Why China doesn’t dominate soccer(washingtonpost.com)
washingtonpost.com
Why China doesn’t dominate soccer
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/global-opinions/wp/2018/06/18/why-china-doesnt-dominate-soccer/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.cedd45e3e104
111 comments
Iceland's success is probably not reproducible in a larger nation. Due to their numerous indoor fields, which draw on the plentiful/cheap electricity from geothermal power to keep the lights heated and grass growing, and their plethora of coaches (I heard 500 per capita) for their 300k population, it's really not feasible in China.
Here in Uruguay we don´t have cheap energy but we do have a ridiculous number of both professional and amateur leagues and coaches (and a lot of grassland to convert into soccer fields)
For a population of 3 million:
- Pro league with 30 pro teams (each with a youth system with 7-8 teams) + 80 semi-amateur teams (with promotion to the pro leagues)
That's between 10.000 and 20.000 players in the pro system. 100 (or more) each year are sold overseas.
- Very serious amateur league with 8.000 players every weekend in the capital city, Montevideo (any of those 8.000 players could be a pro in a weak national league) plus 2.000 players in the league for smaller cities.
- Teenagers play leagues much like Americans might play high school and college sports, there are probably 30.000 teenagers playing in leagues
- 140.000 players in all the leagues across all the smaller cities.
So that's about 200.000 active players for a population of 3 million - I was one until a few years ago :)
If China or India could achieve that much sports penetration (imagine 200.000.000 Chinese playing competitive soccer every weekend!), I don't doubt they'd be one of the top ranked teams in the world.
https://www.ovaciondigital.com.uy/futbol/mundo-futbolistas.h...
https://www.referi.uy/tierra-fertil-2017-emigraron-107-jugad...
For a population of 3 million:
- Pro league with 30 pro teams (each with a youth system with 7-8 teams) + 80 semi-amateur teams (with promotion to the pro leagues)
That's between 10.000 and 20.000 players in the pro system. 100 (or more) each year are sold overseas.
- Very serious amateur league with 8.000 players every weekend in the capital city, Montevideo (any of those 8.000 players could be a pro in a weak national league) plus 2.000 players in the league for smaller cities.
- Teenagers play leagues much like Americans might play high school and college sports, there are probably 30.000 teenagers playing in leagues
- 140.000 players in all the leagues across all the smaller cities.
So that's about 200.000 active players for a population of 3 million - I was one until a few years ago :)
If China or India could achieve that much sports penetration (imagine 200.000.000 Chinese playing competitive soccer every weekend!), I don't doubt they'd be one of the top ranked teams in the world.
https://www.ovaciondigital.com.uy/futbol/mundo-futbolistas.h...
https://www.referi.uy/tierra-fertil-2017-emigraron-107-jugad...
India has the penetration with cricket. Football has been growing, but I don't see any significant improvement happening before at least a decade.
> I heard 500 per capita
You may have swapped your units there. 150 million coaches would be somewhat excessive for a population of 300 thousand.
You may have swapped your units there. 150 million coaches would be somewhat excessive for a population of 300 thousand.
500 coaches per capita?
Energy resources for success in soccer?
I'm happy for their team to go far this tournament as much as the next guy, but what in the world are you talking about?!
I'm happy for their team to go far this tournament as much as the next guy, but what in the world are you talking about?!
> from the age of 18
18 is too late. I doubt any one in any of the good national teams started playing seriously and tactically at age 18. This is in fact one of the problems with the US - our soccer players start too late.
18 is too late. I doubt any one in any of the good national teams started playing seriously and tactically at age 18. This is in fact one of the problems with the US - our soccer players start too late.
They have to play against other equally talented individuals in the highest level professional leagues from the age of 18 to develop tactically and technically.
Exactly. Nothing teaches better than having your ass kicked.
A number of high profile spanish players are considering going China for their last active years, so maybe they're on the right way.
Exactly. Nothing teaches better than having your ass kicked.
A number of high profile spanish players are considering going China for their last active years, so maybe they're on the right way.
Seems pretty weak and unsupported.
It can be summed up as "China doesn't excel at soccer because of authoritarianism and because the sport is not well understood by anyone and central planning doesn't help".
Ok, if you say so. Where's the evidence?
It can be summed up as "China doesn't excel at soccer because of authoritarianism and because the sport is not well understood by anyone and central planning doesn't help".
Ok, if you say so. Where's the evidence?
Yes, it's a naked piece of propaganda.
Totally agree. Just to pick a specific example and add on a bit: Germany reorganized their nationwide soccer development system in the mid-2000s to be much more centralized, and that's widely considered to be one of the reasons they have risen in prominence recently (they are the current reigning World Cup champions, for instance).
> one of the reasons they have risen in prominence recently
Hmmmm....
From TFA: "West Germany ... won the World Cup in 1954, 1974 and 1990, and reached the final in 1966, 1982 and 1986."
Hmmmm....
From TFA: "West Germany ... won the World Cup in 1954, 1974 and 1990, and reached the final in 1966, 1982 and 1986."
Well, there was a really bad period in between then and now.
They finished last in their group in Euro 2000, and did quite badly in 2004 (though I don't remember specifics), and those were the results that motivated several changes (or, at least, moved some already-in-progress moves towards centralization forward).
They finished last in their group in Euro 2000, and did quite badly in 2004 (though I don't remember specifics), and those were the results that motivated several changes (or, at least, moved some already-in-progress moves towards centralization forward).
The Chinese women's team is actually pretty good. This is just banal political tripe. I feel like the author had a point that he wanted to make and just said anything to support it.
The evidence is obviously football in the USSR: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Football_in_the_Soviet_Union
I'm being ironic, the USSR had both very strong club teams and a very strong national team.
