[bojangles]

All uses of football in this post are referring to soccer for the esteemed North American posters.

Football in the rest of the world is more than just a sport. It's an identity for many people, it gives them a tribe to be part of. There are no franchises in football, teams have been around for over 50/100 years, families have supported those teams through generations. Grandfathers have taken their grandsons to watch football matches against their rival teams. Whether you're in Buenos Aires for River Plate vs Boca Juniors, Glasgow for Rangers vs Celtic, Liverpool for Liverpool vs Everton, there's a passion, a tribalism, that's been built on for many years.

The fans of those teams know the great players that have played for their clubs, they've been joined together in tragedies (real tragedies) and they've enjoyed success together.

For soccer to grow in the USA, you need the above, but you can never have that when John Doe can buy LA Galaxy, move it to San Diego and call it San Diego Feminists playing at the Jezebel Stadium.

Go to Cairo, take to Al Ahly fans and ask them what they think of Zamalek, travel to Kiev, ask Dinamo fans what they think of Shakhtar Donetsk, visit Glasgow and ask the Catholic fans of Celtic what they think of the Rangers Protestants on the other side of town.

Just a few examples of why people support certain football teams.

Athens, Greece has 3 major football teams :-
AEK Athens was started by refugees who had been kicked out of Constantinople in a forced population exchange by the Greek and Turkish governments, their fanbase consists of descendants of those migrants
Panathinaikos was started by high members of Athenian society, it is the 'classy' club in the city and is one of only two in the whole country that is owned by it's supporters
Olympiacos Piraeus gives hints in it's name about it's roots (Piraeus is the port and working class part of Athens).
Rivalry between the latter two is dubbed the Derby of the eternal enemies. It's a class based battle, the tyrants in Athens against the workers in the ports.

The same is seen in Buenos Aires which despite having many clubs has 2 major ones which stand out. The elite River Plate against the working class Boca Juniors, the game between the two is on most sporting bucket lists, though you'd do well to stay out of trouble.

Can that be replicated in the USA?

Glasgow - Celtic the team of Catholics, Rangers the team of Protestants - can that be replicated in the USA?

FC Barcelona is more than just a football club they represent the drive for an independent Catalonia, in Spain Real Madrid are considered General Franco's team.

Galatasaray vs Fenerbahce is an intercontinental derby played in once city - Istanbul, one team is supported by people living in the european side, the other by those living in the asian side.

I'm tired but you can see how this is difficult to replicate in the States. Football is more than just a sport in most of the world, it's life. Whether it's representing your city, ethnicity, colour, tribe, whatever.

[Hotwheels]

^^^^ The Packers ARE a religion in Wisconsin.

[MidWest]

(06-25-2014 08:07 PM)Hotwheels Wrote:  

^^^^ The Packers ARE a religion in Wisconsin.

I couldn't stop laughing when I saw this.

[Moma]

(06-25-2014 07:35 PM)Pepini Wrote:  

All ex-colonies of Britain actually suck at football. Not that England itself is brilliant.

Most of your post I agreed with but the bolded underline (see above):

<open bias>

Nigeria is good at football, they have won an Olympic Gold in football (I was in Houston when they took it in 1996 Atlanta).

Nigerians under 21s win the World cup all the time. Ghana are very good too.

<close bias>

[Pepini]

NBA stars play soccer:

http://bleacherreport.com/articles/21110...rogramming

[Hotwheels]

You can lose and make it to the next round of the playoffs?

lolzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

[polymath]

(06-28-2014 07:20 PM)Hotwheels Wrote:  

You can lose and make it to the next round of the playoffs?

lolzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

I'm pretty sure that's how NBA and NHL playoffs work too, no? Teams lose games and still advance to the next stage.

Fun fact: In the 1950 World Cup, the final round was done in round-robin format between Uruguay, Brazil, Sweden, and Spain. Oddly the last match of that stage was one of the most famous upsets in soccer history, the Maracanaço.

[Dismal Operator]

(06-28-2014 07:20 PM)Hotwheels Wrote:  

You can lose and make it to the next round of the playoffs?

lolzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

The group stage is a round robin, each group has 4 teams. The top 2 teams after the round robin move on to the next round. It's no different to a 'regular season' in the NBA where a team could lose its last game but qualify for the playoffs (knock out round) by virtue of its overall record. The US had a good enough overall record to advance past the 'regular season' into the 'playoffs,' where it's now lose and you're out. It's been amusing to see people making fun of the fact the US lost its last game but went through to the next round as though it was some sort of huge complicated flaw in the way the tournament is set up.

