Suarez

Quote: (06-24-2014 01:46 PM)rottenapple Wrote:  

Quote: (06-24-2014 12:54 PM)spook Wrote:  

Quote: (06-24-2014 09:54 AM)rottenapple Wrote:  

Kids in the US all over are playing football now, but believe me they are not playing in the same way as the kids in the top academies in Europe. The base will get better in US offcourse, but you think some of these guys will be able to compete because they had some fun in the park 2 times a week. In Belgium we have an academy that selects top talents out of thousands at age 7-8, they put the very very best in an academy where they live football. They play about 6 hours a day I believe, on bare feet in small synthetic pitches, guided by topcoaches in a variety of fields. When these kids become 18, their mind is built for top football, when they receive the ball they know exactly whats going on everywhere on the pitch and they control it, position their body and release it within a fraction of a second. A topathlete physically will not have a chance, he might be the fastest on the pitch but he will mainly use that speed to chase a ball that is still a bit faster than he is.

Belgium hasn't been out of the Round of 16 since 1986 and didn't even qualify for the last two World Cups. Those academies are giving you guys the leg up on the lazy Americans for sure.

We reformed our youth system after the 2000 European cup, of which we reinvested the profits. The first batch of the new system is now coming through with a first generation. We so far are the third youngest team on the WC (our 3th goalie is old, else second or youngest), we have 6/6, the youngest goalscorer since Messi in 2006 (Origi). Mind you the academy I talked about, their oldest players are now 18, so they are within the next generation.

Lets look more into the specifics. First generation who profited from reforms (now 19-23 years old): Hazard (Chelsea), Lukaku (Chelsea), Januzaj (Man.United), Courtois (Chelsea), Origi (Lille). Furthermore Carrasco (Monaco), Batshuayi (Marseille), Th. Hazard (Chelsea), Praet (Anderlecht), Lestienne (Brugge), Malanda (Wolfsburg). Thats the first batch.

Second one: Tielemans (debuted at 16 for Anderlecht in CL, on the radar of every topclub in the world, asking price above 20m at age 17), Bakkali 18 (PSV, City/Chelsea very interested), C.Musonda (17, Chelsea B team, top 2 talents in their academy), A.Perreira (17, Man United B, top 3 talents in their academy), Bosschaerts and Denayer (central defense at City B, both 18 yo). From the academy we had about 4-5 players break through at the A team of Lierse at the end of the season (1st division in Belgium at 17 years old, impressing everyone at their first games).

Ask any football expert which nation is producing the most talent now considering the size of their population and you will hear Belgium as the answer and that is not a coincidence.

So yes we are definitly ahead of the US in football ;-), we also played eachother about a year ago. It was 4-2 for Belgium, an easy win, but like I said football is unpredictable, so US def has a chance.

I know that Belgium is strong as hell right now, but you just said they implemented this new system after 2000, and are already near the top in less than 15 years. So why couldn't the United States do this in less than 20...?

The Simpsons broke it down years ago.

in Italy people are freaking out right now

American football is the classic chicken or egg example. Above everything else, America loves a winner. The competitive, winner-take-all mentality is ingrained deeply in our culture.

The fact that we're behind the eight ball when compared to much more football obsessed countries means that it's inherently difficult for our nation to build our football program in the same way many other powerhouses do.

Despite this, there has been a serious look at what is necessary for an excellent football program and the US is on the road to clicking all the boxes.

1. Money. 25 years ago football was an amateur endeavor. There was no money for football development in our country. That's changed big time. US Soccer is flush with money. Basically anything the US Soccer program has asked for since Klinsmann has taken over, they have gotten in spades.

2. A large footballing population. We're a changing nation. Our footballers are still mom and pop Saturday games with oranges, but there is more 'pick-up' football being played than ever before. Instead of winning ridiculous weekend tournaments, pick-up football encourages individual skill as opposed to blood-thirsty teams where individual brilliance is sacrificed for the team from an early age. On a macro scale, this is a very good thing. We're looking for 23 great players, not 23 great U-16 club teams.

3. Technology. We're ahead of any nation's sport science. We have the best doctors in the world working on the fitness of our players. We are generally regarded as the most fit team in any competition. Combine that with cutting edge technology, and those small 1-2% differences in lung capacity, muscle flexibility, and recovery time make a difference at the highest levels.

