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

191–200 of 280 posts

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

#191

Post by ma2kx »

dh2022 wrote: post #56
radiator wrote: post #36

I find it good that US is not better at soccer. Soccer or football has gained too much importance in Europe and South America. We have seen it encourage unprecedented levels of gambling, insane amount of efforts from the youth chasing the dream of professional football, fan violence inside and outside the stadiums, corruption where magnate owners of sports clubs use their popularity to influence politics, and more.

Everything you said (gambling, fan violence, billionaires who get money from cash strapped cities) applies to the US. If you substitute soccer with NFL, MLB, and NBA the statement stands.

I would say you Americans are more into gambling while in Europe fan violence is a bigger topic. Like just last week, after PSG won the Champions League title, there were cars burning in Paris:

https://apnews.com/article/psg-arsenal-paris-budapest-champi...

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

#192

Post by musictubes »

bitmasher9 wrote: post #92
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.

There are many multi sport athletes in the high school ranks and elite athletes in college are drafted in multiple professional leagues. You can see known lists here including baseball:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_multi-sport_athletes

The list for college and high school would be huge. There is such a thing as athletic skill, I’ve heard it called a kinesthetic gift. People with particularly good builds, strengths, speed, agility, etc. can train those attributes across several different disciplines. As you get higher and more elite you will eventually have to specialize. “Jocks” in high school frequently played multiple sports and many lettered in multiple as well.

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

#193

Post by WhyNotHugo »

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…

> 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 humble beginning too.

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

#194

Post by brigandish »

brudgers wrote: post #174
Symbiote wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Cricket also does not require a lot of running and because the defense controls the ball, it fills a lot of time at a slow pace. Like Baseball, a Sunday afternoon game has a low risk of an injury that prevents work on Monday.

My mate broke someone's arm bowling at him. Cricket always has an element of danger, for both the fielders and the batters.

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

#195

Post by thenthenthen »

foobarian wrote: post #139

My related question to this was why isn't China or India better at soccer? Given the population sizes and some reasonable talented soccer player probability you would think they would be outsized. Then you have the tiny East European countries that get medals. It's fascinating

It’s not so popular in China. Basketball is somehow.

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

#196

Post by brigandish »

thehoff wrote: post #179
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…

What about baseball travel teams? Our kid plays travel soccer and it is expensive no doubt but our baseball parent friends pay more. I don't hear anyone complaining that baseball is pay to play. Also, from what I hear hockey is also extremely expensive. I've heard that you can't leave a sporting goods store without spending at least $1,000 on gear alone for a season. I've yet to hear anyone complain that hockey is pa…

Isn't the contention that, because football is pay to play in the US, the US isn't that good compared to places that it isn't pay to play?

Baseball, basketball, American football are all sports with much less international participation, and generally require pay to play elsewhere at around the same level as in the US, because of the way the sports are. There's no refutation possible from that.

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

#197

Post by brigandish »

harrall wrote: post #37
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…

The US has also strangely invented a lot of sports (Americans football, basketball, baseball, volleyball, lacrosse, skateboarding, snowboarding, and so on). Soccer has major competition in the US. Because these sports started in America too, America usually dominates them.

Baseball was invented in Britain.

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

#198

Post by onlypassingthru »

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.

IIRC, Steve Nash wanted to play professional soccer but since there wasn't a professional pathway had to settle for playing basketball in college and later the NBA.

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

#199

Post by thenthenthen »

ma2kx wrote: post #191
dh2022 wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Everything you said (gambling, fan violence, billionaires who get money from cash strapped cities) applies to the US. If you substitute soccer with NFL, MLB, and NBA the statement stands.

I would say you Americans are more into gambling while in Europe fan violence is a bigger topic. Like just last week, after PSG won the Champions League title, there were cars burning in Paris: https://apnews.com/article/psg-arsenal-paris-budapest-champi...

Honestly this is why i stopped playing and watching any soccer. Every match the city would turn into a fortress and still there would be regular riots, the game seemed to have taken second seat and its more about whats going on around it. Even when games got cancelled because of violence in the stadiums, the ‘game’ would continue outside (violence). So tiring, boring, destructive, terrible.

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

#200

Post by WalterBright »

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…

I played soccer during recess at school. I was inept at it. I was terrible at football, too. I really stunk at basketball. Berry berry bad at baseball. Sank at swimming.
Post reply on HN