Greatest footballer ever?

[partygirluk]

http://eur.news1.yimg.com/eur.yimg.com/xp/reuters_ids/20050305/i/620880690.jpg

CARTAGENA, Colombia (Reuters) - Former Argentina soccer World Cup-winning captain Diego Maradona has had his stomach stapled to reduce his ballooning waistline, his Colombian doctors say.


Maradona, 44, had the two-hour operation in the picturesque port city of Cartagena on Colombia's Caribbean coast.


"Everything went well," Francisco Holguin, head of Cartagena's Medihelp clinic, where the operation was performed, told reporters on Saturday.


He said the former superstar, who is 5-foot-6-inch tall weighed 121 kg (19 stone) when he checked in, will spend three days in the clinic recovering.


The former midfielder only stopped playing professionally in 1997 but has grown almost unrecognisably fat in recent years despite spending much of his time in a Cuban clinic fighting cocaine addiction.


Maradona, considered with Brazil's Pele to be one of the finest soccer players of all time, will be fed intravenously for two days before going on a two-week liquid diet to be followed by solid foods, his doctors told a news conference. He is expected to remain in Colombia for about two weeks.


"In eight to 10 months he should be back to his ideal weight of 75 kg (12 stone)," Holguin added.


Stomach stapling, also known as a gastric bypass, reduces the stomach's capacity for holding food and bypasses part of the small intestine, forcing individuals to eat less.


Maradona, whose audacious playing propelled his home country Argentina to World Cup victory in 1986, spent more than a week in the intensive care unit of a Buenos Aires hospital last April with heart and breathing problems. He was then confined to a psychiatric clinic by his family.


In September, he returned to Cuba, where he has lived since 2000, to undergo more treatment for drug addiction but under a stricter regime than before.



Sad.

[Jman28]

Wow. I don't follow what we in the US call soccer very much, but that is sad.

I'm amazed that an athlete of his level could get that out of shape so quickly.

[jason_t]

He had very serious drug problems, among others. He basically let his life go to waste after retiring from football. He was an amazing footballer (every football fan can talk endlessly about two famous plays of his) but his story ended very sadly.

[Jman28]

[ QUOTE ]
He had very serious drug problems, among others. He basically let his life go to waste after retiring from football.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think you mean 'soccer'.



/images/graemlins/wink.gif

[partygirluk]

[ QUOTE ]
He had very serious drug problems, among others. He basically let his life go to waste after retiring from football. He was an amazing footballer (every football fan can talk endlessly about two famous plays of his) but his story ended very sadly.

[/ QUOTE ]

Which two? His goal v. England in 86, and?

[jason_t]

The amazing goal in that quarterfinal, and the Hand of God in the same game.

[NLSoldier]

I thought this thread was going to be about Walter Payton /images/graemlins/confused.gif

[thatpfunk]

[ QUOTE ]
I thought this thread was going to be about Walter Payton

[/ QUOTE ]

I believe you're confusing him with Jim Brown or Jerry Rice. You midwesterners are funny like that.

[partygirluk]

[ QUOTE ]
the Hand of God in the same game.

[/ QUOTE ]

Almost enough to make me not feel sorry for him /images/graemlins/cool.gif

[Jman28]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I thought this thread was going to be about Walter Payton

[/ QUOTE ]

I believe you're confusing him with Jim Brown or Jerry Rice. You midwesterners are funny like that.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think this is the third time in the last day or two that I've had nothing to add to your entirely correct post.

-Jman28

[jason_t]

[ QUOTE ]
Almost enough to make me not feel sorry for him /images/graemlins/cool.gif

[/ QUOTE ]

There is a quote by Bobby Robson that sums it all up.

"Today he scored one of the most beautiful goals you'll ever see. That first goal was dubious; the second one was a miracle, a fantastic goal. It's marvelous for football that every now and then the world produces a player like Maradona. I didn't like his second goal, but I admire it."

[Skjonne]

To answer the question in the title: No.

http://www.planetworldcup.com/LEGENDS/zico.jpg

[jedi]

I don't even follow "futbol" and I know the answer is Pele.

Edit: I don't even think Maradona is close.

[Jack of Arcades]

I take it those new kneepads are comfortable?

[Hasso]

just for the pain he's caused the english he'd get my vote.

[ToneLoc]

[ QUOTE ]
just for the pain he's caused the english he'd get my vote.

[/ QUOTE ]

Damn right.

[Chairman Wood]

On all of Pele's WC winning teams he was supported all around by a very good team. There is no performance in a championship/playoff of all of sports that compares with what Maradona did in the World Cup in 86'. He won a world championship by himself. Also, I would guess that even if you asked everyone in Brazil who the greatest footballer was ever that less than half of them would answer Pele.

[ToneLoc]

[ QUOTE ]
less than half of them would answer Pele.


[/ QUOTE ]

Correct, but just because the other half would answer Ronaldo...

[Chairman Wood]

This man is the epitome of everything that can go bad with fame/money etc. I was in Argentina a little over a year ago. A man about the age of 20 told me that when he was in school most students had to go by their middle name because over half the kids in the class were named Diego. It is very different than even the hoopla that was around Michael Jordan in his prime. Even in his present state, he is still worshipped like a God.

[Clarkmeister]

Brown or Rice, it's close.

[Chairman Wood]

I don't really think that's true. He is a great player but I don't think he has really achieved the level of greatness of a Pele/Maradona/Cruyff/Beckenbauer/ just yet (Not that I don't think that he will). The reason I say that is Pele just isn't all that beloved and respected in his home country.

[ToneLoc]

[ QUOTE ]
Brown or Rice, it's close.


[/ QUOTE ]

You are mistaken Clark. We are talking about a real sport here, not some muppet show where they stop playing every 20 secs for commercials.

[Clarkmeister]

Right. A real sport where the game is won by the team with the best actors, they decide the game in overtime using rules entirely different than those the game is normally played under, the athletes can't use their hands, and the fans are all criminals. Wonderful "sport".

[ToneLoc]

[ QUOTE ]
A real sport where the game is won by the team with the best actors,

[/ QUOTE ]
That is a reference to soccer as played by the Italians. That version of soccer isn't, indeed, a sport. Italians don't do sports.

[ QUOTE ]
they decide the game in overtime using rules entirely different than those the game is normally played under,

[/ QUOTE ]

That creates money time situation, which helps making the difference between men team (France) and others (dunno, maybe Germany for instance)

[ QUOTE ]
the athletes can't use their hands

[/ QUOTE ]
They do use their hands, remember that thread is about Diego M? Also in the good matches the players fight, using their hands.


[ QUOTE ]
and the fans are all criminals

[/ QUOTE ]

That is a reference to soccer as watched by the Brits. That version of soccer isn't, indeed, a sport. Brits don't do sports (darts anyone?).

[ QUOTE ]
Wonderful "sport".

[/ QUOTE ]
Indeed

[Bulldog]

[ QUOTE ]
Brown or Rice, it's close.

[/ QUOTE ]

It's not. One was the best at his position for ten years, the other for nearly twenty.

[maldini]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
A real sport where the game is won by the team with the best actors,

[/ QUOTE ]
That is a reference to soccer as played by the Italians. That version of soccer isn't, indeed, a sport. Italians don't do sports.


That creates money time situation, which helps making the difference between men team (France) and others (dunno, maybe Germany for instance)



[/ QUOTE ]

ok. i was just fine browsing and expecting fun sh1t talking between americans and soccer fans. then i get personally attacked out of nowhere.

let me remind you of something here, sir. italians are notorious chokers. not divers. yes, there is more diving than english and german players but french? come on now. and if italians were to dive, they'd do it with such flair that you'd have to rise and applaud.

also, lets not even talk about spanish and western hemispheric latins. i mean, they even dive on my sunday league with refs that are getting paid $30/game. ive seen them dive in pickup games with no ref.

dont put them and italians in the same sentence. its offensive.

-the maldini of poker

[ToneLoc]

[ QUOTE ]
dont put them and italians in the same sentence. its offensive.