[moridin]

What bojangles said.

Also, soccer is a sport that was capable of starting a war (between El Salvador and Honduras, in 1969) and stopping a war (the civil war raging in Belgian Congo, also in 1969, stopped for a few days so everybody could watch Pele's Santos play a match that was happening in the country). Not saying it's more interesting or better than other sports, just that it's more important to people in other parts of the world than sport normally is to the average american.

It appals me, after having watched several Holywood movies about football (most of them involving women's football), how the American filmmakers have never thought of using one of the most dramatic moments in sports, if not the most dramatic, in their movies: the penalty shoot-out. To me it just proves that most Americans don't understand the sport at all. It's like me, a Brazilian, with cricket. It's very popular somewhere else (in India it's all the rage), but if I made a movie about it, I wouldn't know where to start (or end).

This notion got confirmed in the first posts by Americans in this thread and in an article written by Ann Coulter that I read, saying that soccer is a team sport, and that Americans don't like it because they want individual heroes. Being a Brazilian, I'm familiar with the notion of coaches creating their whole tactical set up so that 10 of their players play on defense and 1, the exceptional one, the "craque" as we call it, gets all the freedom to try what he wants in the front. Being a sport with such a small score, one individual play (or stupid mistake) can determine who wins the game. So the genius, like Zidane, Ronaldo, Messi, Baggio, etc can be the most decisive guy on the field. And he gets to be the hero of that game. Just as certain players come out as villains in stupid mistakes. And there's always at least one villain and one hero (normally the goalkeeper of the winning team) in a penalty shoot-out.

Also, regarding how much an individual player can make a difference in a game, see the Uruguay matches in this world cup, for example. With Luis Soarez, they defeated England and Italy, eliminanting both. Without him, they were defeated by Costa Rica and Colombia. It's like water and wine, completely different stuff.

And still regarding the effect of small score on the game, there's the David x Goliath aspect of it that Americans in this thread don't seem to have understood when they use their team's performance so far in the world cup as proof of their improvement in the sport. Having such small score, it's actually much more common than in other sports for the David to beat the Goliath in soccer. Somestimes the right combination of dedication, good enviroment and a good striker is enough for that. See Costa Rica, able to defeat Italy and Uruguay and eliminate England in their group. Does it prove Costa Rica is going to be the world champion in 20 years or now? No, it just proves soccer is a very unpredictable sport.

One thing I never understood is why american football, canadian football, australian football, etc haven't disappeared and been replaced by rugby, a sport whose popularity is much more widespread, considering the number of countries that play it. The rugby world cup is very interesting. USA sucks at rugby because their best players with that biotype are in American football. But one would think, with such a big population, that even their 3rd tier players would be able to score better in international competition. And they can't. So, I don't think if Americans focused a greater part of their efforts in football they would be able to dominate it as they do in other sports. It takes more to build a tradition in soccer and rugby. Not to mention that geniality is something that can't be trained.

[bojangles]

Great post mate, the thing about football being a team sport is a bit too black and white for me. There's another quote from that legend Bob Shankley

“A football team is like a piano. You need eight men to carry it and three who can play the damn thing.”

Teams are built around their stars.

[MidWest]

I don't buy the whole thing that Americans "want individual stars". I'm pretty sure Tom Brady plays on a "team", I'm pretty sure Lebron James has a "team". Its not like they are playing by themselves.

If we go by that logic, then Messi, CR and Suarez could be considered individual stars. Shoot! Maradona single handily won the world cup in 86 and he makes no secret about it.

It just comes down to culture. Americans in general don't like sports that we didn't invent. We don't like sports other countries excel in. That is basically it.

On the other hand though, the U.S vs. Portugal game had more ratings and views than these past NBA finals, so I wouldn't count soccer out in America just yet.

[spook]

(06-25-2014 07:48 PM)bojangles Wrote:  

I'm tired but you can see how this is difficult to replicate in the States. Football is more than just a sport in most of the world, it's life. Whether it's representing your city, ethnicity, colour, tribe, whatever.

