I remember watching some sports challenge type tv programme between various stars from the world (ok, the UK) of sports. One challenge was to dribble the ball through a long series of cones against the clock. One of the stars was an ageing George Best. He not only did it quicker than anyone else, he did it without letting the ball touch the ground. It's all about being able to control the ball at speed, rather than speed itself. Maradona's run in 86 wasn't amazingly quick by any standard. He wasn't even sprinting.
Even by sprinting with the ball at your feet, you still need speed. Kaka was that way, I dont think I have ever seen a guy sprinting that fast with the ball at his feet. You are failing to accept the fact that Maradona was short but still a very strong dude, big upper body, big legs, if he was born in the States he would have been most likely a wrestler, he has that type of body, he could have been a good running back as well because of his quickness. I love how you ignore the fact that Samuel Eto was not that great with the ball at his feet, yet one of the greatest strikers of all time and most of that had to do with his amazing speed without the ball.
great high school logic, only that it is incomplete, as what follows is : small guy with superior skill = makes the team big guy with superior skill = makes the team fast guy with superior skill = makes the team slow guy with superior skill = also makes the team and so on : small guy with under average skill = don`t make the team big guy with under average skill = maybe makes the team, but never as a starter fast guy with under average skill = probably will make the team, but after a game or two, will not be a starter as well slow guy with under average skill = don`t make the team Nobody denies that athletic condition is important, but without skills for soccer, the guy is useless. On the other way around, someone without a great athletic condition, as the ones from older people have, but with superior skills for the game, will always still be a very dangerous player, even if he only plays half or less time of the game, as their over-aged lower athletic condition will not allow them for a full game (with high risks of getting a stroke, in the process). Just try to remember how an over-aged Pele, shined back in the 70`s, when he played for the NY Cosmos in those ancient days of the NASL (in fact, many great over-aged players from all around the world, played there and many of them despite being very old dudes, and no more capable of evolving as in their prime in their respective countries, were far more better players than any of the young "athletic" players good 'ol USA could put in the pitch back then, with them.....).
same thing in American football ... you can run a 4.2 in nothing but spandex, on a straight line, and with nothing else going on. That's great. However, the thing about the "greats" is that they're still that fast in pads and with all the moving parts going on in an actual game. Barry Sanders was fast, sure. However, his speed didn't change when he put on the pads ... unlike the vast majority of those DB's that can't hold the weight of the equipment.
american soccer players were not great with the ball at their feet, yes they were not the best athletes either. soccer is so much popular now and we still dont have the best athletes in the game, think about back then? an old timer playing againts young dudes that didnt know wtf they were doing Batistuta was another great example of a dude that would outmuscle the crap out of defenders, yet another great striker with a powerfull, powerfull shot. Nisterlroy? Ronaldinhos explosiveness, his quieckness, another dude with big legs. Just to compare a few soccer players to a. football players and their athletism and techinques, I have been following American football for about 5 years now, I love the sport. 1. Fat Ronaldo vs Michael Vick = insane speed. 2. Zidane vs Brady = great great technique 3. Edgar Davis vs Lattimore = Explosive 4. Adriano vs Mc Fadden = Power, strenght 5. Ronaldinho vs Cam Newton = would outplay you with tecnique and muscles. 6. Eto vs Regie Bush = so fast. We can go on and on comparing soccer players to american football players, very similar sports in terms of athletism, a. football requires a little more strenght, soccer requires a little more speed, but still very similar to each other.
I recently read the book Moneyball. Billy Beane, the manager of the Oakland A's, refuses to draft high school baseball players and only drafts college players. His argument is similiar- teen development is uneven and it's tough to predict whether the 18 year-old star has peaked or if he'll improve to a professional athlete level.
....... You must be talking about someone else. Judging from this picture Batistuta had only an average athletic condition, considering he was a pro soccer player, where due to their regular activity, they will always have a better athletic condition in regards to non-pro players. The guy in fact, was a gifted talented player and his "powerful" shot, as you say, mostly came as a result to his skill in kicking the ball with extreme technique, a skill many players (pro's included among them), never achieve in their whole life. That is what made him unique. Anyhow, Batistuta wasn`t just a "kick" player, one of his greatest achievements was to always know in advance, where he had to be in the field in order to be able to score afterwards. Not many strikers have this ability, or as you can also call it, this type of skill ( a skill, where athletic condition is completely intrascendent). Hey, now that we are at it, would you consider a guy with numerous birth defects, as a deformed spine, his right leg bent inward and with his left leg more than 2 inches shorter and turned outwards instead, and whose height was only 5 ft. 6 1/2 in. (1,69 mt.) tall, a superior athletic condition soccer player ?
