Countries that should be better at football

Obvious answer is England (if this is about national teams). One World Cup and zero Euros won isn't enough for England. Netherlands probably could've done better, especially in that era when Ajax won multiple Champions Leagues. Too many WC finals lost.

Russia as well. Think former Soviet Union was quite good during the 60s but nowadays Russia (obviously USSR was more than just Russia) don't do much, except for those Euros in 2008 when they did well.
 
On the pitch, Russia was in a pretty strong position to remain one of the better European national teams after the breakup of the USSR. They got all of the coefficient points, so had high seedings from the start; a young ussr produced generation that around 88-91 looked like it could be among the best in Europe, with a lot of very technically capable players, plus many of the better talents from the other newly independent countries opted to play for them for self-serving careerist reasons.

They then went on to underachieve massively, with lots of players going off the rails and building reputations for poor professionalism or failing to adapt to foreign leagues. By 2002 world cup farce they had turned the nt into a banter-tier laughing stock. More widely, football just never recovered from the turmoil of the '90s, in particular the youth development structures across most of the country. Once money came back into the sport, things were very short-termist in thinking from most clubs and the Putin regime itself never cared about football, beyond the vanity project of the World Cup, as it can't be controlled and manipulated to anywhere near the same extent as the Olympics stuff. The population size is also misleading as anything past the Urals was always hugely underdeveloped for football in the ussr and only got much worse since.

Ukraine had a lot of the same issues, but smaller population size to fall back on and also got shafted by having to start from scratch in the coefficients. Of course, the war has probably killed development in both for a long time, though that's pretty low on the list of concerns right now.

Of the other countries, only Georgia consistently produced top international level players in the ussr era for every decade. They've just had too much against them to have good odds of keeping that going...small population, economic issues, a lot more isolated from the big leagues than Croatia/Serbia and tended to send a lot of their young talents to Ukraine/Russia (though that has obviously changed now).
 
Last edited:
IMO the key factors are population, GDP per capita, the overall country 's development, how much popular the sport is and how much it is promoted/funded by the government and private sector (which usually can be seen in the leagues structure, youth teams, etc). Other factors could be having a more diverse talent pool due to -let's say- historic, systemic reasons (like France); or having the first mover advantage by taking the sport seriously before the others (like Uruguay).

England is maybe the only country that check all of these boxes, but relatively speaking have won very little: one big title (the WC) almost sixty years ago, one european final and a couple of SF in each tournament. Spain and France won 4 each, Italy 6, Germany 7. Other underachievers in europe could be Russia (1 big title like England but with twice the population) and Turkey (only 1 semi in both Euro and WC). Now let's see other regions:

CONCACAF: the US (MNT) and Mexico are the big regional powers, but have failed to make an impact in the WC or even win a Copa America. I think they both have the potential but need to get out of their comfort zone and play more consistently with european and southamerican powers to improve. If CONCACAF and CONMEBOL had merged 20 years ago they would be in a much better position. The US seems to be going the right way lately, while Mexico has been going in the opposite direction for the last 10-15 years.

CONMEBOL: Colombia have won very little (1 Copa America and one WC quarterfinal as their best results) considering its population is larger than Argentina (who has 3 WC, 3 WC finals and 15 CA). They are late bloomers in the sport anyway, unlike Argentina who is one of the continent's forerunners.

CAF: South Africa is the obvious choice, having both one of the biggest populations and GDP per capita but failing to become at least a regional power with only 1 African Cup, 1 final and only 3 WC appearances with first round eliminations in all of them. They were also late into the game mainly due to Apartheid, but apparently they have also decided to prioritize other sports like Rugby. Also Egypt, despite being a well established regional power it has an appaling WC record where they have never won a match. North African neighbours like Morocco, Algeria and even 12M population Tunisia have done better.

