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

261–270 of 280 posts

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

#261

Post by lgcmo »

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…

There is no supply chain of baseballs and baseball bats in Brazil. That would be considered a "exotic" choice of sport, with those supplies only available at expensive stores with imported goods

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

#262

Post by ksec »

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…

>she was immersed in it

The other part is not only do these kids spend more time on these sports depending on culture or norm but also the players they are playing against.

The same is with Basketball in US, Table Tennis in Taiwan and Football in Europe. You are likely playing against people who are much just so much better at the sport compared to other countries with different norm. You are basically training with better people. And this pushes the quality of players even higher.

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

#263

Post by SamBam »

dogmatism wrote: post #165
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…

> college (maybe on a scholarship but maybe not--again, pay to play), plays for the varsity team a few times a week during the season wtaf? Do you really think this is the reality? Also, now with NIL etc, college soccer is essentially another international semi-pro league

> wtaf? Do you really think this is the reality?

Of course. American varsity soccer players play ~5 times a week for four months a year, August through November.

February through April is the Spring season and varsity teams are forbidden from playing too much. D1 and D2 teams can only train 8 hours per week, of which at most 4 hours per week may be coached!

And then 4 months of the year are off-season and there is no structured training at all!

This is a ridiculously small amount of time compared to a 15 year old Spanish kid playing in a farm team.

And they're doing this part-time stuff until they're 22 or 23. A typical European professional player would have been playing full time since they were 16.

> college soccer is essentially another international semi-pro league

... except no where near at the level of European farm teams.

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

#265

Post by dpark »

Detrytus wrote: post #241
dpark wrote: post #136

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> In soccer your height/mass doesn’t matter much so the talent pools don’t overlap. This is untrue and also just silly. The talent pools for horse jockeys and NBA players don't overlap. The talent pool for soccer and football is probably 90% overlap. Smaller players are certainly more likely to be successful in soccer than football but tall players can do great in soccer and average height guys can do well in footbal…

Taller players do great in soccer, to a point. I mean, goalkeepers are the tallest, typically, about 6'4, 6'5. For field players, they usually max out around 6'3, but that's only for certain specialized positions like a striker, or central defender. Above that and you are too big and too slow, smaller players will quite literally run circles around you. I think overall average height of soccer player is below 6 feet.…

> Lionel Messi, the greatest soccer player of all time is only 5'7 - that should tell you something.

One data point doesn’t tell me anything. Cristiano Ronaldo, also frequently in the “GOAT” conversation is 6’2”.

On Argentina’s national team, literally no one is shorter than Messi. 17 of the players (20 with keepers) are taller than the Argentinian average male height with only 6 below.

> they usually max out around 6'3, but that's only for certain specialized positions like a striker, or central defender

Specialized positions like “all of them”. There are literally no positions in soccer where it is advantageous to be short. There are simply positions where it is less of a disadvantage.

> Above that and you are too big and too slow, smaller players will quite literally run circles around you.

I’m the same height as Messi so I would love to believe that there is some athletic advantage to being short, but it’s just not true. Messi is outstanding in spite of his height, not because of it.

Short people are not faster than tall people, not even very tall people. Maybe in the extreme outliers this is true, but Usain Bolt is 6’5”.

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

#266

Post by harrall »

lgcmo wrote: post #261
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…

There is no supply chain of baseballs and baseball bats in Brazil. That would be considered a "exotic" choice of sport, with those supplies only available at expensive stores with imported goods

Right, but the limiting factor is not actually that it’s expensive.

The limiting factor is historical: Brazilians just don’t think of playing baseball already.

Which leads back to the point: Americans just don’t really think about playing soccer.

It’s not about cost, or about leagues, or any technical thing. There’s nothing stopping me, as an American, from trying cricket with my friends, except that the thought has never ever entered my mind.

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

#267

Post by lgcmo »

harrall wrote: post #266
lgcmo wrote: post #261

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is no supply chain of baseballs and baseball bats in Brazil. That would be considered a "exotic" choice of sport, with those supplies only available at expensive stores with imported goods

Right, but the limiting factor is not actually that it’s expensive. The limiting factor is historical: Brazilians just don’t think of playing baseball already. Which leads back to the point: Americans just don’t really think about playing soccer. It’s not about cost, or about leagues, or any technical thing. There’s nothing stopping me, as an American, from trying cricket with my friends, except that the thought has…

Yes yes, boils down to network effect (that comes from those historical aspects).

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

#268

Post by thehoff »

brigandish wrote: post #196
thehoff wrote: post #179

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I do agree its expensive but so many point to just the cost being the big issue.

How is it (on an international stage) our US women's national team is consistently good? The teams/clubs in our region charge the same for boys/girls. Related, I know the two biggest clubs by us do offer some financial aid (50% to 100% off).

Then there are clubs that don't charge as much. From our kid's team its the end of the season and we have 4 families leaving to another club that is easily 8x cheaper. So those types of teams/clubs do exist. Not to mention school teams don't charge to play.

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

#269

Post by pier25 »

jandrewrogers wrote: post #82
pier25 wrote: post #59

It's the culture. I'm from Spain and living in Mexico. Football in these countries is almost like a religion.

Yet Mexico is no better at soccer than America, broadly speaking. There is also a general feeling that in the US is better at developing talent than Mexico at this point. Some of Mexico's best national team prospects in recent years were developed by MLS academies.

You definitely need other factors but societal passion seems like the cornerstone. The US has everything except this.

Personally couldn't care any less about sports. I say this as an external observer.

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

#270

Post by rascul »

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.

American Football is Canadian.
Post reply on HN