Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Why isn't the U.S. better at soccer?

natesilver.net

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

91–100 of 280 posts

Re: Why isn't the U.S. better at soccer?

#91

Post by pertymcpert »

RugnirViking wrote: post #30
cortesoft wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Basketball players are almost a completely separate population from soccer players. The shortest basketball player would almost be too tall for soccer.

"too tall for soccer" is something of a weird statement, given the large advantage height gives in the game. Even at high levels, some teams' strategy resvolves around having a couple tall guys (and many other teams keep tall guys to deal with those same strategies). It of course isn't everything, given the need for stamina, sprinting, and strength, which are hard to have all at once in a tall person. But its not unc…

From a biomechanics point of view, I think there is a point where it becomes a disadvantage.

Re: Why isn't the U.S. better at soccer?

#92

Post by bitmasher9 »

jppope wrote: post #78

The comments here are wild. Uh the answer is football/basketball/baseball. We send our best athletes into football, basketball, and baseball. They don't play soccer. I would argue its more shocking that we are as good we are considering the talent pool.

I don’t think this is fully correct. Athletic skill is not universal across sports. A athlete that can be trained to be a star football player may not be able to be trained to be a star baseball player.

Re: Why isn't the U.S. better at soccer?

#93

Post by airstrike »

Symbiote wrote: post #83
jasonwatkinspdx wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah, this difference occurred to me while traveling in rural Mexico. To play soccer all you need is a ball. So you can go into the poorest villages that have little in the way in infrastructure and all the kids are playing soccer in the dirt road or a random field, etc. And often enough adults join in because they were once the kids too. So it's this very pervasive, almost universal shared experience there. Totally…

Cricket is even more accessible: you need a bat (which could be a piece of wood), but you don't need space. You can compress the game to play in a 1.5m wide alleyway between two buildings. I think this is why it became so popular in India etc.

Soccer is still more accessible. You don't even need a ball. As a kid, you'll find yourself kicking around a crushed coke can with friends and trying to score.

Re: Why isn't the U.S. better at soccer?

#94

Post by NotGMan »

confidantlake wrote: post #85
SamBam wrote: post #19

I don't think the article really tried to answer the question, though maybe that wasn't its intent and the author was genuinely asking. I think an answer would need to look at the difference in how kids and teens play soccer in the US vs other countries. In the US soccer is mostly a younger kids' sport, and is generally highly structured, with kids playing on teams once or twice a week. Compare to Europe, where many…

I think you are overlooking the more obvious answer. All the talent gets sucked up by the nfl/nba/mlb.

Why not both?

And sprinkle in some cultural differences (soccer is not that popular in the USA, so it's self-reinforcing).

Re: Why isn't the U.S. better at soccer?

#95

Post by jandrewrogers »

jasonwatkinspdx wrote: post #79
SamBam wrote: post #19

I don't think the article really tried to answer the question, though maybe that wasn't its intent and the author was genuinely asking. I think an answer would need to look at the difference in how kids and teens play soccer in the US vs other countries. In the US soccer is mostly a younger kids' sport, and is generally highly structured, with kids playing on teams once or twice a week. Compare to Europe, where many…

Yeah, this difference occurred to me while traveling in rural Mexico. To play soccer all you need is a ball. So you can go into the poorest villages that have little in the way in infrastructure and all the kids are playing soccer in the dirt road or a random field, etc. And often enough adults join in because they were once the kids too. So it's this very pervasive, almost universal shared experience there. Totally…

The counterpoint to this is that, broadly speaking, Mexico is demonstrably no better at soccer than the US when it matters. A common talking point in recent years is that the US league is actually better at developing Mexican talent than the Mexican league, though that somewhat reflects different incentives.

I think a core issue is that US and Mexican teams rarely have an opportunity to compete against teams significantly better than themselves. Furthermore, structural constraints within both leagues limit the amount of talent separation that can occur between teams, so it looks a bit like being stuck in a local minima in terms of talent development.

Re: Why isn't the U.S. better at soccer?

#99

Post by leflambeur »

This has been mentioned, if using different words, elsewhere in this thread but soccer is much more accessible and casual in Latin America and Western Europe. Children often live in cities/towns where they have high mobility and agency to move around and so can get together without adult management and play and develop more freely. It's not like the U.S. where it's very processed (soccer camp, parents need to drive their kids to a place that's basically professionally organized), et cetera.

The closest thing to that in the U.S. is kids playing basketball in Brooklyn or L.A.

Re: Why isn't the U.S. better at soccer?

#100

Post by huevosabio »

jandrewrogers wrote: post #95
jasonwatkinspdx wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah, this difference occurred to me while traveling in rural Mexico. To play soccer all you need is a ball. So you can go into the poorest villages that have little in the way in infrastructure and all the kids are playing soccer in the dirt road or a random field, etc. And often enough adults join in because they were once the kids too. So it's this very pervasive, almost universal shared experience there. Totally…

The counterpoint to this is that, broadly speaking, Mexico is demonstrably no better at soccer than the US when it matters. A common talking point in recent years is that the US league is actually better at developing Mexican talent than the Mexican league, though that somewhat reflects different incentives. I think a core issue is that US and Mexican teams rarely have an opportunity to compete against teams signific…

Mexico performs as you'll expect a third world country that loves football to perform, and the US performs as well as you would expect a first world country that is ambivalent to football to perform.

I think the real mystery is, how come Brazil, Argentina and Uruguay play so much better than what you would expect from relatively poor countries?

My guess is that their leagues are fairly developed industries, like you would expect in the first world.

Post reply on HN