There is for the first time in the history of football in the US a clear vision of how to develop world class players, and the money and facilities to do it. I fully expect the US to be a perennial World Cup contender and a nation that produces players who play at the highest levels in Europe. There is too much invested for it not to happen.

Quote: (06-24-2014 02:17 PM)spook Wrote:  

Quote: (06-24-2014 01:46 PM)rottenapple Wrote:  

Quote: (06-24-2014 12:54 PM)spook Wrote:  

Quote: (06-24-2014 09:54 AM)rottenapple Wrote:  

Kids in the US all over are playing football now, but believe me they are not playing in the same way as the kids in the top academies in Europe. The base will get better in US offcourse, but you think some of these guys will be able to compete because they had some fun in the park 2 times a week. In Belgium we have an academy that selects top talents out of thousands at age 7-8, they put the very very best in an academy where they live football. They play about 6 hours a day I believe, on bare feet in small synthetic pitches, guided by topcoaches in a variety of fields. When these kids become 18, their mind is built for top football, when they receive the ball they know exactly whats going on everywhere on the pitch and they control it, position their body and release it within a fraction of a second. A topathlete physically will not have a chance, he might be the fastest on the pitch but he will mainly use that speed to chase a ball that is still a bit faster than he is.

Belgium hasn't been out of the Round of 16 since 1986 and didn't even qualify for the last two World Cups. Those academies are giving you guys the leg up on the lazy Americans for sure.

We reformed our youth system after the 2000 European cup, of which we reinvested the profits. The first batch of the new system is now coming through with a first generation. We so far are the third youngest team on the WC (our 3th goalie is old, else second or youngest), we have 6/6, the youngest goalscorer since Messi in 2006 (Origi). Mind you the academy I talked about, their oldest players are now 18, so they are within the next generation.

Lets look more into the specifics. First generation who profited from reforms (now 19-23 years old): Hazard (Chelsea), Lukaku (Chelsea), Januzaj (Man.United), Courtois (Chelsea), Origi (Lille). Furthermore Carrasco (Monaco), Batshuayi (Marseille), Th. Hazard (Chelsea), Praet (Anderlecht), Lestienne (Brugge), Malanda (Wolfsburg). Thats the first batch.

Second one: Tielemans (debuted at 16 for Anderlecht in CL, on the radar of every topclub in the world, asking price above 20m at age 17), Bakkali 18 (PSV, City/Chelsea very interested), C.Musonda (17, Chelsea B team, top 2 talents in their academy), A.Perreira (17, Man United B, top 3 talents in their academy), Bosschaerts and Denayer (central defense at City B, both 18 yo). From the academy we had about 4-5 players break through at the A team of Lierse at the end of the season (1st division in Belgium at 17 years old, impressing everyone at their first games).

Ask any football expert which nation is producing the most talent now considering the size of their population and you will hear Belgium as the answer and that is not a coincidence.

So yes we are definitly ahead of the US in football ;-), we also played eachother about a year ago. It was 4-2 for Belgium, an easy win, but like I said football is unpredictable, so US def has a chance.

I know that Belgium is strong as hell right now, but you just said they implemented this new system after 2000, and are already near the top in less than 15 years. So why couldn't the United States do this in less than 20...?

Because of all the reasons mentioned here before. Toptalents going to other sports, a culture that does not like football, a lack of topcoaches and academies, marketing scemes, etc. In theory yes, if all those things would magically change then the US has the resources to become a toppower. However the people in this post were not speaking theoretically, but in practise they saw US becoming a superpower in football in the next 20 years, that I do not believe. All those things would also just mean US catching up with Europe, but things are not standing still here for the next 20 years either.

Guys, it's 100% about the $$$$$$.

Americans are sheep. If the media told Americans to like soccer, they would. End of story. But they don't because they can make more money showing baseball, which is why they call baseball "America's pastime."

You don't get to choose what is your "culture" or what is popular in America - advertisers choose for you, then make you believe it was your own idea. That is what advertising is.

Listen to the radio or put on the TV if you need further evidence of this.

Quote: (06-24-2014 10:17 AM)General Stalin Wrote:  

It's interesting considering the two most popular spectator sports in America are NASCAR and Major League Baseball - arguably some of the most boring sports around to an uneducated spectator. Both of which are longer, more drawn out, and less engaging than soccer (save when someone smashes a ball, a car wrecks, or the last 5-10 laps of a race)

Nascar is nowhere near number one;

NFL easily number one

Quote: (06-24-2014 03:38 PM)BlurredSevens Wrote:  

Guys, it's 100% about the $$$$$$.

