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

251–260 of 280 posts

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

#251

Post by pjc50 »

otherme123 wrote: post #46
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…

> Finally, a good European player doesn't necessarily head to college. They may be playing for a serious club team at 18 or 19. My guess is that less than 5% of european soccer players ever set a foot in College, at least in the biggest Leagues (UK, France, Italy, Spain and Germany). I only know two: Lampard and Iniesta. There might be a few more, but they are oddities. If anything, a good player and good student usu…

The US sports system is especially structured around colleges; while you get named city teams in American football and basketball, there doesn't seem to be anything like the European system where there are often multiple city teams, teams with "works" origins, and generally the legacy of the big early 1900s working class soccer boom. Which was organic/grassroots around self-organized clubs.

In fact, class plays a big role: soccer used to be "too working class" for British university goers, who play rugby (named after the elite school!) or more esoteric stuff like Oxbridge rowing.

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

#252

Post by pjc50 »

Marsymars wrote: post #130
alex0015 wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

All I know to write about here is China: school is one massive obstacle for professional sports. Lots of kids in China try out tons of different hobbies and sports, and any sport or activity you can think of likely has a number of clubs in bigger cities, enough to create a community of people with a serious interest. I'm thinking of Chinese kids I know personally who are into football, breakdancing, archery, ballet,…

Any insight into why China does relatively well at the Olympics?

State-run prestige programs. The exact opposite of mass participation sports like soccer.

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

#253

Post by uxp100 »

Spooky23 wrote: post #221
WhyNotHugo wrote: post #193

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. The same is true in Argentina. And in school kids play almost every recess too. A lot of very prominent player from Argentina had this kind of hum…

It’s also “the sport”. Americans don’t really do casual sports anymore and there is a ton of competition in the various leagues. In many parts of the US, soccer is a fall sport that competes with football in school leagues. Football teams require a small army of players and tend to suck out the oxygen. It doesn’t help that there’s no little league equivalent for soccer, so there’s a ton of pay to play BS to a much gr…

USAmericans casually play basketball still. Basically a few kids shooting hoops at every little court you pass, and lightly organized (just show up at a time) adult games are common too.

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

#256

Post by SamBam »

karp773 wrote: post #212
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…

It's not about structured/unstructured play at all. Basketball and hockey teams in the very same USA are world class. It's about in which sports in the country the pro clubs pay top money. It's that simple. It sets up the incentives for families, and everything else follows. 99.99% of the kids who play in the street have a lot of fun but will never make it anywhere near pro sports.

Basketball is the only sport in the US that has a similar level of hundreds of hours a year of unstructured play, so it makes sense that the US is great at it.

Hockey, who is the US competing against? Canada. No other country in the world takes it particularly seriously, so of course the US is one of the top two countries... (I often tell each of my two kids that they're one of my top two kids.)

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

#257

Post by j_w »

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 don't know why any reply disagrees with this.

Look at basketball in the US. The best players will tell you all they did as a kid was play basketball. You can go to anywhere somewhat populated and the outdoor courts are in use almost all the time school is not in session for pickup play. Outside of structured practice (if they are on a team), many kids are still playing pickup games or shooting casually.

Soccer fields rarely get use outside of structured play. Kids that play soccer in the US just don't play as much, so their skills are (on average) much worse.

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

#259

Post by harrall »

danielmarkbruce wrote: post #222
harrall wrote: post #119

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You just need a bat and ball? My friends use a plastic bat balls and find a grassy field. Soccer balls are actually more expensive. Basketball is growing in Brazil a lot and that’s kind of expensive. Skateboarding has become massive in Brazil and that’s even more expensive than soccer and every person needs their own skateboard, unlike soccer where you can pool your money to share 1 ball. Idk what you are talking abo…

Not if you want to develop world class talent. Baseball is incredibly technology dependent at this point. Ultra high speed cameras, radars, bat and ball sensors, software tying it all together, it's become rocket science. And honestly, if you don't have access to that technology, your chances fall dramatically.

But you’re only competing with other leagues in your own country.

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

#260

Post by danielmarkbruce »

harrall wrote: post #259
danielmarkbruce wrote: post #222

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not if you want to develop world class talent. Baseball is incredibly technology dependent at this point. Ultra high speed cameras, radars, bat and ball sensors, software tying it all together, it's become rocket science. And honestly, if you don't have access to that technology, your chances fall dramatically.

But you’re only competing with other leagues in your own country.

The article is about global soccer, I'm talking about global baseball (MLB takes all the best players in the world). If you are a pitcher wanting to make it to the MLB, getting to 18 and throwing 65 mph and claiming "well that works in my country" isn't going to help you. You are miles behind.
Post reply on HN