"International Quality"

Having kids in the RBNY program, all the soccer kids we know are more focused on UCL teams and now also follow Dortmund, RBL, Ajax and Chelsea closely. They like to go to RBNY games but not as much for the soccer. It's like when we go to minor league baseball games in Dutchess County.

But my kids also follow the Philadelphia Eagles very closely and the other philly teams to a lesser extent (only because they're not into basketball, hockey and baseball).

Plenty of people root for their college team even if they do not live close by.

 

Like I said, no wrong way if it works for them. When my younger cousin played youth soccer I tried to teach him about the entire pro soccer landscape and he never cared to get into any of it. I suspect a local club at MLS level would've done a lot to help engage him, as he actively followed the other local teams despite not even playing those sports at an organized level.

 

It's different following major leagues teams like the Eagles, Phillies, etc. vs. following Villanova basketball.

I'm just saying that for young kids who consume games at their leisure, they're focused on the best players, games and leagues. It's interesting to watch whom they play as in FIFA 19. Hint: it's not the local team.

 

Well good for them if your anecdote is the rule. Although I find it hard to believe there aren't kids that are fully invested in their local MLS club. Those are the ones I envy the most given that when I was a kid I pretty much dreamed about having a decent domestic league to follow.

 

I'm sure there are some kids who are fully invested - just not (close to) the majority. It could be a NYC thing but I highly doubt it - maybe other parents can chime in.

 

Wow... this thread has a lot of amusing complaints, purposefully misinterpreted statements to confuse discussion (ie the old "anywhere in europe?" argument, and some over the top claims about MLS and what this county needs to be a world cup contender.

I often use the phrase "international quality" to many a range if things. The comments usually start with MLS has a horrible track record of developing international quality players. I will try to clarify later in a bit more thought out post and will look to be more precise with my wording in the future.

 

Think the U.S. men's team would have dominated the world if NFL players were actually playing "football" from the start? Imagine that. These guys especially running backs and receivers can run as fast as the players from overseas, but wearing pads and helmets and they are bigger and heavier. Probably about 20-30 pounds more than most soccer players.

Then the popularity would have gone up decades ago and we be normally seeing what we see in Atlanta and Seattle. Bigger crowds and bigger stadiums.

 

The safeties, corners, wideouts, TE's (CB) and RB's would be incredible in soccer if their skills matched their athleticism. And it's hard to see how they wouldn't dominate the world stage. Your whole roster could run 4.4. And average 6'2", 190#.

 

They can also regain that weight. No different than soccer players running 12k per game every time they play. You don't see them going under 100 pounds do you?

 

Yeah, yeah, yeah.

 

Soccer is not only lower body but obviously upper body involvement because its so physical with players pushing and shoving to get into position. Sure its not the same thing in NFL because of the tackling and pushing, but it has some similar attributes Hence why NFL players in their sport have to have more muscles and be heavier. But even being heavier, they can still stay on pace with the rest of the soccer/football players around the world. Not to mention the change of direction besides pace.

 

According to this
https://qz.com/150577/an-average-nfl-game-more-than-100-commercials-and-just-11-minutes-of-play/ :

"An average professional football game lasts 3 hours and 12 minutes, but if you tally up the time when the ball is actually in play, the action amounts to a mere 11 minutes."

Considering that NFL players only play one way and special teams play, the average NLF player is in action for about 5 minutes out of 3+ hours. How long will these football "sprinters" be able to keep up the soccer "marathoners"? I would imagine that by now, if the NFL body build was an advantage in soccer, we would have already seen it. This is not a criticism of NFL players, their bodies are "customized" for maximum performance at their particular positions.

Also there is no reason to think that these theoretical NFL soccer players would not have the same flaws as our current players and suffer from the same lack of quality coaching.

Also we have all seen the tiny Chileans play rings around physically superior teams.

 

Have you forgotten Rugby where they are constantly running almost 90 minutes, similar to NFL bodies?

 

Usian Bolt, grew up playing and loving soccer and is the fastest man in the world. He couldn't make anything over a minor league soccer squad. The idea NBA or NFL guys would automatically be good soccer players is absurd.

Now sure, we get huge numbers of our best athletes focusing on soccer instead of basketball and football, we'd have better players emerge. But, the idea any specific athlete from another sport would absolutely translate is silliness.

 

I think the competitive environment that would arise if more top athletes in the US selected soccer would absolutely lead to better players emerging.As it is, we have our good players traveling all over just to find a decent game and good competition. If we had all our best athletes focusing on soccer, ever city of any size would have highly competitive teams and even if some of the big, strong, fast athletic types wouldn't turn out to be good enough soccer players, their raw physicality would make it tougher for the skillful guys to get around and would raise their level as well.

But really, this whole argument boils down to the obvious. Yeah, if we took soccer more seriously in the US, we'd be better at it. Tons of top athletes fighting it out for spots is one of the big reasons that would be true, bu it would also mean masses of people who study the game and pass on its finer points as well. It's really hard for the US to win at a game where the rest of the world has these sort of cultural advantages and we simply don't. Frankly, I think it is insurmountable and untill/unless something changes we'll likely always be second rate. But, I'm always hopeful I'm wrong on this one.

 

Your own chart shows NFL Superbowl quarterbacks, most of whom are not particularly fast, cover very little ground, and are more protected than the President. I doubt they could keep up the pace of the average rugby player, which is shown. Also the idea of an average NFL player is silly. NFL players should be grouped by position. A linebacker and a running back have less in common than a center and point guard in the NBA.
e
The rugby player is an amazing athlete, a combination of speed, strength, and endurance. The running back probably has more speed and strength over a short distance than the rugby player, but less endurance. In soccer extra strength/mass has vanishing returns after a certain point. In rugby and the NFL you are expected to win battles physically through sheer strength and body mass. At a certain point in soccer, the whistle starts blowing and you are just giving up free kicks.

 

Most QBs are indeed not fast like Russell Wilson or DeShawn Watson, but if you change positions with receivers or running backs, they can move that fast while having that same weight. Some linebackers are fast as well while weighting 240 to 250 pounds. As you pointed out rugby players have the best combination, and being in the NFL is not much different except with the rules and how its played.

In soccer yes you have physical and players going to cause whistles, but most of the time they won't whistle on much physical contact every time fighting for the ball.

Look at Adama Traore at time index 1:40. You see what he did? Why was the whistle not blown?

 

I don't think we have a problem of the physical side. Lets just say hypothetically, if the U.S. had treated "football" as our main sport instead of the NFL football, the investments would have been considerable compared to the other countries. And the technical side would have been just as good since the coaches would have invested in time and training to make them the best. Considering how much they spent making thousands of plays in NFL playbooks or even college with trickery, secret codes, etc. This would have made "football" little more interesting. And considering even though we are not the number 1 or even top 10 soccer teams in the world. You can see how diverse and good Americans are, especially in other sports, for example in the Olympics. We have won more gold medals and silvers in total compare to other countries. Not stating it as arrogance, just using it as an example that the U.S. needs to step up in soccer. Already soccer has beaten NBA and NHL hockey in terms of attendance. And will grow further.

 

Probably more accurate to compare ho we do in the winter Olympics where we are playing games we don't really care as much about as a country. There, we're not top of the heap. We were fourth last time. I mean, the whole argument of... if everyone in the US were obsessed with soccer and everyone played and cared about it, we'd be a top team is likely absolutely true. Also, likely something that will never happen. It's like saying, if everything were perfect, it would be perfect.

 

Yeah - our ceiling is probably ice hockey where we haven't won a World Champion. I think they don't/didn't really allow NHL players to play however.