Americans are sheep. If the media told Americans to like soccer, they would. End of story. But they don't because they can make more money showing baseball, which is why they call baseball "America's pastime."

You don't get to choose what is your "culture" or what is popular in America - advertisers choose for you, then make you believe it was your own idea. That is what advertising is.

Listen to the radio or put on the TV if you need further evidence of this.

Sorry I disagree with this.

The media has been pushing soccer for the past decade. It (largely) hasn't worked and is only slowly gaining in popularity for bandwagon types. It will never have mainstream appeal outside of large international competitions such as the World Cup.

If the U.S. makes a run I could see a minor uptick in popularity, however, they wont and soccer will retreat to the backburner shortly, probably seconds after the U.S. gets crushed by Germany on Thursday.

Quote: (06-24-2014 03:38 PM)BlurredSevens Wrote:  

Guys, it's 100% about the $$$$$$.

Americans are sheep. If the media told Americans to like soccer, they would. End of story. But they don't because they can make more money showing baseball, which is why they call baseball "America's pastime."

You don't get to choose what is your "culture" or what is popular in America - advertisers choose for you, then make you believe it was your own idea. That is what advertising is.

Listen to the radio or put on the TV if you need further evidence of this.

The media doesn't control every thought in the US.

If that was the case women's sports would be more popular as they are required to televise them due to Title IX.

People watch what they like when it comes to sports. If anything the huge popularity of football may be a direct result of the continuing feminization of damn near everything else around men. Watching guys beat hell out of each other for 3 hours on Sunday is about the only man time left for a large number of men.

I don't know anyone in my age group/social circle that is interested in soccer at all.

On the flip side, soccer seems to be somewhat popular with the young liberal types from what I am seeing on a college football blog I frequent.

Two thoughts:

1. re: U.S.A. team vs Mexican team, you guys can justify it any way you like, but booing the U.S.A. team is disrespectful to the U.S.A. If an Australian sporting team came to compete against a Taiwanese sporting team (I'm not really sure which sport we're talking about here, but it's just hypothetical!), there is no way I would ever boo the Taiwanese team. That's crass, and frankly, lower class/under class. It's even worse that this sort of thing occurs from people who were born in the U.S.A. and are, in fact, Americans.

Part of this is a product of multiculturalism and where the West is at. I can't imagine the reverse situation (Americans, or worse yet, Mexicans of American heritage, booing the Mexican team in Mexico) going over too well elsewhere.

The other part of it is that I really think this is a soccer thing, it being the sport of the unwashed masses. Does this sort of thing (and riots, people letting off flares, fans being separated by cages, players getting shot, teams spat on -- many years ago, in Uruguay, the Australian team endured that and general jostling from locals) occur whenever there's a Davis Cup tennis match? Far from being the "beautiful game" I posit that soccer is one of the ugliest, and most uncivilised and anti-social games on the planet.

There were certain very anti-social elements in other sports in the past, but they've really gone a very long way to cleaning them up now. Even at their worst though, no other sport I can think of has had anywhere near the poor behaviour associated with soccer.

2. Many posters have pointed out that Americans only like playing in sports where they are the favourite, and that this is related to their own self-image of exceptionalism.

Does/would the rising popularity of soccer represent an identity crisis in the U.S.A.? Does it represent the idea that Americans are coming to see themselves as on a par with everyone else? Is it a symptom of the cultural malaise of the nation?

Quote: (06-23-2014 10:23 PM)scotian Wrote:  

Quote: (06-23-2014 08:20 PM)Pepini Wrote:  

Quote: (06-23-2014 02:36 PM)scotian Wrote:  

In Canada the only boys who play soccer are the ones whose moms won't let them play hockey, pussies.

[img][/img]

You know what a football player brings to a game for protection? a pair of balls.
Hockey players? Helmets, neck guard, shoulder pads, etc, etc.

Van Basten was a great player who stopped playing because of a wrong tackle from behind (1:50) :
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A8J4V5DHwL4

A tackle destroyed his career and since then I believe any tackle from behind is a direct red card. So you don´t want them to dive every time their being tackled??? Sure they could start using protections. But then it would not be a man game.

I couldn´t walk for 6 months because of a football injury. It was the worst time of my life.