AFC: China should probably be at least a median regional power due to their size and the sports popularity. Indonesia should be doing better too at Asian Cup. Saudi Arabia and Iran have the potential to do better at WCs, but regional conflicts have been detrimental. Japan, on the other side, has been growing rapidly.
 
top1whoisman said:
A part of it seems to be the mental side of it. So many of them struggle to adapt to top European leagues for some reason. Even when the talent is there.
Click to expand...

This is because there was only really the time from 88 to about 02 when players were incentivised to move abroad. Before then there was no movement of players, unlike Yugoslavia, Poland and some others that allowed moves after a certain age. So the players of that first decade to move experienced the difficulties in adapting from the communist system, which often led to the younger ones starting well then going off the rails because of the much greater money and free time they had, and the older big names from the '80s were getting past their best and couldn't keep the same level for long even if they managed to adapt.

It would probably have settled into being similar to what we see from Balkan players in terms of being determined to succeed somewhere in a better league and having plenty that find their level somewhere, but the money from '00s became far better than those players had at home. Between that and there not being a longer established culture of going to Germany, England, Italy, Spain, etc...the players often just didn't display the same drive to find a place somewhere. Most weren't unprofessional like the '90s crop, but if they failed or were struggling at their first club, they'd just come back to the well paying comfort zone. This happened with almost every single talent that moved from big Russian and Ukrainian clubs during the '00s. Then the last generation really exposed the state of the youth systems and was just too crap and lacking in natural talents to get much attention from strong clubs. Hardly anyone moved that had enough talent to maybe eventually develop into a good player, as they weren't willing to grind away for no more money in the sort of lower-mid/relegation fighting smaller top league teams that would have taken a chance.

Things are different now and we already see the Ukrainian league tumbling down the coefficients and more Ukrainian players moving abroad for the long term, with some making a solid impact already. Quite understandably not an easy option for Russian players now, though i do think they should be accepted as long as they're not espousing pro-war views
 
For England i think their underachieving is mainly restricted to their national team results in big competitions. You can have debates about more specific things that could be better, like youth systems not historically producing enough of certain types of players, but you can't really say they have underachieved much at club level or in their overall development of the sport, which is in a very healthy state.

However, a country like Scotland, i'm not sure what valid reasons they really have for not being able to be around the Croatia/Serbia level...if not in the multiple late stage tournament appearances aspect (which always has fine margins) but at least in terms of consistently producing better players.
 
duffer said:
We're just going to have to agree to disagree that his genetics played a large chunk in making him the player he was.
Click to expand...

I don't know if genetics is quite the right term for it, but some players are definitely born with something special that I do not think can be coached. The most obvious example is Messi. I do not think that you could give another player the exact coaching pathway he had and they would turn out even half as good as he was.

Or guys like Kroos, Scholes, KDB, Xavi, the vision that these guys have for passing, on some level some of that has to be natural gifts, that were honed by coaching, yes, but like the Messi example I don't think you can just coach what they can do to any player
 
Demyanenko_square_jaw said:
For England i think their underachieving is mainly restricted to their national team results in big competitions. You can have debates about more specific things that could be better, like youth systems not historically producing enough of certain types of players, but you can't really say they have underachieved much at club level or in their overall development of the sport, which is in a very healthy state.

However, a country like Scotland, i'm not sure what valid reasons they really have for not being able to be around the Croatia/Serbia level...if not in the multiple late stage tournament appearances aspect (which always has fine margins) but at least in terms of consistently producing better players.
Click to expand...
Croatia and Serbia are definitely a freak of nature when it comes to quality vs country size. And it’s not just football, basketball too, that whole region far outperforms its population size for producing top players. Even for Slovenia to have Handanovic and Oblak for 20 years is ridiculous considering what Scotland have had in goal.

I’m sure there’s plenty of factors that come into it, Yugoslavia has always had a strong national team going back to the 30s, don’t forget that some of best players for these nations always grew up watching some greats of the game. It’s a hotbed for football and that surely inspires more participation at youth level as well as a mentality that is bred from a really young age.

