Mexico are always getting smacked around by USA these days. 
Countries that should be better at football
- Thread starter RedDevilCanuck
- Start date
Indeed.
And the same is true for the US men's football. It is in its absolute infancy. It still needs time to have a level professional playing field.Oh come on...
You can only beat what's in front of you, but the women's game is still in its absolute infancy it's only just developing into a proper professional competition. Equating the men's and women's competition is a joke, the women's game still needs time to have a level professional playing field.
Eh?
Australia will always struggle with AFL, NRL and Cricket all being far bigger and better paying sports.
Well not really, because when they(Gala, Fener or Besiktas) play other European teams they don't do that. They take the piss out of each other if they lose or if they win they find excuses for each other on how they shouldn't have won.
We're not talking about India's football team here... MLS is one of the richest leagues in the world, there's more than enough money going around in their system.
GDP+population+popularity/political will. If you’re scoring high on all three then there is no excuse to be poor at the sport.
The problem is that a lot of countries scoring high on one measure will score low on at least one of the other factors.
So the USA and China being the current superpowers have the GDP and population to transform themselves into the best if they wished to but they don’t care about investment in football in the way they do about pouring money into athletics, for example. So they won’t.
India has the population and (arguably) GDP but equally don’t care about the sport, investing in cricket instead.
Brazil have the population, popularity/political will, and (arguably) GDP so they feature at the top of the tree.
I’d argue Russia/former USSR as the big failure here, standing out above everyone else. They’ve been obsessed with developing the sport, had state run teams throughout the communist era, had large amounts of money to throw at the problem, had great coaches (lobanovskiy), had a large population and massive popularity of the sport, and achieved zero.
The problem is that a lot of countries scoring high on one measure will score low on at least one of the other factors.
So the USA and China being the current superpowers have the GDP and population to transform themselves into the best if they wished to but they don’t care about investment in football in the way they do about pouring money into athletics, for example. So they won’t.
India has the population and (arguably) GDP but equally don’t care about the sport, investing in cricket instead.
Brazil have the population, popularity/political will, and (arguably) GDP so they feature at the top of the tree.
I’d argue Russia/former USSR as the big failure here, standing out above everyone else. They’ve been obsessed with developing the sport, had state run teams throughout the communist era, had large amounts of money to throw at the problem, had great coaches (lobanovskiy), had a large population and massive popularity of the sport, and achieved zero.
Ireland and Scotland obviously. being a joke compared to England is one thing, but only when you compare them with countries like Croatia and Serbia you realize how bad they are. they just can't play this game.
But that's the thing a lot need to be taken there, you can't just go easily from the suburbs if you don't have a car. Moreover with football you need a group of kids to play, if you're not all going at the same time then you won't do it.
Some kids can play at school but to my mind it's the middle class kids who are able to pursue it. If you're not rich I think it's even harder and you probably won't go to a school that offers it.
Even if you change all this, soccer is still behind in popularity to American football, basketball etc.
It's a vicious cycle.
Yep, the talent is here - especially in west Africa where their physique, combined with their technical ability is usually a very good recipe for the world stage. But the money and infrastructure simply isn’t. Add in other socio economic challenges etc. and it’s not something that will change anytime soon. Hence it’s their priority and dream to leave the continent for Europe as soon as possible.
Specifically here in South Africa, our apartheid regime preferred investing in cricket and rugby - hence were so strong in those 2 sports, with the footballing infrastructure generally poor and/or lacking, especially at grassroots level and it’s even worse in the poorer areas where the interest in football is also generally higher.
Firstly, results won't be instant and MLS is a very young league.
Secondly, it's not really about how much money your league earns. After all if it was just to do with how strong your league is, there is no way Belgium should have such a good team.
It's going to be about;
- how well you can develop a lot of young players continuously from the ages of 6-16.
- how many opportunities are there for 16 year olds to turn professional.
- does your nation have a clear footballing identity that all the kids play?
England fails on that last point, which is one of the reasons the English national team (and all the other home nations) are just not very good. We love exciting football we we aren't taught to play with good technique. Thankfully that is changing and so are the results.
The MLS is a young league and just starting to become important. So a 6 year old today might be learning proper football and so make the US National team great in 15 years time. Except you need an entire squad of them from 18-32 so make that 25 years time.
In the next 10 years England might be the biggest National Team in the world, and in 25 years the US might be able to compete for semi finals.
Mexico first country that comes to mind.
India given the population size and widespread interest. There should at least be a team which can qualify for a World Cup.
Turkey should be more of a European powerhouse.
England’s tournament record compared with Italy, Germany and in recent years France leaves a lot to be desired.
USA dominated the women’s game at times. Pissing around too much with sports nobody cares about despite the fact popularity in soccer is there. Same as Ireland and Australia.
Whenever I’ve been to Peru football has been a huge deal, as much as any South American nation, yet they barely ever qualify.
India given the population size and widespread interest. There should at least be a team which can qualify for a World Cup.
Turkey should be more of a European powerhouse.