You wanna see guts. Stand in front of a 500kg bull and dominate it:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t8_iDGChs8U

Hockey players wear protection because they skate on ice (hard surface) at speeds of about 50 kms/hour, they're also surrounded by hard boards and plexiglass, none of which is as forgiving as the grass on a soccer field. They also have to be careful of flying hard piece of rubber, the puck, which reaches speeds of over 150 kms/hour and sometimes hits them in the face. Hockey players often fight, bare fisted, I can't think of another pro sport where this is allowed and even encouraged.

Ryan Getzlaf gets a slap shot puck in the face (@ 0:08) and is on his feet within three seconds:

Here's a four minute video of soccer fags diving and acting like little bitches:

Here´s a 3 minute video of Hockey fags WHO WEAR PROTECTION diving and acting like litle bitches:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6ReHL49eB5A

^^ Yeah Pepini. I'm a huge hockey fan, but diving and "selling calls" to referees is a part of any sport whether it's basketball, American football, or soccer.

It's a timely (perhaps cheap) strategy for gaining that extra advantage to ultimately win.

I think we should all agree every sport requires a high set of skills, strategies, and endurance though very different as well.

Some people love watching golf.

Some people love watching yachting.

Some people love watching competitive swimming.

Who gives a fuck if one nationality doesn't - as a whole - like soccer? If you don't like it then don't watch the fucking thing.

Personally I find American football one of the most boring sports on the planet but I'm not starting threads about it.

SWPL-Americans love the world cup, yet don't know what a 4-4-2 is.

The country where the most World Cup match tickets were bought, outside Brazil, was the US.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/blogs-magazine...r-27978699

Soccer is not a big part of American culture.

It's just that simple.

In other countries, soccer is a religion.

Our religion is money and work.

We produce industries, technologies, and business.

We don't produce soccer talent.

If you don't like soccer, don't watch it.

Quote: (06-25-2014 11:54 AM)JJ Roberts Wrote:  

The country where the most World Cup match tickets were bought, outside Brazil, was the US.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/blogs-magazine...r-27978699

The majority of those are Mexican American fans rooting for Mexico.

Mexico, the most popular soccer team in the U.S.

Money talks and a lot of the youth in America are ingrained with soccer more so than previous generations. The big companies will take notice of this soon enough as Reebok did with Crossfit.

If there is money to be made and new fields to play then it will grow. This is the USA we're talking about and I dont see USA vs the world as a small feat to accomplish in the eyes of the world.

This is what drives that country and I am pretty sure they would be as good as Germany with the right grassroots development.

But as usual the ignorance will keep it on the down-low for a while. The scores do not reach the double digits regularly, there is no multiple stages of the game and it is one process instead of stop-go-stop-go.

America has such a large population all it takes is a minor increase in football's popularity and the standard of the game over there and you'd have a vast pool of talent to choose from. I don't imagine football would ever truly take over from the more traditionally popular sports as they seem so ingrained into American culture and life. Personally I think the USA getting a good team and developing their own footballing ethos would be good, at the moment it seems more of a pale imitation of various differing footballing styles all thrown together. That's why world cups are so interesting, for the different culture clashes within the game from Spain's passing, the South American flair, Italy's defensive play and Uruguay's shameless cynicism, etc.

It also one of the few area where the USA are seen as the 'good guy's', here in Britain anyway, where they're a less traditionally successful and glamorous team and yet succeed based on hard work and team spirit. I really like the American side, they're a good bunch of lads and work really hard for their teammates.

Obviously I can't really comment on the American mindset and why football (soccer) is so resisted by some over there, but then American sports often seem ludicrous to us. I guess tradition plays a part.

Though many young kids grow up playing in soccer leagues because of it's affordability, going the competitive route via "select leagues" is quite expensive. No wonder kids playing multiple sports growing up might opt out of that route when they can choose basketball, baseball, or American football where participation costs tend to be less. Here's a good article on it -

http://psychologyofsports.com/2004/06/13...holarship/

Warning: long post...

From the perspective of an American who got into soccer by watching the then-English First Division highlight show on a now-defunct sports network:

1. We can't appreciate the sport's beauty. I'm serious, this is a European criticism that's true... Over the past fuck-knows-how-many years I've said to my fellow Americans that soccer is different. We're so used to this quick, stop-and-start action and we look for the same in soccer. The beauty of soccer - assuming it's played well - in in the build up in play. The number of goals determine the winner, but the build-up in play is why it's known as the "beautiful game."

