When doing some unrelated historical research I came across a pretty interesting letter submitted to New York's "Public Opinion," circa 1905. I thought some of you might find it thought-provoking. http://books.google.com/books?id=EtcaAAAAYAAJ&dq=laws%20of%20the%20game%20football&pg=PA795#v=onepage&q=laws%20of%20the%20game%20football&f=false
Fwiw, the 1905 version of football was so brutal that it almost ceased to exist that year. Here's some background: http://www.americanheritage.com/articles/magazine/ah/1988/6/1988_6_102.shtml Only the personal intervention of President Theodore Roosevelt (who's son played) and some careful rule changes saved it.
So basically, America changed all the rules to favor hyper athletes and that's why we're world champions in only sports we play!
The writer of this 1905 letter seems to have believed that if association football wasn't being played in American colleges, that meant that it wasn't being played in America at all. Factory workers and other non-collegians playing association football in cities from Massachusetts to Missouri (and occasionally elsewhere) would have been surprised to hear that idea.
A British person having misconceptions about American soccer (and America in general - check out the snide remark about homicides)? Quelle surprise! I did like this comment, as a long-time rugby player: Except for the types of men who actually play rugby (or American football, by and large). I played in the back row and at prop, not many of our types in soccer.
Although by the proffesional level you are required to bulk up drastically, plenty of naturally small people have made it as a back. I reckon her point stands, especially 100 years ago.
I got the rep for you. Positive Rep. Quite possibly the first time ever for a "football vs. soccer" thread Fantastic stuff. Kinda like what this forum was originally intended for.
I think I'm confused here. Why the "except"? It sounds like you're agreeing with the point, no? And yes -- props to the OP on this find. The search phrase "socker" turns up some other hits in Google Books, but none relevant to our obsession. Some fun browsing here, though: 19th century books with mentions of "soccer"
Just an aside here, but it's pretty freaking amazing that we live in an era when you can type a word with your fingers and a machine will pull up hundreds of years of books that contain it. I mean... Yeah, that's pretty amazing.
Maybe. There are numerous references in his letter to gridiron football being played in America, but as for soccer football, the only one I see is this in the last paragraph of the letter: "Socker is now played in South Africa, Asia, Australasia, America, and continental Europe, and all adhere to the English rules, and it is to be hoped that America will follow suit." It sounds as though the first reference to America in that sentence was supposed to be South America. I hope he did realize the extent to which soccer was being played in America in 1905. I wonder, however.
Probably some guy in Salt Lake City in 1905 wouldn't know much about the soccer being played in by factory teams and ethnic enclaves in the northeast and St. Louis. The existence of those soccer players doesn't really have much to do with the context of his letter, which fits right into the controversy of the day about what colleges should do about the increasing violence and danger of the American football game, which ended up leading to major rule changes and the founding of the NCAA in 1906. A reference to existing American "socker" could have augmented his argument, but wouldn't have changed the point.
Also, the colleges have a lot to do with why football is what it is today and soccer isn't. If there had been a Walter Camp-like figure in soccer, with a similar background and persuasiveness, at that key juncture when the US was deciding what sports would be accepted in the American 'mainstream', the sport could be in a vastly different position today.
The writer is trying to say that soccer is a sport that everybody can play and it isn't. It's to small people what rugby is to big people. Beefy, 6'4" guys can't play soccer real well, but 5'6" low center of gravity types can't play rugby real well either. Soccer's democracy is in its portability and lack of equipment necessary for its use, not in its ability to take players of all shapes and sizes and use them effectively. The number of truly great outfield players over 6ft tall is pretty short.
I sort of agree with you, but note--some of the guys playing soccer appear less beefy because they play soccer, rather than that they play soccer because they are less beefy. They train vastly differently than football/rugby players and so pack on much less pure muscle mass. (Also remember that football players in the past didn't look like the human Abrams tanks of today). There is an 'entry requirement' in terms of VO2Max to be competitive at soccer, so it's not as 'democratic' as it might look. But I will note that tall, broad-shouldered guys can have that too. (In fact, there's recent data suggesting that at least some of what holds bigger guys back is not anything inherent to the game, but some ref bias against them.)
Right. There isn't anything stopping someone from training in both areas. It's just usually not necessary for whatever sport they play. For anyone who knows about tennis, I always point to Rafael Nadal as a guy who has gone out of his way to have a lot of muscle mass while also being able to run fast and long.
I have no idea how you came to this conclusion, but I guess if you absolutely insist on reading that into his words, then nothing will stop you. frankly, I've never heard anyone from North America or Northern Europe use the word 'America' as meaning only South America. it's generally used to mean either North America or all the Americas, but not exclusively South America. and wouldn't he also mean that gridiron is being played in South, but not North America? plus, the guy clearly knows the game, where and how it's played, at a time when it was still in the process of conquering the world. so you'd think he also knows how the game is played right in front of his doorstep. but hey, go on carrying that chip on your shoulder..
wait so...they were calling it "Soccer" way back in 1905? so why the stubborn insistence by random "die hard" fans these days that it be called "Football"?
I don't "absolutely insist" on reading anything into his words. I raised the possibility that he is referring to South America, but I didn't say for certain that he is. Who knows? Also, I never believed that he may have intentionally used America to mean South America, but rather than he may have accidentally omitted a word. I thought it should be obvious how I came to this conclusion. It is because after listing the places where the game is played, he says "it is to be hoped that America will follow suit." Why would he be hoping that America will join the others in playing soccer if he thinks it already does? Of course, it's always possible that I have it backwards and he dropped the word "South" from that reference to America and not the other one, but soccer was introduced in Argentina, Uruguay and Brazil long before 1905. I agree that he should know and probably did know what was going on in front of his doorstep. However, that doorstep was in Utah, and the places where soccer was being played in the United States in 1905, such as Fall River, New York, New Jersey, Philadelphia, Chicago and St. Louis, are a long way from Utah, some of them well over 1,000 miles away. I wouldn't blame him if he were unaware of what was happening there. Thanks for the advice about the chip.
They can play scrum-half (No. 9), sometimes very well. About the other positions, you're quite right, no matter how skillful, strong and fast, they will really struggle.
That's definitely true. Scrum half is the one position where even a guy with Messi's build can be a successful player. Peter Stringer wasn't any larger and though I don't think he was world class, he was a successful player who won stuff. Outside of that the only real little guy to have success was Shane Williams, and he had to bulk up quite a bit to make the leap to being a top level winger.
Came across this information in the New Yorker article on the NFL and brain injuries; it looks like a bunch of colleges came within 1 vote of abolishing football just as it was getting off the ground: http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2009/10/19/091019fa_fact_gladwell?currentPage=4