- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: The "US can't compete because athletes choose other sports" Argument
Posted on 12/16/14 at 1:55 pm to mynamebowl
Posted on 12/16/14 at 1:55 pm to mynamebowl
quote:
No they don't. Not close.
Again horseshite. They've had athletically gifted player after athletically gifted player. Fast, strong, with loads and loads of technique. If you think the US can produce players with magnitudes greater than the ones Brazil has produced, then you are off you are rocker.
quote:
The only myopic viewpoint here is you thinking that Brazil or any other country produces anywhere near the type of athlete that we do in America.
You don't understand what you are talking about. America does produce the fastest, strongest, biggest athletes. But are the best long distance runners American? No. Not even close. There are different types of athletes and different sports those athletes excel in. In general, soccer tends to favor slow-twitch athletes, those who can run long distances. Fast-twitch athletes tend to get injured in soccer training programs, so that they get less quality training than those with more slow-twitch muscle fiber. If you have athletes that excell in fast twitch, explosive sports, it doesn't necessarily correlate that those athletes will immediately do extremely well in sports that favor a different type of athlete altogether. Reading the book the Sportsgene by David Epstein completely changed my perspective on the way we catagorize athletes who can play soccer. Just because there are explosive movements invovled in soccer doesn't mean it will favor fast twitch players. Those who can do those movements over and over again, day after day, tend to be the ones who become professional soccer players. The players that do succeed that are extremely fast, like Theo Walcott, seem to be perpetually injured. And you don't need to be fast to be an excellent soccer player. It's been measured that you only need to run 7 m/s, which translates to a 14 second 100 meter time. What's infuriating is that I can mention study after study, pointing out that the possiblity exists that America has the athletes to excell in the sport already, but due to massive mismanagement and hubris, they've fricked up generation after generation of American soccer star. Somehow this possibility is abhorent to you all, so you make up idiotic arguments about "so and so would be an AMAZING striker" all the while ignoring real physical evidence that perhaps America is just doing extremely poorly with the athletes it already has.
1
Posted on 12/16/14 at 1:55 pm to mynamebowl
quote:
mynamebowl
Some of it is that usually in these threads people are arguing different points of emphasis.
One side, says, rightly that if have a Chris Paul who develops Andrea Pirlo skills you'll likely have one of the best players in the world (or at very least what many think a Paul Pogba could become).
The other side looks more at the huge initial problem / gap: the US not being able to produce anything close to an Andrea Pirlo in any type athlete whatsoever (when the US pool is already larger than many countries who do produce these players just due to the immense population advantage).
However, people who follow big club team and their youth teams closely see how the clubs always have tons of Lukaku or Balotelli or Micah Richards etc etc type athlete/prodigies that many are hyping as the next superstar.
However, 99% or the time one of the modest (or even downright unimpressive) athletes like Totti or De Rossi or Florenzi actually emerge as the elite star while all the could-have-been-Olympic sprinters and triple jumpers disappear to Serie B and C.
To compare it to American football, using admittedly kind of a sloppy example, the US team needs to actually produce a Peyton Manning before worrying too much about whether it's Peyton Manning in Calvin Johnson's body.
This post was edited on 12/16/14 at 3:19 pm
Posted on 12/16/14 at 1:59 pm to crazy4lsu
You're wasting your breath on these people. Nothing you say will change their minds. Just move on and have productive conversation in another thread with people who actually get it.
Posted on 12/16/14 at 2:01 pm to cwil177
quote:
those who had a preformed opinion who refuse to budge when their notions of the truth are challenged, contrary to the evidence before them.
The evidence I have is on my TV screen every night in the form of NFL and NBA games. And when I compare that to evidence I see on Saturday and Sunday mornings, and then on Tuesday and Wednesdays around 1:45 pm, I use my brain to apply a non-biased, objective opinion on what might be different if the guys playing the American sports were to have grown up playing soccer.
This post was edited on 12/16/14 at 2:09 pm
Posted on 12/16/14 at 2:05 pm to mynamebowl
You didn't read any of what wm72 or crazy wrote.
Posted on 12/16/14 at 2:08 pm to cwil177
quote:
You didn't read any of what wm72 or crazy wrote.
I read every word of it. I just disagree.
Posted on 12/16/14 at 2:23 pm to mynamebowl
quote:
mynamebowl
Thanks for having common sense and the ability to use your eyes and logic to dictate your conclusions.
Posted on 12/16/14 at 2:29 pm to Ex-Popcorn
Every person on this board knows the kid they grew up with who was just better at everything than every other kid. If the kid played pickup basketball, he was better than everyone else. When they played tackle football in the empty lot, he was the best player on the field. He was also the first pick in every single team game on the playground and could destroy a whiffle ball with a little yellow bat.
Well, in soccer countries, that kid is harvested at age 8 and sent away to train. In fact, that kid from every little town in the country is there. They train exclusively to be the best soccer players in the world.
That is just the polar opposite of what we do here. In the US, those "best at everything" kids are coddled as future allstars in a different sport. Many are drawn into the AAU basketball scene. But, what absolutely IS still true in America is that those "best kids" may dabble in soccer, but for the most part they are pushed AWAY from soccer for the more lucrative sports.