I'm being ironic, the USSR had both very strong club teams and a very strong national team.
> China doesn't excel at soccer because of authoritarianism and because the sport is not well understood by anyone and central planning doesn't help
It's hard not to be mean to someone who calls it soccer :-), but this betrays an obvious lack of familiarity with the history of this sport.
USSR, Czechoslovakia and Yugoslavia all had very strong national teams, pretty much until they were dissolved. Clubs from the communist bloc did not dominate football, but put very convincing performances and were routinely represented in the higher stages of European competitions. Red Star Belgrade and Steaua Bucharest won the Champions Cup within a few years of each other -- all this while players trained in sub-par conditions, worked with sub-par equipment, had access to sub-par medical conditions, research and treatment, and were usually unable to play abroad and further their career at the truly major European clubs.
If anything, the quality of football in most ex-communist countries, Russia included, has steadily declined. Poland and Croatia are the only major and steady exceptions (Ukraine, the Czech Republic and Romania enjoyed some brief stints but not much else), and it's probably no coincidence that their national economies are faring better than those of most ex-communist countries.
It's hard not to be mean to someone who calls it soccer :-), but this betrays an obvious lack of familiarity with the history of this sport.
USSR, Czechoslovakia and Yugoslavia all had very strong national teams, pretty much until they were dissolved. Clubs from the communist bloc did not dominate football, but put very convincing performances and were routinely represented in the higher stages of European competitions. Red Star Belgrade and Steaua Bucharest won the Champions Cup within a few years of each other -- all this while players trained in sub-par conditions, worked with sub-par equipment, had access to sub-par medical conditions, research and treatment, and were usually unable to play abroad and further their career at the truly major European clubs.
If anything, the quality of football in most ex-communist countries, Russia included, has steadily declined. Poland and Croatia are the only major and steady exceptions (Ukraine, the Czech Republic and Romania enjoyed some brief stints but not much else), and it's probably no coincidence that their national economies are faring better than those of most ex-communist countries.
> It's hard not to be mean to someone who calls it soccer
> ... Champions Cup ...
People in glass houses, my friend :D
> ... Champions Cup ...
People in glass houses, my friend :D
The predecessor of the Champions' League used to be called the European Champion Clubs' Cup. That's a mouthful in many European languages, but especially in many of the Eastern languages. It used to be referred to as the European Cup in most of the English-speaking or English-influenced West, but we called it the Champions' Cup or the European Champions' Cup in most of the East.
Here's why.
Most sports clubs around here used to be very diverse in terms of sports, on account of the Party insisting that the working class has to practice sports and on account of there not being much entertainment. It would be routine for the same club to have a football team, a basketball team, a handball team and a hockey team, all playing at the highest domestic level. Red Star Belgrade or Dynamo Moscow would, at one point or another, have several teams participating in some sort of "Club Champions' Cup" (e.g. in 1986, Steaua Bucharest football team won the Club Champions' Cup, and the handball team came in third in the handball Champions' Cup)
Consequently, for most of this period, we did not take "club" to mean footbal club. This still persists today, in fact -- it was only around 2000-2005 that most clubs disbanded everything but their football teams, or football-only clubs began to be founded, so except for folks who are now in the 13-18 age group, everyone grew up with "club" meaning "an organization that organizes and maintain a great diversity of sporting events".
(Ironically enough, the party press experimented with an augmented version of the cup's name, which would be translated roughly as "European Football Club Champions' Cup". Suffice to say that did not turn out to be too popular. It took two lines of a narrow newspaper column to print it and there was no way you could pronounce it after the third beer or so).
"European Cup" didn't catch up, either, probably because it would inevitably attract the question "which one?" It didn't help that "European competitions" wasn't a useful term back then: there were various regional competitions as well, such as the Balkans Cup, and less important European competitions, such as the Inter-Cities Fairs Cup, so in order to refer to the UEFA Cup, the Champions' Cup and the Cup Winners Cup, we'd say "European cups".
Consequently, everyone here called in "the Champions' Cup", or "the European Champions' Cup". That's how me, my friends or my parents' friends from (what used to be) Yugoslavia, Bulgaria, Poland and the Czech Republic called it. Unfortunately, my Russian isn't exactly top notch, so I can't say much about the USSR, but I'd be surprised if they called it anything else.
Here's why.
Most sports clubs around here used to be very diverse in terms of sports, on account of the Party insisting that the working class has to practice sports and on account of there not being much entertainment. It would be routine for the same club to have a football team, a basketball team, a handball team and a hockey team, all playing at the highest domestic level. Red Star Belgrade or Dynamo Moscow would, at one point or another, have several teams participating in some sort of "Club Champions' Cup" (e.g. in 1986, Steaua Bucharest football team won the Club Champions' Cup, and the handball team came in third in the handball Champions' Cup)
Consequently, for most of this period, we did not take "club" to mean footbal club. This still persists today, in fact -- it was only around 2000-2005 that most clubs disbanded everything but their football teams, or football-only clubs began to be founded, so except for folks who are now in the 13-18 age group, everyone grew up with "club" meaning "an organization that organizes and maintain a great diversity of sporting events".
(Ironically enough, the party press experimented with an augmented version of the cup's name, which would be translated roughly as "European Football Club Champions' Cup". Suffice to say that did not turn out to be too popular. It took two lines of a narrow newspaper column to print it and there was no way you could pronounce it after the third beer or so).
"European Cup" didn't catch up, either, probably because it would inevitably attract the question "which one?" It didn't help that "European competitions" wasn't a useful term back then: there were various regional competitions as well, such as the Balkans Cup, and less important European competitions, such as the Inter-Cities Fairs Cup, so in order to refer to the UEFA Cup, the Champions' Cup and the Cup Winners Cup, we'd say "European cups".