Reminds me of a line in Green Street Elite (ridiculous movie about an American rolling with English football hooligans):

"Ah, Millwall. Where to even fucking begin with Millwall. Millwall and West Ham firms hate each other, more than any other firms by far."
"So, like the Yankees and the Red Sox?"
"More like the Israelis and the Palestinians."

[Excelsior]

(06-23-2014 12:42 PM)It_is_my_time Wrote:  

(06-23-2014 12:37 PM)Cyr Wrote:  

(06-23-2014 12:25 PM)It_is_my_time Wrote:  

(06-23-2014 12:22 PM)Cyr Wrote:  

(06-23-2014 12:15 PM)It_is_my_time Wrote:  

You are saying that the USA, who can already play with Germany, Portugal, England, Brazil in head to head competition and at least hold their own would not dominate if we had our best athletes out there, athletes who are quite frankly 3 to 4 levels more athletic in every aspect possible than our current team?

I completely disagree. The article I referenced talked about having Calin Johnson for a goalie, and believed that if he took a few weeks to just learn the position would probably be the best goalie in the world. He is 6'5" with a 46" vertical and damn near perfect hand eye coordination.

If Calvin Johnson spent a few weeks learning the position, he would still be nowhere near the best in the world. The skills required to be good at 'soccer' are not the same as for American sports- although being able to run a 4.5 40 would probably help, he certainly wouldn't be unstoppable.

In football, it is easy for a weaker team to shepherd together a side, and 'hold their own', under good management. However, it is much harder to actually put together an elite side that is in a position to win trophies.

I believe he would be one of the best. I've watched the World Cup, they are great at what they do, but none of those guys is nearly as big or quick or strong as Calvin Johnson. And I doubt any of them have hands that are any better either. He would have to learn the position, where to go and when. He would have to learn how to react properly. But his genetic potential would be not of comparison.

And I am not saying we could just take these guys from other sports and win right now. I am saying that if these guys all played soccer from the age of 4 like in other countries, then we would dominate.

As for Johnson, the reason it is mentioned is because what Johnson already does is close to being a goalie, he already naturally and has worked both to have the skills to be a goalie.

He would possibly be competitive, but I don't think his genetic potential would be that much better. Almost all goalkeepers are 6'4+. Joe Hart is 6'5, Manuel Neuer is 6'4, Thibaut Courtois is 6'6. They aren't as athletic as him, but they are still professional athletes who have trained their whole lives. You can't pull off saves without athleticism and crazy reactions.
Do you honestly think Calvin Johnson could just drop right in and do this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yjaodPyiEF0

His genetic potential would be above that guy's. Could he just react like that, to a soccer ball after only a few weeks of work, I don't know. It would take work, but with his athletic ability I wouldn't say "no" right away.

I'm just coming from a guy who played basketball his entire life and was okay at it. And then the football athletes showed up. And they could do anything on the basketball against most anyone just due to their athletic ability. The level of athleticism in these guys is just hard to even imagine until you go head to head against them. Lots of those guys playing football could switch over and be good basketball players, just not good enough to make millions at it like they do football.

You're very, very wrong, but your perspective is informative as it very clearly illustrates the flaws associated with the American perspective on soccer.

Americans are used to sports that tend to put a great emphasis on natural athleticism. Sports like baseball, basketball, and American Football all put tremendous emphasis on god-given athletic gifts. Because of this emhasis on inherent athleticism, it is not uncommon for extremely athletic individuals to perform at a high level in any of these sports without investing much time or effort into learning said sports. It is also quite common to see individuals split their time between two or more of these sports (ex: track plus basketball + football) and perform well in all of them. They don't invest a tremendous amount of focus/effort into any one of the sports (their effort is split between two or three), but it is possible for them to play at a high level anyway because these sports emphasis the natural athletic gifts they already possess.

All of America's most popular sports emphasis said athleticism, and thus Americans have gotten used to this kind of situation as a norm. They simply assume that raw athleticism is paramount in sports, because that is what they're used to.

You cannot make that assumption with regard to soccer. Soccer is not like the sports that Americans are used to; it simply does not place the same amount of emphasis on raw athleticism that most major American sports do.
You cannot walk onto a soccer/football pitch at any position and simply expect to be elite because of your athleticism. It doesn't take long to build a very good American football player, so long as you start out with a great athlete. If you find a naturally gifted athlete, you can make him a top player in 2 or 3 years, and he can be well above average within the first year of playing.

