Who says America is not interested in Football ?

[YankeeJim]

Part of the difference is that football in England is regional. I doubt there are many FFC fans in Newcastle or many gooners in SW6. Americans have been very mobile for the extent of our history. I have lived in 8 different states, two of them on two different occasions. I don't have a loyalty, or for that matter, any special regard for any of them. There just places. I think of myself as an American, not a Californian or any other state. While mobility is on the rise in England, its now where close to what the US is or has been. That makes it easier to identify with your home town. You folks still separate away and home fans. We have never done that. Americans tend to switch loyalties to whomever is winning which is why the prevalent sport wear is that of the current champ. Now before the xenophobes bag on us yanks as fickle, I don't like that either. There are many exceptions to the above statements which is more of an indicator of Americans than anything else.

[Logicalman]

Toodles, I see, sorry, wrong end of the stick with that one  :dft001:

Jim, I agree with those statements, and that ideally shows the difference in how 'support' is treated, thus the clamour for ManUre, pool and Chelski shirts over here as compared to the 'lesser' teams (unless a family tie is in place of course). What's interesting though is the affinity with the persons college team seems to be for life though, no matter where they move!

[rogerpbackinMidEastUS]

Toodles, I see, sorry, wrong end of the stick with that one  :dft001:

Jim, I agree with those statements, and that ideally shows the difference in how 'support' is treated, thus the clamour for ManUre, pool and Chelski shirts over here as compared to the 'lesser' teams (unless a family tie is in place of course). What's interesting though is the affinity with the persons college team seems to be for life though, no matter where they move!

I remember when VCU (Richmond) got to the semis (final four) of the college basketball in 2011, everyone and their dog were clambering for tickets, seats on planes, hotels etc. to get to Houston.
I agree there is huge support for college teams, Virginia Tech is another local example.
In the case of VCU a large percentage of their 'alumni' are not local or even Virginia born.

Perhaps if Feltham Hill Primary School or Sunbury Grammar School got to a national final I'd fly over  !!

[ToodlesMcToot]

Toodles, I see, sorry, wrong end of the stick with that one  :dft001:

Jim, I agree with those statements, and that ideally shows the difference in how 'support' is treated, thus the clamour for ManUre, pool and Chelski shirts over here as compared to the 'lesser' teams (unless a family tie is in place of course). What's interesting though is the affinity with the persons college team seems to be for life though, no matter where they move!

No intent to "put you in your place" or anything of the sort with what I said. I was merely sharing my thoughts and some information that I recalled as we continued our conversation. That 3 million number is as much about soccer's ( I tend to use that term when speaking of the sport in America to avoid confusion with the other sport ) failings in America as it is about the sport's growth. That number has traditionally dropped drastically as children get to ages where they might begin daydreaming about what sport they might "star" in professionally or what they believe will benefit them most in the future (University). Let's face it. Most here in The States would still rather be Lebron James or Tom Brady than they would Landon Donovan. That Landon is the most marketable soccer star The U.S. has ever produced for a county our size, with our population, to me, speaks volumes about our potential for growth in the game.....whether that potential is ever realized or not.

[Forever Fulham]

This beautiful game doesn't put a premium on being huge, really tall, or having enormous muscles.  Speed, yes, that's important. Quickness, though, is probably more important that speed.  Look at the best player in the world.  If he took his shirt off, would the ladies swoon?  I think not.  Is he tall or at least average height?  Nope.  There's a place for size and speed in the game.  But for most of the positions, especially if the style of the club is to keep the ball, to the greatest extent, on the carpet, you can be average in height and mass and not be disadvantaged.  Look at Modric! 

The prototypical baseball player went from Joe DiMaggio, a lean 175 pound player with above average quickness in the 40s who could get lost in a crowd if you didn't know who he was, to these juiced up behemoths with thick necks and massive forearms, girth around the middle, wide hips, they don't look good in polyester uniforms, and they weigh around 220 lbs. up to 250 (or more).  Like a stuffed sausage.  In just a few generations, players in that sport went from normal looking to Otherness. 

Same thing in American NFL style football.  What were once normal looking people with a generally athletic build playing the game, players are now lifting massive weights 12 months a year, transforming themselves into freakish shapes.  And the steroids, HGH, and other performance enhancing drugs. 

