Do Americans Overestimate How Great Other Athletes Would be at Soccer?
 

Over the summer Bill Simmons wrote a paragraph about NBA stars playing soccer.

"By the way, I've been watching the World Cup for four weeks trying to decide which NBA players could have been dominant soccer players, eventually coming to three conclusions. First, Allen Iverson would have been the greatest soccer player ever-- better than Pele, better than Ronaldo, better than everyone. I think this is indisputable, actually. Second, it's a shame that someone like Chris Andersen couldn't have been pushed toward soccer, because he would have been absolutely unstoppable soaring above the middle of the pack on corner kicks. And third, can you imagine anyone being a better goalie than Shawn Marion? It would be like having a 6-foot-9 human octopus in the net. How could anyone score on him? He'd have every inch of the goal covered. Just as a sports experiment, couldn't we have someone teach Marion the rudimentary aspects of playing goal, then throw him in a couple of MLS games? Like you would turn the channel if this happened?"

I think that many of the things he says are quite absurd. To say that Iverson could have been a great player is one thing. But to say he would indisputably be the greatest in the world is pretty arrogant considering how popular the sport is throughout the world.

Also, the part about Marion is pretty laughable. He makes it seem as though Kasey Keller could give Marion a 15 minute lesson and Shawn could actually be a good keeper. Furthermore, I think Marion is too tall. At 6'9 he would have a tough time diving for low shots.

The height problem is even worse for field players. There are very few world-class players who are quite tall. Two that come to mind are Jan Koller (6'8) and Peter Crouch (6'7). For comparison, the average height in the NBA is around 6'7. It's not as though the United States is the only country in the world that produces really tall people, yet you see hardly any players above 6'6 starring in Europe.

My question isn't just in regards to what Bill Simmons wrote. There seems to be a common belief in the United States that most great athletes in football, basketball and baseball could have been world-class stars in soccer as well. While some would (Iverson is a good example) I think that the physical size of many NFL and NBA players would hurt their cross-over ability.

Do you guys agree that the degree to which American athletes would dominate soccer if they had taken it up when they were younger is overstated?

Re: Do Americans Overestimate How Great Other Athletes Would be at Soc
 

Only stupid ones.

Soccer players are not top level athletes like NBA guards and NFL WR/DB types, but much more finesse and are highly skilled.

In terms of goalies, I do agree that guys like Shawn Marion or LeBron James, had they played soccer from a young age, would be awesome. Not sure about world class though.

Re: Do Americans Overestimate How Great Other Athletes Would be at Soc
 

I don't agree with much of this, but I do think that Marion could be an awesome goalie.
edit: not with just a short lesson, as Simmons implies, but if had been training for a great while to do it.

Re: Do Americans Overestimate How Great Other Athletes Would be at Soc
 

Obviously the "indisputable" statement about Iverson is retarded. However, I think it's pretty obvious that the best American athletes are not playing soccer and the U.S. would field much better soccer teams than it does if they did. Obviously Saquille O'Neal would not be a good soccer player, but a lot of other basketball, football and baseball players probably would.

It's also possible that a lot of smaller, speedier guys that would be good at soccer just never get the chance in the U.S. They start playing football or basketball when they're young and then when they finish college they go find a job because they just weren't big enough to play pro sports in the U.S.

It seems like most kids play soccer when they're very young in the U.S. but then switch to other sports as they get older. I've never been really sure why that is.

Re: Do Americans Overestimate How Great Other Athletes Would be at Soc
 

[ QUOTE ]
Obviously the "indisputable" statement about Iverson is retarded. However, I think it's pretty obvious that the best American athletes are not playing soccer and the U.S. would field much better soccer teams than it does if they did. Obviously Saquille O'Neal would not be a good soccer player, but a lot of other basketball, football and baseball players probably would.

It's also possible that a lot of smaller, speedier guys that would be good at soccer just never get the chance in the U.S. They start playing football or basketball when they're young and then when they finish college they go find a job because they just weren't big enough to play pro sports in the U.S.

It seems like most kids play soccer when they're very young in the U.S. but then switch to other sports as they get older. I've never been really sure why that is.