[/ QUOTE ]

?? i mean italian football in itself is offensive... they have not beaten France since 1978 or so... they lost the euro 2000 in such an humiliating way...
Sorry but nothing can be offensive enough for italian football...

[mmbt0ne]

Yeah, Italians don't dive very often. Right.

http://www.londonblog.com/archives/images/mar03/totti.jpg

This man could've given Greg Louganis a run for his money.

[Clarkmeister]

That's a big part of why its such a lame sport. Diving is SUCH a huge part of the game, it's simply ridiculous.

Then there's still the absurdity that OT eventually ends in PKs. That's like NFL games ending in a FG contest or NBA games ending in 1 on 1 contests. It just bastardizes everything that happened in the previous 110+ minutes.

[ToneLoc]

[ QUOTE ]
That's a big part of why its such a lame sport. Diving is SUCH a huge part of the game, it's simply ridiculous.

Then there's still the absurdity that OT eventually ends in PKs. That's like NFL games ending in a FG contest or NBA games ending in 1 on 1 contests. It just bastardizes everything that happened in the previous 110+ minutes.

[/ QUOTE ]

You recognize real teams in Penalty shoot-outs. A great example being the WC final 1994, when the shameless italians ridiculed themselves in the shoot-outs vs Brazil. This was a GREAT match, evne though it endded up like this.
With regards to diving, just keep the italians (and M.Owen) out of the competition, and it should solve half the problem...

[Clarkmeister]

[ QUOTE ]
This was a GREAT match, evne though it endded up like this.


[/ QUOTE ]

Seriously, why don't they just play tiddly winks to decide who wins? It has about as much to do with the rest of the game as PKs.

[jakethebake]

wtf is a footballer?

[__Q__]

Reminds me of when Shawn Kemp put on about 100 pounds during an offseason.

[ToneLoc]

[ QUOTE ]
Seriously, why don't they just play tiddly winks to decide who wins? It has about as much to do with the rest of the game as PKs.

[/ QUOTE ]

Come on, Clark it is just like increasing blinds in poker tournaments... and it has to do with the rest of the game.
In Marican football the rule is quite stupid as well no, isn't the first scorer the winner of the mathc or something?

[sfer]

Soc-ah is niiice. I love play soc-ah.

[partygirluk]

[ QUOTE ]
That's a big part of why its such a lame sport. Diving is SUCH a huge part of the game, it's simply ridiculous.

Then there's still the absurdity that OT eventually ends in PKs. That's like NFL games ending in a FG contest or NBA games ending in 1 on 1 contests. It just bastardizes everything that happened in the previous 110+ minutes.

[/ QUOTE ]

That is an unfair analogy, as scoring is relatively scarce in football compared to other sports. If they just played on until someone scored, it could go on forever which is bad on a number of levels, just a few of which spring to my mind immediately:

i) Policing
ii) Public Transport
iii) Risk of serious injury.

Also, in the World Cup situation, teams often have to play games about 3 days apart. If one team's last match lasted for 90 minutes, and the other 200, there is a clear disadvantage.

If two teams can not be separated after 90 minutes, then not after 105, then not after 120 it is an indication that their core footballing abilities are very close. Penalties is both a footballing and a nerve test. It makes sensational viewing.

[Clarkmeister]

That all sounds nice except that the NHL playoffs have disproven every one of your points. Scoring is equally scarce, injury risk is certainly greater, and still they play on for 60, 90, 120, or however many minutes are needed for a team to beat the other.

[The once and future king]

[ QUOTE ]
That's a big part of why its such a lame sport.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes it would but much less lame if they stoped it every 4 minutes for adverts.

There is more drama and tesnsion in penalties than at any point in an Amrican throw ball match.

When considering the merits of both sports contemplate on the reason why football has been adopted in a massivee way by 99% of the Nations of the world yet American throwball is only played in yankland.

As for the best footballer ever ever = John Terry.

[SenecaJim]

I'm not a Bears fan, I'm Steelers. But, even if there have been more talented or better players (barry sanders) , I think the GREATEST footballer ever, as in whole package, was SWEETNESS. Can't believe the way Chicago threw him aside for "The Fridge" and company.

[Clarkmeister]

Football is adopted outside of Europe because the rest of the world is poor and can't afford most other sports. You are delusional if you think otherwise.

[pokerjo22]

As a baseball fan you're on thin ice crapping on other people's sports.

[StevieG]

[ QUOTE ]
Football is adopted outside of Europe because the rest of the world is poor and can't afford most other sports. You are delusional if you think otherwise.

[/ QUOTE ]

Cricket would seem to require a lot more resources than soccer. Yet Bangladesh, Sri Lanka, West Indies, and India, while all relatively poor, compete at the world class level.

There is more to a country adopting a sport than resources alone.

[jdl22]

I may have asked this before, but something I don't understand is why so many people decide to get clever and say "futbol." It's related to the thread awhile back on overpronouncing Spanish words when speaking English, makes no sense.

Basically everyone in the world says their version of football, either a translation or simply a word that sounds like the word football in English (this included futbol, which is at times referred to in Spanish as Balompie a direct translation). So why do you say it in Spanish?

[jdl22]

I think you're wrong here because the OP used the term footballer, which uniquely refers to soccer players.

When have you ever heard any announcer or fan for that matter of (american) football refer to a player as a footballer? I don't recall having ever heard that.

[jdl22]

Yes, he is.

I prefer these pics for obvious reasons:
http://www.hastalamuerte.net/modules/coppermine/albums/userpics/Jugadores/Maradona/Maradona01.jpg
Diego Maradona and Davor Suker - probably best two Sevillistas ever.
http://www.hastalamuerte.net/modules/coppermine/albums/userpics/Jugadores/Maradona/Maradona09.jpg
http://www.hastalamuerte.net/modules/coppermine/albums/userpics/Jugadores/Maradona/Maradona06.jpg
http://www.hastalamuerte.net/modules/coppermine/albums/userpics/Jugadores/Maradona/Maradona04.jpg
http://www.hastalamuerte.net/modules/coppermine/albums/userpics/Jugadores/Maradona/Maradona00.jpg

¡Hasta la Muerte!

[dogsballs]

For me, Pele was the greatest, partly for the goal he never scored. He ran on and the ball was slotted forward, Pele ran straight over the ball and the keeper followed him instead of the ball; the ball slid outside the post...Didn't work but totally sublime.

Edit: It wouldn't even have been his goal if it'd gone in, since he didn't touch it.

[The once and future king]

[ QUOTE ]
Football is adopted outside of Europe because the rest of the world is poor and can't afford most other sports. You are delusional if you think otherwise.

[/ QUOTE ]

No offence (realy) but dumbest arguement ever.

Oh no hang on. I heard that those balls that you throw are alot more expensive than the ones you kick. Also bits of wood and ball combos are also much more expensive than those balls you buy to kick (baseball reference).

Its true all those other realy inexpensive sports are also popular all over the world like Tennis for example,rugby (popular realtive to american throwball anyways) and golf.

Face it no one plays American throwball because it is intrisicaly [censored]. You are delusional if you think otherwise.

[jason_t]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Football is adopted outside of Europe because the rest of the world is poor and can't afford most other sports. You are delusional if you think otherwise.

[/ QUOTE ]

No offence (realy) but dumbest arguement ever.

[/ QUOTE ]

Actually, historically this is a reason the game spread so easily.

[Clarkmeister]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Football is adopted outside of Europe because the rest of the world is poor and can't afford most other sports. You are delusional if you think otherwise.

[/ QUOTE ]

Cricket would seem to require a lot more resources than soccer. Yet Bangladesh, Sri Lanka, West Indies, and India, while all relatively poor, compete at the world class level.

There is more to a country adopting a sport than resources alone.

[/ QUOTE ]

True. Lots of it has to do with what country occupied you for centuries.

[The once and future king]

[ QUOTE ]
True. Lots of it has to do with what country occupied you for centuries.

