that not so much. Not only do I doubt ANYONE that plays International Football can sprint anywhere near as fast as the average skill position player(or most linebackers and edge linemen), but the second part of that bolded statement is a complete joke. I’m going to assume that you aren’t this dumb and just fell victim to rampant fanaticism towards your sport instead of thinking about how ridiculous that proposed athlete would actually be. The coordination part is probably debatable as well since you only covered handling the ball, which only 1 person at a time does in both games, while 10 others are doing other activities that require great coordination themselves.
But if you think it’s popular because it’s easy, perhaps you should try playing with some people who know what they’re doing since “any brokeass” can kick a ball around. Go out and when you get pawned, which you will, at least don’t go back and get all spiteful and continue insulting the sport because you got owned. You don’t have to like it, but the sport deserves respect. At least respect it.
He didn’t argue that it’s popular because it’s easy to play in the sense that it requires no skill(I don’t think so at least), but that the game is very easy to set up, which is the point of his comment about “any brokeass” kicking a ball around. It is unquestionably one of the cheapest sports to get into, which helps fuel it’s popularity by allowing more people(especially in impoverished countries) to experience and learn the game. American Football will never be as popular because funding a team is expensive, this says nothing about how “good” the sport itself is or how “easy” it is to be an athlete competing in it skill wise.
So can we produce some 40 times for any soccer players? Cuz I’m sure there are plenty who can run just as fast. And no it wasn’t a joke at all, they can run for 40 minutes. It’s not literally full speed the whole time, but they’re constantly moving and making at least short sprints if not long half-field runs regularly. The thing you’re not considering is the size difference. Those football players are bred to run for 15 seconds at a time or less (almost always less than that). So they are capable of running fast and maintaining their size while soccer players obviously don’t have as much mass, which helps them build the endurance to be able to do so. The skill players may be light, but 9 times out of 10, they’re still way more built than most soccer players, obviously in their upper body, since football obviously requires more upper body strength. I’ve played both, please don’t accuse me of being dumb unless you’re refering to that “brokeass” comment which I will admit I completely missed. Good point on that one.
Agreed, there are a number of players in Football that could outsprint a fair chunk of the American football players. David James who is a goal keeper went and trained with the Dolphins in his offseason as something to do and he was keeping up in all of the drills with the wide recievers. Bear in mind that the Goalkeeper position in football requires the least running.
Do you realize how much more muscle and overall weight American football players carry vs soccer players? Do you also realize how much more physical American football is? Both delivering or receiving a hit is very draining on the body. Did you happen to know Jerry Rice used to run against race horses as a form of his training? You just cannot compare these two sports at all.
No, of course he doesn’t understand. He’s a British guy living in Mexico and completely clueless about da USA except what’s he’s seen on TV. He’d last maybe all of 20 minutes at a typical American high school JV football practice before he’d walk off the field to go have afternoon tea.
For American football, you just need to be big. Everything else you can learn pretty fast. I have a friend who was clueless about football when he went to the US, but ended up playing varsity for a school with 2 or 3k students, only because he was tall. On the other hand you will find nobody, who is able to learn soccer in a couple of months, because it requires a lot of practice. It’s really amazing, what some soccer player can do with the ball. And maybe it’s true, that some receivers are faster than soccer players. But they were selected for their speed, while soccer player need to have skill, too.[/quote]
This is so clearly not true. There was a world class British 100M runner who got done for drugs and banned from competing. He tried to switch over to the NFL, ended up training with a German NFL Europe team but couldn’t get a start. He could beat anyone on the team in the athletic tests but couldn’t learn the plays or catch well enough. He has actually switched back to athletics as his ban has been lifted but the point is that there is more to American Football than just size. Brock Lesnar is another example.
[quote]adamhum wrote:
Poor USA,we got beat by a player named Kaka…how messed up is that?[/quote]
I think they pave another player named Pepe, too (pronounced Peepee). According to the announcers during the game, Kaka was the FIFA player of the year in '07, ain’t that some shit? He totally pushed the defender back to set up that last goal, too, ref shoulda called a foul…
[quote]jo3 wrote:
MaximusB wrote:
countingbeans wrote:
I’d rather watch soccer than fucking stupid golf
Let the shit storm ensue…
I totally agree with you, shit if you take away the club, you can call it walking.
Couldn’t the same be said about a number of sports?
Tennis without rackets - running from side to side
Baseball without bats - standing still
Hockey without sticks - running around and hitting other people
;)[/quote]
Hockey without sticks is MMA on ice, which I think could catch on…
[quote]sen say wrote:
Andy63477 wrote:
On the other hand you will find nobody, who is able to learn soccer in a couple of months, because it requires a lot of practice.
I’ve played soccer at a Division I school in the USA and coached kids from U4 up to U19. Several of my players have gotten scholarships to Division I schools.