It takes the better part of a decade, however, to build an elite soccer player: they are honed in academies from their pre-teen/early teen years (sometimes earlier) and put through intense mental, technical and physical conditioning for the better part of a decade. One cannot expect to produce elite players without putting many of them through this kind of conditioning. It is essential.

Because soccer places a greater emphasis on technical skill and aerobic conditioning than American football (and most other American sports), you don't need to be an elite athlete to become an elite player. You can be a short guy without elite top end speed or much in the way of physical strength, but technical skill, great conditioning and strong mental conditioning (composure, intelligence, etc) can carry you to the top of the game. This is unlike American football or basketball, where such an individual (short, not very strong, no breakaway speed) would have almost no hope of reaching a high level even with elite physical/mental conditioning.

Of course, in soccer it also helps to be an elite athlete. Pace is valuable, as is size and strength, but it isn't as necessary as it is in sports Americans are used to. Athleticism alone cannot take you to the top of the soccer world. Even if you're a gifted athlete, you will need to go through 5-10 years of serious mental/physical conditioning in order to become an elite player, and this will have to happen when you are young (beginning at ages 8-12). There is no way around this, and Americans have to understand that if they seek to take soccer seriously (they probably never will, limiting the game's growth potential here - it isn't part of the culture).

Calvin Johnson is an amazing athlete. You assume that because he is tall, quick and explosive (46" vertical leap) that he will be able to become a very good professional goalkeeper without much training (a few weeks, in your words).

It would be difficult to create a statement further from the truth. Johnson has the height and raw athleticism, but you neglect to consider the other things necessary to create an elite keeper:

1. Postioning: A good goalkeeper must be able to read the game and consistently place himself in the best position in which to limit the other team's opportunity to score. A good goalkeeper must consistently be in the right place at the right time, and it is up to him to understand how to get there.

2. Command: A good goalkeeper knows not only how to position himself in order to best constrain the goalscoring opportunities of the other team, but also how to position his teammates. He needs to be able to organize his defence on set-pieces, and facilitate greater coordination between himself and his defenders throughout the match. He has to know where these players need to be and command them to get there.

3. Distribution. Goalkeepers do not merely block shots; they also create opportunities for their team. A good goalkeeper needs to know how to get his teammates the ball after he's taken it (via a recent save/catch or a free kick). A good goalkeeper (one capable of playing professionally) can make accurate long throws to teammates well down the pitch as well as good short throws close to him. A goalkeeper needs to be good with his feet, because he cannot always pickup the ball when it comes back to him - his teammates must be able to use him as an outlet to release the ball back to in order to keep possession, and goalkeepers are prevented from using their hands on such "backpasses". This means that a goal keeper must have some technical foot skill (good first touch, good shot passing, solid accuracy on long passes) in order not to be a liability.

All three of those attributes take many years to develop, which is why Calvin Johnson would have no hope of being even a competent goalkeeper on any professional level after just a few weeks (or even a couple years) of training. Had Calvin been brought into the game early (say ages 9-12) and groomed intensely in it for the next 6-10 years (as nearly every professional goalkeeper today is), then yes, he could very well have been elite. Few athletes like him exist at the goalkeeper position today, and with the right technical skill he'd be better than most. But it takes years to build that skill.

Soccer is not basketball, football or baseball. Americans don't get this, but they are going to have to if they want to take the game seriously.

[LeBeau]

(06-23-2014 11:46 PM)michaelm Wrote:  

BTW, I must say as a fellow Canadian, the NHL is mind-numbingly boring. A bunch of atomatons, all bearded and helmeted, lacking distinctive characteristics, slamming a little black disk around the boards.

These are the kind of posts that are a silly buzzkill on threads designed to provoke a bit of friendly debate and ribbing.

I'm not even sure where to begin, so you would prefer to have your men shaved?

And how are you Canadian and don't understand the concept of playoff beards?

How are the players automatons? Since they wear the same jersey just like other sports? There are clearly defined positions/roles in Hockey and it's very easy to see that watching a game for even a short period of time.

Finally, the part about the "little black disk" is the same type of argument you hear from females and pseudo-intellectuals.