[/ QUOTE ]

Funny, the world loves the coka cola and the big macs and the movies and poker and the crazy rock and roll, but your team sports??

[Clarkmeister]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
True. Lots of it has to do with what country occupied you for centuries.

[/ QUOTE ]

Funny, the world loves the coka cola and the big macs and the movies and poker and the crazy rock and roll, but your team sports??

[/ QUOTE ]

Surely you can see the difference between the nature of these products.

[SenecaJim]

oh, you're talking about soccer. Hey, do they have leagues and stuff like football?

[The once and future king]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
True. Lots of it has to do with what country occupied you for centuries.

[/ QUOTE ]

Funny, the world loves the coka cola and the big macs and the movies and poker and the crazy rock and roll, but your team sports??

[/ QUOTE ]

Surely you can see the difference between the nature of these products.

[/ QUOTE ]

Surely you can see that if these sports had any merits the world has every opportunity to adopt them. The world adopts so much from your culture but leaves the team sports virtualy untouched.

When Britain was a superpower we adopted things from other cultures (cup of T anyone) but gave the world out superalitve team sports in return.

[hoyaboy1]

Last I checked a lot of people play basketball and baseball.

[The once and future king]

[ QUOTE ]
Last I checked a lot of people play basketball and baseball.

[/ QUOTE ]

Check again.

[Clarkmeister]

Sports are different than soft drinks. I'm not going to go into a lesson for you. Besides wasting my breath on that does nothing to change the terribly flawed OT system in soccer.

I just love that no one in America gives a crap about the sport and we still advanced further than France or Italy in the last World Cup. Only bad luck against Germany stopped us from advancing to the Semis because we totally outplayed them.

[thatpfunk]

Uh, basketball?

Football is extremely difficult for people to just pickup and play. The rules are complicated, there is a lot of expensive equipment, and a lot of necessary room.

Soccer, baseball, and basketball demand very little in comparison, hence there worldwide popularity.

Alos, Clark you are right on with the reason cricket (sp?) is popular in those countries.

[The once and future king]

Bottom line.

If your sports were any good (like your burgers and soft drinks)more people would play them.

[The once and future king]

[ QUOTE ]
Soccer baseball, and basketball demand very little in comparison, hence there worldwide popularity.

[/ QUOTE ]

Only an American could say this. Get a passport and get out and see the world so you can understand how ridiculous it is to compare "soccer" with baseball and basketball in terms of popularity.

The world cup is watched by billions of people. How many watch the equivalents for baseball and basketball, indeed there limited popularity limits them from having a true equivalent.

[Brain]

[ QUOTE ]
NBA games ending in 1 on 1 contests.

[/ QUOTE ]

Isn't that what happens in the first 48 minutes of every NBA game anyway?

[Clarkmeister]

[ QUOTE ]
Bottom line.

If your sports were any good (like your burgers and soft drinks)more people would play them.

[/ QUOTE ]

Incorrect.

Besides, your premise is totally faulty. On one hand, you equate soccer's popularity with global acceptance. On the other, you equate hamburgers as examples of successful exports. I promise you, hamburgers aren't big deals in most of the countries where soccer is popular. If anything, it's basically an export that works mostly in Europe. The same Europe that has embraced basketball, despite the significant hurdles that a "new" sport must overcome (much different ones than exported movies or food).

Bottom line, the US puts no resources into soccer and our (at best) 4th tier athletes take it up and we were still between the 5th and 8th best nation in the world at it in the last world cup. I deem the rest of the world to be....

http://solastyear.com/catglassown.jpg

[The once and future king]

[ QUOTE ]
The same Europe that has embraced basketball, despite the significant hurdles that a "new" sport must overcome (much different ones than exported movies or food).

[/ QUOTE ]

Embraced. LOL. See above post about passport and travel. This is untrue. Basketball is an utterly marginal sport in Europe.

I note that you dont mention American throwball (you must secretly know this sucks)

People like fun. Sports are fun. If american sports were fun people would play them/watch them take a modicum of interest in them. People dont play them so we can see quite clearly see that yank sports are crap. IPSO FACTO

Look you gave the world poker. Everything else sucks big time. Though I will begrudgingly admit that basketball is sort of ok.

[wAzZu24]

[ QUOTE ]
That all sounds nice except that the NHL playoffs have disproven every one of your points. Scoring is equally scarce, injury risk is certainly greater, and still they play on for 60, 90, 120, or however many minutes are needed for a team to beat the other.

[/ QUOTE ]


This is a very weak argument. You obviously have little knowledge of the rules in international soccer. Three substitutions are allowed, so if the game were to go on 150+ minutes with both teams having used their subs in regulation the players would become incredibly fatiqued. In hockey each team has 4 lines, each which typically play 45 second shifts(the better players take longer shifts), thus the players can have the strength to play for more periods.

I think maybe you need to brush up on your sports knowledge before you decide to post anything more.

[Clarkmeister]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
That all sounds nice except that the NHL playoffs have disproven every one of your points. Scoring is equally scarce, injury risk is certainly greater, and still they play on for 60, 90, 120, or however many minutes are needed for a team to beat the other.

[/ QUOTE ]


This is a very weak argument. You obviously have little knowledge of the rules in international soccer. Three substitutions are allowed, so if the game were to go on 150+ minutes with both teams having used their subs in regulation the players would become incredibly fatiqued. In hockey each team has 4 lines, each which typically play 45 second shifts(the better players take longer shifts), thus the players can have the strength to play for more periods.

I think maybe you need to brush up on your sports knowledge before you decide to post anything more.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm quite famiar with the rules. Meanwhile, you've obviously never seen a hockey match that went more than 1 extra period if you think the players aren't exhausted to the verge of collapse.

[wAzZu24]

I have won a state championship in ice hockey and in soccer. Don't bother questioning me, because i know all.

Edit: I have seen hockey games that have gone into over 6 OTs, and yes i know its very very tiring, but there are also 15 minute intermissions....

[Clarkmeister]

[ QUOTE ]
I have won a state championship in ice hockey and in soccer. Don't bother questioning me, because i know all.

[/ QUOTE ]

Apparently not.

[Clarkmeister]

"15 minute intermissions"

And there are no delays in soccer while the players flop all over the place trying to draw penalties, right? /images/graemlins/smirk.gif

[wAzZu24]

[ QUOTE ]
"15 minute intermissions"

And there are no delays in soccer while the players flop all over the place trying to draw penalties, right? /images/graemlins/smirk.gif

[/ QUOTE ]

They're called fouls, and even if these are flops or real infractions they dont last that long except for the occasional long ordeal in a red card situation.

In hockey there are penalties which stop the game. TV commercial breaks, icing, offsides, timeouts(each team gets one each), and fights(these break out much much less in the playoffs though).

[thatpfunk]

[ QUOTE ]
Only an American could say this. Get a passport and get out and see the world so you can understand how ridiculous it is to compare "soccer" with baseball and basketball in terms of popularity.

The world cup is watched by billions of people. How many watch the equivalents for baseball and basketball, indeed there limited popularity limits them from having a true equivalent.

[/ QUOTE ]

jesus you sound like an idiot. Where did I say that they wre AS popular as soccer? I lived in europe jackass. Also, there are more to the world than just europe. how about we go to asia, etc.

[JoeU]

Ok, here's my 2 cents.

Alot of people have said alot of things about soccer in this thread. Some good, some bad.

Here's my responses to a select few:

Clarkmeister said:
[ QUOTE ]
Right. A real sport where the game is won by the team with the best actors, they decide the game in overtime using rules entirely different than those the game is normally played under, the athletes can't use their hands, and the fans are all criminals.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'll start at the top. Game is won by the team with the best actors. Hockey is very similar...at all levels. There is just as much diving in hockey as there is in soccer. Hockey players dive when they feel a stick under their arm, goalies dive when they get "bumped".

They decide games in overtime using rules entirely different than those the game is normally played under.