Gimme 11 kids that have never played soccer before and you take 11 kids that have been playing all their lives…I’ll bet you dollars to euros my kids will kick your kids asses.
On the other hand…I’ve never coached football before (but as most of you know, I was and remain a HS State Champion player), but I’ll bet you I could take 11 kids that have never played before and teach them to play in a couple months and beat someone else’s kids that have been playing all their lives.
Above examples are assuming our players are the same ceterus parabus except for having played the respective sport before.
Both games are fucking simple. Score a goal/touchdown while stopping the other team from doing the same.
[/quote]
There is more thinking on the fly in football whereas in American football there is more emphasis on remembering the plays and sticking to them. I’m amazed no-one has thrown Rugby into the argument yet…
[quote]Cockney Blue wrote:
This is so clearly not true. There was a world class British 100M runner who got done for drugs and banned from competing. He tried to switch over to the NFL, ended up training with a German NFL Europe team but couldn’t get a start. He could beat anyone on the team in the athletic tests but couldn’t learn the plays or catch well enough. He has actually switched back to athletics as his ban has been lifted but the point is that there is more to American Football than just size. Brock Lesnar is another example.[/quote]
While it is true he is exaggerating, how many athletes would be able to even contemplate a crossover to pro soccer in Europe coming from a different pro sport background? None. It would be absolutely impossible. Soccer players in Europe, have been playing football for their whole lives, literally.
Especially in South America, the same way we go to school, they spend 10-12 hours a day for their entire childhood playing soccer/football. That is not something you can replicate: if you’ve not played soccer by the time you’re 9 yrs old, no matter where you are from, it’s highly unlikely you’ll ever play it at a high level. By the time you are 16 you are expected to have a complete skillset, a lifetime’s training and you are then expected to start building good athleticism as well.
There is definitely a difference in terms of the requirements placed on the skill component, as there is in the athleticism component. This isn’t because one sport is better than the other, it’s merely because they’re different games. Agh.
[quote]jtrinsey wrote:
malonetd wrote:
Andy63477 wrote:
For American football, you just need to be big.
You lose all credibility with this statement.
Really? Maybe not at the pro level, but any non-fatass who is 6’2"+ and 280+ and has decent coordination will be a monster in the high school level. Just like any 6’8" kid with decent coordination will be good at basketball at the high school level, and yes, any kid that is faster than all the other kids will be decent at soccer at the high school level.
[/quote]
Well, if we’re not talking pro level, there’s no point to this conversation. I mean, how low are we going? I used to see youth soccer games played at the park. I would see 22 eight-year-old kids all doing something different. There would usually be three or four kids huddled around the ball randomly swinging their legs. There be a few pairs of kids just standing there talking. One kid was watching the clouds. Another was picking grass. One of the goalies was playing with the net, sticking his hands in and out of the holes.
So, is this how far we are going, if we’re not talking pro level? Because from this scenario, I gather that all it takes to play soccer is to be able to walk and have working vision.
Yes, that was clearly what I was getting at, 8-year old soccer.
My point is that, compared to the other major sports, football is more predicated on raw size and athleticism. Thus, the statement, “you only need to be big,” is obviously untrue but is closer to being true than it is in other sports, with the possible exception of basketball.
There is a continuum with sports like powerlifting or track and field (where the skill demands are low and the physical demands are high) on one end and a sport like golf (where the skill demands are high but the physical demands are low) on the other. I would say football lies closer to the “physical” end of the spectrum than, for example, baseball.
[quote]Nikiforos wrote:
Cockney Blue wrote:
This is so clearly not true. There was a world class British 100M runner who got done for drugs and banned from competing. He tried to switch over to the NFL, ended up training with a German NFL Europe team but couldn’t get a start. He could beat anyone on the team in the athletic tests but couldn’t learn the plays or catch well enough. He has actually switched back to athletics as his ban has been lifted but the point is that there is more to American Football than just size. Brock Lesnar is another example.
While it is true he is exaggerating, how many athletes would be able to even contemplate a crossover to pro soccer in Europe coming from a different pro sport background? None. It would be absolutely impossible. Soccer players in Europe, have been playing football for their whole lives, literally.
Especially in South America, the same way we go to school, they spend 10-12 hours a day for their entire childhood playing soccer/football. That is not something you can replicate: if you’ve not played soccer by the time you’re 9 yrs old, no matter where you are from, it’s highly unlikely you’ll ever play it at a high level. By the time you are 16 you are expected to have a complete skillset, a lifetime’s training and you are then expected to start building good athleticism as well.
There is definitely a difference in terms of the requirements placed on the skill component, as there is in the athleticism component. This isn’t because one sport is better than the other, it’s merely because they’re different games. Agh.[/quote]
I totally agree. What would be interesting would to be some American Football players playing Rugby League (I pick League because it is more similar than Union)