|
Post by tommyfootball on Jul 16, 2015 13:53:11 GMT -6
My point being, is it a "world stage" if the world doesn't care? We might just be arguing word usage and semantics, but bottom line, whether this is a "world stage" or not...the world doesn't really care. I understand your point, but in the context of "the football world", it is a big stage. While it isn't (and maybe shouldn't be) as big a deal for the US, the football communities--as small as they may be--in these international countries are really into it.
|
|
agame
Junior Member
Posts: 378
|
Post by agame on Jul 16, 2015 13:54:44 GMT -6
But it is a world stage.. Ifaf is the governing body of the game of football iirc? So wherever the championship is its the world stage The Ifaf has zero oversight of the NFL, of NCAA football, of HS football, of Local youth/pop warner football etc. What exactly does it govern? While international competition is the world stage for many sports, it isn't for a select few--Football, Baseball, Basketball, Golf, Tennis... My point being, is it a "world stage" if the world doesn't care? We might just be arguing word usage and semantics, but bottom line, whether this is a "world stage" or not...the world doesn't really care. No it doesn't mate..
|
|
agame
Junior Member
Posts: 378
|
Post by agame on Jul 16, 2015 13:56:53 GMT -6
My point being, is it a "world stage" if the world doesn't care? We might just be arguing word usage and semantics, but bottom line, whether this is a "world stage" or not...the world doesn't really care. I understand your point, but in the context of "the football world", it is a big stage. While it isn't (and maybe shouldn't be) as big a deal for the US, the football communities--as small as they may be--in these international countries are really into it. Yes they are, and if you have a friend who is on your local club or family playing for a country in this tournament it means a lot I know if GB were there the whole of our football community would be behind them
|
|
|
Post by mdunham on Jul 16, 2015 14:03:28 GMT -6
I'm sure the European teams have a better program to build on because there are more competitions and friendlies. I know a lot of Euro teams get friendlies every year, so there is a legitimate pathway and program to be built, some of these teams I know have hudl so they are able to do installs and film in that manner. But a team like Australia, they are not near competition (NZ is a dicey situation) where they can get together I'm sure outside of annual camps. It's a learning process I'm sure that every team is learning on the fly. I imagine the schemes have to be a delicate balance of having enough variety and flexibility but simplicity as well so everyone can align play fast without too much thinking.
Take Austria as an example. 10 years ago, they were in the lowest level of competition. They brought in an American coach, and with that solid coaching foundation and the support systems around they graduated from the third tier to the first all in one shot, and they are one of the best teams on the continent. So certainly if the infrastructure is in place the game will improve all around.
Although scheduling wasn't ideal and the madness that 0-2 South Korea is in the 5th place game over a Brazil team who beat them is maddening, I think this two tiered system is the way to go. It gave everyone a shot to win, best teams teams play each other more for competitiveness. I think this is a great sport for world cup play, but the high scores are just the nature of game where you score at 6s/7s and not 1s/2s.
|
|
|
Post by coachd5085 on Jul 16, 2015 14:08:58 GMT -6
I understand your point, but in the context of "the football world", it is a big stage. While it isn't (and maybe shouldn't be) as big a deal for the US, the football communities--as small as they may be--in these international countries are really into it. Yes they are, and if you have a friend who is on your local club or family playing for a country in this tournament it means a lot I know if GB were there the whole of our football community would be behind them I guess that is my point. My definition of the "world stage" isn't when your whole football community would be behind them --it would be when the NATION would be behind them (or atleast aware of it) The World Cup is World Stage, The Olympics is World Stage.... That said, you got to start somewhere.
|
|
agame
Junior Member
Posts: 378
|
Post by agame on Jul 16, 2015 14:10:02 GMT -6
Iirc USA Hc is coaching in Europe
|
|
agame
Junior Member
Posts: 378
|
Post by agame on Jul 16, 2015 14:13:12 GMT -6
Yes they are, and if you have a friend who is on your local club or family playing for a country in this tournament it means a lot I know if GB were there the whole of our football community would be behind them I guess that is my point. My definition of the "world stage" isn't when your whole football community would be behind them --it would be when the NATION would be behind them (or atleast aware of it) The World Cup is World Stage, The Olympics is World Stage.... Your right but this is the best that we have right now.. Around the world American football is a niche sport and would never get the buzz a soccer wc or Olympics etc would They have Been trying to make football an Olympic sport for a while now with no luck.. Think it would be good if they were able
|
|
|
Post by mdunham on Jul 16, 2015 14:18:45 GMT -6
Iirc USA Hc is coaching in Europe Just got hired for Sweden's top team if I recall correctly.
