How America Sees "football"

If Barmy Army's great grandfather and all his mates in the coalmine had been rabid fans of Ice Hockey and American Football, then he would be as well, and he'd be making up completely opposite arguments than he is making here. It's a bit like how kids often follow their parents' religions.

 

That's a very reasonable position Harbourboy. Sure, you can argue that most of America's best athletes pursue sports other than soccer. But the reason behind why this is so, likely is greatly influenced by American culture.

 

I agree. I'd say that the best attributes of Nash are sort of "non-athletic"; court vision, timing, anticipation and so on. Those are useful in any team sport and would most likely make him a very good playmaking midfielder. But it's also possible that Nash has improved those skills while playing soccer.

I also agree that KG would make a great goalkeeper. He has the definitely the athleticism, but also the mental abilities. Intense? Check. Fearless? Check. Somewhat crazy? Check. Penalty shooters would collapse in front of that stare

 

You surely noticed at school though that the same guys were usually the best at all the sports? You need a certain base level of athleticism before vision and skill come into it and mental traits like keeping a cool head will also transfer across. Once these lads reach the level where they need to pick a sport to concentrate on they're probably going to choose the one that gives them the best opportunity. Joe Hart is supposed to be a handy cricketer but he's earning much more as England's goalkeeper than he ever could in cricket.

Britain is a good microcosm of sports being followed by historical reasons. Rugby for the posh kids, footie for the working class? With the odd exception like Wales. The US's attitude to football is just a bigger version of this.

The interesting thing for me mentioned in the forum is the growth of the Hispanic population. As they begin to "take over" in areas football should take off. It's not just that they'll be playing it. If half of the kids in a class think it's normal to play football then all their friends will too.

 

On the other hand, I wondered why Americans call the other game 'football' when the ball is more often thrown and carried around rather than kicked. And then they call 'football' 'soccer'.

 

Harbs, I love ice hockey. I follow the NHL very closely. Noone I know likes it. Most of my friends think the NHL is the American football league, but I really like it, so I go out of my way to actively pursue and follow it. I don't think the 'family & friends' argument is as strong as you are making out.

 

I think the cultural connection Harbs is making is one of familiarity. In America, from the time we are kids, we see American football, baseball, and basketball on TV constantly. (Well, not constantly, just when the sports are active, but you get the point.) We hardly ever see soccer. We NEVER see cricket. It's almost like a form of cultural indoctrination.

So naturally, as kids get older and get into sports, they want to play and watch the sports they are most familiar with. That's why I think soccer will always have a upward climb here.

When I look back to my days at high school, I know we had a soccer team. I didn't play on it, and I attended exactly none of the matches. I don't know anyone who did attend the matches to be honest. But I certainly attended high school football games, basketball games, and even a few wrestling competitions.

I believe Harbs' point about why soccer isn't a popular choice for athletes in the US is the same reason why American football isn't a popular choice for athletes in the UK.

 

The size required to play American football or baskeball is not nescessarily a good thing in football. There are a few very big footballers but they are usually slow and cumbersome. Size can be an advantage but it is of secondary importance to skill and speed. Look at Messi, the guy is literally a runt and is the best player in the world over the last few years. Looking at people like Shaq and Yao Ming they are no ball wizards but they are big, really big and in basketball that counts for more than anything else. The basketball court is much smaller and denser than the football pitch so being big helps in so many ways and there isnt the space for small guys to dance around the bigger ones. In football there is. The talentpool for especially basketball but I guess for American football is much more limited as you need to be over 185cm to even be considered no matter your skill except for a few very rare exceptions.

 

I'll agree with basketball. There are very few pro basketball players who are less than six feet tall. However, basketball is also very popular even on the high school level, where it is not uncommon at all for there to be several kids on the team of less than that height.

In American football, I also have to disagree. The size of the athletes in football runs the gamut. Yes, there are guys who are 6'6" tall who weigh 350 pounds. There are also guys who are 5'8" and weigh 180 pounds. And that's true for every single team, even in the pros.

 

In the US the best athletes tend to gravitate to where the money is. Or more accurately, where they think the money is -- we read every day of multimillion dollar contracts in baseball, football, and basketball. I've seen maybe one article in the past two years where a young (US citizen) phenom has a multimillion dollar contract in soccer.

