3 ms·

Sadly, genetics like height/physique can no longer be an excuse in the Men's game since there are players like Messi (even as an outlier). This contrasts sports

by foobaw 8y ago

Sadly, genetics like height/physique can no longer be an excuse in the Men's game since there are players like Messi (even as an outlier). This contrasts sports like basketball and American football. At least for the US, would it be possible to learn from their success(dominance over other countries) in baseball/basketball and apply the same structure to Men's football(soccer)? Is it possible that the genetic variance that the US has could be an advantage in the future? Or is it impossible due to culture? (Higher chance of making money in football/basketball, etc)

jstimpfle 8y ago
Physique is extremely important. Soccer is just not as selective towards tall players like Basketball is. In fact, I think soccer is slightly selective towards smaller players. Height seems to be an extremely important factor for header ability, but small players tend to have advantages in mobility and they probably also better reflexes. Just look at the Spanish team. And Messi has an excellent physique, doesn't he? Ibrahimovic (at 1.95m) is one exception, but he has outstanding mobility and awareness.
woodpanel 8y ago
Actually genetics should be one of the main reasons why football is more popular globally than American football or basketball: Except from the goalkeeper, most roles in a football team don't benefit from an extreme physique (e.g. being too tall has adverse effects in many situations). Edit: But to answer your question, I think culture stands in the way: - You can earn much more than your average NBA player but its much harder as an American to get to that level, because you need to get out of the US early on to become a contender (Infrastructure helps) - somehow football has been marketed as 'unmanly' in the US - American soon-to-become-athletes have many more options (NBA, NHL, NFL, MLB) whereas in most nations there's at least a clear no. 1 sport. - Not being American (but wearing my stuck-up hat), but could it be that there's also a race-connection (i.e. caucasians more likely to choose ice-hockey, african-americans more likely to choose American football/basketball, latin-americans more likely to play baseball or football)?
- addicted 8y ago
  I really doubt genetics has anything to do with the lack of popularity of football and basketball in the vast majority of the world. The actual probable reason is equipment. If you’re playing a tackle sport why would you choose a complicated one such as football over rugby? And basketball requires the installation of a net, a good flat surface and a high quality ball that bounces well off the ground. Soccer on the other hand can be played with basically anything.

by foobaw 8y ago

jstimpfle 8y ago

Physique is extremely important. Soccer is just not as selective towards tall players like Basketball is. In fact, I think soccer is slightly selective towards smaller players. Height seems to be an extremely important factor for header ability, but small players tend to have advantages in mobility and they probably also better reflexes. Just look at the Spanish team. And Messi has an excellent physique, doesn't he? Ibrahimovic (at 1.95m) is one exception, but he has outstanding mobility and awareness.

woodpanel 8y ago

Actually genetics should be one of the main reasons why football is more popular globally than American football or basketball: Except from the goalkeeper, most roles in a football team don't benefit from an extreme physique (e.g. being too tall has adverse effects in many situations). Edit: But to answer your question, I think culture stands in the way: - You can earn much more than your average NBA player but its much harder as an American to get to that level, because you need to get out of the US early on to become a contender (Infrastructure helps) - somehow football has been marketed as 'unmanly' in the US - American soon-to-become-athletes have many more options (NBA, NHL, NFL, MLB) whereas in most nations there's at least a clear no. 1 sport. - Not being American (but wearing my stuck-up hat), but could it be that there's also a race-connection (i.e. caucasians more likely to choose ice-hockey, african-americans more likely to choose American football/basketball, latin-americans more likely to play baseball or football)?

addicted 8y ago
I really doubt genetics has anything to do with the lack of popularity of football and basketball in the vast majority of the world. The actual probable reason is equipment. If you’re playing a tackle sport why would you choose a complicated one such as football over rugby? And basketball requires the installation of a net, a good flat surface and a high quality ball that bounces well off the ground. Soccer on the other hand can be played with basically anything.