US men, women going opposite direction

Owen Hargreaves' parents are Welsh and English, he was even conceived in England!

 

Fortunately for everyone's sanity, citizenship is not determined by the time the sperm successfully penetrates the egg.

 

no, it's determined by many things a lot of which means Owen Hargreaves is more than eligible for a British passport.

 

That's bullshit. So you're saying that Randy Moss or Kobe Jones or Derrick Jeter would've made world-class footballers if they played soccer instead when they were kids? Wrong, they're the best athletes in their sport because it best suits their personal attributes. We got one of the highest populations in the world so there is more than enough talent in our pool.

 

Hargreaves is an arguable case, mostly because the Commonwealth rules are so very forgiving in this application.

But we're missing the point of this side-discussion, which was "none of the top teams do it".

 

You're missing the point.

He was born in Canada, just, to English and Welsh parents. His dad played for Bolton! We're not talking about someone with a great grandparent, we're talking someone with a direct line to the country he's playing for, someone who missed out on being born in that country by half a year!

 

Will it make you ever-so happy if I concede Hargreaves and point to the rest of the list, especially Germany's?

Jesus.

 

In an effort to get this thread back to the topic in its title:

The article in the initial message on this thread is mostly a lot of fluff, with very little substance. It's just one guy's opinion and says very little that is specific.

There has been some suggestion on the thread that the best American women athletes are playing basketball or doing track. I only can speak for what I know of specifically, which is the Pacific Northwest, and, even more specifically, the school at which I coach girls' tennis. The big sports here for girls are soccer, volleyball, and basketball. I don't see a big disparity in the athleticism of the girls in the different sports. Where I coach, the best athlete I've seen, by far, was a soccer player. And a vast number of young girls are playing soccer.

One of the things I've observed in my coaching is that different girls develop at different paces. In particular, it takes some girls longer than others to deal with growing taller; and some girls develop muscle strength earlier than others. Because of that, I have to be very careful about deciding that a girl is not an "athlete" too soon. Every once in a while someone turns out way better than I expected.

This brings up one aspect of the US women's developmental program that may not be the best, which is its narrowing down the group who will be considered the "elite" soccer players for US national team purposes too soon. I'd be willing to bet that some very good girls are being lost in the process. I don't have the answer of how to deal with that, but there are a ton of kids playing and to be narrowing them down to 35 or so at age 16 seems not very smart.

 

This may be another tangent, but when dealing with young female soccer players I have seen this a lot. One of the fasted young girls I ever saw (she ran the 100 meters in the low 13s in the sixth grade) had grown so fast that she was awkward, but every once in a while you would see a magic touch and I was waiting for her coordination to catch up with her growth. Unfortunately, before that happened she suffered a serious hip injury, when pivoting while running (no contact was involved) and she never played soccer again.

 

i am a poor man and am not given to wagering, but i'm pretty sure that i can make a pretty penny betting on the speed, quickness and vertical and horizontal leap advantage that a whole cross section of guards and forwards in the wnba (as well as track and field pro females) have over a similar cross section of the wnt players.

not saying that the girls you are coaching are not very athletic, but up at the highest pro level, the economic rules have set up a real $$ class system, (there are other factors involved of course) and the best girls are going where there's more $$$.

 

i do agree many girls go to basketball, as for track, its a little more complicated. i do not think as many stay in track post college. Track in field in college has been able to sustain itself by being flexible. Lots of team sport atheletes from the fall and winter run track in the spring because they like it and its a way to stay conditioned. Most dont make a career out of it. One of the best examples of this is on the mens side. A large number of football recievers, safetys, etc run track. I bet that some of the fastest men in American right now are not on the us mens track team but are on a NFL football team. I alsways find it amazing that during those football challange competitions (quaterbacks compete in throwing challenges, etc.) that a lot of the player run a 100 meters at a speed pretty damn close to current world records. I think a lot of this sort of using track as a support for another sport goes on, on the womens side as well.

 

I'd agree that our kids aren't taught to love the game, but that applies to both boys and girls. With respect to the "how bad do you want it" argument, once they introduced the ridiculous residency program, most of them weren't going to go abroad. Before the residency program a number of them did go to Europe.

 

First, I think if you did a survey of college track teams you would find a lot more athletes dedicated to track as their first sport than you might expect, especially on the women's side. Second, do you know what the world record for the 100 meters is? 9.77 second. There are a lot of men both profession football players and other that can run the 100 meters in 10.0-10.5 seconds. High schoolers run that fast. I doubt you've seen many NFL players run it under 10 seconds.