Soccer is shown so rarely here (in highlights and on TV) that most don't know the main players. The famous athletes in the US are in basketball, football, and baseball (and to a lesser extent hockey). If you look at posters in the store there are very few for soccer players or teams -- and I'm in a big soccer town. Kids grow up and say, "I want to be like Pujols" or "I want to be like Payton." The kids wear their jerseys and try to copy their style (I tried to copy Johnny Bench's batting stance). Out of a thousand jerseys I might see one or two from soccer teams (and those are from our 'sister city' team, Campton United).

 

You are looking at the wrong positions in those sports. There are plenty of guards and forwards in basketball and wide receivers/defense backs in football that I wager are far larger, faster, and quicker then most soccer players.

As an example I give you Miles Austin. Miles is a wide receiver for the Dallas Cowboys. Per his stats he 6'3" 225 pounds, runs the 40 yard dash in 4.47 seconds and has a verticle leap of 40.5 inches. I would love to see him play striker, it would be awe inspiring.

 

First off, the world really needs to agree on universal measurements. I understood half of what you wrote. Secondly from what I can gather this Miles guy is a pretty big lad as well, no giant by any means but average or slightly above average.

I doubt the Spanish world cup winners had many players as big or bigger than him, Torres is pretty tall and I wager the keepers and a few defenders but otherwise most of the world cup winners are smaller than this guy I guess you consider to be a small American athlete? I also wonder if you then consider the world cup winners (and most of the Barcelona team) to not be great athletes? People like Xavi, Iniesta or Pedro would have been winnowed due to size in any of the "A" American sports, or?

 

And how's his stamina? Considering that American footballers run for about 10-20 seconds, and then stop for an ad break. Someone who is 16+ stone (225 pounds) is going to tire very quickly in football; he's too big. How quickly do his feet move? How much ball-control does he have? This guy sounds like he might be OK at rugby, as a winger or back, but again, there's not many long breaks. It's not all about physical stats.

I find this quite insulting Snook, to be honest. It's like you're trying to say that sportsmen in America are inherently 'better' than sportsmen everywhere else in the world.

 

I do not think this is really what Snook is saying as such, he is a football coach after all. As I understand him he is saying that the best athletes in the US choose other sports than football. My reply to this is that it may be correct to some extent but that you need size in most of the big American sports which leaves all good athletes of less imposing stature in the US to pursue football as they have no chance in other games.

 

Exactly.

 

And what good is size, in football, exactly? Someone who is lumbering will get dizzy with all the rings being run around them.

 

A wide reciever basically runs sprints all day. They would probably enjoy the game of soccer as they could jog until they are in the play. Please do not be insulted as I'm a huge soccer fan and as mentioned I actually coach the sport. Without getting into the very controversial subject of "the breeding of the US athlete", what I'm trying to explain is that the world of soccer has never seen a team made up of these types of athletes.

---------- Added 0 hours, 1 minutes and 6 seconds later... ----------

You are working on a misconception that they are lumbering. They are not, they are like thoroughbred horses who can change direction in an instant.

 

File under "T2B dating himself".

225 pounds is approximately 102 kg. 6'3" is approximately 190 cm.

So yeah, he's a pretty big guy.

I do consider world class soccer players to be great athletes, but I consider the ahtleticism ill-suited to many of the more popular US sports. About the only one of the major American sports where a guy of smaller stature has much of a chance is baseball. He'd need to be fast on the bases and play some fairly important defensive position (like shortstop, second base, or center field). While he wouldn't have great power numbers, he could still get on base a lot. Shorter guys have smaller strike zones, and thus it is harder to pitch to them.

Look at Ichiro Suzuki. The guy is 5'10" (177 cm) and 170 pounds (77 kg). So he's a pretty average sized guy. In baseball, if you 200 hits in a season, that's considered REALLY good. He has over 200 hits in all 10 seasons that he's played baseball. In fact, he's averaged 226 hits per year, which is astounding. He's also an above average in stealing bases, and he does in fact play a defensive position, center field. So it's possible for average sized athletes to play baseball, but you won't see many of them in football or basketball.

As TGS mentioned, wide receivers basically run wind sprints each play. Since the average teams gets about 60-70 plays a game, that's 60-70 wind sprints. I'd say his stamina is pretty good. He couldn't play his position if he were not. He's not lumbering either.

Here's his picture (he's the guy holding the football). He's certainly muscular, but overall I consider him a pretty trim dude.

 

And never will, because they wouldn't be very good at it. Size really does not matter very much in football, except for 'keepers. What I find interesting is how many ex-US sports stars come out later in life and admit to performance enhancing drug abuse. Hardly surprising when you see the size of the guys.