Maybe it helps that all of their top prospects seem to get first team football at a young ago, at a decent standard (less and less so now), through Red star, Partizan or Dinamo. I’m sure there’s definitely a case study that could be done, because countries like Bulgaria and Romania used to produce those players but don’t any more, although I feel like Serbia/Croatia may struggle once this generation has gone and money is becoming more and more important.
 
LA BOMBA said:
I think this thread is more about countries that should be better at football overall.

Netherlands and pre-2008 Spain at least had great football clubs and continously produced great players and legends, it was only their national teams that were somewhat underperforming, but that really comes down just to tournament form.

Meanwhile if you look at countries like Mexico and Russia they're just overall bad relative to their size. Nothing to show for in recent decades in any segment of football.
Click to expand...

I think that's why they should be included. They have a great football foundation, great clubs, great support yet consistently fail to deliver on the international stage. You can make some very solid claims that they produced both the greatest side and player, at the very least they would be a consideration.

They are also arguably the blueprint for the modern game and there influence can be seen everywhere today.

So yeh, I think they fit the bill here depending how you interpret the question.If you had zero knowledge of who had won each international tournament but we're given a breakdown of each nations football history, infrastructure and level of interest from their citizens, you'd be very surprised to find out the Netherlands had just one success and had even failed to qualify in recent years.
 
To add to my above post, a lot of people are including countries where football isn't the number one sport, not even close in some cases. India, US even Australia footballs the also ran sport even today. It may be growing but has a long way to go before it's considered the national sport. The likes of England and the Netherlands are different in that football is by far the biggest sport. It's part of the DNA and identity of the country.

Mexico is a good shout though but I think there's some very obvious reasons as to why they haven't achieved anything of note. They're also a big part of why football in the US is a growing sport, to the point a Mexican club is the second most popular in the country (first if you exclude the fact number one is absolutely making it up).

Russia? Not really. Maybe when it was the Soviet Union and had it's pick of eastern Europe's talent but today? Like China their interest in football was purely political and about soft power. Same goes for the likes of Saudi.
 
TwoSheds said:
Lack of diversity could be a factor...
Click to expand...

Not sure that's the case tbh. England is one of the most diverse countries in Europe but hasn't helped us that much while the current World Champions are not particularly diverse, depending on how you view diversity. Historically they are but in more modern terms, not so much. Poland's history of invasion and occupation would suggest they have a fairly diverse population but their more hard-line approach to modern immigration makes them look less so.
 
Indonesia.
Even poor in South East Asia.
Never won ASEAN Championship (our Euro or Copa America), for comparison Singapore have won it 4 times :lol:
Thailand with the most win, 7 times.
 
Last edited:
Currently living in mexico, I'd say here but I think there's multiple reasons why mexico is dire at all sports but the population should mean that they should have a few more top athletes than there is currently.
 
I wrote England, but on serious note I think all Scandinavian counries should do better. Big countries with big influx of foreigners (it's reality, dont call me racist).
 
Karel Podolsky said:
Indonesia.
Even poor in South East Asia.
Never won ASEAN Championship (our Euro or Copa America), for comparison Singapore have won it 4 times :lol:
Thailand with the most win, 7 times.
Click to expand...
True. The country is full of football fanatics, you can easily find public venues that show football matches. But talents arent really nurtured and most have to go abroad to develop properly as a player. The league is a joke and somehow worse than 15 years ago due to corruption, they have to rely on big sponsors to keep the league going. Having a football career there isnt worh it.
 
San Mourinho. Its in the name but they always get slapped 8-0 by England.
 
Bosnia would be good. Most players from Croatia or Serbia are born in Bosnia but they chose to represent other countries.

Closest case to me was Boris Zivkovic from Leverkusen fame. His mom and my mom worked in same bank.
 