Truth is, they only use overtime/golden goal/shootout type stuff in the elimination round of a major tournament. Fact is, the majority of soccer games end in a tie after 90 minutes. They do not go to overtime etc. That overtime shootout stuff you see in MLS is concocted for the American fan who "has to see scoring".

Athletes can't use their hands.

Ummm goalies?, Throw ins?

The fans are all criminals.

Ummm Pacers/Pistons??? How many soccer fights have you seen in stands outside of England?

ToneLoc said:

[ QUOTE ]
?? i mean italian football in itself is offensive... they have not beaten France since 1978 or so... they lost the euro 2000 in such an humiliating way...
Sorry but nothing can be offensive enough for italian football...

[/ QUOTE ]

Really pal, you need to check the history books again. England won how many World Cups since 66??? In round numbers??? Zero!

Also, Italy has won 1 European Championship, England has never reached the final.

Italy's Serie A is arguably the best league in the world, The Premier League isn't close.

I don't want to even start about the hooliganism.

ToneLoc said:

[ QUOTE ]
A great example being the WC final 1994, when the shameless italians ridiculed themselves in the shoot-outs vs Brazil. This was a GREAT match, evne though it endded up like this.


[/ QUOTE ]

Mind telling me where the ridicule was? Brazil was possibly the best team on the planet in 94. They played in a muggy 95 degree Coliseum in LA, oh yeah, and Baggio played 120 minutes, and took his PK with 2 pulled hamstrings.

Lots of ridicule there.

Clarkmeister said:

[ QUOTE ]
That all sounds nice except that the NHL playoffs have disproven every one of your points. Scoring is equally scarce, injury risk is certainly greater, and still they play on for 60, 90, 120, or however many minutes are needed for a team to beat the other.


[/ QUOTE ]

In response to partygirluk:

[ QUOTE ]
Also, in the World Cup situation, teams often have to play games about 3 days apart. If one team's last match lasted for 90 minutes, and the other 200, there is a clear disadvantage.

If two teams can not be separated after 90 minutes, then not after 105, then not after 120 it is an indication that their core footballing abilities are very close. Penalties is both a footballing and a nerve test. It makes sensational viewing.

[/ QUOTE ]

To ask any athlete to run for 200 or 300 minutes after a tied game in a championship is nuts. I agree that what sometimes happens in hockey is very exciting and great to watch. But hockey players play about 5-7 1:00 shifts every period. the rest of the playing time, they are on the bench. That also doesn't include stoppages and intermission. When soccer games have to go to overtime, the players on the field get about 5 minutes max for water between halves. If the coach has used all the subs, then the players are in for the duration. Also, climate in a hockey game is controlled, no such luxury exists in soccer. If its 100 degrees, its 100 degrees. And if you have no subs, well then it sucks to be you.

The once and future king said:

[ QUOTE ]
Oh no hang on. I heard that those balls that you throw are alot more expensive than the ones you kick. Also bits of wood and ball combos are also much more expensive than those balls you buy to kick (baseball reference).

Its true all those other realy inexpensive sports are also popular all over the world like Tennis for example,rugby (popular realtive to american throwball anyways) and golf.

Face it no one plays American throwball because it is intrisicaly [censored]. You are delusional if you think otherwise.

[/ QUOTE ]

The popularity of NFL Europe has grown a great deal over the years. Baseball is huge in South America, Central America, and Asia. And last I checked, golf was pretty expensive and played by players in Fiji and South Africa. Next to Vijay, the only rich local in Fiji is Jimmy Superfly Snuka. Might want to re-think the cheap shot.

I also saw the comparissons to Coke (Coca Cola) and the Big Mac. Coke might be popular, but the Big Mac isn't quite there yet. That stuff is all about advertising.

Clarkmeister said:

[ QUOTE ]
I just love that no one in America gives a crap about the sport and we still advanced further than France or Italy in the last World Cup. Only bad luck against Germany stopped us from advancing to the Semis because we totally outplayed them.

[/ QUOTE ]

Alot of people "gave a crap" about that game. Advancing that far was only the 2nd greatest feat they accomplished that year. Can you name the first?

thatpfunk said:

[ QUOTE ]
Football is extremely difficult for people to just pickup and play. The rules are complicated, there is a lot of expensive equipment, and a lot of necessary room.

[/ QUOTE ]

You had me right up to "alot of necessary room". Since it seems you are not aware, the size of a soccer field is greater than the size of a football field. They are actually the same length (120yds), but a soccer field is about 10 yards wider. Same space.

Clarkmeister said:

[ QUOTE ]
Bottom line, the US puts no resources into soccer and our (at best) 4th tier athletes take it up and we were still between the 5th and 8th best nation in the world at it in the last world cup.

[/ QUOTE ]

Sorry Clarky, I don't want this to seem like I'm picking on you. I do respect alot of the things you say in these forums.

But on this spot, you are dead wrong for saying this. Where is your proof that our best athletes are not soccer players.

Can Dan Marino hit a person in the chest from 50 yards away while the player is cutting across the field? Of course he can. Can he do it with his feet?, I can.

Can Mike Richter defend a goal that is 4'tall and 6'wide? Of course he can. Can he defend a goal that it is 8'high by 12'wide?, with no pads on? Probably not., but I can.

Oh by the way, if you remember meeting me at the Mirage with NPA last May, you'll remember that I am the opposite of anything that resembles an athlete!

Maybe an athlete is the fastest person? I'm sure most of our world class sprinters are not football players. Some might play soccer.

Fact of the matter is there is no way to prove that our nations best athletes are football players or baseball players. They just might be soccer players.

You also said the US doesn't put any resources into soccer. There are more kids playing soccer in youth leagues today than in any other sport. There is no disputing this. I believe there was an article in Newsweek or some magazine like that about this very topic.

This country has allocated alot of time and money into soccer. The problem is that they have focused their efforts incorrectly. The kids here are not well coached. They are taught soccer by parents who learn it out of a book. In Europe, South America, and Asia kids actually go to a soccer school of sorts. Teams like ManU and Real Madrid pick up these kids when they are like 7-8 years old and train them to be soccer players. At the same time, they are schooled just like any other 7-8 year old. And you thought LeBron was young! /images/graemlins/grin.gif


There, I've said my peace and bored the entire OOT forum to sleep.

As for the actual answer to the Question posted on the thread:

Diego Maradona did win the World Cup single Handedly in 86 (no pun intended). But Pele was winning cups with Brasil when he was 17 years old.

Slight edge to Pele, but this one IS very close.

Joe

[mosta]

the reason soccer is a better sport than football is because nothing in football comes anywhere near to the skill and grace required to dribble past a defender or trap and shoot a ball, with your feet, at speed. there is nothing in the the game of football that a baboon couldn't be trained in half an hour to do better than a human. games of skill are better than baboon games (especially when the baboon game takes, what, at least 3 hours for at most 15 minutes of actual in-play action).

[thatpfunk]

[ QUOTE ]
You had me right up to "alot of necessary room". Since it seems you are not aware, the size of a soccer field is greater than the size of a football field. They are actually the same length (120yds), but a soccer field is about 10 yards wider. Same space.

[/ QUOTE ]

I meant simply that you can play many forms of pick up soccer in small areas (kick back, one on one games, kicking on a single goal, etc) whereas football is limited to basically playing catch or something similar. I'm aware of the dimensions of a soccer field.

Nice post btw.

[thatpfunk]

This is a whole other thread, but I think football highlights exhibit a much greater show of athletic talent and skill than those of soccer.

This is not saying that I don't find soccer highlights amazing, but I find one handed catches with a defender on your back, eluding 4 other men trying to tackle you, or keeping your toes in bounds while catching a ball to display much more athletic skill.

[mosta]

monkeys have very strong fingers and dexterous hands.

[thatpfunk]

thats interesting, thanks encyclopedia britanica.

[partygirluk]

[ QUOTE ]
That all sounds nice except that the NHL playoffs have disproven every one of your points. Scoring is equally scarce, injury risk is certainly greater, and still they play on for 60, 90, 120, or however many minutes are needed for a team to beat the other.