Maybe it'd just be better to ask why if quarterback is such an important position in the NFL, why doesn't the biggest/fastest/strongest player on the team play there? Why don't they scout quarterbacks by seeing how far high school kids can throw a ball, or by seeing who has the strongest arms? The answer, obviously, is that those physical abilities would all be an asset, but there is so much more to the position than just throwing a ball. Technique, accuracy, and picking the right pass are so much more important. In basketball, I've heard it said that if the net was lower, negating most of the height advantage the exceptionally tall players have, there'd be far fewer of them in the NBA.
Not the mention intelligence. Peyton Manning is not athletic at all. Nor does he have a strong arm (rather an accurate arm). But he is an all time great because he is so intelligent. He can read defenses, coverages, and blitzes at the line of scrimmage, and audible a play to counter that. All this in less than 20 seconds. He wins by outwitting defenses, by out-thinking them. He can run a no-huddle offense because his understanding of the nuances of the game is so much superior to others. Its a constant match of wits between Peyton Manning and the opposing D-coordinator. Peyton Manning has more of a case of being the hypothetical Yank soccer great than any of Barry Sanders, Lebron, etc. If hypothetically, a 10-year old Peyton Manning had a great first touch, and ball control ability, I can see him as being an enganche player in soccer.. in the Zico / Riquelme mould. But of course he would have to have that skill, even if he had the mind. (and the probability of that is low) Most folks don't seem to appreciate the intellectual aspect of soccer / NFL. They only look at the physical aspects.
here is where you are completely wrong. some people has it in their genes, they may not look stronger than you, bigger than you but they actually are. is more than just techique. for example, a guy that never played baseball with smallers arms than a baseball player may get the ball and throw it harder than the baseball player, why? because he is just an stronger dude, that simple. damarcus lattimore, the star running back at south carolina doesnt seem like a big dude but yes he will outmuscle his way into touch downs, compared to other college players, lattimore doesnt look that big but the combination of speed, strengh and quickness make him so good. there was a story of some of my friends that a dude from another barrio in el salvador would hit the ball so hard that he broke a few concrete walls, his foot was super strong, i dont think he ever used steroids or his legs were insanitely big or he was kicking the ball all day everyday, that is not just technique, is natural power, something not all of us have. i can guarante you that not even messi and all his great technique would ever be able to break a wall, he just doesnt have that type of power on his leg. myself, i dont have big muscles at all, im skinny, yes very fast with the ball at my feet, there are skinnier dudes that are not as fast as me... i was nicknamed "saviolita" i guess bc I kinda look like saviola, but other people would tell me that i played very similar to eto or fat ronaldo, i could dribble with speed like they did. i never won any long range sprinting race, players were usually taller with longer legs, but in short distance i was always one of the best, with the ball at my feet people would be like wtf??? when i played in el salvador i never knew about my speed, my coach never told me to use it to my advantage, due to the fact that el salvador never based their game on speed but on technique. i can remember myself anticipating everything, one because i was a very smart player, 2 because i was quick, something i didnt know. it wasnt untill i played high school here, somebody on a messege board was talking about my team, he saw my brother and i playing, and i remember these words "the salvadoran brothers are so fast." after that, i realized how much i could use my speed, to the point where my brother and i would go to the field and just work on it, the rest is history, none of us made it pro, my younger brother got injred, i was not good enought, but still playing "semipro" for immigrant leagues in los angeles, people would come to me "f.. you are fast." i still remember luis silva (toronto fc player) telling me in one game "hasta a mi me quebraste la cintura kabron" haha hate go give you my personal experiences but i have been in the states for about 12 years, yes i just to think like most of you that "athletism" wasnt important in soccer.
The line I've heard from some famous coach about why certain players end up as quarterbacks is "you can't teach speed."
that is in your genes, i dont know enough about biology and physiology. im skinny, dont have big muscles or bones. when im with the ball, i just see people trying to catch up and when i drible to the sides, defenders falling down heating each other... not saying im a great player, tried it out pro and didnt make it, but still my speed came naturally, something i was born with
Speed and first touch both require certain physical/mental traits. How much you have of the relevant traits is going to determine how well you can train your first touch. To be fair, being a good quarterback also requires certain physical/mental traits. But they're different traits from what it takes to be a good running back.
