Why the US Men's National Soccer Team Will Never Succeed

USA vs. Canada for the Olympic Gold Medal in Men's Hockey was a great game to watch, this is certain. But what led to these two nations meeting in the final game? Further, why are the same countries usually dominant in certain sports? The Norwegians dominate cross country skiing. South Koreans are typically great speed skaters. Chinese athletes take most of the diving medals (In the Summer Olympics). The United States can boast of a far-reaching dominance which can infiltrate any sport. More so than any other country, our athletes are afforded the opportunities to be great in whatever they would like. They are almost never at a disadvantage. It happens occasionally, however. Canada is much better at hockey than the US because it is so much more pervasive in their culture. Only a few states in the States have the same cold weather environment which breeds hockey greats. Children raised in most portions of the country are never even exposed to hockey in a recreational fashion. Some could argue that Chinese athletes will consistently be better in the "precision" sports because they have less regulation on training limits and rules. The social reflection of a country's sporting strength speaks directly to their national identity. South America and Africa sent (almost) no representatives to the Winter Games. The Nordic countries are non-factors in the Summer Games. 

Much can be explained through this analysis and a simple look at the country-sport correlation. What happens when you look at arguable the most simple game on Earth; the most widely played game on Earth; the most popular sport on Earth? What accounts for country's varying levels of skill when it comes to soccer? No longer can it be as simple as weather or training regiments. Over the course of hundreds of years the playing field should more or less even out. But this does not happen. The same countries, year after year, are the top national teams. The same countries produce the best players on a consistent basis. It doesn't make much sense.

In the US, it makes even less sense. There is little arguing that the US has the ability to pump out world class athletes at a rate which most countries cannot even fathom. Again, over time, these athletes should spread over the available sports. Some should be All-Star third basemen, some should be fearless running backs, some should be unstoppable small forwards and some should be world class strikers. So why is it that the US is not really a player on the global soccer landscape? It has much to do with the culture surrounding soccer in the States as compared to the dominant "soccer countries".

The US Men's National Team played an international friendly against the Netherlands' National Team yesterday afternoon. While it was not the first time I noticed this, yesterday's game again demonstrated what prevents the US team from making the next step. 

The US National Team lack the footskills that most other teams have. 

There is a lower skill level on display from our best players. We do not have any players who can weave through a defense and set the stage for his teammates, no one who can shield the ball from the opposing team to gain momentum, no one who can hold possession in the midfield at a world class level. More often than not, the US team resorts to a counter-striking style in which they sit back and hope for the right opening to become available and turn the tables. When these opportunities are not available, it looks as if the team is playing a amateur version of "kick-and-chase". This makes sense as a strategy if control is not a strong suit.

But the US has great athletes, why do they struggle when it comes to footskills? Footskills are sharpened through intense practice in close quarters. Compare two players: 1.) the American who grows up in the overly suburbanized US soccer system who always has access to either a well maintained field or an indoor arena 2.) the Brazilian who grows up in the city slums of Rio De Janeiro playing "soccer" in an abandoned back alley with a ball made out of shredded cloth tied together.

At a certain age, both of these players will most likely be scooped up by the official national team training systems. From this point, all might be equal. But the initial skills of the American are never going to be as sharp as the Brazilian. Soccer is popular for many reasons, but more than any single one might be the fact that it is clearly the worldwide game of the poor. All a child needs is a ball. That's it. For some strange reason, suburban culture has hijacked soccer in America. It is the game that everyone plays when they are young and growing up in Apple Cove or Robin Place or Windy Nook (Or whichever suburb you want to use). They all pile into the old minivan with plenty of orange slices and go to the local soccer park. 

The talent pool for USA Soccer is much smaller than it should be. Look at the hometowns the prominent players on the current national team:

Tim Howard: New Brunswick, New Jersey

Jonathan Bornstein: Torrance, California 

Carlos Bocanegra: Alta Loma, California

Jay DeMerit: Green Bay, Wisconsin 

Jonathan Spector: Arlington Heights, Illinois

Jozy Altidore: Boca Raton, Florida

DeMarcus Beasley: Fort Wayne, Indiana

Steve Churundolo: San Diego, California

Charlie Davies: Manchester, New Hampshire

Clint Dempsey: Nacogdoches, Texas

Landon Donovan: Redlands, California

Oguchi Onyewu: Olney, Maryland

Eddie Johnson: Palm Coast, Florida

I am no social scientist, but I feel as if many of America's world-class athletes may live in non-suburban locations. They may not all be hiding in Green Bay, Arlington Heights, Manchester and New Brunswick. You know what sport is very similar to soccer in terms of appealing to a mass audience? Basketball. Soccer only needs a ball to be played. Basketball simply adds a hoop to the equation. If the first list is indicative of where the great athletes are from then one could assume that the US Men's National Basketball Team (Which is the best team in the world, as opposed to the soccer team, currently ranked 18th in the world) would pull from a similar group of athletes. Afraid not. Here it is:

Carmelo Anthony: Brooklyn, New York

Chris Bosh: Dallas, Texas

Kobe Bryant: Philadelphia, Pennsylvania

Dwight Howard: Atlanta, Georgia

LeBron James: Akron, Ohio

Chris Paul: Winston-Salem, North Carolina

Amare Stoudemire: Lake Wales, Florida

Dwyane Wade: Chicago, Illinois

Derron Williams: Parkersburg, West Virginia

Chauncey Billups: Denver, Colorado

Well, then. This sure paints a contrasting picture. Brooklyn, Philadelphia, Denver, Chicago? Now this sounds like the base for a successful athletic program. There is no reason why soccer should not be as popular as basketball in these cities. Clearly, these are the cities producing the most world-class athletes.

How much of this debate is cultural, how much is social, how much is racial, how much is economic? There is no way to know. All the data illustrate that USA Soccer seems to be handicapping themselves by not pushing for a more active inner-city program. I have all the confidence in the training of the coaches and officials within the national program. As soon as the best athletes in the US gravitate towards soccer, after growing up without the silver spoon treatment, the national team will surely be competitive on a global scale. Until then, the team will forever be the underdog. Forever they will be the team sending their amateurs when the rest of the world is sending professionals. I just can't wait until it happens because I will be right their with my face painted. As the hockey game showed, Americans will support any team which shows an ability to compete with the best in the world. It is time for USA Soccer to be an international force.

GRM

Why the US Men's National Soccer Team Will Never Succeed