Ireland should do better for a country with 5.5m population and a love of football; are Denmark and Croatia overachieving or Ireland underachieving? All relatively developed European nations - football of similar importance (arguably more so in Denmark, less in Croatia, where other sports are also important - and in Ireland where rugby and gaelic sports are important). I just think they're underperforming for too long.
 
Top answers for me:
England
Turkey
Mexico
Poland
Columbia

Hard to judge african countries as the infrastructure is often lacking. Or they play for France instead. :P
 
All the countries who have donated their players to higher ranked nations.
 
tomaldinho1 said:
Not sure that’s true at all. Lots of kids who are average when younger make it based off coaching and arguably the best player ever has a genetic ‘disadvantage’ (ignoring the hormone treatment). Most random footballers aren’t genetic freaks at all, who would you say is compared to something like the NBA or NFL?
Click to expand...

I know lots of top footballers will say that they weren't the best players growing up but they had the discipline and hard work.
I'm saying you need both genetics and practice.

I was a decent player but all the practice in the world wouldn't make me a top player.

Messi has no disadvantage really other than height. He has pace, agility, coordination, balance etc..

He's a genetic freak cos he's never injured.

George Best had the genetics but played non stop as a kid growing up in Belfast. He would dribble a ball going to school every day, knocking the ball against walls on the way. He practiced loads with a tennis ball also.
DutchSerb said:
Yes that doesn't help. Still, they could still rep their country. If the Netherlands had all the Moroccans that chose for Morocco instead of the Netherlands at their disposal they would have great depth, but the Moroccans are too proud of their roots (and rightly so). Good chance players would still rep Serbia and Croatia even if they moved away. Especially if they move to big countries where it's hard to get into the team.
Click to expand...
Ricardo de la Vega said:
Ireland should do better for a country with 5.5m population and a love of football; are Denmark and Croatia overachieving or Ireland underachieving? All relatively developed European nations - football of similar importance (arguably more so in Denmark, less in Croatia, where other sports are also important - and in Ireland where rugby and gaelic sports are important). I just think they're underperforming for too long.
Click to expand...

We should be at the level of Scotland, Denmark, Norway, Wales etc..

We've fallen below those recently but from the late 80s until 2016 we were definitely hitting par if not overachieving. We were a tier 2 country but now we're third tier unfortunately.

Croatia and Uruguay are complete outliers so not a good comparison. They're basically tier 1 countries.

I think the biggest problem in Ireland that our national league is impoverished for a soccer mad country.

If you look at demographics in Europe, the majority of eastern European countries have a declining population but Ireland's is one of the fastest growing, so in theory, with good coaching structures we should be qualifying for the Euros in the future.

23 out of 53 countries qualify for the Euros. The 24th team is the host.

If you remove the minnows like San Marino, Liechtenstein, Andorra, Gibraltar, Malta, Faroe Islands, Luxembourg (I know they beat us) and teams we should always beat like the Baltics (Latvia, Estonia, Lithuania) and other small countries like Kosovo, Kazakhstan, Cyprus (I know they beat us), Macedonia, Moldova, Azerbaijan, Montenegro, Albania (I know they qualified but they're a small country). That's 18 countries we should be better than.

53 - 18 = 35.

Then there's lots of countries around our level that we should get a result against like Georgia, Finland, Armenia, Bosnia, Iceland, Northern Ireland etc..


Anyway you get the point. We should qualify for the majority of Euros really.
 
Last edited:
DutchSerb said:
Yes that doesn't help. Still, they could still rep their country. If the Netherlands had all the Moroccans that chose for Morocco instead of the Netherlands at their disposal they would have great depth, but the Moroccans are too proud of their roots (and rightly so). Good chance players would still rep Serbia and Croatia even if they moved away. Especially if they move to big countries where it's hard to get into the team.
Click to expand...

There's 3 young Irish lads of Albanian heritage we're hoping will stick with us.