Basketball has similarly changed.  The players were much smaller, shorter, slower, less aerobically fit, less muscular,  and played a more pass-oriented noncontact style of play.  All that has changed. 

Yet soccer (football) has seen fewer changes in the average weight and shape of its players over those same years.  Yes, the players are in infinitely better physical condition, aerobically.  And they are stronger and more resilient.  The play is faster.  The training is scientific, the injuries properly treated, the turf is level and consistent, there is warm up and cool down.  But the physical contact is a fraction of what it once was.  There's no Chopper Harris any more, trying to cripple the dribbling dandy.  A player like Crouch comes along, and he's seen as freakishly tall.  A big muscular African player runs out of gas.  It's as if the requirements of the game set parameters  for the ideal player in any generation.  The low centered shorter player can cut more quickly with the ball.  Barcelona can dribble and short pass its way through a team of big trees.  But then along comes a counterattacking style of team like Bayern which relies more on speed and size -- to a point.   It still features otherwise normal looking players.

Most Americans aren't going to be tall enough for pro basketball or football, or fast and strong enough for American(NFL) football.  And the notoriety of the long standing effects of concussions and post-career body ailments are keeping more and more mothers from middle and upper socio-economic strata from permitting their children to play pointy football. 

Who can these kids relate to today when the turn on the TV?  The soccer player.   

[YankeeJim]

This beautiful game doesn't put a premium on being huge, really tall, or having enormous muscles.  Speed, yes, that's important. Quickness, though, is probably more important that speed.  Look at the best player in the world.  If he took his shirt off, would the ladies swoon?  I think not.  Is he tall or at least average height?  Nope.  There's a place for size and speed in the game.  But for most of the positions, especially if the style of the club is to keep the ball, to the greatest extent, on the carpet, you can be average in height and mass and not be disadvantaged.  Look at Modric! 

The prototypical baseball player went from Joe DiMaggio, a lean 175 pound player with above average quickness in the 40s who could get lost in a crowd if you didn't know who he was, to these juiced up behemoths with thick necks and massive forearms, girth around the middle, wide hips, they don't look good in polyester uniforms, and they weigh around 220 lbs. up to 250 (or more).  Like a stuffed sausage.  In just a few generations, players in that sport went from normal looking to Otherness. 

Same thing in American NFL style football.  What were once normal looking people with a generally athletic build playing the game, players are now lifting massive weights 12 months a year, transforming themselves into freakish shapes.  And the steroids, HGH, and other performance enhancing drugs. 

Basketball has similarly changed.  The players were much smaller, shorter, slower, less aerobically fit, less muscular,  and played a more pass-oriented noncontact style of play.  All that has changed. 

Yet soccer (football) has seen fewer changes in the average weight and shape of its players over those same years.  Yes, the players are in infinitely better physical condition, aerobically.  And they are stronger and more resilient.  The play is faster.  The training is scientific, the injuries properly treated, the turf is level and consistent, there is warm up and cool down.  But the physical contact is a fraction of what it once was.  There's no Chopper Harris any more, trying to cripple the dribbling dandy.  A player like Crouch comes along, and he's seen as freakishly tall.  A big muscular African player runs out of gas.  It's as if the requirements of the game set parameters  for the ideal player in any generation.  The low centered shorter player can cut more quickly with the ball.  Barcelona can dribble and short pass its way through a team of big trees.  But then along comes a counterattacking style of team like Bayern which relies more on speed and size -- to a point.   It still features otherwise normal looking players.

Most Americans aren't going to be tall enough for pro basketball or football, or fast and strong enough for American(NFL) football.  And the notoriety of the long standing effects of concussions and post-career body ailments are keeping more and more mothers from middle and upper socio-economic strata from permitting their children to play pointy football. 

Who can these kids relate to today when the turn on the TV?  The soccer player.   

When one considers that Michael Jordan is the same height as Dan Burn, yet has much more speed & quickness to go  with a 44" vertical jump one has to wonder what kind of football player he'd have been. The big change will come when the money gets to the beautiful game. I think that baseball and basketball have declined in popularity in the last 15 years or so and pointy ball is, if it hasn't already, will soon peak. The concussion backlash is growing and the game has already become a rick man's pastime. A team with two 6'6" former power forwards at CB, four leftover running backs/corner backs manning the fullback and wing positions makes one's mouth water. Hopefully, my great grand kids will see it.

