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

221–230 of 280 posts

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

#221

Post by Spooky23 »

WhyNotHugo wrote: post #193
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…

> 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 greater degree than football or baseball.

In my area, you need to commit to a full year travel soccer team that’s often owned by the school coach to get any playtime in high school.

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

#222

Post by danielmarkbruce »

harrall wrote: post #119
Qem wrote: post #113

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It’s just that Brazil currently doesn’t care about baseball that much and baseball first has to become popular Baseball is a hardware-intensive sport. It's hard to get popular in poorer countries. Soccer on the other side demands just a vacant lot and some soft round object you can kick around to get started.

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.

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

#223

Post by cuttothechase »

chrsw wrote: post #107
cuttothechase wrote: post #105

Answer is simple. Why isn't U.S. better at Field hockey, Badminton, Cricket, Ping pong etc.? Ideally a capitalistic system is supposed to produce the best or close to the best in each category to stay competitive then what gives? Capitalism produces the "best" in categories where there is a high demand for a product. In the U.S., the demand is for high-scoring, high-production-value entertainment. This is closely ent…

Is modern baseball "high-production-value entertainment"? For basketball and American football, those sports weren't exactly blockbusters either. The rules and strategies of those games have been carefully tailored over the years to cater to action and scoring, something that was never going happen to the rules (or laws) of soccer.

Agree. "Culture" provides the nurturing "gap fill" while the capital is not exactly flowing and rules are evolving over time. Culture keeps the lights on in lean years and builds camaraderie when the sports is thriving.

Cannot keep count on how many times I have heard of "Babe Ruth" (1895 - 1948) mentioned in a movie/tv show entertainment context, where a grandpa or an elderly figure is fondly reminiscing things to their gen X grandkids!

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

#224

Post by vjvjvjvjghv »

hunterpayne wrote: post #153
vjvjvjvjghv wrote: post #137

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The physical attributes needed for soccer are quite different from football or basketball. I don't think any football or basketball players would be good at soccer even if they tried.

Nope, not true at all. The average NFL CB makes the best athletes in soccer or rugby look like furniture movers, even in drills designed for soccer. Same for the majority NBA PGs. There is a lot of overlap in team sports for specific types of athleticism. The average pro you see on TV could usually beat the best player in your hometown at whatever sport they played. And not just beat, but beat badly. There are NFL DT…

That makes no sense. Some NFL guys may be fast but that's not all you need in soccer. You need to be quick but you also need ball control, endurance and in general understand tactics in depth.

A lot of top athletes will probably do pretty well in a lot of sports but they won't be world class in another sport. Even in motorsports Indycar or NASCAR drivers don't do well in Formula 1 despite them looking very similar.

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

#225

Post by cuttothechase »

troupo wrote: post #112
cuttothechase wrote: post #105

Answer is simple. Why isn't U.S. better at Field hockey, Badminton, Cricket, Ping pong etc.? Ideally a capitalistic system is supposed to produce the best or close to the best in each category to stay competitive then what gives? Capitalism produces the "best" in categories where there is a high demand for a product. In the U.S., the demand is for high-scoring, high-production-value entertainment. This is closely ent…

> the demand is for high-scoring, high-production-value entertainment. What part of American football or baseball is high-scoring or high-production-value or entertaining?

It's hard to keep track of how many times American football or Baseball is used as a back drop of some TV shows or a hollywood blockbuster. How many US pop culture figures have performed at half time shows. How many U.S. heads of states have mentioned about their favorite teams and stadiums etc.,

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

#226

Post by marcus_holmes »

PearlRiver wrote: post #142
otherme123 wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

Most soccer players tend to retire in their late 30s so they are better off pursuing an education after their pro athlete career. Of course the best are multi millionaires who never have to work and can live from passive income.

Not necessarily true, there are lots of careers where have been a professional footballer is the qualification in and of itself without having anything to do with football. E.g. sales, sufficient people find talking to an ex-footballer impressive enough to open doors that getting a job in sales is easy.

And of course there's always the coaching/management path.

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

#227

Post by 1659447091 »

_DeadFred_ wrote: post #220
rauljordan2020 wrote: post #140

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm from Honduras, which is also quite a poor country, and the sport (soccer) is all we do and all everyone talks about. It's a core part of our society and a core part just what one does as a human, so since we are kids we think of always kicking a ball around no matter where you are, even fashioning balls from socks tied together or rubber bands, and we all learn how to control them really well even barefoot, in di…

In the US we had the same but for pickup American football. We played on the street in the neighborhood every night, and had standing games at a kind centralized empty field on Sat/Sunday where everyone know to just show up and there'd be a game, or after it rained (mud football). Only equipment was a football or a nerf football. Kids are kids :)

> We played on the street in the neighborhood every night

Street light to utility box

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

#229

Post by uhfraid »

some good points such as lack of promotion/relegation but ultimately misses the root cause

Requirements to forming a division 1 league, as determined by the ‘US Soccer Professional League Standards’:

- minimum 12 teams (14 by year 3)

- each team’s principal owner has individual net worth of $40M

- 75% of teams located within major metro markets (at least 1M people)

- 15,000 seat stadium (and enclosed)

- teams located in each of the Eastern, Central and Pacific time zones

https://www.ussoccer.com/organization-members-directory/pro-...

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

#230

Post by stevekemp »

brigandish wrote: post #194
brudgers wrote: post #174

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Getting hit in the face/neck by a cricket ball moving at 150mph can cause serious injuries, even death.

For example

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phillip_Hughes

Post reply on HN