[/ QUOTE ]

Scoring is not equally scarce in NHL as in Football. That is just plain 100% totally wrong and you should admit as much immediately

[partygirluk]

btw, I quickly looked at some NHL statistics, and the average Hockey game contains > 2 the goals of a Premiership football game, in 50% less playing time. This is 3* as many goals per minute! Also, most footballers will have played the full 120 minutes, with only a total of 20 minutes break. Compare this to ice hockey......

[lorinda]

Seriously, why don't they just play tiddly winks to decide who wins? It has about as much to do with the rest of the game as PKs.

[ QUOTE ]
But field-goal kickers improved, and the N.F.L. moved the spot of the kickoff back to the 30-yard line in 1994. Since then, coin-flip winners have gone 104-69-3

[/ QUOTE ]

OT Sucks (http://www.nytimes.com/2005/01/30/sports/football/30mailbox.ready.html?ex=1110603600&en=6013ecf8d4ab 9812&ei=5070&oref=login)

Lori (I prefer football to soccer however)

[partygirluk]

[ QUOTE ]

Lori (I prefer football to soccer however)

[/ QUOTE ]

Go back to the zoo.

[lorinda]

Go back to the zoo.

Good plan. It's always too rough for me here in downtown 2+2 anyway.

Lori

[partygirluk]

[ QUOTE ]
Go back to the zoo.

Good plan. It's always too rough for me here in downtown 2+2 anyway.

Lori

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah, wtf is all this with women thinking they have the right to talk about sport? Political correctness gone mad.

[daveymck]

Extra Time in football only happens in cup matches, standard games end in a draw a point each the end. The extra time in football is better than US Football as it comes down to the best team over the 30 minutes not who wins the toss and gets into field goal range first. The golden goal rule in football is stupid as it is in US football too.

Anyone who thinks the Italian league is the best in europe clearly knows nothing about european club football, it maybe was 4-5 years ago but has been overtaken by the premiership and spanish leagues in more recent times. The spanish league is prbably the best in Europe currently with the english PL a bit behind it. Looking at the countries results is no indication of the league quality of the country, you need to examine the players playing the league (eg the french world cup winning squad most were playing in the UK or Spain).

The Champions league is more an indication of the qulaity of the league and it is being dominated by Spain and Uk if not in the winning in the teams getting to the latter stages.

A lot of football fans could not really care about their contries team, personally I would rather my team won the PL (if they get there) than England win the world cup.

[daveymck]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Go back to the zoo.

Good plan. It's always too rough for me here in downtown 2+2 anyway.

Lori

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah, wtf is all this with women thinking they have the right to talk about sport? Political correctness gone mad.

[/ QUOTE ]

Bear in mind Lori is from Birmingham they dont get to experience good football.

[partygirluk]

[ QUOTE ]

Bear in mind Lori is from Birmingham

[/ QUOTE ]

How sad. Lori, you have my condolences.

[The once and future king]

[ QUOTE ]
jesus you sound like an idiot.

[/ QUOTE ]

I thought this was a discussion about sport not religion.

[ QUOTE ]
Where did I say that they wre AS popular as soccer?

[/ QUOTE ]

You implied it directly by mentioning them all in the same sentence without differentianting there relative popularity:

[ QUOTE ]
Soccer, baseball, and basketball demand very little in comparison, hence there worldwide popularity.

[/ QUOTE ]

Basketball and baseball are not popular at all if you use "soccer" as your yardstick.

Also Clarkpeon, you have managed to follow up the dumbest arguement with the dumbest and most incorrect observation:

[ QUOTE ]
I promise you, hamburgers aren't big deals in most of the countries where soccer is popular. If anything, it's basically an export that works mostly in Europe.

[/ QUOTE ]

Hmmmmmm. Ok so its not true that Mcdonalds et al have opened branches all over Australia, Asia , and South America.

You miss my point anyway. Britain (God save the queen) like Yankland had a period of cultural dominence so we can compare and contrast the export of their team sports.

For the sake of this comparison lets look at Cricket.

1. Utterly complex rules.

2. Specialist equipment needed.

3. English upper classes refused to play it with locals of colonies/ protectorates etc.

So, according to your arguement this would inhibit its uptake as these are the reasons inhibiting the uptake of yank sports.

However, the fact remains that:

Cricket is much much more popular in India, Pakistan, Auastralia, New Zealand, and South Africa than it is in its country of origin England

You will never be able to say this about inferior yank sports. The above observatons refute your arguement on every level.

The reason why yank sports are not adopted internationaly on a major scale is in relation to there essence as sports. In essence they are crap.

[daveymck]

Interestingly they are using cricket to get kids off the streets in some of the rough gang areas of LA. Wondered when I saw that report why they were not using baseball or similar.

[thatpfunk]

ahh, thanks for proving all my assumptions about you...

[The once and future king]

[ QUOTE ]
ahh, thanks for proving all my assumptions about you...

[/ QUOTE ]

Thanks for proving that only an ass makes assumptions.

Got anything in the way of an actual arguement or have I reduced you to the desperate last stand of personal attacks.

[jason_t]

[ QUOTE ]
Cricket is much much more popular in India, Pakistan, Auastralia, New Zealand, and South Africa than it is in its country of origin England

[/ QUOTE ]

Every one of these coutries is a derivative of the United Kingdom.

Cheers.

[The once and future king]

Yet still are culturaly diverse enough to want to nuke the [censored] out of each other (Pakistan/India).

Even if your facile arguement was approaching correct it wouldnt change the fact that england has exported a highly complex sport which has become much much more popular in the client nation than in the host nation.

Something that will never be said about essentialy crap yank sports.

[partygirluk]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Cricket is much much more popular in India, Pakistan, Auastralia, New Zealand, and South Africa than it is in its country of origin England

[/ QUOTE ]

Every one of these coutries is a derivative of the United Kingdom.

Cheers.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't know what the original discussion was, but cricket is very clearly a colonial game. Just look at the test playing nations, courtesy of Wikipedia

There are currently ten Test-playing nations, listed below with the date of each nation's Test debut shown in brackets:

Australia (15th March, 1877)
England (15th March, 1877)
South Africa (12th March, 1889) (Note: Banned from international cricket from 1970 to 1991 due to their policy of apartheid)
West Indies (23rd June, 1928)
New Zealand (10th January, 1930)
India (25th June, 1932) (Note: pre-1947 India included Pakistan and Bangladesh.
Pakistan (16th October,1952) (Note: pre-1971 Pakistan included Bangladesh. )
Sri Lanka (17th February, 1982)
Zimbabwe (18th October, 1992)
Bangladesh (10th November, 2000)

England + 9 ex colonies.

[jason_t]

[ QUOTE ]
Yet still are culturaly diverse enough to want to nuke the [censored] out of each other (Pakistan/India).

[/ QUOTE ]

This is a direct result of historical actions that England took.

[ QUOTE ]
Even if your facile arguement was approaching correct it wouldnt change the fact that england has exported a highly complex sport which has become much much more popular in the client nation than in the host nation.

[/ QUOTE ]

Facile argument? I didn't give an argument. I was stating a fact that explains why cricket spread to the aforementioned nations; it spread, I think, pretty much to only the colonies of the United Kingdom.

[ QUOTE ]
Something that will never be said about essentialy crap yank sports.

[/ QUOTE ]

So I have some context, where are you from?

[hoyaboy1]

Just as an aside, whoever argued that our best athletes are playing soccer/football is crazy. It's kind of like when a kid is good at lacrosse and thinks they are a badass - congratulations, you are better than all the other kids who couldn't play basketball, football, or baseball.

[partygirluk]

[ QUOTE ]
Just as an aside, whoever argued that our best athletes are playing soccer/football is crazy. It's kind of like when a kid is good at lacrosse and thinks they are a badass - congratulations, you are better than all the other kids who couldn't play basketball, football, or baseball.

[/ QUOTE ]

That is just BS.

