Speaking of camels, did you know Sav Rocca is still playing football over here [video]http://www.nfl.com/videos/nfl-game-highlights/0ap2000000119778/Punter-earns-penalty-for-taking-out-kick-returner[/video] Still struggling with the rules somewhat lol
sports of wealth, most countries cannot compete because of wealth required...how many swimming pools can Cameroon or Ghana build how many professional coaches can they hire? how professional tennis coaches and tennis facilities can either hire and build?...but soccer? any reasonable flat piece of ground a ball made of papar and string and every kid in the village is playing for hours... ya but a lot of countries have that...canada does the same in winter sports, it's our advantage because winter sports are expensive... cultural preference and the depth of talented countries is small unlike soccer...the USA should be a giant in rugby but culturally they prefer their NFL version so relatively few americans play rugby and again the knowledge isn't there, I friend of mine an englishman who coaches rugby once told me "if I could have the best linebackers and fullbacks in the NFL I could own the rugby world", assuming he could get them young to train them in rugby...
we're good at hockey because hardly anyone plays it...even Thailand now plays hockey, I'm sure I could put together a team from my neighbourhood that could defeat any team in Thailand... there are only six competitive men's teams in the world...women's hockey is even worse there are only two teams that can play...
lacrosse is very small internationally, hockey isn't much different than rugby, there only a few strong teams and a number of cannon fodder teams...
you can identify all you want but if the money isn't there the talented is wasted...wealthy countries can afford it poor countries can't...how does Australia do at running/track events? not very well, small countries can compete because it's an inexpensive sport, the poorest of the poor can take part...want to take a guess how much it costs to train a swimmer, how much money his/her parents will be required to pay for pool time and coaching? it'll be a very high figure...30 yrs ago I knew a family who even at that time paid $18K per year for their daughter to train at the highest level of figure skating, expenses like that prevent many poor countries from being competitive in many sports..
Thanks for bringing this up. There have been debates as to why Africans are good at running and Caucasians are good swimming. Nothing to do with physical make up of the athelete and definitely nothing to do with genetics. All to do with demographics. Kenyans for example are fine runners because this is what they do, run. Why are African American fine basketball players, because they play basketball and not swim or play tennis. It is far cheaper to put in and maintain a basketball court than an Olympic swimming pool. See where this is heading?
That doesn't mean it isnt an international sport. Its in the olympics as the main event. Thats all that matters
Most international soccer teams are cannon fodder. There are a handful that dominate year by a year. Its really no different than anything
doesnt matter to me, ice hockey is a minor sport with a relatively small following...its not even the most popular sport in russia ....
So what? Its popular enough among the northern hemisphere. Where we live. Also CBC produces games in Punjab too. Say what you want though. Just dont cheer for team canada at sochi or youll be a hypocrite
there are layers but quick visit to fifa world rankings and you'll find countries the top 50 will all give a good game, and capable of upsetting a top seed...in hockey there are a top 6 and no chance of an upset from a tier b, c or d team...
popular, thats just your personal perception, it isnt the most popular sport in any country it's played, even in canada soccer has more particpants...if canada were any good at soccer (top 20) everyone would jump on that band wagon, but other than the womens team we suck big time...and punjab is significant?
Clearly you've no clue. Switzerland & Germany & Norway have upset top teams before. Also Czech Republic & Slovakia are always in good standings to medal. More likely the Czechs. So Slovakia is another team youre ignorantly left out. Maybe stop talking about things that you dont know? Clearly you do not watch international hockey.
According to ratings its the most popular sport to watch. Canada has the most hockey players in the world and make up half of the nhl. Punjab is significant because its not english and french and they are broadcasting it? If hockeys being broadcasted in 3 languages in any country I'd consider it significant. Youre just pissy because alberta has 2 of the worst teams in the league. It looks good in you.
Hockey in czech republic and slovakia are in serious decline, the money train from the goverment has dried up, the game is just too expensive the czechs and slovaks much prefer soccer... I've been watching hockey for 50+ yrs, how about you? Canada Soviet series, i was there how about you?
Um that doesnt change the fact that there are quite a bit if teams who are good enough to play spoilers in international tournaments. Or at least lose to one of the best teams in close nail biting games. As exhibited in most tournaments. I dont care how long youve watched hockey. Youre flat out wrong here jack.
25 yrs as a nationally certified coach says I will know more about sports than you can ever hope to match, jack###..
There are far to many variables to consider when saying one country is better than another in a group of sports. The United States gives an athlete the greatest chance to succeed due to wealth, leisure time, athletic infrastructure, multiple climates etc over the widest range of sports, but outside of that, who knows?
ya a snooze fest for those who have never played...but I have played, it's great fun...once you have played it you appreciate the technical difficulties and the strategy involved, it's chess match with a beer waiting for you when your done...if you get the opportunity to play give it try, even beginners have fun it's a very social game... competitively there are more than 3 countries in the mix, new countries struggle at first but in about 10yrs they can become contenders...at it's not a sport that requires you learn at any early age to be competent like hockey or soccer... I don't know if I'd classify curlers as athletes but it is a game, so does it belong in the Olympics?
Actually, that would make China predominant in every sport. But the USA surpasses it in many sports. As for Barnum, that would be a better explanation for **********s - but that's another issue. While I agree that Kiwiland is among the world's best in producing sports stars, I would think Ireland is even more successful as it likely produces more athletes on a per capita basis.
China loves soccer but the knowledge is lacking so it will take a while before they catch up, when they do that 1.3 billion talent pool will make them tough to beat, fortunately for the rest of the world they still will only be able to put 11 men on the field at a time.. table tennis and badminton, they're dominant...both low cost sports with high technical knowledge and massive participation... and it's cultural as well, regardless how many people and cash they have if a country has no interest in the sport they won't develop, most of the world has absolutely no interest in NFL so the USA is safe in it's supremacy there... winter Olympics it's usually Norway the per capita winner...
Yes really, population really does matter... you need to pay closer attention to the video because I have already addressed this concept. Australia is culturally superior to the U.S.A. in athletics (as is New Zealand), but if you look at brute athletic force in this study the U.S.A. dominates them both. Why? Because the U.S.A. has a huge population and Australia's population size is below that of an average country. This is exactly why I am factoring population into the study. If you need further evidence, as I've stated before, simply view any European World Cup qualification and see most of the small countries struggling to get by, and all the big countries usually easily getting through. Since you seem to not be paying attention I will repeat, population is extremely important but is not the only factor. Yes, exactly. An even more extreme example is Uruguay. Uruguay may in fact be better per capita at soccer than Brazil is, but their team cannot qualify for the world cup every time (although oddly and incredibly enough, they have won the most copa americas, more than Brazil or Argentina have, but no one is going to tell you that Uruguay has a better team than Brazil or Argentina with a straight face). At the end of the day it comes down to 11 vs 11, and of course upsets can happen, but the road for Brazil and Argentina is much less bumpy than it is for Uruguay, simply because of population difference. The U.S.A. should already be amongst the dominate teams, but the inefficiency commonly found here plays a big role in its slow development. U.S.A. has a lot of resources for soccer, and very accessible foreign aide in the sport from various sources. Even in the 80s the U.S.A. had around 4 million soccer players (a few hundred thousand of these being adult male).