If you look at Irish underage teams now there full of lads with mixed heritage. That's not a complaint, I'm all for it.
 
next_number_seven said:
I know lots of top footballers will say that they weren't the best players growing up but they had the discipline and hard work.
I'm saying you need both genetics and practice.

I was a decent player but all the practice in the world wouldn't make me a top player.

Messi has no disadvantage really other than height. He has pace, agility, coordination, balance etc..

He's a genetic freak cos he's never injured.

George Best had the genetics but played non stop as a kid growing up in Belfast. He would dribble a ball going to school every day, knocking the ball against walls on the way. He practiced loads with a tennis ball also.
Click to expand...
But what do you mean by genetics? If you mean being healthy and not being unlucky to be born with some kind of issue that would affect your ability to play sport, than obviously. If you mean some kind of genetic lottery that favours football specifically, I think that's hogwash.

Case in point, your point about ex players and their children having the right genetics makes zero sense because there are more ex footballer's sons in football now than previously and, surely, it would have been way more common previously when there was less coaching/academy focus and there were far more windows to get into academies and be spotted as a player.

When you say you were a decent player, how many times did you train a week, what was your diet like and when did you enter an academy system/how long were you paid to play? Because the reality is many of think we were decent/good and many people probably had a trial or two or played regional/academy but the guys who make it are simply doing more. More hours in training, better diets, better sleep, more support, it all adds up. There definitely is a broad genetic lottery for sports in general, like if you're rapid as a kid you likely have a slightly greater chance at most sports, but then, again, that natural advantage disappears quickly if you don't train it.
 
My shout here is Mexico. As an argentine we form part of a big football fanatic region in the whole LATAM and we always have this kind of discussions where it all end up with jokes such as "I was at Cancun, kicked a can of soda and they asked me to join the Mexican National team". They reply with jokes related to our economy.

Mexico, England and the Netherlands come to me as the biggest shouts in terms of the popularity of the sport and the infrastructure these countries developed to produce great players. They have all the boxes checked but they fail to reflect that in trophies at major tournaments. The difference is that both England and the Netherlands have always competed and produced great talents. You can even say football has been really unfair with the Netherlands.

Mexico has never competed really. They have produced one or two really great players in their history. They reached a couple CA finals but considering their passion for the sport and their economical structure they should be comfortably the second best football naton in the Americas behind Brazil. Their record against Brazil and Argentina in matches is absolutely terrible. It's also interesting that they're not strong in other team sports at all and even individual sports other than boxing, while Argentina has been considered a competitive nation in Basketball, Rugby, Tennis, Boxing, field hockey (by far womens biggest sport), Brazil being a powerhouse in volleyball and competing in basketball and other sports.

To me the main difference is cultural and economical. The mentality is what sets apart argentinan/brazilian/uruguayan players apart, they're used to a standard which is really high and are used to the pressure from a very young age. They also grow up knowing their dream is to play for their national team, which is by far the biggest pride for any of these players, and they know they have to get to the best leagues in the world to do so. And of course in the process in most case they know they can "save" their famlies from a tough, daily fighting kind of economical situation.

In Mexico since they have a good economy they tend to reach their first division teams and that's it. They don't seek European football. They're ok playing there or in the US. Their youth system is not efficient and in the last decades it's all oriented towards economical decisions more than to win. In youth academies those who have a connection with the owners/representatives are selected over good players. Most teams have owners, and they have even deleted relegation/promotion in their teams. They love the sport and are passionate but not in the same way south powerhouses are.

They also have a lack of competition, other than US and maybe Canada, the CONCACAF NTs are really poor. And at club levels, a couple MLS teams can get to compete but the rest of CONCACAF clubs are a joke compared to mexican clubs.
 
lurkermania said:
Definitely Indonesia. Die Hard Football culture and hooligans. 275 millions population, number four in term of population. Yet languishing at 133 fifa rangking, never won any of their regional or asia competition.
Click to expand...
Yeah it’s strange. No other sports to dominate their consciousness either like with cricket in south Asia and basketball in places like Philippines.
 