[HatterDon]

If Yaya Toure had been born in the USA, he'd be getting ready to retire from the NFL or the NBA.

[General]

Well, I do, for one.

I do for two. A slightly sweet attempt in writing an article to justify oneself is normally a sign that there's a desire to be recognised but not actual credibility.

The fact that their main league is struggling to beat the Championship in averages attendances and it's not only our second tier but we have a population which is 260 million less than them. That's 4 and a bit times MORE than our base population (and that includes Scotland and Northern Ireland who have separate leagues). So I'm being generous.

If the sport was popular there then every state would probably have a 100,000 seater stadium. Does it have the potential? Definitely - there's an increasing Hispanic population which has roots in Football as we know it and the sport is becoming increasingly popular. Their national team though will probably win a world cup before it becomes a genuine mainstream and credible sport throughout the U.S.

The money for the game there and for players wages could be huge and astronomical too - but what I believe it may lack is clear different cultures to ply trade. Europes Strength is it caters to many different cultures and styles so distinctly that players choose a culture just as much as a team. Plus the U.K is the home of the sport and the sport has huge history on the continent. They will always be too distant from one another. You may start getting intercontinental club championships.

The interesting part will be to see if top South America players opt for the U.S. - A lot do currently but not the very best.

One thing I don't like though and have my reservations about is the U.S /FBI getting involved seemingly Solely in trying to sort FIFA out. I don't trust having one country being responsible for such broad scoping security/law enforcement. It needs to be a shared responsibility.

[Ged]

I doubt there are many FFC fans in Newcastle or many gooners in SW6.

You may be right on the first count but teams like Arsenal Liverpool Man U and Chelsea will have large number of so called supporters in every community in England

[Logicalman]

The fact that their main league is struggling to beat the Championship in averages attendances and it's not only our second tier but we have a population which is 260 million less than them. That's 4 and a bit times MORE than our base population (and that includes Scotland and Northern Ireland who have separate leagues). So I'm being generous.


If the sport was popular there then every state would probably have a 100,000 seater stadium. Does it have the potential? Definitely - there's an increasing Hispanic population which has roots in Football as we know it and the sport is becoming increasingly popular. Their national team though will probably win a world cup before it becomes a genuine mainstream and credible sport throughout the U.S.

tbf unlike the UK, the US have 4 more 'home-grown' sports that footie has to now contend with, and when you take into consideration the massive support that starts at the college level, that does not include footie, then there is an automatic bias built in. That said, the stadia used, though not exactly large (averaging around 20K) are often in the 90% capacity for games (wiki stats). This indicates that they have got their numbers right as far as expected fan base attendance.
The question really isn't is the sport followed as much as it is in the UK, but is it followed, and those numbers say it is.

Again, give it 50 years of building from the grass roots, together with, as you say, the migration of persons from more footie-centric countries, and you might well see stadia of that size being built for the sport, but why build such things when it is obvious it cannot be filled to anywhere near capacity at present?

Good observation regarding the National team winning though. From what I see and hear, American sports are built and often followed on success (see Yankee Jims responses), and if and when the USMNT gains some degree of sustainable success, then the support will follow.

The money for the game there and for players wages could be huge and astronomical too - but what I believe it may lack is clear different cultures to ply trade. Europes Strength is it caters to many different cultures and styles so distinctly that players choose a culture just as much as a team. Plus the U.K is the home of the sport and the sport has huge history on the continent. They will always be too distant from one another. You may start getting intercontinental club championships.

The interesting part will be to see if top South America players opt for the U.S. - A lot do currently but not the very best.

Again, great points, I believe the structure of the MLS is restrictive and, in the same way as NFL is, leaves very little to competition outside of the top spots, e.g. the idea of relegation makes the season run to the end for most clubs with both anticipation and fear. Whilst the franchises are 'safe' in the same division, then there can be no real competition for places, and the excitement simply wanes outside the top spots.

As for the cream of South American players coming to the States, until the sport gains further strength and the money starts to roll, then they will go both where the money is, and the better players are.