[/ QUOTE ]

Because soccer is boring, cheap, and not complicated to play at all. It's basically an excuse to wear the kids out when they're very young and give them some athletic training - but there's not much real emphasis on becoming good at soccer.

Basketball, baseball, and football, OTOH, are very difficult to play when younger, often requiring different equipment and rules.

Re: Do Americans Overestimate How Great Other Athletes Would be at Soc
 

Also because there's no money in it, and kids want to play the sports that they watch. It's more exciting to play basketball if you watch it often and have favorite players, than it is to play soccer that you don't or can't watch.

Re: Do Americans Overestimate How Great Other Athletes Would be at Soc
 

Steve Nash would be the greatest soccer player ever.

Re: Do Americans Overestimate How Great Other Athletes Would be at Soc
 

[ QUOTE ]
Vince Young would be the greatest soccer player ever.

[/ QUOTE ]

Re: Do Americans Overestimate How Great Other Athletes Would be at Soc
 

[ QUOTE ]
Also because there's no money in it, and kids want to play the sports that they watch. It's more exciting to play basketball if you watch it often and have favorite players, than it is to play soccer that you don't or can't watch.

[/ QUOTE ]

That makes sense. I wonder why ESPN, with all its channels, doesn't show more. It's clear they struggle to fill all the time, and it's got to be easier to find soccer programming than some of the other goofy stuff they find to televise.

Re: Do Americans Overestimate How Great Other Athletes Would be at Soc
 

[ QUOTE ]
Steve Nash would be the greatest soccer player ever.

[/ QUOTE ]
If only he hadn't been born in the USA, what a shame.

Re: Do Americans Overestimate How Great Other Athletes Would be at Soc
 

The US's best soccer players probably are found in water. You know, divers. That's what the game is about, right?

Re: Do Americans Overestimate How Great Other Athletes Would be at Soc
 

[ QUOTE ]
The US's best soccer players probably are found in water. You know, divers. That's what the game is about, right?

[/ QUOTE ]

Enter obvious poker-related "flop" joke here.

Re: Do Americans Overestimate How Great Other Athletes Would be at Soc
 

I don't think it's overstated. If you take a great athelete and combine it with a high competitveness, why wouldn't they become a great soccer player? Although, I'm thinking more of WRs and DBs than basketball players.

Jerry Rice was one of the most competitve atheletes in the NFL. You're saying he wouldn't be a great soccer player had he decided to concentrate on it first?

Re: Do Americans Overestimate How Great Other Athletes Would be at Soc
 

I think OP is insane. I would say most people around the world would concede the America overall has the best Atheletes and without question the best atheletic training.

I could very easily see many guards, WR's, DB's, smaller RB's, CF'ers, some SS.

Also I could easily see some football players playing soccer if they knew that was what they would play instead of football. They wouldn't lift as much. Imagine Urlacher playing soccer. I could.


Bottom line, we would dominate at soccer if it was our main sport, and I firmly believe that. I will however agree to an extent with OP that to assume someone like AI would be the worlds greatest is absurd, because he has nothing to really base it on. But I think Iverson would have been a very good player.

Re: Do Americans Overestimate How Great Other Athletes Would be at Soc
 

[ QUOTE ]
Steve Nash would be the greatest soccer player ever.

[/ QUOTE ]

Wasn't his dad a pro soccer player? You'd think that if he would have been a great soccer player, he would have taken that route.

Re: Do Americans Overestimate How Great Other Athletes Would be at Soc
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
A young Hakeem Olajuwon would be the greatest goalkeeper ever.

[/ QUOTE ]

[/ QUOTE ]

Re: Do Americans Overestimate How Great Other Athletes Would be at Soc
 

[ QUOTE ]
Because soccer is boring, cheap, and not complicated to play at all. It's basically an excuse to wear the kids out when they're very young and give them some athletic training - but there's not much real emphasis on becoming good at soccer.

Basketball, baseball, and football, OTOH, are very difficult to play when younger, often requiring different equipment and rules.