[hoyaboy1]

Care to elaborate? Athletic ability to a large extent transfers between sports. Our most coordinated, fastest and strongest athletes almost never play soccer. They play football, basketball and baseball. We'd dominate soccer if anyone here cared about it.

[jason_t]

[ QUOTE ]
We'd dominate soccer if anyone here cared about it.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is completely absurd.

[The once and future king]

It is very differnt to say a country was a derivative of England than to say it was a former colony of england. I suspect that you know this.

Is Yankland a derivative of Engalnd.

My point is clear. Yes England obviously had power over these countires, depite having every reason to resent us they adopted cricket with such passion that it is more popular in said countires than in England itself. This can only be explianed by the transcendent qualities of the sport itself. It is not just that they play cricket, but the fact that they love it more than we the english.

Compare this to the American experience. You have had over half a century of military and cultural dominence and your troops stationed all Europe and Asia, can we observe a similar phenomonen. Of course not.

If youre sports werent in essence crap we would of course see american sports being played passionetly and devotedly on the world stage.

[hoyaboy1]

Jason, you can feel free to elaborate too.

If soccer had the standing here it does the other top teams' countries, and all of our athletes' first choice was soccer, you really don't think the US would consistently produce the best national team and the highest number of quality players?

[hoyaboy1]

[ QUOTE ]


My point is clear. Yes England obviously had power over these countires, depite having every reason to resent us they adopted cricket with such passion that it is more popular in said countires than in England itself. This can only be explianed by the transcendent qualities of the sport itself. It is not just that they play cricket, but the fact that they love it more than we the english.

Compare this to the American experience. You have had over half a century of military and cultural dominence and your troops stationed all Europe and Asia, can we observe a similar phenomonen. Of course not.


[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, because the US having troops stationed in Europe and Asia is equivalent to a colony.

[jason_t]

[ QUOTE ]
If soccer had the standing here it does the other top teams' countries, and all of our athletes' first choice was soccer, you really don't think the US would consistently produce the best national team and the highest number of quality players?

[/ QUOTE ]

I see no reason think this other than national pride and arrogance.

[partygirluk]

The best footballers in the world are the best by merit of being better than millions and millions of other aspiring footballers.

The best basketball players in the world are the best by merit of being better than millions and millions of other apsiring basketball players.

Pele and Michael Jordan are both freakishly athletically gifted. To claim that one is clearly better than the other is just plain wrong.

[The once and future king]

So your saying that if you goto a country,utterly suppress its local population, exlpoit it economicaly and refuse at all times to play the Kings game (cricket) with the local riff raff they are more likely to take said game into there very souls.

The whole point is that our colonies should have hated cricket and everything it stood for. However the pure brilliance of the sport enabled it transcend the normal dominant considerations of politics/race/religion and led the local population to embrace it utterly.

You will never observe a similar phenomenon with Yank "sports".

To any rational mind free of the simply knee jerk mentality of patriotism it is clear that:

Sports of her Majesty> Septic tank "sports".

[hoyaboy1]

I never said Jordan was more gifted than Pele. But he is waaaaaaaaaaaay more gifted than, say, Landon Donovan. And that is the point.

BTW, I like soccer. I am currently living in Spain, watched Champions League the past 2 nights, and having Winning Eleven in my PS2. But I still think you are in denial if you don't think the US would be the dominant soccer power if that sport was #1 here.

[partygirluk]

[ QUOTE ]
I never said Jordan was more gifted than Pele. But he is waaaaaaaaaaaay more gifted than, say, Landon Donovan. And that is the point.

[/ QUOTE ]

Wtf kind of point is that?

[jason_t]

[ QUOTE ]
Compare this to the American experience. You have had over half a century of military and cultural dominence and your troops stationed all Europe and Asia, can we observe a similar phenomonen. Of course not.


[/ QUOTE ]

The world was already obsessed with football during America's military dominance. Moreover, America's military dominance was not, unlike England, accompanied by an attempt to alter the cultures of the countries it occupied.

[hoyaboy1]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I never said Jordan was more gifted than Pele. But he is waaaaaaaaaaaay more gifted than, say, Landon Donovan. And that is the point.

[/ QUOTE ]

Wtf kind of point is that?

[/ QUOTE ]

Maybe that there is a huge gap in the US between the athletic prowess of athletes in our top sports and our athletes that play soccer?

[jason_t]

[ QUOTE ]
I never said Jordan was more gifted than Pele. But he is waaaaaaaaaaaay more gifted than, say, Landon Donovan. And that is the point.

[/ QUOTE ]

What is your point? He is also way more talented than almost any other basketballer ever.

[partygirluk]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I never said Jordan was more gifted than Pele. But he is waaaaaaaaaaaay more gifted than, say, Landon Donovan. And that is the point.

[/ QUOTE ]

Wtf kind of point is that?

[/ QUOTE ]

Maybe that there is a huge gap in the US between the athletic prowess of athletes in our top sports and our athletes that play soccer?

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah and there is a huge gap in the athletic prowess of David Beckham and England's top basketball player - what are you trying to say?

[hoyaboy1]

Then replace Jordan with James.

Edit - partyuk, dear god, you can't be this dense. You can disagree with me but don't feign misunderstanding. The US is already top 10 in soccer, and we are not using our top athletes. That is the point. Most of the guys who would be our best players are playing another sport. You had to have figured that out.

Basically, we can all agree on the following 2 things:

1 - The US is currently decent at soccer
2 - Most of our best athletes don't play soccer.
3 - The US would be much better if soccer was our #1 sport.

I think "much better" would be number 1. Other people don't, and that is probably as far as this can go.

[jason_t]

[ QUOTE ]
and we are not using our top athletes

[/ QUOTE ]

What is your basis for making this statement?

[hoyaboy1]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
and we are not using our top athletes

[/ QUOTE ]

What is your basis for making this statement?

[/ QUOTE ]

Knowing something about sports. Read the edit to my last post, I think that is as far as this argument can go.

Anyone who legitimately wants to argue that soccer is getting our best athletes is not worth my time.

[jason_t]

[ QUOTE ]
2 - Most of our best athletes don't play soccer.

[/ QUOTE ]

I do not see any reason to believe this statement.

[ QUOTE ]
I think "much better" would be number 1.

[/ QUOTE ]

Nor this one.

[The once and future king]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Compare this to the American experience. You have had over half a century of military and cultural dominence and your troops stationed all Europe and Asia, can we observe a similar phenomonen. Of course not.


[/ QUOTE ]

The world was already obsessed with football during America's military dominance. Moreover, America's military dominance was not, unlike England, accompanied by an attempt to alter the cultures of the countries it occupied.

[/ QUOTE ]

But this is the whole point. The english hated the idea of the locals playing cricket and the locals hated the english.
Yet still they learnt to love cricket more than the englsih themselves.

[hoyaboy1]

[ QUOTE ]
I think "much better" would be number 1.

[/ QUOTE ]

Nor this one.

[/ QUOTE ]

Probably why I said think and in the same sentence said some people would think otherwise. Nice post though.

[partygirluk]

Many of the skills that make a basketball or NFL player great would not fully transfer to football, and vice versa. Nonetheless, if the U.S. insisted that the only sport its citizens could play is football, you would be better than you are now. And if the UK insisted that we could only cricket, then we would be better. This is just plain obvious.

btw no way that the U.S are top 10 in the world for football.

[jason_t]

[ QUOTE ]

Anyone who legitimately wants to argue that soccer is getting our best athletes is not worth my time.

[/ QUOTE ]

Anyone who wants to make blanket statements without any supporting facts while attempting to engage in an otherwise interesting discussion is not worth my time.

[hoyaboy1]

Good, because this is boring and I don't enjoy arguing things that are obvious to anyone who has a clue about sports in the US.

[jason_t]

[ QUOTE ]
btw no way that the U.S are top 10 in the world for football.

[/ QUOTE ]

Currently, top 11.

Fifa World Rankings (btw no way that the U.S are top 10 in the world for football.)

[jason_t]

[ QUOTE ]
Good, because this is boring and I don't enjoy arguing things that are obvious to anyone who has a clue about sports in the US.