|
|
|
Post by 33coach on Jul 16, 2015 14:19:06 GMT -6
I guess that is my point. My definition of the "world stage" isn't when your whole football community would be behind them --it would be when the NATION would be behind them (or atleast aware of it) The World Cup is World Stage, The Olympics is World Stage.... They have Been trying to make football an Olympic sport for a while now with no luck.. Think it would be good if they were able yea thats been a discussion for as long as i can remember. but, for it to be an olympic sport - you have to play more then 1 game a week, which some people seem to think is impossible.
|
|
|
Post by mdunham on Jul 16, 2015 14:19:53 GMT -6
Football got turned down for the 2020 Olympics, so if it's the US for 2024 there's a good chance that LOC will add it to the program.
|
|
agame
Junior Member
Posts: 378
|
Post by agame on Jul 16, 2015 14:22:44 GMT -6
Iirc USA Hc is coaching in Europe Just got hired for Sweden's top team if I recall correctly. Correct
|
|
|
Post by coachd5085 on Jul 16, 2015 14:30:53 GMT -6
They have Been trying to make football an Olympic sport for a while now with no luck.. Think it would be good if they were able yea thats been a discussion for as long as i can remember. but, for it to be an olympic sport - you have to play more then 1 game a week, which some people seem to think is impossible. Not impossible..just not in the best interest of the athletes, or the sport. Plus, it would be pretty hard to reconcile multiple games in a week while rules are currently being implemented to limit contact during practices in nearly all post pubescent levels of the game....
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 16, 2015 14:47:12 GMT -6
Wednesday's Schedule: Australia 16-8 Brazil Japan 35-7 Mexico USA 82-0 France Saturday's Schedule: 5th place - South Korea vs. Australia, 12pm Bronze - Mexico vs. France, 330pm Gold - Japan vs. USA, 7pm Typical...the French waived the white flag and early! LOL! couldn't help myself.
|
|
dman54
Sophomore Member
Learning everyday...
Posts: 212
|
Post by dman54 on Jul 16, 2015 14:49:00 GMT -6
Just for comparison, soccer used to be a girl's sport in the US, Now you got a good national championship (MLS) that even Brazilian professional players are going to play. Just recently great names from the soccer greatest stages had moved for US teams (LA Galaxy, NY City), like David Villa, David Beckham, Kaká, Xavi, etc...(search google) And USA National teams are very good, the girls just won the freaking World Cup again! The men team faces teams like Germany, France, England and Brazil like equals now.
So, it's a matter of time for football to be better at other countries. I'm not saying we will play like americans, but we can and will get better, probably have some players at NFL besides a kicker (Cairo Santos - KC Chiefs)
USA always had better basketball, but Brazil beat the US team back in 1987 Pan American.
Just to make some points here...
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 16, 2015 14:51:11 GMT -6
Just for comparison, soccer used to be a girl's sport in the US, Now you got a good national championship (MLS) that even Brazilian professional players are going to play. Just recently great names from the soccer greatest stages had moved for US teams (LA Galaxy, NY City), like David Villa, David Beckham, Kaká, Xavi, etc...(search google) And USA National teams are very good, the girls just won the freaking World Cup again! The men team faces teams like Germany, France, England and Brazil like equals now. So, it's a matter of time for football to be better at other countries. I'm not saying we will play like americans, but we can and will get better, probably have some players at NFL besides a kicker (Cairo Santos - KC Chiefs) USA always had better basketball, but Brazil beat the US team back in 1987 Pan American. Just to make some points here... their is a massive movement to rid of this game going on in this country, at least in this poster's eyes. Until that changes, the game has no chance to be an Olympic sport.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 16, 2015 14:53:13 GMT -6
Just for comparison, soccer used to be a girl's sport in the US, Now you got a good national championship (MLS) that even Brazilian professional players are going to play. Just recently great names from the soccer greatest stages had moved for US teams (LA Galaxy, NY City), like David Villa, David Beckham, Kaká, Xavi, etc...(search google) And USA National teams are very good, the girls just won the freaking World Cup again! The men team faces teams like Germany, France, England and Brazil like equals now. So, it's a matter of time for football to be better at other countries. I'm not saying we will play like americans, but we can and will get better, probably have some players at NFL besides a kicker (Cairo Santos - KC Chiefs) USA always had better basketball, but Brazil beat the US team back in 1987 Pan American. Just to make some points here... Its not the same thing. Olympic basketball for the US, Proven by the original dream team, was a joke, now barring the stars just saying NO, or the NBA saying no, Olympic basketball is a joke.
|
|
dman54
Sophomore Member
Learning everyday...