Consequently, everyone here called in "the Champions' Cup", or "the European Champions' Cup". That's how me, my friends or my parents' friends from (what used to be) Yugoslavia, Bulgaria, Poland and the Czech Republic called it. Unfortunately, my Russian isn't exactly top notch, so I can't say much about the USSR, but I'd be surprised if they called it anything else.
To be fair, it used to be called European Champions' Cup when those teams were playing.
Nah it's not ever been called that either. It seems it was technically "European Champion Clubs' Cup" but I have literally never heard that term in my life (and I know a LOT of Celtic fans who have a lot to say about a certain night in Lisbon in 1967).
Mainly my comment was just a playful "maybe don't get snippy with someone's terminology, nobody's perfect"
Mainly my comment was just a playful "maybe don't get snippy with someone's terminology, nobody's perfect"
While I think things like vision, communication and teamwork, spatial awareness and improvisational ability are critically important and can't be taught (though they can be learned through lots of play), this article definitely shortchanges the amount of physical and technical skills required for soccer / football that can be taught and developed through practice
Good stamina is a prerequisite for being good at soccer / football. Players run 5-10 miles per game and a lot of that is intense bursts of speed with lots of changes of direction and agile footwork -- which is incredibly tiring. A team gets a limited number of substitutions and there are no timeouts / breaks other than halftime. So you have to be in good shape, and that's definitely a skill that comes with practice
Technique / "touch" is also critical and can be developed. The most immediately striking easily observable difference btw pros and less skilled players is that pros touch is just impeccable -- the ball just goes exactly where they want it. It's like a part of their body. That comes with drills and repetition.
If you are in good shape and have a good touch, you'll be better than most players up to probably a US division 3 college level (you can also be good at this level sacrificing touch for intelligence / game sense, speed, or another attribute). But beyond that you need to either have freakish skills / athleticism and good game sense or just really good game sense
Good stamina is a prerequisite for being good at soccer / football. Players run 5-10 miles per game and a lot of that is intense bursts of speed with lots of changes of direction and agile footwork -- which is incredibly tiring. A team gets a limited number of substitutions and there are no timeouts / breaks other than halftime. So you have to be in good shape, and that's definitely a skill that comes with practice
Technique / "touch" is also critical and can be developed. The most immediately striking easily observable difference btw pros and less skilled players is that pros touch is just impeccable -- the ball just goes exactly where they want it. It's like a part of their body. That comes with drills and repetition.
If you are in good shape and have a good touch, you'll be better than most players up to probably a US division 3 college level (you can also be good at this level sacrificing touch for intelligence / game sense, speed, or another attribute). But beyond that you need to either have freakish skills / athleticism and good game sense or just really good game sense
So if you look at a distribution of folks possessing the attributes required of a footballer, you can be fairly competitive amongst the general population with one or two, but the long tail of elite players requires all seven of the attributes you mention.
you'll be better than most players up to probably a US division 3 college level
If you really love the game, this sounds like a fairly satisfying career peak. A reasonably healthy player should take comfort in knowing it's achievable through effort alone.
you'll be better than most players up to probably a US division 3 college level
If you really love the game, this sounds like a fairly satisfying career peak. A reasonably healthy player should take comfort in knowing it's achievable through effort alone.
I think that's true. I had friends I played with in high school who played D3 who were just fast and decently skilled, some who played D1 who were just very skilled and athletic but didnt have the best game sense, and some who walked on to D1 teams who werent that athletic but just disciplined, safe players -- usually central mid / defenders who could control the ball and pass quickly
As I've gotten older I've found that having decent ball control and stamina makes up for me being slower and less agile, and helps me enjoy casual pickup games with younger players. Instead of jogging I'll do dribbling exercises for a cardio workout. I love playing soccer but its harder to play as I get older, and these exercises enable me to keep playing casual pickup games
As I've gotten older I've found that having decent ball control and stamina makes up for me being slower and less agile, and helps me enjoy casual pickup games with younger players. Instead of jogging I'll do dribbling exercises for a cardio workout. I love playing soccer but its harder to play as I get older, and these exercises enable me to keep playing casual pickup games
This is like asking why Brazil (pop 208M) and Nigeria (pop 191m) don't field competitive cricket teams.
Interestingly enough, China does have a fairly decent women's soccer team (~17th in the world), so they must be doing something right.
Interestingly enough, China does have a fairly decent women's soccer team (~17th in the world), so they must be doing something right.
> This is like asking why Brazil (pop 208M) and Nigeria (pop 191m) don't field competitive cricket teams.
Why? Soccer is by far the most popular sport in China for quite some time now.
I think you need to spend a generation or two to also get the systems right, tho.
Why? Soccer is by far the most popular sport in China for quite some time now.
I think you need to spend a generation or two to also get the systems right, tho.
Comparing to other athletic sport. I doubt it is more popular than LOL or Dota2 or whatever current popular eSport tho. Or even werewolves (langrensha).
Or even martial arts to be perfectly frank.
We don't think of it as a sport, because it doesn't necessarily fit our western view of sport. But you'd be hard pressed to say that football or basketball is more popular than martial arts as an athletic pass time in China.
We don't think of it as a sport, because it doesn't necessarily fit our western view of sport. But you'd be hard pressed to say that football or basketball is more popular than martial arts as an athletic pass time in China.
Just because Jacky Chan does kungfu, doesn't mean all Chinese do. The amount of Chinese who invest serious effort into kungfu is quite small. I wouldn't be surprised if hip-hop has a bigger hobby base in China.