The notion of enjoying the build-up in play is a bridge too far for most of us. We're conditioned for quick action in ADHD snippets. The only reason I enjoy it is because I played throughout my life and went out of my way (pre-internet) to learn about the game and different cultures. That shit ain't happenin' for most of us in the USA.

People bring up baseball in regards to boredom, but baseball is dying in this country. Baseball only retains its status as 3rd most popular sport because hockey is too "cold/white" and soccer is to "foreign/gay."

2. Size / stature of the athletes. This is a bit more abstract, but we kind of want our athletes to be big dudes. Sure there's going to be a handful of smaller guys on the baseball/football field, on the court, or on the ice, etc. but for the most part they need to be giants. Soccer players don't fit that narrative. I remember being a kid looking at "Shoot" magazine. This was right after Euro 96 and the magazine is English so they had a bunch of photos of the England players in and out of game action. Some of you will know, but England had a guy named Stuart Pearce who's nickname was "Psycho." I remember there was a photo of him trading shirts with someone from Spain after he scored the game-winner and I remember laughing out loud in the store... this "Psycho" dude is a scrawny as hell.

3. As noted before, there is a American right-wing political aspect to soccer "hatred." It's foreign, it's gay, it's... it's there and this world cup will break it wide-open because soccer is - at least in white people circles - turning into the adopted sport of the blue-pill, swpl, who used to get beat up by the football players. That actually blows. I'd rather have it be the sport that nobody cares about than have those types pretending to like it because it effectively serves as their "drama/theater club" LGBT safe space. Oh well...

4. The fact that it's called "football" or "futbol" everywhere else. I get that "soccer" was used in conjunction with "football" in Britain up until the 70's, but the fact that the rest of the world calls it something else and that "something else" happens to be a sport that is super-popular and completely opposite to soccer puts the game in a bad spot.

5. As stated before, Americans have a hard time getting past the diving aspect. We are, I think, overly-contrarian about the sport with regard to tie scores, but the overt flopping and phony injuries run counter to everything about our sporting culture.

Statistics say I have another 40ish years on this planet. We qualified for Italia 90 24 years ago, created our first domestic league five-or-so years later, and have come quite a ways since then. It's conceivable that we can get a star on our shirts before I die. The country is big enough and has enough money that we can continue to improve even if soccer stays planted at 5th place in sport popularity.

Lastly, not to say it's "illuminati" or whatever, but I think the media's push for soccer in this country has everything to do with brain injuries surrounding football. Nothing against our football, really, it's a great sport to play even if there are too many commercials when televised, but I kind of look at American football fans like Republicans when Bush was president, yeah, you're getting everything you want at present, but eventually American football is going to get "soccer mommed" to something completely different than what it is now.

Here's to a gentlemen's tie agreed-upon in German by two Germans to get our boys to the next round.

TL;DR There are a number of unconnected reasons, but we can still improve even if soccer stays a back-burner sport.

I played soccer from 1st grade up until junior year of high school. It was just something you did. It was fun, social and exercise. But once I got a car and had access to beer and pussy I completely lost interest. You never see adult soccer teams anywhere you can join. Good luck getting 20 friends together to play in the park too. Even if you could there are no public soccer fields anywhere. Soccer is a sport for kids in the US. You enjoy it in your youth. Then again through your kids when it's their turn.

Americans don´t like footbal the same reason they drive on the right side of the road and not left, even though they should drive left like most british ex-colonies.

"In the early years of English colonisation of North America, English driving customs were followed and the colonies drove on the left. After gaining independence from England, however, they were anxious to cast off all remaining links with their British colonial past and gradually changed to right-hand driving. (Incidentally, the influence of other European countries’ nationals should not be underestimated.) The first law requiring drivers to keep right was passed in Pennsylvania in 1792, and similar laws were passed in New York in 1804 and New Jersey in 1813."

Replace driving by football and there you go. Fact is even though football was born in Greece the birthplace of modern football is England. Playing football probably meant the same than driving left. A reminiscence to the British past.
All ex-colonies of Britain actually suck at football. Not that England itself is brillant.

Boring? Baseball is more

No physical contact? Tennis

Big dudes? Tennis

Divers? Already discussed in another post.

You don´t play sports because somebody decided that this sport was an english and colonial sport. If I would waste some time digging this up I would probably find something.

Even from the post reading here it´s less nationalist people who enjoy it. Weren´t french fries called freedom fries a while back? Same shit.

2cents