Posts: 212
|
Post by dman54 on Jul 16, 2015 14:57:30 GMT -6
Just for comparison, soccer used to be a girl's sport in the US, Now you got a good national championship (MLS) that even Brazilian professional players are going to play. Just recently great names from the soccer greatest stages had moved for US teams (LA Galaxy, NY City), like David Villa, David Beckham, Kaká, Xavi, etc...(search google) And USA National teams are very good, the girls just won the freaking World Cup again! The men team faces teams like Germany, France, England and Brazil like equals now. So, it's a matter of time for football to be better at other countries. I'm not saying we will play like americans, but we can and will get better, probably have some players at NFL besides a kicker (Cairo Santos - KC Chiefs) USA always had better basketball, but Brazil beat the US team back in 1987 Pan American. Just to make some points here... Its not the same thing. Olympic basketball for the US, Proven by the original dream team, was a joke, now barring the stars just saying NO, or the NBA saying no, Olympic basketball is a joke. Look at the players from the USA team in this game: F – Larry Bird F – Charles Barkley C – Hakeem Olajuwon G – Michael Jordan G – Magic Johnson And Brazil won...
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 16, 2015 15:04:13 GMT -6
|
|
|
Post by 33coach on Jul 16, 2015 15:06:07 GMT -6
yea thats been a discussion for as long as i can remember. but, for it to be an olympic sport - you have to play more then 1 game a week, which some people seem to think is impossible. Not impossible..just not in the best interest of the athletes, or the sport. Plus, it would be pretty hard to reconcile multiple games in a week while rules are currently being implemented to limit contact during practices in nearly all post pubescent levels of the game.... this is where i get REALLY confused. Hockey - way faster - way more violent (go sharks!) totally fine to play multiple games - no one complains about contact Rugby - way faster - way more violent, fine to play multiple games in a weekend - no one cares about contact Football - slow - less violent then either above - contact is considered deadly and we cant play 2 games in the same week. something is backwards here....
|
|
|
Post by fantom on Jul 16, 2015 15:15:34 GMT -6
Not impossible..just not in the best interest of the athletes, or the sport. Plus, it would be pretty hard to reconcile multiple games in a week while rules are currently being implemented to limit contact during practices in nearly all post pubescent levels of the game.... this is where i get REALLY confused. Hockey - way faster - way more violent (go sharks!) totally fine to play multiple games - no one complains about contact Rugby - way faster - way more violent, fine to play multiple games in a weekend - no one cares about contact Football - slow - less violent then either above - contact is considered deadly and we cant play 2 games in the same week. something is backwards here.... Sorry but this isn't accurate. In hockey there are a few big hits in a game. That same hit happens in football on virtually every play often on multiple players. Rugby just plain isn't as violent as football.
|
|
|
Post by mdunham on Jul 16, 2015 15:17:33 GMT -6
To be fair dman, none of those players played in that 1987 thriller. It was the national team with the best colleigiate players. This game along with the loss of the 1988 Olympics was what prompted USA Basketball and ultimately the president of FIBA to vote for the inclusion of "professional" (NBA only really) players into FIBA competitions. So none of those five you listed played in this game. The biggest name of note was a college David Robinson at center.
The problem I have with comparing basketball and football is that basketball had a foothold around the world for years unlike football. Basketball had been spread everywhere in its early years and had been a world wide sport for nearly a century before the NBA players were in it. Now in 2004, it may not have been the absolute best but the NBA composed Olympic squad did fail miserably in the Athens games. Even in 2006, they lost in the World Championships. They haven't been beat in awhile, but it's not exclusively talent only, they have a great coach who understands how to bring all of these personalities together and fits a system around their abilities. Nearly every other team around the world plays many games together through qualifying tournaments so that experience is how they can match the US level. Plus the coaching is very good around the world.