Di Maria's angel said:
Judging by the first few pages, it seems like every nation has popped up.
Click to expand...
Meh.

For me, two stand-out countries are Mexico and Turkey. Big populations with football the biggest sport there and somewhat of a football history. Turkey had a 3rd place finish in the 2002 WC.

Russia also a good shout.
 
JagUTD said:
To add to my above post, a lot of people are including countries where football isn't the number one sport, not even close in some cases. India, US even Australia footballs the also ran sport even today. It may be growing but has a long way to go before it's considered the national sport. The likes of England and the Netherlands are different in that football is by far the biggest sport. It's part of the DNA and identity of the country.

Mexico is a good shout though but I think there's some very obvious reasons as to why they haven't achieved anything of note. They're also a big part of why football in the US is a growing sport, to the point a Mexican club is the second most popular in the country (first if you exclude the fact number one is absolutely making it up).

Russia? Not really. Maybe when it was the Soviet Union and had it's pick of eastern Europe's talent but today? Like China their interest in football was purely political and about soft power. Same goes for the likes of Saudi.
Click to expand...


Not really true about Russia from a supporter and cultural perspective. Football was the most popular spectator sport, and alongside ice hockey and bandy, was part of organically sustained sporting culture. It was many of the Olympic sports that people didn't really follow, where you could argue they were supported to the extent they were as a political tool rather than because of a cultural affinity for them. Football, particularly by the 70s and 80s, was not given much priority by the regime, probably in part because the USA was irrelevant there.

Was the status of football ingrained in society to the level of Brazil/Argentina/England/Italy? No, definitely not; it probably developed too late for that (not fully starting to get going until the mid-30s and only reaching a regular competitive level with the best teams in the '50s), never had the government support to the same extent, and the sheer size presented many unique issues for consistent development/engagement, but was still comfortably among that next tier down alongside most of the rest of Europe.

Football culture in Russia (or Ukraine), and particularly the engagement with attending domestic games (other than a few big teams), hasn't been resilient enough not to further decline in the face of the post-breakup turmoil, government corruption, and indifference, but the sport is still the most popular and occupies a big enough place in society, with enough money, tradition and knowledge about it, that we can definitely argue they should be better without having to magic into existence too much. It's very far away from somewhere like China where there genuinely was almost no 20th century development or interest in the sport and is also historically completely isolated from elite club football.
 
tomaldinho1 said:
But what do you mean by genetics? If you mean being healthy and not being unlucky to be born with some kind of issue that would affect your ability to play sport, than obviously. If you mean some kind of genetic lottery that favours football specifically, I think that's hogwash.

Case in point, your point about ex players and their children having the right genetics makes zero sense because there are more ex footballer's sons in football now than previously and, surely, it would have been way more common previously when there was less coaching/academy focus and there were far more windows to get into academies and be spotted as a player.

When you say you were a decent player, how many times did you train a week, what was your diet like and when did you enter an academy system/how long were you paid to play? Because the reality is many of think we were decent/good and many people probably had a trial or two or played regional/academy but the guys who make it are simply doing more. More hours in training, better diets, better sleep, more support, it all adds up. There definitely is a broad genetic lottery for sports in general, like if you're rapid as a kid you likely have a slightly greater chance at most sports, but then, again, that natural advantage disappears quickly if you don't train it.
Click to expand...

By genetics I just mean having natural talent for sport, not necessarily football. It's a complex collection of attributes so not easily measured.
The talented lads I grew up with were good at GAA, soccer, basketball etc...There's a crossover in terms of genetics. Likewise I'd friends who were very limited with no coordination who would struggle at any level. Some of these guys were good academically, so it didn't matter.