[/ QUOTE ]

I am an American but I disagree with (strongly) with the statements you are making; I believe they are rooted in national pride and arrogance, and some ignorance.

[hoyaboy1]

Fine, I wanted to wait until more people came on since this is so absurd, but it is too early since I am 6 hours ahead.

In the other major US sports, a high percentage of our best players are African-Americans. Many come from the city. In soccer, a much lower percentage of our best players fit those criteria.

Now, do you think they simply aren't good at soccer? If not, you must agree that our best athletes aren't going into that sport.

Other obvious reasons, like our best athletes being pushed towards more popular sports, having more US role models in other sports, the US not having a good soccer league, and the fact that they can make more money in the US playing other sports factor in as well.

So, in conclusion, if you think our best athletes are playing soccer you are way out there or simply enjoy being contrarian.

[jason_t]

[ QUOTE ]
So, in conclusion, if you think our best athletes are playing soccer you are way out there or simply enjoy being contrarian.

[/ QUOTE ]

No. I simply think that they have as much athletic talent.

I think your statement is akin to saying that our best musicians only play the piano.

[thatpfunk]

Jason,
We have a much larger number of people to draw from than countries in Europe.

Our best athletes do not play soccer, they play the games that they are raised playing or are the most financially lucrative. I know that if you looked into it, the numbers would show, that in high school, the more dominant athletes begin to focus on football, basketball, and baseball because of the draw to college scholarships and immediate professional money. Football is a great example of this- there are AMAZING athletes playing, and had they been raised playing soccer, they probably would be exceptional at this sport as well (think Michael Vick playing forward or middie for the US national team).

I know you are an intelligent guy, and it seems like you are asking for someone to provide some proof and logical reasoning, but this should be common sense.

If soccer were the #1 sport in the U.S. we would be a world power, simply because we have an extremely large gene pool to draw from. As the sport has gained popularity (see the last 15 years or so) our teams have gotten increasingly better. Within the next two World Cups we should start making some serious noise in the global game.

[hoyaboy1]

Thanks for ignoring my last post.

Until soccer is acceptable/cool to inner city kids and someone who is good at soccer and one of our other major sports growing up and doesnt go the route of making more dough/trying to be like Jordan/Vick etc., soccer is not getting the best athletes. I suspect Allen Iverson could have made a nasty soccer player, but no way was a kid like that ever getting heavily into the sport.

I hope in the future soccer becomes more popular in the US - I like it quite a bit and I hope someday we have a real league. Either way, however, this discussion is dead and maybe will pick up as more people log on.

[daveymck]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
btw no way that the U.S are top 10 in the world for football.

[/ QUOTE ]

Currently, top 11.

<a href="btw no way that the U.S are top 10 in the world for football." target="_blank">Fifa World Rankings</a>

[/ QUOTE ]

The statistics used by FIFA for the rankings are flawed. If you look at the confederation the US is in then they are easily going to get lots of points for qualiying etc if they were in with the South American teams they would drop quite a bit.

Fifa ranking for US Conferation (http://www.fifa.com/en/mens/statistics/index/0,2548,23914-Feb-2005,00.html)

However those of us trying to say that if soccer was the biggest sport in the US with the same coaching and everything as available in the UK and with the attitude to sports in US schools and colleges that they would not be one of the best teams in the world is living in cloud cuckoo land imho.

One of the things America does really well is develop its Athletes in whatever sport it is. Yes the fat defensive and offensive linesman are not going to get in a soccer team but there are pleanty of players who potentially would.

[thatpfunk]

Since you are replying honestly, etc...

How are our chances in the future? Basically all we hear about is our hopes are on Adu's shoulders... Is there really hope for us in the future?

And everyone is forgeting that the US is soccer world champs.. just womens... /images/graemlins/tongue.gif

[partygirluk]

I hear that football is the most played sport amongst young kids. I see no reason why the U.S can't become a force to reckon with in the future - you are already no pushover.

[mmbt0ne]

Wow, this thread exploded

</font><blockquote><font class="small">En réponse à:</font><hr />
I hear that football is the most played sport amongst young kids.

[/ QUOTE ]

Definitely true. Every kid I know growing up played soccer for a couple of years. I don't know why interest seems to fade in other parts of the country, but I know where I live they have some of the best high school teams, and best club teams in the country.

[thatpfunk]

Among very young kids, yes.

However, many stop playing around the ages of 8-10 (I, as well as almost all of my friends gave it up for basketball). Many others give it up for basketball or baseball once they reach high school because of more scholarship offers, more coverage from local newspapers, more chances/$$$ professionally, and more accolades from their peers.
(in refrence to boys only, girls soccer is very big obviously)

[jason_t]

Thank you for you reply. It was obviously well thought out, and well composed and not full of tones of arrogance that I find frustrating.

I understand a lot of what you are saying but I think I disagree with a little. Maybe you can help me understand your side a little better?

[ QUOTE ]
We have a much larger number of people to draw from than countries in Europe.

If soccer were the #1 sport in the U.S. we would be a world power, simply because we have an extremely large gene pool to draw from.

[/ QUOTE ]

These are true statements. But look at how well some of the small countries in Europe do at soccer. Just some examples: The Czech Republic is ranked fourth in the world, the Netherlands is ranked seventh, Portugal is ninth, Uruguay is ranked 18th and Iran is ranked 20th.

Brazil and France and England and other countries dominate because they have a history and a culture surrounding the game that we currently lack.

[ QUOTE ]
Our best athletes do not play soccer

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree that our most elite athletes do not play soccer. Excluding the elites, I believe the top athletes in each sport have comparable athletic ability. Do you think this is incorrect?

[ QUOTE ]
think Michael Vick playing forward or middie for the US national team

[/ QUOTE ]

This would rule.


[ QUOTE ]
Within the next two World Cups we should start making some serious noise in the global game.

[/ QUOTE ]

I hope so.

[JoeU]

[ QUOTE ]
Care to elaborate? Athletic ability to a large extent transfers between sports. Our most coordinated, fastest and strongest athletes almost never play soccer. They play football, basketball and baseball. We'd dominate soccer if anyone here cared about it.

[/ QUOTE ]

Our greatest athletes don't necessarily play only foodball, basketball, and baseball. To say such a thing is just plain dumb. You have absolutely no way to prove that our best athletes don't play soccer.

I would also argue that our most coordinated athletes play soccer. Using your feet to play a sport is not common in the US, and only the most coordinated athletes would be able to perform such a task....with any accuracy.

Joe

[Victor]

Our best athletes in football, baseball and basketball are tall. They average well over 6".

There are very very few soccer players (other than goalies) over 6" and they max out at about 6"2. The best players are much shorter in the 5"8 to 5"10 range.

So, I presume that if our great hoopsters and wide recievers attempted soccer they would lack the cooridination due to their length.

[daveymck]

I think unless your home league gets better can attract the real stars of european football in their prime or you have 15+ players being big stars in the european leagues then the national side will not grow much from where it is currently. Yes you will qualify for most world cups as per the fact you and mexico are the only really decent teams in the confed. If there are kids playing now then the interest will come on and you will start to see a lot more small town teams. Theres a long way to catch up in the uk even my original village of 4,000 people had 5 football teams plus junior sides.

My stepson was playing in one small league for kids where there were matches on every saturday on 8 pitches all day through the 4 year groups played there. That is the base that the England can get players from even if a kid gets signed by a professional club I think its somthing like an 80-1 chance that they will be a pro and we have 92 pro league teams.

I think you are probably looking at 10-15 years of development for the US to catch up.

The womans game I know the US is doing really well with but to be honest the womans game is a lot more developed in the US than many other countries included England.

[thatpfunk]

[ QUOTE ]
These are true statements. But look at how well some of the small countries in Europe do at soccer. Just some examples: The Czech Republic is ranked fourth in the world, the Netherlands is ranked seventh, Portugal is ninth, Uruguay is ranked 18th and Iran is ranked 20th.