Obviously you can boil down any sport to it's literal composition to belittle it, soccer becomes "kicking around a plastic sphere all afternoon" but it doesn't give your argument any merit. Guys here are trying to argue cultural aspects, masculine characteristics, etc.

And for the record, I loved seeing the Kings take home the Stanley Cup in some really exciting games, and I'm also watching World Cup almost every day.

This has been a great year for fans of both sports.

[MidWest]

^^^^ It kind of reminds me of when Michael Jordan tried to play baseball. He was so confident that with his athleticism alone he will be able to be a baseball star based on his athleticism in Basketball and thought it would translate the same. Boy was he wrong, he couldn't wait until the season was over so he can go back to play basketball again.

Also Chad Ochocinco tried to play soccer as well with I believe the Kansas City team in MLS. He found out that he wasn't able to keep up and didn't even make the roster on an MLS team. Americans due in fact have that mentality.

[TigerMandingo]

Americans also dont use the metric system.

Should we seriously care about why they hate soccer?

[Foolsgo1d]

Reasons why FOOTBALL (Foot on ball) is superior to any other sport. technically.

- A dirt poor shit hole village in Africa can play football. All you need is one or two people, something resembling a ball and voila, a game can start

- Not everyone can be 250-300lbs and run, pass and tackle. But the rest of the world has that, its called Rugby and is more entertaining than grid iron. Please come back and riddle me this when you have huge guys doing stop-go matches.

- Football popularity. Most people in the world except for the USA can name David Beckham, Messi, Ronaldo etc. I dont know a single grid iron/baseball/basketball player except for Michael Jordan.

- Less is more. Brb playing a sport where your opposing team can score a shit load of points. Really? No wonder you guys have quarters and stop-start matches. Thats the only technical play you can get for defense.

- Not everyone is born 6'3"+ in the ghetto

- Not everyone wants to play high impact sports and break bones

[Strikeb4ck]

Soccer (football) is the ultimate sport because nothing matches it when it comes to being a blend of everything.

-strategic/tactical perspective - managers/team lay out gameplans in advance, changes are made throughout the game, substitutions are limited and crucial, players have to decide what to do on the spot (there are soooo many mental attributes that go into the quality of a player alone), there is one break when a team can all get together and readjust/discuss plans)
-an athletic perspective - the combination of speed, stamina, balance, agility, natural fitness, strength, etc while need all the technique, skill, understanding for the game at the same time
-mental attributes - creativity, vision, determination, decision making, positioning, teamwork, off the ball work, bravery, work rate, etc
-a technical perspective - all sports have things that are difficult to do but in soccer you need such a varied skillset - crossing, finishing, dribbling, passing, marking, tackling, etc
-economic - can be played at the highest level or with a 5 socks, 4 as goalposts, one as the ball. enjoyable to play, enjoyable to watch. biggest sport in the world.

There are just so many aspects of it and as you take in the sport more you appreciate it more and more.



I would like to know, rather than just say it is boring and then have fans have to defend the sport, can someone explain why they think soccer is boring?

[kosko]

The NHL has gotten better. I only like playoff hockey since the players put in 100% effort. In the regular season they mail it in a lot, this goes for basketball also. Both seasons are too long.

Growing up there was a lot of shitty hockey when NJ was dominate playing boring a sell trap hockey with Stevens lurking around and busting dudes heads open. That was all terrible hockey for a long stretch. Hockey should never be 1-0. For a game here you get 25-30 shots a game it's a joke. Hockey this past playoffs was amazing. OT, come back wins, 5-3 type decisions, when the game is wild that's when it's good.

[Strikeb4ck]

(06-29-2014 09:25 PM)kosko Wrote:  

The NHL has gotten better. I only like playoff hockey since the players put in 100% effort. In the regular season they mail it in a lot, this goes for basketball also. Both seasons are too long.

Growing up there was a lot of shitty hockey when NJ was dominate playing boring a sell trap hockey with Stevens lurking around and busting dudes heads open. That was all terrible hockey for a long stretch. Hockey should never be 1-0. For a game here you get 25-30 shots a game it's a joke. Hockey this past playoffs was amazing. OT, come back wins, 5-3 type decisions, when the game is wild that's when it's good.

The NHL has by far the best postseason of any sport.

