This is a common talking point as to why the US is not a top soccer nation - that our top athletes are out there playing baseball, basketball, football, etc. But some people think that's a bunch of hog wash. POLL: Here are a list of some of the best US athletes across various sports. If they had focused 100% on soccer, would they have made the USMNT? Would is the highest level they would have made it to? Jesse Owens Muhammed Ali Tiger Woods Babe Ruth Michael Phelps Michael Jordan Tom Brady LeBron James Bo Jackson Jerry Rice Pete Sampras Larry Bird Tony Hawk Wilt Chamberlin
Maybe one or two. But it's overly reductive to name the best athletes from other sports and ask if they would have made the USMNT. What soccer is missing out on is the athletes who focus on other sports when their body type is better suited to soccer. Think undersized college football wide receivers and short college basketball point guards, who may be supremely athletic but have little or no chance at a pro career in their chosen sport simply because they're not big enough. Somewhere among the large number of athletes of that description are the guys who might compete for spots on the USMNT if they'd focused 100% on soccer from the very beginning.
Would Argentine be awesome at American football if Messi and Maradona switched sports? That's the kind of flipped argument that comes to my mind when I hear this argument.
But if these best athletes listed had played only soccer since age 5 they would probably make a very good team don't you think?
In the list provided I concur that they are great athletes. However, body type hinders soccer to a point. Can Michael Jordan lug a 6'6" frame around for 90 minutes? Perhaps, but are his feet too big to be good technical player. Those are questions you could ask of almost all those guys. Like another poster said, it's not that list of guys that would make the US good but the undersized point guards and slightly built cornerbacks that may have the athletic ability to play D1 but their size excludes them. Some people have body types that are more suited to higher levels in different sports. Even if I really grinded and really loved the sport I couldn't have been a college gymnast.
Why would that be? Why is Usain Bolt (arguably the worlds greatest ever athlete) not a man with 100 Jamaican caps (a very poor football/soccer national side)? If you think being a good runner or jumper is going to turn you into Diego Maradonna you are sadly mistaken.
I wonder if 6'6" would have hindered him in soccer. For him, seeing how he moves, I don't think so. Maybe he would not have been able to be a midfielder. But maybe a striker or goalie or CB. If he jumped to head the ball would anyone have been able to stop him? There have been some very tall strikers. And CBs. Virgil Van Dijk is 6'5". And of course many tall goalies. 6'6" is commonplace.
Oh but he did, he LOVES football, Daley Thompson also played football since being a small boy, he was one of the greatest Decathlon competitors in history so why didn't he have 100 caps for England?
Peter Crouch is about 6ft 7inch, Ronaldo is a tall fella, on the other hand Messi and the greatest player of all time Diego Maradona were/are both short arsed. There are many aspects to being a great footballer and being a fast runner or a good jumper are only part of that equaition.
From that list? None of them. Not sure Woods or Hawk were "great athletes" as good as they were are their activities (golf is not a sport). Basketball players, pointyball players and heavyweight boxers do not the proper size to be pro football players. Phelps? He is almost not human. He was lab built to be a swimmer. Sampras is interesting. He might have the size and build and stamina to be a pro football player. I don't really know. You are asking the question incorrectly. The correct question is not "our best" athletes, but would the USMNT be better historically if the very good athletes had fewer professional options? The answer there is probably "yes."
Another myth is that people in other countries only play one sport! As an Englishman I too might as well say 'if only our best athletes played football/soccer we would be the best in the world', I can only imagine what Johnny Wilkinson would have been if he'd only kicked a round ball instead of an oval one - he probably would have been the next Diego Maradona! :-/
Wow, your really got me there. Note, I did not say "sport." I said "professional opportunities." Of course, there are other professional sports, but the top rugby players make 1/20 of the top footballer. Cricketeers don't make much more. That is the opposite as the US, where top team sports athletes in the "top 4" make way more than in our sport, especially MLS. Really, the list you posted was just dumb. https://frontofficesports.com/highest-paid-rugby-players/
Do you have a link to how much he played? I just looked at his wiki and here is what is says. His parents ran the local grocery store in the rural area, and Bolt spent his time playing cricket and football in the street with his brother,[22] later saying, "When I was young, I didn't really think about anything other than sports."[23] As a child, Bolt attended Waldensia Primary, where he began showing his sprint potential when he ran in his parish's annual national primary school meet.[1] By the age of twelve, Bolt had become the school's fastest runner over the 100 metres distance There is not enough detail here to say how much he played. It only says that he played in the street with his brother. And it sounds like he was really fast so someone nudged him into track. Did he play soccer in an academy and really get to have a go at it? It doesn't sound like it. Plus Jamaica isn't a great soccer nation. What if he were born in France or Brazil?
MJ is not just a good jumper. It sounds like you don't know much about him. He's athletic AF. Very dynamic movements. All types of movements. Not just running and jumping. And a very strong and competitive mentality, to put it mildly. That doesn't mean he would have been a pro soccer player. But most likely he would have been a very good one, say if the sport of basketball did not exist and only soccer in his world. There was an NBA player once at my kid's soccer practice, and he gets in goal. He stopped shots very naturally and easily, which would make sense since NBA players have great hand-eye coordination and very good feel for the ball.