Brazil and France and England and other countries dominate because they have a history and a culture surrounding the game that we currently lack.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't believe that small countries succeeding makes the inverse true. I simply believe if soccer were more popular we would have a larger crop of athletes to choose from. This would allow us to consistently compete for the world title. We would experience up and down years, as every country's teams do, but we would always be a threat.

I am guessing (wildly) that smaller countries variance is higher... They will have some great years where they exceed expectations because of a very talented core group of players, but there will also be extreme down years when their talent level isn't as high.

I do hope the US is able to get a competitive team going soon, as global competitions are extremely fun to watch/experience. Right now I find basketball the most potentially interesting because of so many quality foreign players, but US team really needs to get its act (and pride) together.

[thatpfunk]

I was joking about the womens... I don't find it particularly interesting aside from encouraging more females to participate in sports.

[jason_t]

[ QUOTE ]
I don't believe that small countries succeeding makes the inverse true.

[/ QUOTE ]

Of course. But I think that so many small countries do succeed suggests that there is more going on than just having a large talent pool to choose from. This reminds me of a hat that a friend of mine wears when we play, guess what, soccer. The hat shows a picture of a fisherman's hook and a worm and it says "It's not how deep you fish, it's how you wiggle your worm that counts!"

[pudley4]

[ QUOTE ]
Our best athletes in football, baseball and basketball are tall. They average well over 6".

There are very very few soccer players (other than goalies) over 6" and they max out at about 6"2. The best players are much shorter in the 5"8 to 5"10 range.

So, I presume that if our great hoopsters and wide recievers attempted soccer they would lack the cooridination due to their length.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think we've had a few shorter guys like Barry Sanders or Allen Iverson who could have done quite well playing soccer.

[hoyaboy1]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Our best athletes in football, baseball and basketball are tall. They average well over 6".

There are very very few soccer players (other than goalies) over 6" and they max out at about 6"2. The best players are much shorter in the 5"8 to 5"10 range.

So, I presume that if our great hoopsters and wide recievers attempted soccer they would lack the cooridination due to their length.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think we've had a few shorter guys like Barry Sanders or Allen Iverson who could have done quite well playing soccer.

[/ QUOTE ]

There are plenty of 6'2" or less guards in the NBA,and lots of athletic RBs, WRs, LBs, CBs, and baseball players that height or less as well. Clearly Kevin Garnett isn't an ideal soccer player (although maybe someone like him will come around and change everyone's mind) but we still have plenty that fit the normal mold.

And I'm glad to see that Jason is no longer saying our top athletes play soccer (with his nice "elites" comment), since it is so clear he is wrong.

[The once and future king]

[ QUOTE ]
There are very very few soccer players (other than goalies) over 6" and they max out at about 6"2.

[/ QUOTE ]

There are many outfield soccer players above this height.

Remember you are able to head the ball in soccer. Some strikers live off there height as they can dominate in the air when the ball is crossed in the box. Consequently defenders are prized for there height as they can therefore defend against this eventuality.

Having a height advantage in soccer can be very consequential.

[Clarkmeister]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Care to elaborate? Athletic ability to a large extent transfers between sports. Our most coordinated, fastest and strongest athletes almost never play soccer. They play football, basketball and baseball. We'd dominate soccer if anyone here cared about it.

[/ QUOTE ]

Our greatest athletes don't necessarily play only foodball, basketball, and baseball. To say such a thing is just plain dumb. You have absolutely no way to prove that our best athletes don't play soccer.

I would also argue that our most coordinated athletes play soccer. Using your feet to play a sport is not common in the US, and only the most coordinated athletes would be able to perform such a task....with any accuracy.

Joe

[/ QUOTE ]

Joe, it's real simple. Best athletes go where the money is. Period. If baseball, football and basketball players made less than $100k/year in the US and soccer players routinely received guaranteed contracts in excess of $15mm, I can damn sure bet you that a massive % of baseball, basketball and football players would have specialized in soccer - and they would be dominating. Many (most?) of the players who make the top pro levels in the US played all of these sports at one time or another, they chose what to specialize in based on earning potential, nothing more.

People go where the money is. Plain and simple. The decathalon requires more athletic ability than any of the sports mentioned - do you think our decathaletes are therefore our best athletes? That would be an absurd assumption.

[Simon Diamond]

[ QUOTE ]
Bear in mind Lori is from Birmingham they dont get to experience good football.

[/ QUOTE ]

Funny that, last time I checked Sunderland were in the 'Championship'. At least you play good football though huh?

[JoeU]

[ QUOTE ]
Many (most?) of the players who make the top pro levels in the US played all of these sports at one time or another, they chose what to specialize in based on earning potential, nothing more.

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
The decathalon requires more athletic ability than any of the sports mentioned - do you think our decathaletes are therefore our best athletes? That would be an absurd assumption.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree that most athletes will go where the money is. I just think that many of our better athletes do play soccer. Not all American soccer players play here. For example, Landon Donovan played yesterday in the Champions League for Bayern Leverkusen (sp?), and DeMarcus Beasley scored a goal yesterday for PSV Eindhoven. Also, the three national team goalies all play in Europe. I say they are the better athletes because they don't get the coaching many of the European players get when they are young, but they still manage to compete at the highest level of world soccer. They are competing on athletic ability and inborn talent. Think of how much better they would be if they were living in Europe. They're talent and athletic ability is what they are getting by on. They're also making some pretty good coin over there too. /images/graemlins/grin.gif

As for the decathlete argument, I found this definition of athlete froom the Oxford dictionary and thought it was interesting:

<font color="blue"> athlete

• noun 1 a person who is good at sports. 2 a person who competes in track and field events.

— ORIGIN Greek athletes, from athlon ‘prize’.
</font>

Joe

[tolbiny]

"Care to elaborate? Athletic ability to a large extent transfers between sports. Our most coordinated, fastest and strongest athletes almost never play soccer. They play football, basketball and baseball. We'd dominate soccer if anyone here cared about it. "

LOL
Baseball for one is becoming more and more dominated by non US players. A great deal of the superstars, as well as regular players are now from central and south america.
Football and Basketball are played only sparingly in any countries other than the US- and only in the past 20 years in those countries it is. To state that we "dominate" those sports is like saying that a lacross player who dominates in a sport that hardly anyone plays is worthless. Percentage of the worlds population that ever picks up an american football or basketball is pretty small when compared to the number of people who kick a european football around.

[jdl22]

This reply is to noone in particular.

I think one thing not mentioned that makes the US less competitive is the college system. It's changed in the last few years but up until then the top US talent would end up going to college. This seems ok on the face of it but consider the difference in talent that somebody like Michael Owen (to give a famous example many Americans are familiar with) faced when he was playing for Liverpool against the top players in the Premiership at age 19 versus some American that went to college and played for four years against people more than 90% of whom aren't good enough and will never be to play for a second or third flight team in Europe.

I think in sports like American football the college system is a huge help. In that sport developing your body is key though and high school players simply couldn't play against the pros with a few very rare exceptions. People used to think it was good for the NBA but look at how quickly players like Lebron and Amare Stoudemire have developed into top players in the league. If they'd played for four years of college I doubt they would be nearly as good.

As for the US being top 10 that seems ridiculous. I would put us behind any of these countries (listed in no particular order and I'm surely leaving off a few countries that should be favored to beat the US in a match):

Europe:
England, France, Germany, the Netherlands, Spain, Portugal, Italy, Czech Republic

South America:
Brasil, Argentina

I think the above wouldn't be particularly close. I think we would also be slight dogs against Ireland, Mexico, Uruguay, Sweden, and a few top African sides. It would also be a bit worse if it were a home and away two legged match because of the bigger home field advantage that these countries would have.

[cockandbull]

[ QUOTE ]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

less than half of them would answer Pele.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Correct, but just because the other half would answer Ronaldo...

[/ QUOTE ]

i'd guess pele would get 50% of the votes, the rest wouldn't go to ronaldo. Read about garrincha...