One thing I don't like though and have my reservations about is the U.S /FBI getting involved seemingly Solely in trying to sort FIFA out. I don't trust having one country being responsible for such broad scoping security/law enforcement. It needs to be a shared responsibility.

I am very much one that believes the US Authorities reach much further than they ought to, and far too often. In this case though, I applaud them for having the gonads to actually do something about cleaning up what everyone appeared to know was corrupt, but no European government was willing to do anything about. Don't bother looking to the Asian or African governments to do anything either.

If what has happened thus far, even whilst the USDoJ are still investigating and only charged/convicted one or two peeps, is anything to go by, then this can only be a good thing. I am appalled that the European Governments or the EU itself failed to take any reasonable action given the events that have unfurled over the past few years, unfortunately I believe it has more with not wanting to upset the Russians and Sheiks than anything else. Obviously, the US has no bones about going head-to-head with those fellows, and likely relishes a battle with the former.

[rogerpbackinMidEastUS]

My original title was "Who says America is not interested in Football" and I then posted a link to an article.
It wasn't "percentage wise to interest in England or the World"
There is no doubt that America is interested in Football and getting more interested.
Anyone who doubts it should have been at the stadium a while back in Wisconsin (I think) when Manchester United played Milan.
Over 100,000 in attendance and I'm sure they didn't all fly in from England and Italy

[Logicalman]

My original title was "Who says America is not interested in Football" and I then posted a link to an article.
It wasn't "percentage wise to interest in England or the World"
There is no doubt that America is interested in Football and getting more interested.
Anyone who doubts it should have been at the stadium a while back in Wisconsin (I think) when Manchester United played Milan.
Over 100,000 in attendance and I'm sure they didn't all fly in from England and Italy

Rightly said.

[Holders]

If the US ever takes football really seriously then the rest of the world had better watch out. It's the world game, rather than "world series " in which only they compete, and when the penny drops that they could compete on the world stage they have the resources to take some stopping. 

[ToodlesMcToot]

My original title was "Who says America is not interested in Football" and I then posted a link to an article.
It wasn't "percentage wise to interest in England or the World"
There is no doubt that America is interested in Football and getting more interested.
Anyone who doubts it should have been at the stadium a while back in Wisconsin (I think) when Manchester United played Milan.
Over 100,000 in attendance and I'm sure they didn't all fly in from England and Italy

That game was in Ann Arbor, Michigan. Attendance was over 109,000.

[rogerpbackinMidEastUS]

My original title was "Who says America is not interested in Football" and I then posted a link to an article.
It wasn't "percentage wise to interest in England or the World"
There is no doubt that America is interested in Football and getting more interested.
Anyone who doubts it should have been at the stadium a while back in Wisconsin (I think) when Manchester United played Milan.
Over 100,000 in attendance and I'm sure they didn't all fly in from England and Italy

That game was in Ann Arbor, Michigan. Attendance was over 109,000.

Thanks for that.
Wasn't it "only in" a College sports stadium

[ToodlesMcToot]

My original title was "Who says America is not interested in Football" and I then posted a link to an article.
It wasn't "percentage wise to interest in England or the World"
There is no doubt that America is interested in Football and getting more interested.
Anyone who doubts it should have been at the stadium a while back in Wisconsin (I think) when Manchester United played Milan.
Over 100,000 in attendance and I'm sure they didn't all fly in from England and Italy

That game was in Ann Arbor, Michigan. Attendance was over 109,000.

Thanks for that.
Wasn't it "only in" a College sports stadium

Yes. University of Michigan.

That stadium also once drew, supposedly, 113,000 for an outdoor college hockey game. Just a fun fact.

[YankeeJim]

I doubt there are many FFC fans in Newcastle or many gooners in SW6.

You may be right on the first count but teams like Arsenal Liverpool Man U and Chelsea will have large number of so called supporters in every community in England

That was my point. The big money boys will always have a following. What you are saying is that English fans are no less fickle than Americans.

