If America's best athletes played futbol, do you think the USA would be a national powerhouse?

justdoit_ wrote:I don't know why people keep bringing up China and India, huge population yes, but they have yet to show close to the capacity of creating dominant athletes like the United States. They don't have the facilities, the genes, etc.

vanDEEZ wrote:per capita isnt relevant, we are discussing if the whole of the u.s. would be a powerhouse if football was their primary sport. and imo they would (or at the very least pose decent competition in the WC) because of their large population, large number of athletes, solid economy, and considering how well the u.s. does in the olympics across sports.

leemhuis wrote:

justdoit_ wrote:I don't know why people keep bringing up China and India, huge population yes, but they have yet to show close to the capacity of creating dominant athletes like the United States. They don't have the facilities, the genes, etc.

If the U.S. had such dominant athletes and genes, why are they at no. 43 and behind Netherlands!!!, Russia, UK, Germany, Italy, France, Australia and many other countries with respect to Olympic medals per capita?

justdoit_ wrote:

leemhuis wrote:

justdoit_ wrote:I don't know why people keep bringing up China and India, huge population yes, but they have yet to show close to the capacity of creating dominant athletes like the United States. They don't have the facilities, the genes, etc.

If the U.S. had such dominant athletes and genes, why are they at no. 43 and behind Netherlands!!!, Russia, UK, Germany, Italy, France, Australia and many other countries with respect to Olympic medals per capita?

That doesn't mean shit. We aren't going to suddenly become Holland-sized any time soon.


Try to disregard the facts as you wish. We put out the best athletes. Period.

leemhuis wrote:

justdoit_ wrote:

leemhuis wrote:

justdoit_ wrote:I don't know why people keep bringing up China and India, huge population yes, but they have yet to show close to the capacity of creating dominant athletes like the United States. They don't have the facilities, the genes, etc.

If the U.S. had such dominant athletes and genes, why are they at no. 43 and behind Netherlands!!!, Russia, UK, Germany, Italy, France, Australia and many other countries with respect to Olympic medals per capita?

That doesn't mean shit. We aren't going to suddenly become Holland-sized any time soon.


Try to disregard the facts as you wish. We put out the best athletes. Period.

I do not think you are getting the point or do not understand the term per capita.

And no, based on the statistics, the U.S. does not put out the best athletes though it does much better than China.

viepr149 wrote:steve you are just naming players who are physically fit. That's it...by that logic African nations should be dominating futbal because they are physically superior.

Playing basketball - hand eye coordination is MUCH easier then soccer.

Football - even easier, you catch a ball and run. QB is the hardest position which requires the most mental strength and vision.

So if you are basing you opinions on strickly physical abilities, why haven't African nations ever won a world cup, its the number one sport there and gets a lot of funding. If you are gonna say disposable income and such...why do some of the best players come from the poorest parts of Brazil, Argentina.

Allen Iverson - Ronaldinho type player LOL...don't insult Ronaldinho. To do what he does with his feet is much harder.

Also some of the best basketball players say soccer has helped them become a better player because it builds exactly what you need for basketball. Steve Nash, Kobe.

Futbal requires more vision IMO.

leemhuis wrote:

vanDEEZ wrote:per capita isnt relevant, we are discussing if the whole of the u.s. would be a powerhouse if football was their primary sport. and imo they would (or at the very least pose decent competition in the WC) because of their large population, large number of athletes, solid economy, and considering how well the u.s. does in the olympics across sports.

The Soviet Union had large population had football as it priamry sport and sport was well financed by the state, and still they never come close to even a small country like Netherlands in football.

The US does not do very well at all in the Olympic compared to the size of the population. That is what per capita means.

Be/\/ceCALI wrote:As a European-born US citizen who grew up in the states, I will say : No.

We can play the "what if" games all day long. America has fantastic athletes, no doubt, many of them can do the seemingly impossible, but futbol is a totally different game to any other sport. It's comparable to some sports, but foot-eye coordination is much different than hand-eye coordination.

How come we aren't even the world's best nation when it comes to baseball?

Be/\/ceCALI wrote:Not sure where I really was going with the foot-eye coordination thing tbh , but I guess I was just trying to comparing it to the sports we're very good at like Football and Baseball etc.

This is really a hypothetical thing based on what-ifs. I guess the real reason I say "no" is because soccer isn't embraced in the culture here as it is in big football nations. It really needs to be part of the lifestyle for us to be on top. We could have all our athletes playing non-stop with these expensive academies and all but if the passion isn't there and the lifestyle isn't focused on the sport then it would fail imo.

It's like saying "what if Europe's best Athletes played American Football from the start" .. granted that Europe is a nation it might be a bit apples to oranges, but I think you get the idea.

And yes, the baseball thing is arguable, but I was just basing it off the past Baseball world cups.