However almost all Chinese I know have at least some interest in soccer. Of course they bet on European teams in lack of having own strong teams. But they are more into it than most Europeans I know (who mostly only care in special seasons like World Cup).
However almost all Chinese I know have at least some interest in soccer. Of course they bet on European teams in lack of having own strong teams. But they are more into it than most Europeans I know (who mostly only care in special seasons like World Cup).
The number of Americans who invest "serious effort" into playing hockey, or basketball, or NFL football is quite small. Doesn't mean those aren't popular sports here in the US.
In fact, I'm CERTAIN that hip-hop, yoga, or jogging all have a bigger hobby base in the US than hockey, or basketball, or NFL football. If by "hobby" and "serious effort" you mean personally engages in activity twice a week or more. That doesn't make any of them necessarily more "popular" than hockey, or basketball, or NFL football.
Just because it isn't played daily, doesn't mean it isn't a pass time. Martial arts tournaments are enormously popular.
It's arguably even worse in China. Because football is being propped up by the government. Which means even where the government is, let's say, "subtly to strongly urging" people to interact with football, they are still choosing to interact with basketball, martial arts, ping pong, etc instead. Without the government backing, football would fade quickly. Not so for table tennis, or basketball, or boxing. (Which all maintain their popularity with no government intervention.)
In fact, I'm CERTAIN that hip-hop, yoga, or jogging all have a bigger hobby base in the US than hockey, or basketball, or NFL football. If by "hobby" and "serious effort" you mean personally engages in activity twice a week or more. That doesn't make any of them necessarily more "popular" than hockey, or basketball, or NFL football.
Just because it isn't played daily, doesn't mean it isn't a pass time. Martial arts tournaments are enormously popular.
It's arguably even worse in China. Because football is being propped up by the government. Which means even where the government is, let's say, "subtly to strongly urging" people to interact with football, they are still choosing to interact with basketball, martial arts, ping pong, etc instead. Without the government backing, football would fade quickly. Not so for table tennis, or basketball, or boxing. (Which all maintain their popularity with no government intervention.)
Cricket is not the most popular sport of those countries. Football is.
I think you may have misinterpreted zhdc1's point. I think they mean to say that if Brazilians and Nigerians have a cultural preference for football, why attempt to force cricket onto them?
Agreed, and also that population size and economic power aren't always the end all-be alls for success.
The US has a great women's team in part because lots of women play soccer, and in part because their aren't that many other competitive sports for them to play on a professional level.
The US has an OK men's team mainly because there are enough athletes left over after football, basketball, baseball, and hockey take their cuts to field a somewhat competitive team. They didn't qualify this time around, but they have qualified for seven of the last eight World Cups, so they're doing something right.
In both cases, it has little to do with how much money is spent (if that were the case, the US would dominate the sport) and more to do with how many top athletes decide to play the sport with kids AND stick with it as a profession once they become adults.
The US has a great women's team in part because lots of women play soccer, and in part because their aren't that many other competitive sports for them to play on a professional level.
The US has an OK men's team mainly because there are enough athletes left over after football, basketball, baseball, and hockey take their cuts to field a somewhat competitive team. They didn't qualify this time around, but they have qualified for seven of the last eight World Cups, so they're doing something right.
In both cases, it has little to do with how much money is spent (if that were the case, the US would dominate the sport) and more to do with how many top athletes decide to play the sport with kids AND stick with it as a profession once they become adults.
I didn't misinterpret it, but even in the article it's mentioned that China's most popular sport is Football. So it's the same as in Brazil in that respect.
That's because they don't count martial arts.
They claim it's an "amateur" sport in china. Which is just this side of ridiculous.
Even basketball is growing faster than football in China. This despite the government propping football up. Which is not an indictment of the Chinese, just pointing out that the people there, left to their own devices, would just as soon do something other than play football.
They claim it's an "amateur" sport in china. Which is just this side of ridiculous.
Even basketball is growing faster than football in China. This despite the government propping football up. Which is not an indictment of the Chinese, just pointing out that the people there, left to their own devices, would just as soon do something other than play football.
This.
If the people don't play a sport, why try to force it on them?
In places like China, Indonesia, and even the US, rightly or wrongly, the people are not really very big on football. (In China, the government is attempting to prop up football unilaterally, but it is having limited success).
Now maybe this aversion cultural, maybe its economic, whatever. But I'm not seeing why the Chinese people should be pushed into football when they have an obvious preference for other activities?
If the people don't play a sport, why try to force it on them?
In places like China, Indonesia, and even the US, rightly or wrongly, the people are not really very big on football. (In China, the government is attempting to prop up football unilaterally, but it is having limited success).
Now maybe this aversion cultural, maybe its economic, whatever. But I'm not seeing why the Chinese people should be pushed into football when they have an obvious preference for other activities?
The reasons why presented in the article aren't right as most of the commenters have pointed out.
My counter point to this is Hockey and the USSR. Hockey is also a free flowing game that relies on team discipline and individual creativity. The USSR was an amazing hockey machine.
It comes down to cultural reasons. USSR's people liked hockey and the USSR supported hockey monetarily. The USSR finds success in hockey. Brazil's people like soccer and Brazil+Brazil's private teams supported soccer monetarily. Brazil finds success in soccer. China's people don't know what they like yet. The people have just started to have have free time because of the recent economical liberalization. China has only started to support soccer monetarily. So it's reasonable to expect that China doesn't play soccer well. They could be better in the future as long as they have the time and culture change it needs.
Side note: I don't know why England sucks. The people love it, god awful amounts of money are spent on soccer/football. But thank god they haven't figured it because the world would not hear the end of it...
My counter point to this is Hockey and the USSR. Hockey is also a free flowing game that relies on team discipline and individual creativity. The USSR was an amazing hockey machine.