I can't believe most of you are bashing the original tweet that simply pointed out that we are not as good as other countries because our best athletes do not play soccer. That's an objectively true statement.
Well, in soccer countries, that kid is harvested at age 8 and sent away to train. In fact, that kid from every little town in the country is there. They train exclusively to be the best soccer players in the world.
That is just the polar opposite of what we do here. In the US, those "best at everything" kids are coddled as future allstars in a different sport. Many are drawn into the AAU basketball scene. But, what absolutely IS still true in America is that those "best kids" may dabble in soccer, but for the most part they are pushed AWAY from soccer for the more lucrative sports.
I can't believe most of you are bashing the original tweet that simply pointed out that we are not as good as other countries because our best athletes do not play soccer. That's an objectively true statement.
Posted on 12/16/14 at 2:31 pm to Ex-Popcorn
quote:
Thanks for having common sense and the ability to use your eyes and logic to dictate your conclusions
L
O
L
So because he agrees with you, he's the only one that has common sense.
You're cute.
Posted on 12/16/14 at 2:34 pm to Broski
No, he has common sense because he said this:
The people on this thread who have disagreed with that are ridiculous.
quote:
It’s hard to have a smart sports argument with someone who thinks Jozy Altidore is the same caliber athlete as DWade, Chris Paul, or Russell Westbrook.
The people on this thread who have disagreed with that are ridiculous.
Posted on 12/16/14 at 2:36 pm to mynamebowl
quote:
Have you ever heard of Yaya Toure? We have thousands of Yaya Toure's over here. But instead of training to be a CM their entire lives, they've been trained to be shooting guards and wide receivers.
Yaya Toure, a singular player in the history of African football, is not a common player. He has great running ability, but he isn't known for his workrate. In fact, he doesn't really do both at the same time. At Barca he did the defensive work. At Man City he did the offensive. But he and Bradley are absoultely different types of players. And again, he isn't a very common type of player. You don't find that many 6-2 central midfielders. They are rather uncommon.
Posted on 12/16/14 at 2:53 pm to crazy4lsu
I can't believe we're all still having this argument. If our best "athletes" went soccer instead of NFL/NBA we'd certainly win the world cup.......
In 1986.
If America wants to be the best at Sam Allardyce (pre-2014) long ball, then yes sign Lebron up.
The modern game absolutely abuses teams that rely too much on athleticism. The best teams in the world are the most technical. So yeah, if you have a time machine to go back to 1980s-90s England, putting Jordan, Lebron, and Megatron on a soccer team together would be awesome. If you want to win a modern world cup I suggest you steer away from a pure athlete in the American sense.
How do I make that evaluation? I use my eyes, and this so called "common sense" I keep seeing brought up in this thread.
In 1986.
If America wants to be the best at Sam Allardyce (pre-2014) long ball, then yes sign Lebron up.
The modern game absolutely abuses teams that rely too much on athleticism. The best teams in the world are the most technical. So yeah, if you have a time machine to go back to 1980s-90s England, putting Jordan, Lebron, and Megatron on a soccer team together would be awesome. If you want to win a modern world cup I suggest you steer away from a pure athlete in the American sense.
How do I make that evaluation? I use my eyes, and this so called "common sense" I keep seeing brought up in this thread.
Posted on 12/16/14 at 3:00 pm to BleedPurpleGold
quote:
The modern game absolutely abuses teams that rely too much on athleticism. The best teams in the world are the most technical. So yeah, if you have a time machine to go back to 1980s-90s England, putting Jordan, Lebron, and Megatron on a soccer team together would be awesome. If you want to win a modern world cup I suggest you steer away from a pure athlete in the American sense.
The problem with what you write is that it presumes that the best athletes "in the american sense" would lack the ability to also be the "most technical"...I laugh at that. Hand/foot-eye coordination and body control are what separates the true super athletes in America from the guys who can run fast and jump high...
You know, there is a class of athlete in america who is big, can run fast, has great body control and coordination, etc. They are not playing soccer. And, if they did, they wouldn't be forced to play the long-ball to be successful.
This post was edited on 12/16/14 at 3:02 pm
Posted on 12/16/14 at 3:00 pm to BleedPurpleGold
I have not read a lick of this thread and I am assuming its a disater.
But im just going to leave it like this. The our best athletes are not playing is bullshite.
We are ever bit as athletic as the teams we face. Its about development at a young age and getting them to think like proper soccer players and making them technically sound.
Those are the areas we lack we are no where near as technical as we need to be and our players dont have those natural soccer instincts that would come from high level training at a young age. By young age im talking 6 and 7 already at professional academies almost living football 24/7. Not this after practice 3 days a week and one match a week with orange slices bullshite.
But im just going to leave it like this. The our best athletes are not playing is bullshite.
We are ever bit as athletic as the teams we face. Its about development at a young age and getting them to think like proper soccer players and making them technically sound.
Those are the areas we lack we are no where near as technical as we need to be and our players dont have those natural soccer instincts that would come from high level training at a young age. By young age im talking 6 and 7 already at professional academies almost living football 24/7. Not this after practice 3 days a week and one match a week with orange slices bullshite.