Are you certain that "there are more ex footballer's sons in football now than previously" or is that just an observation?

If you follow GAA in Ireland, loads of top players are the sons of top players. A disproportionate amount. I know there's other factors at play here like passion, culture, receiving good early coaching but definitely genetics are a strong factor.
Also you've lots of brothers who are top players.

Also lots of talented GAA are good at basketball and soccer, despite obviously not having much time to dedicate to these sports.

But obviously genetics alone aren't enough. You still need practise, discipline, hard work.

The book "The Sporting gene" covers this.

Anyway my initial point is that there's a concentration of sporting genes in the Balkans for some reason. Just my opinion, can't prove it.
 
tomaldinho1 said:
But what do you mean by genetics? If you mean being healthy and not being unlucky to be born with some kind of issue that would affect your ability to play sport, than obviously. If you mean some kind of genetic lottery that favours football specifically, I think that's hogwash.

Case in point, your point about ex players and their children having the right genetics makes zero sense because there are more ex footballer's sons in football now than previously and, surely, it would have been way more common previously when there was less coaching/academy focus and there were far more windows to get into academies and be spotted as a player.

When you say you were a decent player, how many times did you train a week, what was your diet like and when did you enter an academy system/how long were you paid to play? Because the reality is many of think we were decent/good and many people probably had a trial or two or played regional/academy but the guys who make it are simply doing more. More hours in training, better diets, better sleep, more support, it all adds up. There definitely is a broad genetic lottery for sports in general, like if you're rapid as a kid you likely have a slightly greater chance at most sports, but then, again, that natural advantage disappears quickly if you don't train it.
Click to expand...

I don't think there's a genetic lottery that favours football as a broad-range concept due to the fact there are different types of players of varying body-shapes, sizes and physical attributes. I suppose there's some basic requirements in terms of a base level of athleticism.

Certainly different body types are better suited to play certain positions and roles, or to at least play them in a specific way. You can't expect someone to be pacy winger if they have no natural pace. Everyone can work on getting faster, but those who start at a higher base level have and advantage, as do those who have bodies that respond better to training than others as that's not the same for everyone either.

Touched on it before but I'm convinced there's mental genetics too if we can call it that. Football requires more foot to eye co-ordination than any other sport I can think of. Some people have great hand to eye co-ordination and we know that others don't. In sports that's beneficial to snooker players, golfers, archers, darts players, target shooters, cricketers, baseballl players, basketball players, NFL quarterbacks etc. The thing is, each of those is slightly different and they require a very specific type of hand to eye coordination that's beneficial to a certain sport because if that wasn't the case people would be able to excel in all of those sports at once and they don't in general. You might find the odd person who is a natural at a few of those sports or sporty people in general but it's rare.

So I don't think it's even foot to eye co-ordination but the specific type of foot to eye co ordination that would make someone a good footballer and even that varies by position. Dribbling requires a specific kind of foot to eye co-ordination that is different from the one to accurately smash volleys into the top corner from 30 yards. Some players are more naturally gifted at judging volleys than they are at dribbling and vice versa.

Of course everyone can work on skills whatever they are, sports or domething else , and the majority of top footballers and sports stars all work very hard.

I just think that if there's no genetic element then it means the only reason that anyone isn't great at football is because they didn't try hard enough or didn't have the right training. You could even say Thierry Henry partially has himself to blame for not being as good as Messi and Andy Cole is partially to blame for not reaching the level of either. If they'd have only trained harder they could have been. I don't buy that and it's almost insulting to those who gave their all. Plenty of kids absolutely worked their balls off growing up and never even reached League Two level.
 
Last edited:
What about Ethiopia? They are the 2nd most populous country in Africa and googling I found football is the most popular sport there. People say Nigeria but at least they have several famous players.
 
I wouldn't include the likes of England and Holland in this list, as they have a long standing record of producing world class players. Yes there national teams haven't won the trophies relative to the talent of their nations but it's tournament football and anything can happen.