Not to be repetitive, but if I had to compare football to a sport, rugby may be it. There is a definitive top tier, with pros (football it's US, Canada, Japan, Mexico but US is on another level like the All Blacks in rugby). Then in the second tier you have countries where the game is strictly semi-pro/amateur. Sure a select few specially talented players make it to the top leagues but for the most part it is an amateur affair. Naturally, it's taking time for other countries to catch up, simply because resources aren't there and it's a second rate sport in the country. That's not to say it can't or won't be, it just takes a dedicated group time and some luck. Now that rugby is included in the Olympics in its sevens format, the US has made a giant push and is massively competitive now that there are resources allocated for it. For football, it's not unreasonable under new Olympic rules to see it included for 2024 if the Games land in the US (maybe France would add it too based on a long history who knows). Maybe it's as tackle, I think it would be better suited to start out as flag. More countries play it, it's easier to conduct that tournament in an Olympic time frame, it can be a festival like atmosphere of sports if you do it over two days.
|
|
|
Post by mdunham on Jul 16, 2015 15:20:07 GMT -6
Not impossible..just not in the best interest of the athletes, or the sport. Plus, it would be pretty hard to reconcile multiple games in a week while rules are currently being implemented to limit contact during practices in nearly all post pubescent levels of the game.... this is where i get REALLY confused. Hockey - way faster - way more violent (go sharks!) totally fine to play multiple games - no one complains about contact Rugby - way faster - way more violent, fine to play multiple games in a weekend - no one cares about contact Football - slow - less violent then either above - contact is considered deadly and we cant play 2 games in the same week. something is backwards here.... For rugby, only the lesser quality teams get the shaft and get 2 games a week at the World Cup. I do see where you are coming from though, maybe this schedule of every three days isn't as terrible as it first seems. Most teams probably aren't doing any contact practices anyways.
|
|
|
Post by 33coach on Jul 16, 2015 15:32:47 GMT -6
this is where i get REALLY confused. Hockey - way faster - way more violent (go sharks!) totally fine to play multiple games - no one complains about contact Rugby - way faster - way more violent, fine to play multiple games in a weekend - no one cares about contact Football - slow - less violent then either above - contact is considered deadly and we cant play 2 games in the same week. something is backwards here.... Sorry but this isn't accurate. In hockey there are a few big hits in a game. That same hit happens in football on virtually every play often on multiple players. Rugby just plain isn't as violent as football. i dunno what hockey you see, but i go the shark tank pretty regularly - its a pretty brutal game live - alot worse then football in terms of hits. Rugby - i got alot more bruises and gashes from rugby then football.
|
|
|
Post by coachd5085 on Jul 16, 2015 15:44:15 GMT -6
Sorry but this isn't accurate. In hockey there are a few big hits in a game. That same hit happens in football on virtually every play often on multiple players. Rugby just plain isn't as violent as football. i dunno what hockey you see, but i go the shark tank pretty regularly - its a pretty brutal game live - alot worse then football in terms of hits. Rugby - i got alot more bruises and gashes from rugby then football. And you played Div 1AA (or better) ball when exactly? Living in South Louisiana, I have never seen a live Ice HOckey game (we had a team for a while, and now I think there is a team on the gulf coast)--but I am pretty sure it isn't at LEAST 6+ players colliding into one or more opponents every single play, every 45 seconds. That is what fantom was saying, (and that is what the whole anti-contact movement hinges on). It isn't the big hits (checks in hockey), it is the every single play collisions. One of the biggest things I noticed when I started coaching HS ball after coaching 21 year old scholarship athletes was that the practices and games were so quiet and less violent. I do think it is interesting though to imagine how the game would change if it did go into a multiple games in a week type of sport. How it would affect schemes, game plans, practice structure etc.