[Forever Fulham]

This beautiful game doesn't put a premium on being huge, really tall, or having enormous muscles.  Speed, yes, that's important. Quickness, though, is probably more important that speed.  Look at the best player in the world.  If he took his shirt off, would the ladies swoon?  I think not.  Is he tall or at least average height?  Nope.  There's a place for size and speed in the game.  But for most of the positions, especially if the style of the club is to keep the ball, to the greatest extent, on the carpet, you can be average in height and mass and not be disadvantaged.  Look at Modric! 

The prototypical baseball player went from Joe DiMaggio, a lean 175 pound player with above average quickness in the 40s who could get lost in a crowd if you didn't know who he was, to these juiced up behemoths with thick necks and massive forearms, girth around the middle, wide hips, they don't look good in polyester uniforms, and they weigh around 220 lbs. up to 250 (or more).  Like a stuffed sausage.  In just a few generations, players in that sport went from normal looking to Otherness. 

Same thing in American NFL style football.  What were once normal looking people with a generally athletic build playing the game, players are now lifting massive weights 12 months a year, transforming themselves into freakish shapes.  And the steroids, HGH, and other performance enhancing drugs. 

Basketball has similarly changed.  The players were much smaller, shorter, slower, less aerobically fit, less muscular,  and played a more pass-oriented noncontact style of play.  All that has changed. 

Yet soccer (football) has seen fewer changes in the average weight and shape of its players over those same years.  Yes, the players are in infinitely better physical condition, aerobically.  And they are stronger and more resilient.  The play is faster.  The training is scientific, the injuries properly treated, the turf is level and consistent, there is warm up and cool down.  But the physical contact is a fraction of what it once was.  There's no Chopper Harris any more, trying to cripple the dribbling dandy.  A player like Crouch comes along, and he's seen as freakishly tall.  A big muscular African player runs out of gas.  It's as if the requirements of the game set parameters  for the ideal player in any generation.  The low centered shorter player can cut more quickly with the ball.  Barcelona can dribble and short pass its way through a team of big trees.  But then along comes a counterattacking style of team like Bayern which relies more on speed and size -- to a point.   It still features otherwise normal looking players.

Most Americans aren't going to be tall enough for pro basketball or football, or fast and strong enough for American(NFL) football.  And the notoriety of the long standing effects of concussions and post-career body ailments are keeping more and more mothers from middle and upper socio-economic strata from permitting their children to play pointy football. 

Who can these kids relate to today when the turn on the TV?  The soccer player.   

When one considers that Michael Jordan is the same height as Dan Burn, yet has much more speed & quickness to go  with a 44" vertical jump one has to wonder what kind of football player he'd have been. The big change will come when the money gets to the beautiful game. I think that baseball and basketball have declined in popularity in the last 15 years or so and pointy ball is, if it hasn't already, will soon peak. The concussion backlash is growing and the game has already become a rick man's pastime. A team with two 6'6" former power forwards at CB, four leftover running backs/corner backs manning the fullback and wing positions makes one's mouth water. Hopefully, my great grand kids will see it.

I've seen teams in the U.S. loaded with speed merchants on the wings and giants for CBs.  Lots of players have breakaway speed.  If they can't control the ball, can't take on jockeying defenders who are timing their moment to disrupt, it's all for nothing.  It still gets down to the kind of talent the game requires.  (Remember what an abject failure Michael Jordan was at baseball when he took a hiatus from basketball?)  Dan Burn may be about the same height as former basketball great Michael Jordan, but Dan Burn isn't that much of an athlete to begin with.  He's not quick.   He's not fast.  He's a little ungainly.  His balance and coordination are somewhat lacking.  His attitude is right. He's trying alright.  But the native ability isn't really all there.  This discussion about poorer kids who are better athletes because they go outside and play, play, play more hours than other kids and then chase the big wages sports instead of English football, and if only they would have spent their youth playing football in a football-centric environment, how good they would be -- we've heard that argument for decades.  I think there is some truth to it.  The more hours you put in practicing and experimenting and working at something, the better you are going to be.  Especially if you start at a very young age.  You still need a supportive infrastructure around you.  Like the Canadian kids who play hockey all winter on the frozen pond behind the houses in their neighborhood.  Or the poor Dominican Republic kids who  while away their days playing endless games of baseball.  Or the black American kid who practically lives at the basketball court down the street.  Until American kids get together informally to play the game, and can make up a scrimmage with neighbor kids all of whom meet up in the nearby park, well, the number of brilliantly talented players is going to stay suppressed.  Generations ago, kids would meet up and head over to a baseball diamond and play pickup baseball for hours, until they had to go home for dinner or chores, or homework.  Who does that anymore?  The computer.  The tablet.  The iPhone/iPod/iPad.  The video games.  When do you see children outside any more, looking for other children?  To ride bikes or play pickup sports or race and a run around.  Simple outside games the neighbor kids used to play like Kick the Can, or kickball, or throwing the frisbee, or flag football, or simply taking a clothespin and attaching a playing card to the spokes of your bicycle so that it created the sound impression of a motor, or maybe something not sports but still outside and physically active, like building a tree house?  All over suburbia, the remote control opens the garage door, and the neighbor disappears inside, where they spend almost all of their time now.    I don't know but a few of the neighbors on my street, and none of the children.  I'm not alone in that. 

