And there's also the fact that baseball is the least accessible for street play. Even hockey and football are easier to get a group to play.
More money, Mexican clubs have been Libertadores runner up a few times, the Mexican national team has been Copa America runner up as well, something we are far away from accomplishing. Specially because any time somebody criticizes soccer in this country, "you are throlling." Little by little we are getting where we want to be, logically when we do things right, we come here to applaud the effort while if we are not doing things right, some of us feel need to call people out. Today in 2017 we still have people thinking that an attempt to join Copa Libertadores is not a good thing. I scratch my head and think "this is clearly the reason why we suck at soccer." How can an American soccer fan not think that a 19 years old kid playing an away game at La Bombonera won't help American soccer? I simply have no words for fans like that, speechless, if people that we have in power think the same, sadly is going to take us 50 years to be decent at the sport, probably more.
You can play softball with a larger, softer ball, using your arms as the bat. You still need a park, otherwise you end up losing the ball or breaking something.
Things in America take a long, long time to change. We have this culture of exceptionalism, where we seem to think we should be the best by divine right. So if you tell people "you're doing it wrong," they react like Denis Leary in that famous funny song. In short, it's a waste of time.
Well...there is wiffle ball. That is actually more fun than baseball and can easily be played in the street.
I know financially it may no make much sense right now but there is not reason why we shouldn't think about joining the tournament in the future, the sooner the better. We go back to the same thing, second division players like Yedlin may be good enough to beat Central American players, Yedlin won't last a day in a Copa Libetadores club, the level of competition is simply higher.
No 1 is a bit presumptive. It's not even clear we win the QF after tying it up, let alone then beating a Korea side we tied in previous match and a very good Brazil in the final. That would have required 4 very good performances in a row, which I don't recall a US side ever doing. Why not with no 2? Most of the players in 2048 haven't been born yet.
Unpopular opinion follow up-- the 2002 team was fun to watch and that run is what made me a soccer fan but that Germany game has been a bit too mythologized. The US were the better team but Germany created several chances you'd expect to end in goals too.. Klose's unmarked header from the 6 yard box off the post, Bierhoff with the miss one-on-one that would have iced the game with US pressing. Dallas/Frings might have stolen a goal but not the game.
Oh there's nothing driving #1 other than complete patriotism and being a homer. America going all the way and winning that WC would have been the biggest upset in sports history. But: we were just as good as Germany on that day, had we gotten and buried that PK it's not inconceivable that we go onto win. Obviously playing S Korea on their turf would have been tough, but again, on paper we're better than them. So absolutely not ridiculous to think we could have gotten past them. The, while yes that Brazil team was better at every position except goalie, anything can happen in championship games. It's like in the "Four Days in October" documentary that Red Sox player said while talking to a reporter "All we have to do is get it to game 7. In game 7, anything can happen. Hell, we'll put you on the mound in game 7 and we can win." While Brazil was clearly better than the U.S., it's still not totally unfathomable that the U.S. fighting spirit helps them give Brazil all they possibly can handle - and maybe we prevail on a counter or set piece. I don't think for any reason we were anywhere close to even a top 4 team in the 2002 World Cup, but every scenario I just listed wasn't impossible. The chances of the perfect storm brewing and all those things happening in the same chain event are pretty unlikely, but not impossible.
Our best midfielder right now is Jones: full stop. Will he be too old in 2018? Probably but he's the best we have right now and it's crazy to think that he doesn't make your best 8 midfielders right now (as was the question).
Jones is great but he needs to be more tactically disciplined, he wants to run all over the field, is almost like he is never in the middle.
I just don't agree. I think he's past it. If everyone's healthy, I'd much prefer Cameron and Bradley as CM's, and then I don't see the reason to have a 35 year old occupying a bench spot on his last legs (if those legs even exist anymore) over CM's who can help the team in the next few cycles. Lets remember that Bradley and Cameron might also be playing at their last WC. We can't keep passing the buck at CM. Eventually we have to integrate some younger players.
Bruce Arena on JJ "He's an animal". How long he can last is unimportant its can he help us get to Russia...
I don't know about that one. It's possible I suppose but it won't happen until there is something to replace it. I do agree that some of the "American" sports (mainly Basketball but possibly Football too) will definitely make inroads (they already have in some areas). How much less popular soccer becomes I don't know. Soccer in much of the world is like a more exciting baseball in the US. Baseball has tradition and is ingrained into our society over 100+ years or so but with much less action than soccer. Baseball has been very resilient and I expect soccer will be more so because it has more going for it. All that being said, if any sport takes significant interest from soccer it will be basketball (in my opinion)
Certainly not where it has a long-standing tradition (ie Europe, South America, much of Africa), but it has over the last couple of decades seen a marked surge in popularity over much of the rest of the globe, such as all over Asia, for example. Whether that's a historical trend or a cyclical fad is not something that will be conclusively answered for some time.
When you look at areas that soccer isn't as traditionally popular (India, Japan, Australia and New Zealand) it's soccer that's growing the most in popularity, not basketball or American football. Even in China the government is making soccer a priority over basketball.
Actually it's in the old markets where there is a certain tiredness about soccer. More and more people in Europe and South America seem to follow other sports, including American football. There is also a class factor at play in most everywhere (but Germany), where soccer is seen as the dominion of "chavs" or "cholos," so it's considered sophisticated (more so in some countries, like France) to say that you don't care about soccer (sort of like saying "I don't own a TV" is here).