It comes down to cultural reasons. USSR's people liked hockey and the USSR supported hockey monetarily. The USSR finds success in hockey. Brazil's people like soccer and Brazil+Brazil's private teams supported soccer monetarily. Brazil finds success in soccer. China's people don't know what they like yet. The people have just started to have have free time because of the recent economical liberalization. China has only started to support soccer monetarily. So it's reasonable to expect that China doesn't play soccer well. They could be better in the future as long as they have the time and culture change it needs.
Side note: I don't know why England sucks. The people love it, god awful amounts of money are spent on soccer/football. But thank god they haven't figured it because the world would not hear the end of it...
> Side note: I don't know why England sucks. The people love it, god awful amounts of money are spent on soccer/football. But thank god they haven't figured it because the world would not hear the end of it...
I wonder if it just comes down to how they practise it and the level of dedication - similar to how this feature alludes in the case of cricket: http://www.espncricinfo.com/magazine/content/story/653673.ht...
I wonder if it just comes down to how they practise it and the level of dedication - similar to how this feature alludes in the case of cricket: http://www.espncricinfo.com/magazine/content/story/653673.ht...
I find it hard to believe coaches of any professional Soccer/Football team abide by non-compliance of the team.
The people called out in this story are all super stars, and have more power in a sense than the coaches of their teams. Much like Lebron James is in basketball.
But if you look at other teams, like Spain, in which there is less dependence on a single player, and more on the team play, my guess is that part of that is due to the coach pushing for more passing, more calm control of the ball. Not to say they don’t have individually great players on the team, but they clearly play as a team, and not individuals.
The article might be right that to excel in Soccer one needs to be more free in expression and experimentation. My theory on why Brazil excels, is that socially the sport is played almost all the time by everyone... and it’s a great sport for low income areas, ball, field, game. In the US, we rarely did pickup games of soccer, even though many of us played in the neighborhood, because most of the other kids wanted to play American Football...
The people called out in this story are all super stars, and have more power in a sense than the coaches of their teams. Much like Lebron James is in basketball.
But if you look at other teams, like Spain, in which there is less dependence on a single player, and more on the team play, my guess is that part of that is due to the coach pushing for more passing, more calm control of the ball. Not to say they don’t have individually great players on the team, but they clearly play as a team, and not individuals.
The article might be right that to excel in Soccer one needs to be more free in expression and experimentation. My theory on why Brazil excels, is that socially the sport is played almost all the time by everyone... and it’s a great sport for low income areas, ball, field, game. In the US, we rarely did pickup games of soccer, even though many of us played in the neighborhood, because most of the other kids wanted to play American Football...
The social structure in many cities does not enable sports. If you have a city of millions but heavy pollution, factory jobs with long hours, expensive real estate so no pitches
Why United States doesn't dominate soccer?
Despite what other posters have said here, the US has a strong soccer culture and a ton of talent. With MLS academies picking up steam and more youth players training abroad, we are producing more talent than ever. The international competition in soccer is intense, and there is a lot of parity among top nations. If the US had adjusted tactics in the qualifiers, we'd be there instead of Panama. We're definitely stronger than a bunch of other countries at the WC.
This will change because
1) Latino immigration and their inherent interest in soccer
2) Pigskin Football is plummeting due to concussion fears
3) Steady rise in popularity of the sport, especially as a social/hipster rebellion to old guard leagues like the NFL
4) MLS, for better or worse, seems stable and can provide some degree of professional support for players. That will attract more athletes and keep athletes in the sport
I think the US will rise to the level of the less talented Euro nations that qualify, like maybe Denmark or Iceland.
1) Latino immigration and their inherent interest in soccer
2) Pigskin Football is plummeting due to concussion fears
3) Steady rise in popularity of the sport, especially as a social/hipster rebellion to old guard leagues like the NFL
4) MLS, for better or worse, seems stable and can provide some degree of professional support for players. That will attract more athletes and keep athletes in the sport
I think the US will rise to the level of the less talented Euro nations that qualify, like maybe Denmark or Iceland.
Limited interest: most of the country views it as a child's sport, to be outgrown. There's not many places for a kid to just kick around the ball with friends, because it's hard to get to a field, you might have to reserve it, how do you get your friends there, etc. It's not an organic sport like football (in the US).
Pay to play: for youth development, the player's family has to be fairly well off. This is pay for either an academy, or going to a D1 college team, paying for travel, etc etc
Limited coaching talent: not very many soccer coaches play or even watch soccer regularly. This leads to an emphasis on agility and strength rather than skills and strategy. Agility and strength work out pretty well if the team you're facing has the same focus, but if you're playing against a team that has drilled and nurtured intelligence it will end badly for you.
Pay to play: for youth development, the player's family has to be fairly well off. This is pay for either an academy, or going to a D1 college team, paying for travel, etc etc
Limited coaching talent: not very many soccer coaches play or even watch soccer regularly. This leads to an emphasis on agility and strength rather than skills and strategy. Agility and strength work out pretty well if the team you're facing has the same focus, but if you're playing against a team that has drilled and nurtured intelligence it will end badly for you.
For the US it is more about the quality of athletes and interest in the sport. The best athletes don't play soccer. They go to football, basketball, and to some extent baseball. On my son's club basketball team they regularly get some of the best soccer players in the city joining, and dropping soccer. The inverse (great basketball players joining soccer and leaving basketball) rarely/never happens.
When I was in school, we played soccer to get in shape for basketball season (we were too small to field a football team). People tried really hard to push soccer, and we were actually better at soccer than basketball, but soccer just never had the same kind of excitement. You need too many people and too much space to actually play soccer, compared to a little bit of driveway and a ubiquitous hoop for basketball - you don't even need another person, you can spend hours blissfully shooting by yourself.