I'd say the likes of Mexico and Turkey are nations that should be better at football as they don't really produce the amount of top level players that they should and it's probably for a variety of reasons. I don't think you can compare that to the likes of England/Holland who regularly produces elite level players.
 
SambaBoy said:
I wouldn't include the likes of England and Holland in this list, as they have a long standing record of producing world class players. Yes there national teams haven't won the trophies relative to the talent of their nations but it's tournament football and anything can happen.

I'd say the likes of Mexico and Turkey are nations that should be better at football as they don't really produce the amount of top level players that they should and it's probably for a variety of reasons. I don't think you can compare that to the likes of England/Holland who regularly produces elite level players.
Click to expand...

Yes you can. Even if in my post I said the many similar things, you can say that both the Netherlands and England should’ve won way more with the players they produced. Especially England, since the Netherlands have at least been very close in many occasions. In fact, you have to question more why these nations haven’t won much having the players they had. In the case of Mexico and turkey you wonder why they don’t produce great players.
 
Chipper said:
I don't think there's a genetic lottery that favours football as a broad-range concept due to the fact there are different types of players of varying body-shapes, sizes and physical attributes. I suppose there's some basic requirements in terms of a base level of athleticism.

Certainly different body types are better suited to play certain positions and roles, or to at least play them in a specific way. You can't expect someone to be pacy winger if they have no natural pace. Everyone can work on getting faster, but those who start at a higher base level have and advantage, as do those who have bodies that respond better to training than others as that's not the same for everyone either.

Touched on it before but I'm convinced there's mental genetics too if we can call it that. Football requires more foot to eye co-ordination than any other sport I can think of. Some people have great hand to eye co-ordination and we know that others don't. In sports that's beneficial to snooker players, golfers, archers, darts players, target shooters, cricketers, baseballl players, basketball players, NFL quarterbacks etc. The thing is, each of those is slightly different and they require a very specific type of hand to eye coordination that's beneficial to a certain sport because if that wasn't the case people would be able to excel in all of those sports at once and they don't in general. You might find the odd person who is a natural at a few of those sports or sporty people in general but it's rare.

So I don't think it's even foot to eye co-ordination but the specific type of foot to eye co ordination that would make someone a good footballer and even that varies by position. Dribbling requires a specific kind of foot to eye co-ordination that is different from the one to accurately smash volleys into the top corner from 30 yards. Some players are more naturally gifted at judging volleys than they are at dribbling and vice versa.

Of course everyone can work on skills whatever they are, sports or domething else , and the majority of top footballers and sports stars all work very hard.

I just think that if there's no genetic element then it means the only reason that anyone isn't great at football is because they didn't try hard enough or didn't have the right training. You could even say Thierry Henry partially has himself to blame for not being as good as Messi and Andy Cole is partially to blame for not reaching the level of either. If they'd have only trained harder they could have been. I don't buy that and it's almost insulting to those who gave their all. Plenty of kids absolutely worked their balls off growing up and never even reached League Two level.
Click to expand...

I still think there's a general set of sporting genes.

For example Rio Ferdinand or Van Dijk, I bet if you trained them young enough, could've been very good at basketball or NFL or GAA or Aussie Rules or Athletics or many other sports.
They just happened to choose football cos of their upbringing and culture.
 
next_number_seven said:
I still think there's a general set of sporting genes.

For example Rio Ferdinand or Van Dijk, I bet if you trained them young enough, could've been very good at basketball or NFL or GAA or Aussie Rules or Athletics or many other sports.
They just happened to choose football cos of their upbringing and culture.
Click to expand...
I wouldn't disagree with that, there's plenty of sports stars that are very good at other sports and a few who have played at professional level in more than one

Even if not a top level I think it holds true, personally I was reasonably good at bat-ball type games, less so with football or rugby
 
You must log in or register to reply here.