England’s tournament record compared with Italy, Germany and in recent years France leaves a lot to be desired.
USA dominated the women’s game at times. Pissing around too much with sports nobody cares about despite the fact popularity in soccer is there. Same as Ireland and Australia.
Whenever I’ve been to Peru football has been a huge deal, as much as any South American nation, yet they barely ever qualify.
Last edited:
You can make a case for dozens of countries that they should be better, but if you go by populations, and consider how popular of a sport football is in these places, then Mexico, Colombia, Turkey, Egypt, and Russia are probably the best examples.
I'm not sure Serbia are all that special? For me Uruguay and Belgium would be better examples, but both them and Croatia are probably the exceptions rather than the rule.
I'm not sure Serbia are all that special? For me Uruguay and Belgium would be better examples, but both them and Croatia are probably the exceptions rather than the rule.
So they only do it against United. Turkish Abus? Is that a thing?
GAA is amateur, although most clubs are paying senior coaches, some probably up to 30/40k a year. There's clubs around the country, some in the arse end of nowhere that have better setups, pitches, training facilities and more expansive club grounds than most LOI or any soccer club.
In terms of facilities, investment and overall interest. Soccer will never be bigger than GAA in Ireland. It's just the way it is, we can talk about money investment and coaching, soccer in most areas is just something to do when there's no gaelic or hurling on.
I don't it's possible to study and highlight particular genes for football as it would be a mixture of speed, strength, stamina, agility, cognitive ability, discipline.
I thow there's been genetic studies on Kenya's to see why they're so good at long distance running but that's much simpler.
No.
From my own observations of playing and coaching sport, talent is at least 50% genetics. Obviously there's other factors like coaching, culture, discipline.
So my hypothesis is that these genetics are more concentrated in the Balkans than other countries.
Your table on Olympic medals per capita is completely meaningless as Croatia only started competing in 1992.
In Rio 2016 Olympics, Croatia came 6th in medals per capita.4th if you only include countries with a population more than 500,000.
Last edited:
I brought up the revenue to show that money isn't the issue and hasn't been for a while. All this talk about how the US is only at the beginning and just needs 10-15 more years has been going on for ages, yet they still struggle to qualify to the world cup against meme-tier opposition, despite importing a third of their squad from Europe.
And still I'm reading "oh no, they started yesterday, you'll just wait and see in a couple of years".
The country that stands out is England. Should be one of the best, but has been a joke.
With a good manager that could change, because the players are great.
With a good manager that could change, because the players are great.
they aren't, but at least you've seen them in 4 of the last 5 world cups and it doesn't surprise you that they're there. plus, they produce plenty of players for big clubs.
plenty of their players came from the least developed places of the country (I used to live there so I know). it's not some rich country with amazing facillities all over the land.
same goes for Croatia, where I live now.
Using population size in and of itself as a reason why a nation should be good at football is absolutely redundant. If these nations do not have the infrastructure for their population to aspire to climb and exit, it doesn’t matter whether they have 1 million or 1 billion people.
Just think of all the stories of complete obsession and aspiration kids have in football nations with an actual infrastructure there are where kids are dreaming of making it pro, knowing full well it is a life-changing endeavour. You’re not going to get that in a far flung nation that has no established ladder to climb; kids in the USA dream of making it pro in NFL, NBA or even baseball, using the exact same principle outlined above. The same will go for China and India; until there are domestic leagues there that pay extremely well, football will not be something to pursue obsessively from single digit ages.
Money is the biggest driver in football; incentivise around the world and things would change as the masses pick up the game with the same intensity as a young Brazilian, or Argentine kid will instead of casually, before dropping it altogether at the most formative stage.
I think the more pressing question is why nations where kids have a path and a ladder to climb are falling short by some distance, especially so if they've been prosperous in the past - why aren’t Irish kids as focused on following the path of those who were prominent fixtures in ‘English football throughout the 20th century, for example?
My first thought for the thread was England, mind. For the money and talent produced, the international record is appalling, especially so when so many nations that were once behind (Spain, France), have come along and comfortably surpassed England for major trophies in the last few decades. One World Cup for the entirety of international competition is shocking.
Just think of all the stories of complete obsession and aspiration kids have in football nations with an actual infrastructure there are where kids are dreaming of making it pro, knowing full well it is a life-changing endeavour. You’re not going to get that in a far flung nation that has no established ladder to climb; kids in the USA dream of making it pro in NFL, NBA or even baseball, using the exact same principle outlined above. The same will go for China and India; until there are domestic leagues there that pay extremely well, football will not be something to pursue obsessively from single digit ages.
Money is the biggest driver in football; incentivise around the world and things would change as the masses pick up the game with the same intensity as a young Brazilian, or Argentine kid will instead of casually, before dropping it altogether at the most formative stage.
I think the more pressing question is why nations where kids have a path and a ladder to climb are falling short by some distance, especially so if they've been prosperous in the past - why aren’t Irish kids as focused on following the path of those who were prominent fixtures in ‘English football throughout the 20th century, for example?