I'm from UK - I spent hours practicing football by myself (spot kicks, volleying to myself, keepie-uppy, trying show-off skills like rainbow kicks). Many, many hours playing football with just a few friends at the park ("spot", "Wembley singles", "headers and volleys"). At high school we'd play football mostly with a tennis ball, but we'd kick around a drinks-can if there was no ball.
I was only ever a mediocre player, mainly relying on speed - which also got me in just about every school team (small high-school, small market town). At Uni our team did come 2nd in the intra-University cup.
Why did I do all that rather than basketball (a sport I've really enjoyed playing), pervading culture would probably be the main reason (which in turn means availability of fields/courts, etc.).
After Uni I took up volleyball because that was the social sport played at my workplace; now I do karate because that's the sport my kids are doing.
tl;dr You can play football without a football and with 1+ players.
I was only ever a mediocre player, mainly relying on speed - which also got me in just about every school team (small high-school, small market town). At Uni our team did come 2nd in the intra-University cup.
Why did I do all that rather than basketball (a sport I've really enjoyed playing), pervading culture would probably be the main reason (which in turn means availability of fields/courts, etc.).
After Uni I took up volleyball because that was the social sport played at my workplace; now I do karate because that's the sport my kids are doing.
tl;dr You can play football without a football and with 1+ players.
Three kids, one ball, not very much space. One goes in goal (if needs be a jumper or coat on each side), the other two compete to put the ball past them x times, then rotate the goalkeeper. Continue ad nauseam.
Or go to a park and practice ball skills, solo. Ex-England captain Wayne Rooney was famous for having done that for hours at a time as a kid.
I'm not actually a particular soccer fan and quite enjoy basketball, but it's definitely not true that soccer has higher kit, space or numbers requirements to get in a game as a kid.
Or go to a park and practice ball skills, solo. Ex-England captain Wayne Rooney was famous for having done that for hours at a time as a kid.
I'm not actually a particular soccer fan and quite enjoy basketball, but it's definitely not true that soccer has higher kit, space or numbers requirements to get in a game as a kid.
>Continue ad nauseam.
This is what we did. A great way to spend summer when you are teen.
As for practicing ball skills, the very nickname Pele was from the sound of the can Pele played instead of ball - his family was too poor to have soccer ball.
This is what we did. A great way to spend summer when you are teen.
As for practicing ball skills, the very nickname Pele was from the sound of the can Pele played instead of ball - his family was too poor to have soccer ball.
Kids in other countries play soccer in tight spaces. This helps them develop ball control skills. And with a soccer ball, you can practice juggling, shooting, or doing moves by yourself. For me, shooting hoops by myself was always very dull.
Have you tried five-a-side soccer? Great sport! But it does need a special pitch for sure - much smaller than an 11-a-side field but still a hindrance.
Over here (Uruguay) there's a whole cottage industry of five-a-side soccer fields, many workers play it after office hours.
Edit: as a side comment said, poorer people usually cordon off a stretch of road and play there, that's also very very common (especially during the day when there's no much traffic). Two rocks (or logs, or bundles of clothes) can serve as goalposts.
Over here (Uruguay) there's a whole cottage industry of five-a-side soccer fields, many workers play it after office hours.
Edit: as a side comment said, poorer people usually cordon off a stretch of road and play there, that's also very very common (especially during the day when there's no much traffic). Two rocks (or logs, or bundles of clothes) can serve as goalposts.
Msybe it's a catch22. It's not very popular so not many people try it so the team doesn't have very good players so it's not popular. Argentina has soccer schools for children everywhere. And recruiters are always looking for rising stars in them.
Not popular. This means public parks and even schools are less likely to have soccer fields or soccer programs. Note how almost every single park has a basketball court. Although this is changing, soccer is associated with elementary school kids or even as feminine (?).
Because soccer is not popular, it doesn't make you as much money or respect as other sports. Strong athletes will overwhelmingly choose sports better for them in the long run.
Elitist. For some reason, in the US, soccer is expensive. Leagues are expensive, classes are expensive, etc. It is squarely an middle to upper middle class sport. This cuts off a huge part of the population. I cannot tell you why because everywhere else, soccer is for everyone and a lot of famous players come from poor backgrounds. When the game was invented, it was a working class' game.
Soccer starts too late. There is no progression from childhood to pro like there is everywhere. The best clubs and teams of the world (and even the ones that aren't so good) have special programs for K-12 kids (e.g. Barcelona has been training Messi since he was 13). Most soccer players I know didn't start playing seriously until high school or even college.
Because soccer is not popular, it doesn't make you as much money or respect as other sports. Strong athletes will overwhelmingly choose sports better for them in the long run.
Elitist. For some reason, in the US, soccer is expensive. Leagues are expensive, classes are expensive, etc. It is squarely an middle to upper middle class sport. This cuts off a huge part of the population. I cannot tell you why because everywhere else, soccer is for everyone and a lot of famous players come from poor backgrounds. When the game was invented, it was a working class' game.
Soccer starts too late. There is no progression from childhood to pro like there is everywhere. The best clubs and teams of the world (and even the ones that aren't so good) have special programs for K-12 kids (e.g. Barcelona has been training Messi since he was 13). Most soccer players I know didn't start playing seriously until high school or even college.
There is a really good BBC podcast about it. There are full soccer academy's now. https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p066783g . They delve in some cultural stuff and how they need creativity and individualism in their game and should get over their players having tattoos (they make them cover them up).
Is there a reason for the recent china bashing? Seemingly every article about china is finding some new way to criticise it.
Having an elite soccer team requires talented players, one of the most important talents is elite running speed.