 

After watching the USMNT's game last night, I am glad the USWNT is not moving in the same direction. That was abysmal. P.U.

 

You really think that Moor, Corrales, and a pairing of Bradley and Clark are our first options? Convey? This was a combination "learn what your personnel can do", "don't lose to Mexico in front of their ex-pat fans", and "see if some guys on the fringes in the back can play in a huge game" game.

Abysmal is just a bit of hyperbole, as well, no? Been reading the USMNT Lack of Reality Boards too much?

 

i won't make this a usmnt thread, but that was just bump in the road stuff to me.

several experimental players on the field for the usmnt, and mexico chose players for athleticism, quickness, speed of play and intensity since they were under much greater pressure to win.

i didn't like it, but there is no comparative uswnt vs ? game that has the same intensity and speed of play from an opponent that is steeped in the culture. the closest in speed of play opponent was north korea in the wwc and that had the same effect on the wnt that mexico's speed of play had on the mnt last night.

we'll see what happens when the uswnt plays another team with the same kind of quickness, athleticism and speed of play that mexico had last night. come to think of it i don't know of any uswnt opponent that has that combination.

 

If the US men's team was judged on style points the way the WNT is, they wouldln't even be on the radar. They are different programs in different places relative to the world stage. The USWNT had a stinker in the WWC semi-final, the MNT has had stinker group rounds where they failed to win a match in two of the past three tournaments. The sad thing in this thread and other places is:

1. too many people take too much pleasure in the struggle of half our full national team program. pathetic.
2. for both programs the only way for them to succeed is to have leadership that can demand USSF do things the right way, because otherwise they don't. Whether it's WNT friendlies against minnows or playing Mexico in Houston . . . why not play the game in Azteca and at least get exposure to that atmosphere before the Hexagonal?
3. the best thing US Soccer can do is subsidize the women's pro league, at least at the level that it subsidizes MLS (with P-40, etc.) there's no legal requirement for them to do this, but it's good business for an organization that is growing almost exclusively through the women's game at the grass roots level.
4. it's funny how in USA basketball, the men's and women's programs seem to totally support each other - highlighting how stupid we are in soccer.

 

Remind me again when the USMNT made to the semis of a WC? Maybe 1930 when they had like eight countries playing.

The Brazil game in the 07WWC will go down as a cathartic moment for the USWNT. The bone headed benching of the coach, the phantom red card on Boxxy by that piece of $hit in the headband, Scurry's lack of preparation for that game met with a squad that was really clicking. Brazil did play VERY well, but they also got more than their share of breaks in that one. It's also difficult when give up an own goal 10 minutes in.

 

Much more money for both federations. A friendly in the Azteca would be poorly attended and low-priced out of necessity. Mexicans in Mexico aren't terribly interested in friendlies and they get to see their team pretty often. Mexican ex-pats have relatively few opportunities AND have a relative advantage in disposable income. That equals more money for both feds.

The Mexican Fed LOVES playing games in the US.

Huh? Seriously, I know almost nothing about our national basketball programs.

 

This argument seals your (lack of) credibility. You've just got a chip on your shoulder for some reason and you feel that knocking down the men makes that chip feel better.

 

sweden

 

i dont think this is as much of a chip on the people knocking them down as much as the people defending them. In a way, i applaud the mens team fans who constantly come to the defense of the usmnt. However the longstanding performance of the usmnt has stunk, and you dont need a grudge to realize that. Can it change? maybe. personally though i doubt it. Soccer just isnt a priority for most american men and i dont see it becoming one anytime soon.

As for the WNT they are and will continue to be a top team globally. Especically as the game grows interenationally with women. Are they always going to be the clear number one? probably not. but they will be competative and continue to be a top team. If the WWC showed us anything its that the rest of the world IS taking womens soccer more seriously (ok maybe not argentena but everyone else). I also think the natural process of globalization has opened means for players like marta who couldnt get support in their own country, the ability to play and excel in another. As she gets better, and her fame grows, Brazil will likely start to pay more attention to the female side. I was pretty shocked the summer before last when i saw the local sports channels in France airing WNBA games almost every day. France has never been a country that cares to much about female team sports and frankly most of their female population doesnt really care about playing it, but something is changing.

As i said, even with the debacle at the WWC, the US women are still good and are perfectly capable, when coached under someone who has half a brain, to compete and win across the world.