What about Deion Sanders and Bo Jackson. 6'1" Both played pro football and baseball. What if they had only played soccer since birth. How good would they have gotten by age 20? Maybe they just wouldn't have thrived in soccer as they did in other sports? Yet its hard to think they would not have been really good at soccer. They had strength, speed, quickness, agility, vision, footwork. Surely they would have, at a minimum, been good enough to play D1 college.
I do think Messi would have made an excellent running back. He's got those strong quick legs, he can evade tackles with his feints and agility and that would certainly translate to evading american football tackles. Haven't considered Maradona, but honestly yeah he probably would have been great as well. But due to his size maybe D1 college programs may not have taken him on. But I think Messi for sure could have played D1. Maybe even pro.
How about Bo Jackson and Deion Sanders. Had they played nothing but soccer, every day, for the first 15 years of their lives, how good would they have become?
The problem with US Soccer is not that our country or the sport for that matter lacks great athletes. The problem is that US Soccer and our country lacks great coaching. More specifically the US lacks great soccer/football coaches. The sport of Football, and also Rugby for that matter are difficult for traditionally trained American coaches to teach. Why? Well, when you look at the main American Sports, they are all structured. Basketball has set defenses, and offenses. Same with American Football. Look at Baseball. Creativity, problem solving, improvisation and spontaneity aren't exactly encouraged in traditional American sports. Sure, Basketball is close, however, we very often see players pulled from games for "trying shit." Those qualities are not only encouraged and celebrated in Football and Rugby, but they are essential for top players and teams to be successful. While, yes, football teams have a style of play, and preferred tactical setups. The best coaches and managers also know that to be successful they cannot handcuff their players creativity and problem solving. That's where the moments of brilliance come from. Here in America, we coach players so hard they are scared to make a mistake. They're scared to "try shit" for fear of failing, being benched, and verbally assaulted by their coaches.
He 'played' as much as my schoolmate (I won't name drop) who ended up playing for England, difference is my schoolmate had the aptitude for the game right from the word go! Myself as a young boy (who also played a lot) I was in a school team that usually thrashed the other school teams we played and he was the one particular player that used to run the game, even at age 10. Here is the thing he was a pretty good sportsman all round but he didn't end up playing cricket for England, he didn't end up playing Rugby for England (Union or League), he didn't end up in the British Olympic team, he didn't play basketball for England, he wasn't in the English national hockey team......................if he was such a good athlete why did he only represent England at football/soccer? In fact hell I was a pretty good footballer myself, being English and of a certain age I did nothing but play football as a kid, I loved it, I'm 6ft 1inch have a good build, I was the 2nd fastest 100meter runner at my school................why didn't I end up playing for Crystal Palace (my local club) and England? Back in the 1970's there was a guy named Ian Botham..........a very famous guy here but you probably wouldn't have heard of him because he is one of the English (hell the worlds) greatest cricketers (and cricket in the US is the way football/soccer used to be) and he (obviously) played cricket at the highest level including (obviously) for England, he was also a good enough footballer to occasionally play for a 4th tier English club (Scunthorpe United), he wasn't even Scunthorpes best player (usually substitute appearances) but hey he did turn out for them.........so he begs the question, if he was such a good cricketer (one of the very best in the world at the time) why was he such an 'average' footballer? If anybody thinks that being 'a good athlete' means you can excel at any sport you choose to they are sadly mistaken. You can be the fastest man in the world (Usain Bolt), you can be the strongest man in the world, you could jump 6 feet into the air but if you can't control a ball with your feet, if you can't kick a ball accurately for a 60 meter pass, if you can't see a decent through ball and then execute it accurately, if you cant take on and beat a defender with 50 Italian caps you ain't going to play for Manchester United! There is a reason why Johnny Wilkinson won the rugby World Cup for England and not the football World Cup, and that reason is bloody obvious, Being English Johnny Wilkinson has played a LOT of football/soccer as a kid. To think that being good at baseball or basketball means you can do all those things needed to play football/soccer at a high level is naive thinking.
Making a D1 team isn't your premise, it's top athletes making the USMNT (and then, it follows, the equivalent in other sports). 5'7" and 148 pounds would make Messi the smallest RB in the NFL by far, much less be at the high level required to be an All-Pro (and so be among the hypothetical NT in American football). But he's undoubtedly one of the best soccer players in history. Could he be a shifty running back? Absolutely. High school all-league, lower reaches of the NCAA, you bet.
I don't think many people think this. There are many variables at play as to why someone goes into a certain sport. Usain Bolt surely went into the best sport for him as was evidenced by his absolute domination. It is hard for an individual to dominate in soccer because there are 22 players on the field. He did play professional soccer in Australia after track. He did ok. Not bad I would say for having focused on track for so long. Probably if he had focused on soccer for 15 years straight he would be doing well in Championship level league.
Well obviously if he were brought up playing HS and college football he would have been in the weight room a lot. There are 5'7"-ish running backs and wide receivers who make it to the NFL. Messi would have bulked up and added say 30 lbs. He would not have been the lightest guy in the NFL but yes he would have been smaller than average. But short guys have an advantage at RB and WR due to their shiftiness and ability to exploit gaps.