To have elite running speed you need to have a higher torso/leg ratio, basically long legs and a high center of gravity.
There are regional differences around the world with torso/leg ratios. China is on the lower end, much of Africa is on the high end.
To have elite running speed you need to have a higher torso/leg ratio, basically long legs and a high center of gravity.
There are regional differences around the world with torso/leg ratios. China is on the lower end, much of Africa is on the high end.
Messi is on the lower end then, as was Maradonna...
A low center of gravity is actually a good trait in 'soccer' as everyone knows that knows a thing about the game.
A low center of gravity is actually a good trait in 'soccer' as everyone knows that knows a thing about the game.
ugh. explain Mexico then. Not a quality post here.
Yeah, this is not a good explanation at all, bordering on racist honestly. No data cited for claims, and plenty of counterexamples to disprove the point easily.
What, exactly, about the post is racist? The parent cited specific biological characteristics. Generalizations are not racist. Nobody claims it's racist to say that Kenyans tend to be good runners because of genes. In fact, The Atlantic made that claim [1]. The parent poster is making similar types of claims as The Atlantic article.
Poor post, ok. Racist, no.
[1] https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2012/04/wh...
Poor post, ok. Racist, no.
[1] https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2012/04/wh...
> one of the most important talents is elite running speed
That would be on my shortlist for among the least important talents for team success.
That would be on my shortlist for among the least important talents for team success.
Where is your data? Where is your evidence for this borderline racist claim? Africa doesn't have strong teams, clearly your explanation falls apart with the slightest analysis.
Africa has the fastest teams, that's for sure. There are other factors that go into a team's success other than region, I definitely said speed is an important factor among others right?
Where is your evidence they have the fastest teams? I'm asking for evidence, please, not repetition of claims without data.
It's not scientific, or even representative, but watch the recent Senegal vs Poland world cup match.
I think Poland was the #4 FIFA ranked team. Wow was the athleticism gap pronounced for Senegal.
I think Poland was the #4 FIFA ranked team. Wow was the athleticism gap pronounced for Senegal.
Parallel to the article's argument, I'd argue football (soccer) unpredictability are due to size and diversity in almost all it's aspects: most number of fans/aspiring players, also inherently (culturally) most diverse set of potential players/strategies and leagues organization.
At the regional scale, those also tend to be the most competitive and popular leagues, enabling breeding grounds of diverse playing styles. There's diversity even in how those leagues are managed and organized.
Compared to popular US sports franchises, which according to the article and my understanding (non-american), football(soccer) leagues around the world are much less centralized.
I don't know about China now, but growing up in Asia in 90s I'd say it is hard to foster the type of rivalry/diversity/competition needed to adapt to football(soccer).
At the regional scale, those also tend to be the most competitive and popular leagues, enabling breeding grounds of diverse playing styles. There's diversity even in how those leagues are managed and organized.
Compared to popular US sports franchises, which according to the article and my understanding (non-american), football(soccer) leagues around the world are much less centralized.
I don't know about China now, but growing up in Asia in 90s I'd say it is hard to foster the type of rivalry/diversity/competition needed to adapt to football(soccer).
China plays the US for the gold medal in Olympic BEACH VOLLEYBALL. They can dominate anything they want, they just haven’t invested the effort and money into soccer yet. There are more popular sports in China like basketball which they will go after first.
Basketball? Yeah, I'm all for chasing and achieving goals...dreams in this case. But China ain't going nowhere in Basketball any time in my lifetime..or two lifetimes at that.
Average Division III teams used to beat pro chinese teams, but this was back in the 90s. They probably are better now.
Basketball is more popular than football in China? Article says opposite.
I think that so far a weak professional league it's one of the main factors. Yes they're being able to hire some good players and coaches, but they go there because of the money and don't are at the top of their game. For example, Andre Villas Boas left the chinese club he was coaching in order to participate in Dakar rally. That would never happen if he was coaching a european club.
Investing in youth academies will be the best path to achieve a comparative level to some european leagues.
It would be interesting if they are already doing this and for how long, because we don't see any significant results yet.
Investing in youth academies will be the best path to achieve a comparative level to some european leagues.
It would be interesting if they are already doing this and for how long, because we don't see any significant results yet.
This is not specific to China but many larger countries who are good at other sports but they don't do well at soccer. Australia is very good at Rugby, Cricket but their soccer team is average and they make it to world cups only because of limited competition in their confederation (OFC). Domestic soccer leagues are just picking up in China. They mostly comprise to Chinese players and/or end up with retirees of European clubs (Retired Andre Iniesta of Barcelona/Spain moving to some club in China).
[deleted]
That's similar to the US. I think a lot of it just comes down to the number of kids that grow up playing a sport i.e. the talent pool. In the US lots of kids try playing soccer but most focus more on baseball / basketball / football / hockey. Whereas in countries where soccer is the main sport the talent pool is larger and you have tons of talented kids who've been playing for two decades
Yet, the US dominates in women’s soccer. Maybe there are fewer options for them to play other sports (football specifically)?
Another reason might be that in Europe soccer is considered a rather masculine sport. Very few girls even consider playing it. Girls usually play volleyball, handball, etc. but a girl that kicks the ball with a foot would be strangely looked at here.
In the US, I hear, soccer is reasonably popular as a female sport, so the talenf pool is larger.
In the US, I hear, soccer is reasonably popular as a female sport, so the talenf pool is larger.
Soccer also doesn’t compete with football or basketball for girls like it does with boys
The US actually has a fairly good men's national team. As weak as CONCACAF is, there's a reason why they've qualified for seven of the last eight World Cups - and why their tie with Trinidad and Tobago was so surprising.