[/ QUOTE ]

I don't buy any of this.. at all. It's BS. Football and hockey are the only "difficult" sports to play, in terms of equipment, rules, and all that. Basketball is ridiculously easy. You get a ball. You go to the playground or to any of the kids with a hoop in his driveway, and shoot. Drive through any suburb during the summer and kids are outside shooting hoops. For organized leagues, it's not a problem for most towns because every school has a basketball court where leagues can play.

Baseball, while more equipment is needed, isn't all that complicated at a young age. Boys start playing catch at an early age. Kids start playing organized baseball when they're 6 years old. Little League is everywhere. It's easy, it's fun.

Soccer is also pretty easy, especially at the pee wee level.. and the games are usually ugly follow the ball trains. But you get better training as you rise up the ranks just like any other sport.

JoA's remarks are a large part of it. Another major reason is culture and social pressures. The 3 big sports are more popular on a national scale, so they're drawn to that. That makes sense. But there's still some messed up "soccer bashing" going on in a lot of places. A good example is my hometown. Our youth soccer league is a joint league with the neighboring town, also our high school "rival" town. The league is wildly popular, as there's a large Portuguese population where I grew up. Each town has about an equal number of kids in the league.

But when you get to the HS level, a weird thing happens. The rivals soccer program is very successful. Div I, constantly competing, a full freshman, JV, and varsity squad. Their football team was strong, too. In my HS, football reign supremes. They call soccer players "soccer fagz".. the football coach is notorious for egging his players on to pick on the soccer team. This sort of peer pressure really hurt our soccer program. How else do you explain how two towns, with an equal amount of kids in the town league, with an equal distribution of talent, have one HS team playing DivI at a high level while the other has trouble fielding a team some years?

Re: Do Americans Overestimate How Great Other Athletes Would be at Soc
 

I said, very young, kidcolin.

I mean 6 years old - basketball is really difficult at that age. Boys may start playing catch in baseball, but kids have a hard time playing a real game all by themselves until 8-10. This is also the age at which they can start playing basketball.

And yeah, the perception of soccer as a weak sport doesn't help - I think JoA's reasons for why soccer falls behind in later years are also dead on. I'm just saying that at a VERY young age, soccer is a good sport for children.

Re: Do Americans Overestimate How Great Other Athletes Would be at Soc
 

[ QUOTE ]
I think OP is insane. I would say most people around the world would concede the America overall has the best Atheletes and without question the best atheletic training.

I could very easily see many guards, WR's, DB's, smaller RB's, CF'ers, some SS.


[/ QUOTE ]

Well I'm glad you feel you can speak for the rest of the world. I have a feeling many might not agree with your statement.

You are grossly mis-representing my ideas. I never said that NO athletes from the major sports would do well at soccer. I said that opinions such as those held by people like Bill Simmons OVERSTATE how much of an impact this would have. I mean Allen Iverson undisputedly the greatest ever?

Also, I was primarily talking about very tall basketball players. The guys mentioned by Simmons, Anderson and Marion, were 6'10 and 6'9 respectively. At those heights the chances of them possessing the foot coordination to be world class players would be slim.

Re: Do Americans Overestimate How Great Other Athletes Would be at Soccer?
 

I think this is a pretty common mistake people make; they tend to overestimate how well a world class performer at one thing would do at another. Sometimes they can do very well, other times not. You used to hear die hard basketball fans say Michael Jordan would be great at baseball or golf. Well, he's not. Great athlete, competed at two different pro sports, but he was only great in one. Sometimes it is hype, or seeing something impressive that leads to people overestimating the athlete, like people who think Michelle Wie will be a great golfer on the men's tour.

The fact soccer is cheap and widely played also makes this less likely. For the same reason there are a lot of great basketball players in the US, there are a lot of great soccer players around the world. So you have a combination of the great athletes playing it, and they can play a lot. So I would assume (I don't know the sport really) that it is a lot harder to be world class at the sport than a lot of Americans think.

I do think certain athletes could do different things and might have been great at something else had they played that growing up. So Iverson might have been a great soccer player. I don't know and don't really care, but I think the writer is making a huge mistake assuming, that just because Iverson is a great athlete, and is a great basketball player, that because he is so great in the writer's pfavorite sport he would be better than Pele. Come on.