If you aren't growing the fan base, you are killing off the future of the sport.  At least with soccer in the U.S., so many kids are on organized club teams.  That, alone, won't make them great players.  I used to take my son from judo instruction to club soccer practice.  And after his normal soccer training, he'd either wander over to train with boys 2 years older than he for another hour.  Or he'd do that on off days when his regular team didn't practice.  He wasn't getting the neighborhood boys informal get together and play experience described above.  He didn't have that were he lived.  So we had to substitute informal with formal.   I know there were other boys who fell in love with the game but didn't have the neighborhood 'infrastructure' to get better with random meet-ups with neighbor boys at area parks or commons.  So we found the next best thing: More hours of training in the average week.  I was that dad still in a suit and tie who had to sit for hours while my son went from one practice field to another.  We'd race from here to there to make start and stop times.  Crazy, looking back.  Nuts.  What the hell were we doing?  But he loved the game so, and I loved that he loved it so.  So there you have it.   Would I do it all over again?  Hell no.  He didn't have a normal childhood, where you play for the very sake of play. 

[HatterDon]

I've seen teams in the U.S. loaded with speed merchants on the wings and giants for CBs.  Lots of players have breakaway speed.  If they can't control the ball, can't take on jockeying defenders who are timing their moment to disrupt, it's all for nothing.  It still gets down to the kind of talent the game requires.  (Remember what an abject failure Michael Jordan was at baseball when he took a hiatus from basketball?)  Dan Burn may be about the same height as former basketball great Michael Jordan, but Dan Burn isn't that much of an athlete to begin with.  He's not quick.   He's not fast.  He's a little ungainly.  His balance and coordination are somewhat lacking.  His attitude is right. He's trying alright.  But the native ability isn't really all there.  This discussion about poorer kids who are better athletes because they go outside and play, play, play more hours than other kids and then chase the big wages sports instead of English football, and if only they would have spent their youth playing football in a football-centric environment, how good they would be -- we've heard that argument for decades.  I think there is some truth to it.  The more hours you put in practicing and experimenting and working at something, the better you are going to be.  Especially if you start at a very young age.  You still need a supportive infrastructure around you.  Like the Canadian kids who play hockey all winter on the frozen pond behind the houses in their neighborhood.  Or the poor Dominican Republic kids who  while away their days playing endless games of baseball.  Or the black American kid who practically lives at the basketball court down the street.  Until American kids get together informally to play the game, and can make up a scrimmage with neighbor kids all of whom meet up in the nearby park, well, the number of brilliantly talented players is going to stay suppressed.  Generations ago, kids would meet up and head over to a baseball diamond and play pickup baseball for hours, until they had to go home for dinner or chores, or homework.  Who does that anymore?  The computer.  The tablet.  The iPhone/iPod/iPad.  The video games.  When do you see children outside any more, looking for other children?  To ride bikes or play pickup sports or race and a run around.  Simple outside games the neighbor kids used to play like Kick the Can, or kickball, or throwing the frisbee, or flag football, or simply taking a clothespin and attaching a playing card to the spokes of your bicycle so that it created the sound impression of a motor, or maybe something not sports but still outside and physically active, like building a tree house?  All over suburbia, the remote control opens the garage door, and the neighbor disappears inside, where they spend almost all of their time now.    I don't know but a few of the neighbors on my street, and none of the children.  I'm not alone in that. 