Currently 25th in FIFA rankings (3rd in CONCACAF). Is there any other major men's sport where the US ranks outside the top 20 (maybe cricket)?
- 15th in rugby https://www.worldrugby.org/rankings/mru?lang=en
- 6th in tennis https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ITF_Rankings#Men
- 4th in hockey https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IIHF_World_Ranking
- 2nd in volleyball https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FIVB_World_Rankings
- 15th in rugby https://www.worldrugby.org/rankings/mru?lang=en
- 6th in tennis https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ITF_Rankings#Men
- 4th in hockey https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IIHF_World_Ranking
- 2nd in volleyball https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FIVB_World_Rankings
What we in the UK call hockey (field hockey) - https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/FIH_World_Rankings - USA women 7th, USA men not listed.
You are correct. I see them at 26th here - http://www.fih.ch/rankings/outdoor/
Another one would be handball, ranked 38th - http://www.ihf.info/en-us/thegame/rankingtable.aspx?month=7&...
Another one would be handball, ranked 38th - http://www.ihf.info/en-us/thegame/rankingtable.aspx?month=7&...
Where is handball a major sport; I don't think I've ever seen it played in a match.
The number of women playing sports seriously is much higher in the US than in most other countries due to Title IX and cultural reasons.
Nitpick: Australia is in the Asian confederation, not Oceana. Still, Asia as a whole is a weak confederation.
That's not even a minor nitpick - the AFC is much more competitive. Not quite the level of UEFA or CONMEBOL but the latter stages have plenty of potential banana skins and qualification is by no means guaranteed. Indeed Australia were narrowly edged by France a few days back and today drew with Denmark - both well regarded UEFA nations. They're genuinely a decent side.
Yeah, but they've only been there for 12 years. OFC before then.
Iniesta moved to Japan.
Also, Australia has 5200% less people than China, so not a great comparison. A better comparison would have been India, who have a comparable population but a heavy focus on cricket.
https://www.cnn.com/2018/05/23/football/barcelona-iniesta-ja...
Also, Australia has 5200% less people than China, so not a great comparison. A better comparison would have been India, who have a comparable population but a heavy focus on cricket.
https://www.cnn.com/2018/05/23/football/barcelona-iniesta-ja...
Its simple really, chinese ppl in general dont care about sports let alone hockey, most of my friends have never been to a hockey game, or baseball or a soccer match. Chinese people would rather work and have other hobbies outside of sports. Sports isnt the end all be all. its actually not very important at all in the big scheme, you can get excerise in many other ways and be successful in many different professions.
Dynamic coordination among a group of people. Top down approach does not work best under this. It's not reactive enough. There are just so many to talk about regarding this. But I think that's one of the very core dimensions of this game. And there are so many other national teams do not reach their potentials. China is a nice key word for clickbait. And it worked well.
Wrong tittle, should be: why China doesn’t dominate soccer yet.
They are investing heavily, buying loads of European youth football trainers, scouting their own youth at great rate and building their league up pretty fast.
You heard it here first: they will host the World Cup football in 2030 or 34 and will be contesting for the highest rank.
They are investing heavily, buying loads of European youth football trainers, scouting their own youth at great rate and building their league up pretty fast.
You heard it here first: they will host the World Cup football in 2030 or 34 and will be contesting for the highest rank.
Wasn't china good in the early 2000's? I think they made it to the finals or something, what happened?
Soccer is slow. Soccer takes too long to fail. Expend energy running across the field to take one shot.
What sports to Chinese kids play?
Ping Pong, Basketball, and e-sports..
How does basketball get popular amongst a shorter population for widespread playing - according to this chart http://www.wecare4eyes.com/averageemployeeheights.htm average height in PRC is one of the bottom few.
I'm above average in UK but playing basketball or volleyball my height was always a major disadvantage. I realise you can improve your jump game (plyometrics ftw!) but still ...
I'm above average in UK but playing basketball or volleyball my height was always a major disadvantage. I realise you can improve your jump game (plyometrics ftw!) but still ...
League of Legends
There are articles online that claim the opposite. I guess it's a matter of perspective.
read: Why India doesn't dominate soccer
paywall
> American mainstream sports tend to rely heavily on the authoritarian figure of the coach, who draws up plays for obedient players to execute.
Which sports is the author referring to other than American Football? I played volleyball, and the coach had little control over the way a serve would play out other than which players were on the court.
Which sports is the author referring to other than American Football? I played volleyball, and the coach had little control over the way a serve would play out other than which players were on the court.
> Which sports is the author referring to other than American Football?
I mean this pretty clearly refers to Baseball as well.
I mean this pretty clearly refers to Baseball as well.
Almost the only play planning in baseball is the catcher calling pitches. Everything else is reaction to where the ball goes. The coach does staffing.
The manager (the head of a baseball team is the manager, not the coach, for whatever reason) is also responsible for putting on the shift, telling the batter to bunt, calling for stolen base attempts, and other strategic things along those lines.
This. I was never a huge baseball fan, but my sons got into it, and observing beyond the surface it is really impressive how many split-second intelligent decisions you have to make in baseball, with (again) quick ad hoc coordination.
Being talented individual is not enough. They have to play against other equally talented individuals in the highest level professional leagues from the age of 18 to develop tactically and technically. China needs a professional soccer league with top level foreigners or they need to send their best to European leagues. They can do it but it can take several generations.
Soccer is the most popular sport in the world and has most professional athletes by far. Best individuals from all over the world go to play in best professional teams, mostly in Europe and they continue to grow with better opponents and teammates. Talented Brazilians playing in top leagues all over the world a bring all that with them to their national team. Iceland (population little over 300,000) has professional players playing in England, Russia, Sweden, Netherlands ...