I do think it is impressive to see an athlete do something outside of his sport or to do multiple sports. Sometimes when you see a great athlete you are just impressed at how they can do things outside of their specialty, and I think this is the case for all sorts of world class athletes, depending on their specialty and body type of course.

Re: Do Americans Overestimate How Great Other Athletes Would be at Soc
 

Well from 6, then yeah, I might agree somewhat (though t-ball starts when you're that young.. I know I did). But with regards to what McCoy was saying, it still doesn't add up. Kids don't play soccer from 6-8 and then give it up and start playing baseball and basketball. When McCoy says "It seems like most kids play soccer when they're very young in the U.S. but then switch to other sports as they get older", I think he's talking about playing soccer until the the 13-15 age range.

Re: Do Americans Overestimate How Great Other Athletes Would be at Soc
 

american soccer does not lack in athleticism or fitness. it is technical quality and technical speed/individual tactics. americans do not have the foot skills and this obv and easily understood.

its a bit tougher to explain technical speed and ind tactics. but basically, it means "knowing what your gonna do before you get the ball." it involves creativy and just that feeling of seeing how the play will develop before it does.

to compare, think of how peyton knows where marvins gonna be. watch some lebron or better yet, magic johnsons sick passes. they instantly know how the play is gonna develop and how to manipulate it. thats the most important aspect of soccer and why its a beautiful game. americans suck at this in soccer and thats why they lose.

Re: Do Americans Overestimate How Great Other Athletes Would be at Soc
 

HDPM,

This sounds like you're saying you think there's some weird genetic thing going on that places more athletes that are good at sports other than soccer, but fewer that are naturally good at soccer in the U.S.

Re: Do Americans Overestimate How Great Other Athletes Would be at Soc
 

[ QUOTE ]
I would say most people around the world would concede the America overall has the best Atheletes and without question the best atheletic training.


[/ QUOTE ]

Really? The best baseball players now seem to come, more often than not, from other nations. The rest of the world is rapidly catching up in basketball, something no one ever thought possible. We've always trailed several nations in hockey, and I don't think that's changing any time soon.

-McGee

Re: Do Americans Overestimate How Great Other Athletes Would be at Soc
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I would say most people around the world would concede the America overall has the best Atheletes and without question the best atheletic training.


[/ QUOTE ]

Really? The best baseball players now seem to come, more often than not, from other nations. The rest of the world is rapidly catching up in basketball, something no one ever thought possible. We've always trailed several nations in hockey, and I don't think that's changing any time soon.

-McGee

[/ QUOTE ]

And? Does the Dominican Republic produce great hockey players? How about Swedish basketball players? The point is that the US excels at all of these sports whereas most other nations are good/great at one or two of them.

Re: Do Americans Overestimate How Great Other Athletes Would be at Soc
 

steve nash took up basketball because he sucked at soccer. his brother martin is an alright soccer player, but hardly world class. and he's much better than steve.

american athletic dominance is just a product of a large population and wealth. as wealth increases in the rest of the world, american athletic dominance will be less of a sure thing (witness china's recent commitment to dominating the olympics).

Re: Do Americans Overestimate How Great Other Athletes Would be at Soc
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I would say most people around the world would concede the America overall has the best Atheletes and without question the best atheletic training.


[/ QUOTE ]

Really? The best baseball players now seem to come, more often than not, from other nations. The rest of the world is rapidly catching up in basketball, something no one ever thought possible. We've always trailed several nations in hockey, and I don't think that's changing any time soon.

-McGee

[/ QUOTE ]

And? Does the Dominican Republic produce great hockey players? How about Swedish basketball players? The point is that the US excels at all of these sports whereas most other nations are good/great at one or two of them.

[/ QUOTE ]

Point taken.

However, my object is to dispel the notion that there's something inherent about Americans that makes us superior athletes. We have far more resources here than most everybody else, so we've excelled, comparatively, for longer. As the playing field begins to even out, however, the gap between the U.S. and other nations closes -- rather quickly.

-McGee

Re: Do Americans Overestimate How Great Other Athletes Would be at Soc
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I would say most people around the world would concede the America overall has the best Atheletes and without question the best atheletic training.