If you aren't growing the fan base, you are killing off the future of the sport.  At least with soccer in the U.S., so many kids are on organized club teams.  That, alone, won't make them great players.  I used to take my son from judo instruction to club soccer practice.  And after his normal soccer training, he'd either wander over to train with boys 2 years older than he for another hour.  Or he'd do that on off days when his regular team didn't practice.  He wasn't getting the neighborhood boys informal get together and play experience described above.  He didn't have that were he lived.  So we had to substitute informal with formal.   I know there were other boys who fell in love with the game but didn't have the neighborhood 'infrastructure' to get better with random meet-ups with neighbor boys at area parks or commons.  So we found the next best thing: More hours of training in the average week.  I was that dad still in a suit and tie who had to sit for hours while my son went from one practice field to another.  We'd race from here to there to make start and stop times.  Crazy, looking back.  Nuts.  What the hell were we doing?  But he loved the game so, and I loved that he loved it so.  So there you have it.   Would I do it all over again?  Hell no.  He didn't have a normal childhood, where you play for the very sake of play. 

Absolutely. Brilliant  065.gif

[rogerpbackinMidEastUS]

This beautiful game doesn't put a premium on being huge, really tall, or having enormous muscles.  Speed, yes, that's important. Quickness, though, is probably more important that speed.  Look at the best player in the world.  If he took his shirt off, would the ladies swoon?  I think not.  Is he tall or at least average height?  Nope.  There's a place for size and speed in the game.  But for most of the positions, especially if the style of the club is to keep the ball, to the greatest extent, on the carpet, you can be average in height and mass and not be disadvantaged.  Look at Modric!  

The prototypical baseball player went from Joe DiMaggio, a lean 175 pound player with above average quickness in the 40s who could get lost in a crowd if you didn't know who he was, to these juiced up behemoths with thick necks and massive forearms, girth around the middle, wide hips, they don't look good in polyester uniforms, and they weigh around 220 lbs. up to 250 (or more).  Like a stuffed sausage.  In just a few generations, players in that sport went from normal looking to Otherness.  

Same thing in American NFL style football.  What were once normal looking people with a generally athletic build playing the game, players are now lifting massive weights 12 months a year, transforming themselves into freakish shapes.  And the steroids, HGH, and other performance enhancing drugs.  

Basketball has similarly changed.  The players were much smaller, shorter, slower, less aerobically fit, less muscular,  and played a more pass-oriented noncontact style of play.  All that has changed.  

Yet soccer (football) has seen fewer changes in the average weight and shape of its players over those same years.  Yes, the players are in infinitely better physical condition, aerobically.  And they are stronger and more resilient.  The play is faster.  The training is scientific, the injuries properly treated, the turf is level and consistent, there is warm up and cool down.  But the physical contact is a fraction of what it once was.  There's no Chopper Harris any more, trying to cripple the dribbling dandy.  A player like Crouch comes along, and he's seen as freakishly tall.  A big muscular African player runs out of gas.  It's as if the requirements of the game set parameters  for the ideal player in any generation.  The low centered shorter player can cut more quickly with the ball.  Barcelona can dribble and short pass its way through a team of big trees.  But then along comes a counterattacking style of team like Bayern which relies more on speed and size -- to a point.   It still features otherwise normal looking players.

Most Americans aren't going to be tall enough for pro basketball or football, or fast and strong enough for American(NFL) football.  And the notoriety of the long standing effects of concussions and post-career body ailments are keeping more and more mothers from middle and upper socio-economic strata from permitting their children to play pointy football.  

Who can these kids relate to today when the turn on the TV?  The soccer player.  

When one considers that Michael Jordan is the same height as Dan Burn, yet has much more speed & quickness to go  with a 44" vertical jump one has to wonder what kind of football player he'd have been. The big change will come when the money gets to the beautiful game. I think that baseball and basketball have declined in popularity in the last 15 years or so and pointy ball is, if it hasn't already, will soon peak. The concussion backlash is growing and the game has already become a rick man's pastime. A team with two 6'6" former power forwards at CB, four leftover running backs/corner backs manning the fullback and wing positions makes one's mouth water. Hopefully, my great grand kids will see it.