|
|
|
Post by 33coach on Jul 16, 2015 15:53:37 GMT -6
i dunno what hockey you see, but i go the shark tank pretty regularly - its a pretty brutal game live - alot worse then football in terms of hits. Rugby - i got alot more bruises and gashes from rugby then football. And you played Div 1AA (or better) ball when exactly? Living in South Louisiana, I have never seen a live Ice HOckey game (we had a team for a while, and now I think there is a team on the gulf coast)--but I am pretty sure it isn't at LEAST 6+ players colliding into one or more opponents every single play, every 45 seconds. That is what fantom was saying, (and that is what the whole anti-contact movement hinges on). It isn't the big hits (checks in hockey), it is the every single play collisions. One of the biggest things I noticed when I started coaching HS ball after coaching 21 year old scholarship athletes was that the practices and games were so quiet and less violent. I do think it is interesting though to imagine how the game would change if it did go into a multiple games in a week type of sport. How it would affect schemes, game plans, practice structure etc. played Semi-pro after JC for a season - realized coaching is better. and i still play rugby in the off season with the local club here. maybe it is the level, maybe the contact at the team USA level is that much more intense. but sometimes, i think the media, fans, and even coaches, overstate the contact in this game. on the other point, i agree - i think the game would become MUCH simpler and end up being faster, people would rely on base reads / reactions alot more.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 16, 2015 15:58:04 GMT -6
To be fair dman, none of those players played in that 1987 thriller. It was the national team with the best colleigiate players. This game along with the loss of the 1988 Olympics was what prompted USA Basketball and ultimately the president of FIBA to vote for the inclusion of "professional" (NBA only really) players into FIBA competitions. So none of those five you listed played in this game. The biggest name of note was a college David Robinson at center. The problem I have with comparing basketball and football is that basketball had a foothold around the world for years unlike football. Basketball had been spread everywhere in its early years and had been a world wide sport for nearly a century before the NBA players were in it. Now in 2004, it may not have been the absolute best but the NBA composed Olympic squad did fail miserably in the Athens games. Even in 2006, they lost in the World Championships. They haven't been beat in awhile, but it's not exclusively talent only, they have a great coach who understands how to bring all of these personalities together and fits a system around their abilities. Nearly every other team around the world plays many games together through qualifying tournaments so that experience is how they can match the US level. Plus the coaching is very good around the world. Not to be repetitive, but if I had to compare football to a sport, rugby may be it. There is a definitive top tier, with pros (football it's US, Canada, Japan, Mexico but US is on another level like the All Blacks in rugby). Then in the second tier you have countries where the game is strictly semi-pro/amateur. Sure a select few specially talented players make it to the top leagues but for the most part it is an amateur affair. Naturally, it's taking time for other countries to catch up, simply because resources aren't there and it's a second rate sport in the country. That's not to say it can't or won't be, it just takes a dedicated group time and some luck. Now that rugby is included in the Olympics in its sevens format, the US has made a giant push and is massively competitive now that there are resources allocated for it. For football, it's not unreasonable under new Olympic rules to see it included for 2024 if the Games land in the US (maybe France would add it too based on a long history who knows). Maybe it's as tackle, I think it would be better suited to start out as flag. More countries play it, it's easier to conduct that tournament in an Olympic time frame, it can be a festival like atmosphere of sports if you do it over two days. all the players you said were in that game, were drafted long before that.......
|
|
|
Post by coachd5085 on Jul 16, 2015 16:03:42 GMT -6
Its not the same thing. Olympic basketball for the US, Proven by the original dream team, was a joke, now barring the stars just saying NO, or the NBA saying no, Olympic basketball is a joke. Look at the players from the USA team in this game: F – Larry Bird F – Charles Barkley C – Hakeem Olajuwon G – Michael Jordan G – Magic Johnson And Brazil won... Those players did not compete in that game. The 1987 Pan Am team, and the 1988 Olympic Team were the catalysts of letting the NBA players play.
|
|
|
Post by mdunham on Jul 16, 2015 16:06:36 GMT -6
Agree with 33coach on the rugby aspect, while the collisions/contacts are safer, there are a lot more of them. If I remember correctly, for our team, the higher level players averaged 2 contacts per minute (double digit tackles too), and they're physical contacts. Contesting for possession can be a brutal contest. That's not including scrums or lineouts either. Add in the fitness levels expected and no shoulder/leg pads, cups, helmets.
|
|
|
Post by mdunham on Jul 16, 2015 16:14:14 GMT -6
all the players you said were in that game, were drafted long before that....... Which players in which game? And Olympic basketball is far from the "joke" it was in 1992. International guys that year were more interested in photos and smiles, players now are focused on winning and being competitive, which has happened.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 16, 2015 18:13:03 GMT -6
all the players you said were in that game, were drafted long before that....... Which players in which game? And Olympic basketball is far from the "joke" it was in 1992. International guys that year were more interested in photos and smiles, players now are focused on winning and being competitive, which has happened. the game you put up and the player you said played in that game. When the Our stars show up to play, Olympic basketball is a joke.
|
|