[/ QUOTE ]

Really? The best baseball players now seem to come, more often than not, from other nations. The rest of the world is rapidly catching up in basketball, something no one ever thought possible. We've always trailed several nations in hockey, and I don't think that's changing any time soon.

-McGee

[/ QUOTE ]

And? Does the Dominican Republic produce great hockey players? How about Swedish basketball players? The point is that the US excels at all of these sports whereas most other nations are good/great at one or two of them.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't want to be that guy, mostly because I would almost always say the US is the world power when it comes to athletes, but, the first thing that came to me when I read that sentence was that those countries don't have 300 million people in them.

But then I thought, China and India should be soooo much better at sports, they have ~1/3 of the world's population in those two countries.[/off topic]

Re: Do Americans Overestimate How Great Other Athletes Would be at Soc
 

The wealth and population arguments definitely have merit. What about genetics? Many other countries are more genetically homogenous than the U.S. It would make sense then that the U.S. would have more athletes that are genetically inclined to be better at a wider range of sports. I mean you're just not going to get many great Samoan basketball stars (and yes, I realize most ethnic populations aren't as easily typed as Samoans. I was just making the point.).

Re: Do Americans Overestimate How Great Other Athletes Would be at Soc
 

The keys to having a "country" be really good at a certain sport are:

1. a fairly large population
2. a large portion of that country are huge fans of the sport
3. a high enough standard of living so that kids can play that sport

When it comes to soccer, USA has 1 and 3, but not 2. If thye had 2, the USA would compete on the world stage in soccer and perhaps even dominate.

But it ain't gonna happen.

Re: Do Americans Overestimate How Great Other Athletes Would be at Soc
 

A few points.

1- For Jordon to do as well in baseball as he did (being lousy at the AA level is still A LOT better than 90% of the population) is pretty impressive.

2- I think it's reasonable to assume that folks like AI would make decent soccer players, but I don't really know enough about what makes a GREAT soccer player to suggest anymore than that.

Re: Do Americans Overestimate How Great Other Athletes Would be at Soc
 

I saw this ludicrous claim in the "unpopular opinions that you hold" OOT thread and decided to hold back the guy isn’t even the best at the sport he plays and has played his entire life.
Sports men are generally blessed with a set of skills that can be applied to any sport to a greater or lesser degree and it’s not uncommon for guys to have to make a choice about which sport their going to pursue professionally. Having said that each sport places emphasis on different skill sets and abilities and proficiency or even dominance in one doesn’t necessarily translate to excellence in another.
The authors claim is a perfect example of the type of USA USA thinking that has made your nation so popular around the world that American backpackers contemplate sowing Canadian flags on their backpacks.
Come on think about this in reverse who would seriously entertain the notion that Jonah Lomu would have been the best running back in the NFL or Glenn Hoddle the best quarterback?

Re: Do Americans Overestimate How Great Other Athletes Would be at Soc
 

[ QUOTE ]
occer players are not top level athletes like NBA guards and NFL WR/DB types, but much more finesse and are highly skilled.


[/ QUOTE ]


oh wwowowowowowowowow. how did i miss this idiotic statement. soccer players are ridic sick athletes. watch a game up close and its obv. im saying if you sat in the front row and watched a game you would be blown away.

still, look at it from logical standpoint. soccer is the most popular game in the world by a mile. hell, soccer is the only game that ppl care about in most countries. its soccer or nothing for BILLIONS of ppl. of course the best athletes rise to the highest levels from a gigantic pool. how can you imagine that they arent incredible athletes?

your statement is completely ignorant and typically ameri-arrogant.

Re: Do Americans Overestimate How Great Other Athletes Would be at Soc
 

wealth and population are key aspects of our Atheletic dominance. I think there are other factors. We are a sports dominated society. Its everywhere, so people are into it more. More people in the U.S. as a %, I would guess, want to be pro athletes. And why not, we have 4 major sports leagues, and dozens of minor ones. Not to mention other non major sports, such as golf, tennis, [censored] even NASCAR.

We also have some intense athletic training for all 3 of the main sports, starting from an early age.