Posted on 12/16/14 at 3:02 pm to Ex-Popcorn
quote:
Well, in soccer countries, that kid is harvested at age 8 and sent away to train. In fact, that kid from every little town in the country is there. They train exclusively to be the best soccer players in the world.
You guys have literally no idea how these countries are set up. There is no one harvesting these kids. It is entirely dependent on where they grow up. The path for a kid in the Netherlands is different from the path for a kid in the Wales. Where there is nuance and complications, all you guys insist upon is simplicity. It's a dishonest argument. I can give you specific example after specific example which would refute everyone of your points. I can quote scientific studies, the playing history of certain players, 40 times, VO2 max, all sorts of real data which supports the conclusion that the athletes that America produes are not necessarily the same athletes that succeed in soccer. This is what you don't seem to understand, and the premise of your entire argument is "if we put all our resources" which again is ridiculous, as other wealthy countries put their entire resources into the sport with paltry results. What makes you think that America could do better than England? Or Norway? Or Sweden? Or France? Or the Netherlands? You're basing it entirely on the belief that athletics trumps all in soccer, when in fact it is technique that trumps all. Athleticism doesn't mean a thing if you don't have the technique with the ball to express it. And considering how hard it is to teach this technique, the coaching that you need from the time a player is a child, you're basically asking for the impossible. More athletes would play soccer if they saw they could get world class training, which they cannot here in the U.S.
Posted on 12/16/14 at 3:04 pm to StraightCashHomey21
quote:
We are ever bit as athletic as the teams we face. Its about development at a young age and getting them to think like proper soccer players and making them technically sound.
Another false premise in that you assume that we can ONLY be as athletic as other teams. We have access to BETTER athletes.
And, you should have read the thread...because the point is that we need those better athletes because the training and development at a young age will NEVER be the same in America as it is elsewhere.
Posted on 12/16/14 at 3:04 pm to Ex-Popcorn
quote:
Another false premise
You don't know what this means.
Posted on 12/16/14 at 3:05 pm to Ex-Popcorn
quote:
Another false premise in that you assume that we can ONLY be as athletic as other teams. We have access to BETTER athletes.
And, you should have read the thread...because the point is that we need those better athletes because the training and development at a young age will NEVER be the same in America as it is elsewhere.
wrong
if you know anything about soccer development on the world scale you would know you are wrong.
Posted on 12/16/14 at 3:08 pm to Ex-Popcorn
quote:
The problem with what you write is that it presumes that the best athletes "in the american sense" would lack the ability to also be the "most technical"...I laugh at that. Hand/foot-eye coordination and body control are what separates the true super athletes in America from the guys who can run fast and jump high...
No, I'm presuming the things that make them good at American sports are their pure athleticism. Because the majority of American sports utilize pure athleticism. Whoever runs the fastest, hits the hardest, jumps the highest is predisposed to succeed in the sports we like. Will they always succeed? Or course not. But those are by far the most important traits to a successful NBA or NFL player.
quote:
You know, there is a class of athlete in america who is big, can run fast, has great body control and coordination, etc. They are not playing soccer.
None of these abilities matter in soccer. Not once did you mention vision, awareness, intellect, or touch. These are by far and away much more important to be a successful soccer player in the modern game than any trait you just mentioned.
quote:
And, if they did, they wouldn't be forced to play the long-ball to be successful.
Just like the English and Americans did for years, they would rely on the abilities they naturally possessed: Speed and strength. My point is, just because you have all of these traits doesn't mean anything when it comes to be a successful soccer player. Would they be positives? Of course. But the majority of players with these abilities will naturally rely on them too much and end up developing into the wrong type of athlete. It has been happening for decades in our country and in England and Scotland.
Posted on 12/16/14 at 3:08 pm to Ex-Popcorn
quote:
he problem with what you write is that it presumes that the best athletes "in the american sense" would lack the ability to also be the "most technical"...I laugh at that. Hand/foot-eye coordination and body control are what separates the true super athletes in America from the guys who can run fast and jump high...
But in general, the best athletes that are professional soccer players right now are not the best players. Ronaldo was a scrawny winger with loads of technique who got big and strong. Messi was a winger blessed with insane balance and dribbling ability. Without the ball they aren't all that special. What I'm saying to you and people like you is that evidences shows that you need technique first, and atletcism second. The reason for this is simple. If you learn to rely on your athletcism to get you through the different age groups, when you get to the professional level, you'll generally have poor touch and technique because you relied on athleticism. This has happened time and again, with athletic player after athletic player. I can name a litany of English wingers who were blessed with insane speed but had the touch of a retard who didn't do anything of note at the top level. Each club has numerous players like this that come through. You think that it is somehow easy to impact the requiste technique. That's what kills me. No country has perfected the athletic/technical combination. The best player at this year's WC was argubably Thomas Muller, a player who has no other skill other than insanely good movement. He isn't fast or strong. He can just control a ball and move without it into spaces where he can utilize his technique to the highest degree. There is player after player that suports my argument, and basically none that support yours.
Page 9 of 13
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News