Why are certain blowhards in the media suggesting that losing to Ghana is embarrassing because of Ghana's comparative population size to us? The U.S. national baseball team could lose to the Dominican Republic, or our hockey team could lose to Finland, and nobody would bat an eye. Why the double-standard? When a country has great success in their sport of specialty, it doesn't matter how large it is (you could use other lower-profile examples like New Zealand in rugby, Hungary in water polo, Pakistan in field hockey, etc.). It's certainly a game we could have won, but it was exactly what I (and certainly many others) thought it would be - an even game that came down to who finished their chances better. I'd kind of like to see Ghana make a nice run here - beat Uruguay and at least make one of the powers sweat in the semis, even if they fall short. If only to make the less-educated people realize that we did lose to a country that's pretty good at soccer.
Its the stupidest argument, it drives me crazy. Population doesnt mean much of a difference when you only need to have 11 quality players out there and another 12 to make the bench. 23 out of 30 million: 0.000077% 23 out of 300 million: 0.000008% Statisically insigificant.
I agree. It's why the China-India WC Final is going to be the greatest game ever played, although Pakistan and Bangladesh will be tough to beat as well.
I love how this arguement is only made with reference to soccer. Doesn't the United States lose to smaller countries in EVERY sport including soccer? Why don't they report about population for any other sport? I'm sure we can all make a list of smaller countries that we have lost to in baseball, basketball, et etc..
I don't think the argument is that stupid. sure, 11 v. 11, you can't say we should beat them. but if all things are created equal we should be able to produce more top top quality talent. for example, if they have 20 guys playing in top 4 leagues, we should potentially be able to produce 200 guys with the talent to play in top 4 leagues. I understand scarcity is an issue and we would never produce that many players playing in top 4 leagues (they be in MLS), but it is pretty ridiculous when we cant field a squad as talented as a country with a tenth of the population of the US.
Its not at all when you consider -kids here dont grow up with a ball at their feet -we're just now figuring out how to develop players -USSF only started in earnest in '90 -MLS is 14 years old If soccer is the national sport I think it makes slightly more sense but to compare us to smaller soccer nations doesn't, we're behind the curve still.
Completely Silly. Nothing is created equal. Here is an example. American Samoa (66,000) Produces a ridiculous number of NFL athletes per capita. A person from that small population is 40 times more likely to make it to the NFL than someone growing up in the Continental United States. Cultures have a lot more to do with creating top quality talent, in my opinion, than population size. Reference: http://espn.go.com/gen/s/2002/0527/1387562.html
this would make perfect sense if we were a soccer playing country for the same amount of time as the country you've cited with a tenth of the population. we've only made a serious effort to improve our team in the past 20 years. prior to that, soccer was just above polo on a scale of importance
If population were everything, Asians would dominate every single thing known to man. It's really more about resources and energy that goes into something, as well as things like infrastructure and wealth.
And this is why a lot of Americans are upset that we lost. We figure...we have the money, and a great athletic culture in this nation. No reason we should lose. (not my views, just the views of many people around me)
only problem is that our soccer players come from the richest instead of the poorest parts of town like every other country in the world
Exactly. If they are coming from these nicer areas....why do we not have athletes that have had superior training their entire lives?
It seems an awful lot like a cop-out. kids here start playing soccer (ayso) when they are like 6-7 years old. For most kids, its the first sport they play. that has been going on since atleast the '70s or '80s. MLS is irrelevant. (I assume most would say the MLS is better than the Ghanian league.) Plus, the Ghanians only had there first World Cup in 2006. All I am saying is this, the US has the resources to have world class talent or if not world-class talent, very good talent. The fact we can't and a country a tenth of our size can, shows we aren't developing talent the right way. The USSF need to fix whatever problems exist in developing talent (i.e. developing more academies, getting kids from the inner cities, etc.). If they can't because (1) they don't think it's a problem, (2) they don't want to fix the problem or (3) they don't know how to fix the problem, then we need new leadership at the top and throughout USSF. Look, Landon Donovan is the best American soccer player ever, and he played at Everton. Not Man U, Chelsea, Barca, Real, Inter, ect. He played at Everton. That's a joke. They need to fix something. I think Bob Bradley did a great job but USSF was asking him to turn hamburger into filet mignon. Its just not gonna happen.
it's not impossible to have world class players in sport that come from affluent backgrounds: not disputing that the majority of great players come from less than affluent upbringings but it's not required
This is an interesting thread...the day the US lost to Ghana I was watching in my house, my dad being some-what soccer ignorant (like most americans) thought it was an embarrasment soley based on the size of both countries....but i guess its normal to think that way if you dont really understand the sport...this is why the US is recieving critisism...because despite the fact that most americans are soccer ignorant, we are all pretty demanding...lets face it, americans want to be the best at everything...and for the sake of the sport, its a good thing. People like winners, specially americans.
Everton beat Man U and Chelsea while he was on the squad, I can agree that the rest of your post is reasonable but this bit is absurd.
I don't think it's that absurd. The best players in the world are going for anywhere between $50-100+ million. We haven't yet found a suitor for Donovan at $10-$15 million (granted this could happen this summer.) Plus, Everton beating Man U and Chelsea means little. Burnley beat Man U. All that matters is league standings at the end of the year, and no one would argue that Everton is consistently better (finishes higher on the league table year to year) than Man U or Chelsea.
The reason Man U is consistently better has more to do with depth and less to do with "world class players." Quick hint: Depth=money.
Here is what it really boils down to. Let's take Ghana. Now in that country I'd say the majority of kids that take up a sport would equal about 80% soccer and the other 20% would be a mesh of other sports (track, basketball maybe). Now take the U.S. Soccer being perhaps the 5th or 6th biggest sport here, consider the amount of the population that would actually even take up the sport in the first place...now think about how many kids would continue playing past the age of 13... I think we can say maybe 10% of the eligible population in this sense (males in this country.) So let's say we take current populations... USA - 327,000,000 people, 45% of that would be male so 147,500,000 Now take 10% of that...14,750,000 Ghana - 23,350,000, 45% of that would be male so 10,507,500 Now take 80% of that...8,406,000 so 14.7 million people vs. 8.4 million people THAT is the accurate comparison, not 300 million vs. 23 million. Also I may have been overestimating the 10% in the U.S., it is probably closer to 3-5% so it could be even closer. Anyway I'm just saying people rarely take things like that into account, its completely dependent on saturation of other sports, and culture as far as how much talent wades through our pool vs. Ghana. I think we were about even and we had chances to win that match.
I am not arguing with your figures. I am just saying there is a problem. maybe the problem is only 10% of males play soccer after 13. Maybe part of this problem has to do with the amount of money pro athletes make. Maybe this has to do with soccer being "uncool" for highschool kids compared to the other sports. I don't know what the problem is exactly but it needs to be fixed. maybe it something easy like having High School soccer at night under the lights like HS football or Basketball so it is more of an event and "cooler" for kids to play. Maybe it is developing more academies which would be way more expensive. i don't really know the answer, but the people at the top of USSF should have an idea what the answers are, and they should put procedures in place to reach those goals. Also, i think whatever procedures they decide they need to stop "dragging their feet." Even if your numbers are accurate, there is no way, in 8 years, ghana should be able to go from never being in their first World Cup to the quarterfinals and potentially the semifinals, while we can't do that within 20 years. We should be atleast as good at developing talent as Ghana.
China and India. How good are their soccer teams? [edit] Of the 20 most populous countries in the world, 7 played in the World Cup. Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_population.