Another huge factor, and it borders on racism, is we have a large population of blacks in this country, whose are direct ancestors of slaves(most of them), and many of their ancestors were bred, yes bred, to be big and strong, and ultimately athletic. The US also has a fairly healthy society.

So I stand by my earlier statement. No other country is producing as many world class players in as many different sports as us.

Re: Do Americans Overestimate How Great Other Athletes Would be at Soc
 

[ QUOTE ]
The keys to having a "country" be really good at a certain sport are:

1. a fairly large population
2. a large portion of that country are huge fans of the sport
3. a high enough standard of living so that kids can play that sport

When it comes to soccer, USA has 1 and 3, but not 2. If thye had 2, the USA would compete on the world stage in soccer and perhaps even dominate.

But it ain't gonna happen.

[/ QUOTE ]

more idiocy. soccer has been one of the biggest youth sports in the usa for 15 or so years. i believe it is number 2 only to basketball. we have plenty of ppl who play and follow soccer.

the problem is, and will continue to be, the coaching and devolopmental programs.

Re: Do Americans Overestimate How Great Other Athletes Would be at Soc
 

[ QUOTE ]
Another huge factor, and it borders on racism, is we have a large population of blacks in this country, whose are direct ancestors of slaves(most of them), and many of their ancestors were bred, yes bred, to be big and strong, and ultimately athletic. The US also has a fairly healthy society.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is prefectly legitimate. Slavers weren't going over to Africa and saying, "King, please sell us your skinniest, weakest, sickliest slaves." They wanted slaves that could do the most work the fastest.

Re: Do Americans Overestimate How Great Other Athletes Would be at Soccer?
 

[ QUOTE ]
You used to hear die hard basketball fans say Michael Jordan would be great at baseball or golf. Well, he's not.

[/ QUOTE ] Jordan could have been a good baseball player, if he had played that in college instead of basketball. I mean, it was ludicrous for him to think he could play pro ball, but I wouldn't hesitate to think that he could have been a good baseball player if that was his main focus, which it wasn't.

Re: Do Americans Overestimate How Great Other Athletes Would be at Soc
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The keys to having a "country" be really good at a certain sport are:

1. a fairly large population
2. a large portion of that country are huge fans of the sport
3. a high enough standard of living so that kids can play that sport

When it comes to soccer, USA has 1 and 3, but not 2. If thye had 2, the USA would compete on the world stage in soccer and perhaps even dominate.

But it ain't gonna happen.

[/ QUOTE ]

more idiocy. soccer has been one of the biggest youth sports in the usa for 15 or so years. i believe it is number 2 only to basketball. we have plenty of ppl who play and follow soccer.

the problem is, and will continue to be, the coaching and devolopmental programs.

[/ QUOTE ]

All those fans must be the reason so many professional soccer leagues fluorish here. Yes, youth soccer is huge, but kids move on to other sports by thew time they're like 7 or 8. People get their kids in soccer before they're really mature enough physically to play most other sports. There are not nearly enough fans here to support it.

Re: Do Americans Overestimate How Great Other Athletes Would be at Soc
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The keys to having a "country" be really good at a certain sport are:

1. a fairly large population
2. a large portion of that country are huge fans of the sport
3. a high enough standard of living so that kids can play that sport

When it comes to soccer, USA has 1 and 3, but not 2. If thye had 2, the USA would compete on the world stage in soccer and perhaps even dominate.

But it ain't gonna happen.

[/ QUOTE ]

more idiocy. soccer has been one of the biggest youth sports in the usa for 15 or so years. i believe it is number 2 only to basketball. we have plenty of ppl who play and follow soccer.

the problem is, and will continue to be, the coaching and devolopmental programs.

[/ QUOTE ]

But practically no one cares about pro soccer in America. Kids in the USA love playing soccer, but they don't dream of playing in the MLS.

Cf. NBA, NFL, MLB...

Re: Do Americans Overestimate How Great Other Athletes Would be at Soc
 

[ QUOTE ]
Another huge factor, and it borders on racism, is we have a large population of blacks in this country, whose are direct ancestors of slaves(most of them), and many of their ancestors were bred, yes bred, to be big and strong, and ultimately athletic.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think this point, if true, illustrates just how important wealth and other resources are in this equation.

-McGee