[michaelm]

(06-29-2014 03:26 PM)LeBeau Wrote:  

(06-23-2014 11:46 PM)michaelm Wrote:  

BTW, I must say as a fellow Canadian, the NHL is mind-numbingly boring. A bunch of atomatons, all bearded and helmeted, lacking distinctive characteristics, slamming a little black disk around the boards.

These are the kind of posts that are a silly buzzkill on threads designed to provoke a bit of friendly debate and ribbing.

I'm not even sure where to begin, so you would prefer to have your men shaved?

And how are you Canadian and don't understand the concept of playoff beards?

How are the players automatons? Since they wear the same jersey just like other sports? There are clearly defined positions/roles in Hockey and it's very easy to see that watching a game for even a short period of time.

Finally, the part about the "little black disk" is the same type of argument you hear from females and pseudo-intellectuals.

Obviously you can boil down any sport to it's literal composition to belittle it, soccer becomes "kicking around a plastic sphere all afternoon" but it doesn't give your argument any merit. Guys here are trying to argue cultural aspects, masculine characteristics, etc.

And for the record, I loved seeing the Kings take home the Stanley Cup in some really exciting games, and I'm also watching World Cup almost every day.

This has been a great year for fans of both sports.

That "little black disk" is one of the reasons why hockey outside of Canada has barely a pulse. It's literally "little" and is played with as if it were a hot potato. And it's players can barely be made out if it weren't for their nameplates. Check out hockey in the states or overseas - played to half empty arenas except of course in markets I can count on one hand.

Argue that.

[Hans Dix]

Cognitive dissonance. Keeps it on a win-win level

We win: fuck yeah we won let's get smashed!
We lose: fuck soccer it's gay anyway, almost football season let's get smashed!

[Constitution45]

In Europe, Football was always about community, identity and loyalty. This has been diluted now, with the amount of money going into the game and footballers being paid extreme amounts of money; and ticket prices go very high for regular fans being priced out. For a lot of young boys in England, it was a rite of passage. Going with a group of other boys your same age, having a leader of the group, usually an older man. Facing your fears by getting in fights with other men; looking out for each other.

I don't blame Americans not liking football, because the way it is over there. They never had any of this.

[Switch]

I just had another thought.

People are interested in the sport specific tactical planning that go on in spectator events. In american sports like american football or basketball, many people don't understand what goes on 'behind the scenes'. But they don't need to because of high scores, big hits and alley-oops.

But for the other sports that aren't instantly gratifying, like soccer or baseball, you need to understand what's going on when there is no scoring. You learn these tactics as a youth playing the game.

A lot of Americans think baseball is mind numbingly boring--those are the ones that stopped playing when they were 10. They never learned all of the cool stuff that baseball has to offer like hit n runs, sacs, suicide squeezes etc. Americans today don't have a background in soccer as a child, and therefore find it hard to get into now. Once todays generation is older, they will be more likely to enjoy soccer because they grew up playing it.

No doubt in my mind that o. My lifetime the USA will win at least one world cup.

[bojangles]

Excelsiors post was great, "soccer" does not rely on athleticism as much as other sports.

Example. One of the greatest players ever was a Brazilian called Socrates. His whole game was based around his technical ability (or skill) and his game intelligence. He played in midfield, in the engine room as we call it. However he would have told you himself, an engine is something he never had but his intelligence meant he knew exactly where he needed to be at the right time.

The reason he had no engine was because of his 40 a day cigarette habit combined with his heavy drinking. Imagine an elite sportsman doing that and still being recognised as one of the greats? Would that work in an american sport? He was also a Doctor funnily enough but this guy utilised his natural skills to become the Brazilian captain of the greatest team never to win the World Cup.

On another note the flexibility in football means those with athletic prowess can become greats however they still need that technical ability and intelligence to achieve that. Cristiano Ronaldo is a great example of someone who has amazing athletic prowess, forget your NBA stars and NFL linebackers, this guy as an athletic is only below F1 drivers (yep you read that right) however 10 years ago he was just a kid with great technical ability, he worked on his athletic abilities combined them with his technical skills and has become a great.

Finally why does football around the world transcend the sport? Socrates started the movement which brought down the military dictatorship in Brazil and led to their first multi-party elections. Only comparison to the US I could make was if Lebron James started a movement at Miami which forced Obama to step down.

Here's the drunk scoring a world cup goal