I've seen teams in the U.S. loaded with speed merchants on the wings and giants for CBs.  Lots of players have breakaway speed.  If they can't control the ball, can't take on jockeying defenders who are timing their moment to disrupt, it's all for nothing.  It still gets down to the kind of talent the game requires.  (Remember what an abject failure Michael Jordan was at baseball when he took a hiatus from basketball?)  Dan Burn may be about the same height as former basketball great Michael Jordan, but Dan Burn isn't that much of an athlete to begin with.  He's not quick.   He's not fast.  He's a little ungainly.  His balance and coordination are somewhat lacking.  His attitude is right. He's trying alright.  But the native ability isn't really all there.  This discussion about poorer kids who are better athletes because they go outside and play, play, play more hours than other kids and then chase the big wages sports instead of English football, and if only they would have spent their youth playing football in a football-centric environment, how good they would be -- we've heard that argument for decades.  I think there is some truth to it.  The more hours you put in practicing and experimenting and working at something, the better you are going to be.  Especially if you start at a very young age.  You still need a supportive infrastructure around you.  Like the Canadian kids who play hockey all winter on the frozen pond behind the houses in their neighborhood.  Or the poor Dominican Republic kids who  while away their days playing endless games of baseball.  Or the black American kid who practically lives at the basketball court down the street.  Until American kids get together informally to play the game, and can make up a scrimmage with neighbor kids all of whom meet up in the nearby park, well, the number of brilliantly talented players is going to stay suppressed.  Generations ago, kids would meet up and head over to a baseball diamond and play pickup baseball for hours, until they had to go home for dinner or chores, or homework.  Who does that anymore?  The computer.  The tablet.  The iPhone/iPod/iPad.  The video games.  When do you see children outside any more, looking for other children?  To ride bikes or play pickup sports or race and a run around.  Simple outside games the neighbor kids used to play like Kick the Can, or kickball, or throwing the frisbee, or flag football, or simply taking a clothespin and attaching a playing card to the spokes of your bicycle so that it created the sound impression of a motor, or maybe something not sports but still outside and physically active, like building a tree house?  All over suburbia, the remote control opens the garage door, and the neighbor disappears inside, where they spend almost all of their time now.    I don't know but a few of the neighbors on my street, and none of the children.  I'm not alone in that.  

If you aren't growing the fan base, you are killing off the future of the sport.  At least with soccer in the U.S., so many kids are on organized club teams.  That, alone, won't make them great players.  I used to take my son from judo instruction to club soccer practice.  And after his normal soccer training, he'd either wander over to train with boys 2 years older than he for another hour.  Or he'd do that on off days when his regular team didn't practice.  He wasn't getting the neighborhood boys informal get together and play experience described above.  He didn't have that were he lived.  So we had to substitute informal with formal.   I know there were other boys who fell in love with the game but didn't have the neighborhood 'infrastructure' to get better with random meet-ups with neighbor boys at area parks or commons.  So we found the next best thing: More hours of training in the average week.  I was that dad still in a suit and tie who had to sit for hours while my son went from one practice field to another.  We'd race from here to there to make start and stop times.  Crazy, looking back.  Nuts.  What the hell were we doing?  But he loved the game so, and I loved that he loved it so.  So there you have it.   Would I do it all over again?  Hell no.  He didn't have a normal childhood, where you play for the very sake of play.  

Great piece FF

I was certainly lucky I had loads of other kids in my local 'estates' (sub sections) and a park at the bottom of our garden.
On weekends 2/3 kids would start kicking around at 8.00am  (playing center and heading) and quite quickly it became 5-a-side (who remembers rush goalies) then 10 a side and frequently the 'pitch' became twice the size for 15 a side.
The teams were 'shirts' and 'no shirts'
Kids would come and go and the game would continue almost until it was dark or until the last 2 were called for tea.
Jumpers for goal posts and a ball, that was it.

Sundays were worst having been playing for 7/8 hours my Mum or Dad would shout
"Have you done your homework"......................Ouch

Summers were for football, cricket, fishing, touch rugby and scrumping and then come August it's off to the Cottage, Griffin Park or Hounslow Town.

I never spent a moment indoors except.............................homework and food