Well my friend (AguiluchoM), unintentionally maybe you`ve answered the great riddle here. We see soccer in diferent ways. You are strongly convinved that athletics are the key of soccer superiority, while me and most southamericans, believe, that skills are much more important and if you don`t learn them at a younger age, you`ll never learn them afterwards. You probably believe that once you have superior athletic condition, skills could be acquired afterwards, specially bringing in, a top coach, who will be able to almost instantly teach them to his players. While I believe it is the opposite way around. First you must have the skills, and afterwards with a good training program, you can acquire the athletic conditioning, that can help you, put in the pìtch, the skills you already have within yourself and keep enhancing them in the process. Specially regarding small children, as future soccer pro players. Btw, in my young years I also played at great level, but when I had to make the call between College or Soccer, and believe me, a First Divission team back here, which wasn`t Colo Colo nor any top team at all, tried to convince me in their direction, well, "books" won. Actually, I never believed objectively, I was that good, at most, only average among my pairs
is both, they have to go with each other, the point i have been trying to make is that athletism is very important too. i actually did think i was good enought, when it came down to the real deal, i wasnt, had another shot at a very good college program and my knees gave up on me, got tendonatis in both knees. im ok because i did try, my physic was not meant to play pro but i was always confidence on my set of skill barrio level
obviously its an aspect of the game but its not the end all of the sport. again i have yet to hear a coach/scout say he wants big and fast players in the development years. anyways im sure this discussion came from the old lame excuse of "soccer isnt even our number 1 sport", "if lebron james played soccer we would be beasts", etc. which is a very lame and distorted way of seeing it.
The blindingly obvious response is that if having big and quick players was such an advantage, why don't other countries have professional leagues packed with NBA-sized players and olympics pace sprinters? Either the posters on this thread know far more about what it takes to succeed in the game than scouts and recruiters around the world, or there's something in the water in the USA which means America can produce athletes of a size and speed that doesn't exist anywhere else in the world.
The usual response to that is other countries are generally very poor, people don't have enough food to eat, and hence they aren't as physically big, or fast as Americans. See a few posts back from the Salvadorean character. I should post pics of the rugby teams of other countries to disprove that, but I am too lazy.
As an example of the point being made in the last few posts, take a look at this goal from Rafa Marquez against South Africa, at the world cup. See this 9-second carefully, and tell us what aspect of the goal do you find impressive? [ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pap6mBNUxig"]South Africa - Mexico ( 1-1) - Rafael Marquez - YouTube[/ame] The average American (or anyone not knowledgeable about soccer) would see this goal and not be impressed. He would say - all he did was kick the ball in to an almost empty net from just 4 yards away. Even my son could do it with his eyes closed. That part is actually true. Kicking the ball in to the net was the easiest aspect of this goal. The impressive aspect was when the ball was passed to a sprinting Marquez in traffic, his first touch ensured that the ball bounced in front of him at just the perfect spot, height, and speed, from where he could take a powerful and accurate swing of his leg and put the ball in the net. For an average player, however athletic he is, the inferior first touch would make the ball run away from him. And in a fraction of a second, the ball would be in too awkward of a position for him to make the powerful accurate kick in the net. The ball would either bounce too far or too close to his body, or too high or too low, or too fast or too slow. He would flay his leg at the ball at an awkward angle, not make contact cleanly, and ball would go way off target. Also notice that Marquez is not standing still, expecting the ball to be passed at him at an exact spot, height, and speed. He is running in traffic, with no idea when, where, or if the ball will reach him. When the ball does reach him, in a fraction of a second, his foot makes a precise tap at the ball, takes its pace off, and sets it at a perfect spot, height, and speed, from where he can make his kick in to the goal. And he does this while being pressured by 3 South African defenders. Anything less than a perfect touch would also get him dispossessed. The preciseness of the first touch is truly amazing. First touch is what made this goal happen. I cannot give a better, more concise example to get our point across.
You need all of them from a good soccer player(maybe exept golies). Vision, instantaneous judgement, pinpoint cross/long pass(like it's required by quaterbacks?) strength, agility, speed, ednurance, skills, etc etc etc You need total balace. Being freaky tall or big or having a few traits won't do shit. That's one of the reason I love football!
yes, the usa can produce those athletes. take a look at the most successful countries, yes very good technical players but also with good size and speed. you think Roberto Carlos, Cafu or Romario were slow? Look at the speed of Robben? Italians arent usually small either. Im done, this argument cant get any dumber, you need both, skills and athletism, if you dont understand that, I cant speak to you anymore.
The question isn't whether or not soccer players need to be fast, strong, quick, etc.; nor is it whether or not all things being equal, scouts will take the player who is faster, stronger, quicker. The question is to what degree pure athleticism (defined as physical strength, first-step quickness, speed, etc.--YMMV) is important is soccer relative to other sports. And I think it's pretty obvious that in soccer, raw athleticism is more important than in many sports, but less important than in some other sports. There's very little doubt in my mind that very few, if any, top-level soccer players would do well in track & field, for example. I don't see this as being controversial, or any kind of attack on soccer. My son is a pretty decent soccer player; I compare him to kids his age who are at roughly the same level of play in basketball, football, and some other sports and I have to conclude that those kids are a little bigger, faster, stronger, quicker than my son. But that doesn't stop him from being pretty darn good at soccer. Better than he would be in football, basketball, or probably hockey.
Your posts would be more understandable if you didn't consistently contradict yourself within a few words. You make an argument stating your point, and then your immediate next sentence discredits it. Quite a talent.