My first thought for the thread was England, mind. For the money and talent produced, the international record is appalling, especially so when so many nations that were once behind (Spain, France), have come along and comfortably surpassed England for major trophies in the last few decades. One World Cup for the entirety of international competition is shocking.
The table doesn't say a lot about young countries from the Balkans, but it says a lot about Scandinavian countries, who you brought up as an example of "genetic weakness" to make your point.
And how would you even know what's genetics and what's upbringing. If you train some 10 year old lad, who is good at football, how do you know that's due to his genes or is that because his father started kicking a ball around with him when the kid was two.
All you present are some shreds of anecdotal evidence ("I train kids", "some Balkan countries are good at some sports", "one country from the Balkans once had the 6th highest medal count per capita" - must be genetics.
genetic diversity, I guess
it was a melting pot of cultures (greeks, romans, byzantines etc..)
same could be said for Brazil (african, european, native americans)
There are world class nations who don’t seem to produce really world class players in certain positions
Italy or Portugal (with the obvious huge exception) don’t seem to produce many world class attacking players for example
Italy or Portugal (with the obvious huge exception) don’t seem to produce many world class attacking players for example
I never said Scandinavians were genetically weak, I said they were geographically isolated like Ireland and other countries.
The Balkans has been a crossroads of civilizations for 10,000s of years. Croatia is by the coast so was probably the epicenter of this crossroads.
I grew up with these kids so knew how much they were playing and training. Sporting talent is 50% genetics at least.
In GAA in Ireland a very high proportion of top players are the sons of top players. Look up the Canavans. Obviously there's other factors like passion and culture etc but without the genetics they wouldn't make it.
It's just a hypothesis of mine which can't be proven.
Ashkenazi Jews win disproportionately in Nobel prizes and other academics because they have a concentration of high IQs in their population.
Obviously there's other factors like culture and access to education, but the genetics play a strong factor.
Last edited:
No they don't. They also make it out of the group stage at the World Cup more often than not.
The US have only had free professional academies as a regular thing for ~10 years so it hasn't been going for ages. They are also already providing increasingly improved results and regularly beat top European & South American clubs at youth level.
I'm just confused by Ireland being unique that their national sports get more investment and interest than soccer.
I would think that the majority of countries around the world have a national sport that isn't soccer that gets more investment. And quite a few of those will have it as an amateur sport still
I seem to recall them failing to qualify for the 2018 WC and securing qualification for the 2022 WC on the last match days?
The USA will be a force in international football in time. It might be 20 or 30 years though.
I don't think he's saying it's unique, but certainly in Europe football is the dominant sport in most countries but in Ireland soccer is very poorly funded and supported.
I know, and I meant that their current team isn't that special basically, because they've produced some amazing players these last few decades.
It’s all about infrastructure and coaching at young ages though. Who was the last truly great Turkish player? The truth is football is a sport that almost entirely coachable - hence why we’re now seeing this new wave of ex player’s sons start to come through as they take up the academy spots. But if you aren’t getting elite coaching now at a very early age you’re going to struggle to then get into an academy and that’s the issue for countries like Turkey where they produce a lot of decent players but few come straight to the European league. Think of Arda Turan, great great player, but no one took the gamble on him until Atlético and he’d been pro about 6 years by then. If he’d grown up through the Atlético academy I think he’d have been a really elite player for example.
Football isn't entirely coachable.
It's 50% genetics, that's why the sons of top footballers often do well.
Obviously the other 50% is coaching, practice, passion, culture, discipline etc...
Frank Lampard had the genetics from his father but he trained harder than anyone. You need both.
I play soccer with lots of Indians here in Dublin and they're actually very good technically.
Apparently it's growing a lot there so maybe in time India might have a decent team.
Cricket will always be number 1 there though.
The US are far too fragile and insecure to get good at a sport where they can't just declare their national league the world championships because no one else gives enough of a shit to call them out on it. They'd rather finish first in a series of one horse races than peel back the facade of American exceptionalism they delude themselves with every day.
50% is way, way too high to give to "genetics". Look at someone like Luka Modric, he has the genetics of a coal miner from 1920.
Even Lampard is a fairly normal guy. He's not particularly tall, strong or quick. Any picture of him with his shirt off always led to "fat frank" jibes.
But lampard was only 1 kind of athletic. He was slow and lacked agility and was lacking against top foreign smaller players.
Historically you will find loads of players that would have improved England.
I'm not so sure all in all the difference is sufficiently relevant to introduce division and/or the dilution of commitment to the cause. Take peak Scotland, move the likes of Hansen, Souness, Strachan, Dalglish to Team GB alongside Butcher, Robbo, Hoddle, Lineker... would it work?
Spain always struggled with this.
It's growing strongly there though.
Most of their national team play in the top European leagues now.
Messi's having a huge effect there.
Maybe in 20 years they'll be a force in international football eg at the level of Holland or Portugal.
He's generally considered one of the best midfielders in the PL era.