nunes@utai.UUCP (Joe Nunes) (10/25/85)
Year Winner Score Runner-Up Host City 1930 Uruguay 4-2 Argentina Montevideo, Uruguay 1934 Italy 2-1 Czechoslovakia Rome, Italy 1938 Italy 4-2 Hungary Paris, France 1950 Uruguay 2-1 Brazil Rio de Janeiro, Brazil 1954 West Germany 3-2 Hungary Bern, Switzerland 1958 Brazil 5-2 Sweden Stockholm, Sweden 1962 Brazil 3-1 Czechoslovakia Santiago, Chile 1966 England 4-2 West Germany London, England 1970 Brazil 4-1 Italy Mexico City, Mexico 1974 West Germany 2-1 The Netherlands Munich, West Germany 1978 Argentina 3-1 The Netherlands Buenos Aires, Argentina 1982 Italy 3-1 West Germany Madrid, Spain
yeff@Navajo.ARPA (10/28/85)
Just out of curiousity, anyone have any theories why the US has never had any real success in sports like soccer?? It seems that a lot of non West-Hemisphere countries have been getting really good in sports that can be considered "American"---basketball, volleyball, etc... does something like national funding, etc, make a difference?? and anyone know anything about letting "professinals" play in the Olympics?? It doesn't seem to me that there is that much of a difference between someone who is govt-supported, gets money for side endorsements, or accepts money outright... jeff hmmmm
nyssa@abnji.UUCP (nyssa of traken) (10/31/85)
>Just out of curiousity, anyone have any theories why the US has never >had any real success in sports like soccer?? What is real success? The United States has reached the semi-finals as often as England, Scotland, Ireland, Northern Ireland, and Wales COMBINED. In 1950, the US pulled off what may have been the biggest upset in the history of World soccer (United States 1 England 0; the English papers thought it was obviously a typo and meant 0-10!). The US does reasonably well in World Youth tournaments as well. -- James C. Armstrong, Jnr. {ihnp4,cbosgd,akgua}!abnji!nyssa
thill@ssc-bee.UUCP (Tom Hill) (11/01/85)
> Just out of curiousity, anyone have any theories why the US has never > had any real success in sports like soccer?? It seems that a lot of > non West-Hemisphere countries have been getting really good in sports > that can be considered "American"---basketball, volleyball, etc... > > does something like national funding, etc, make a difference?? > > and anyone know anything about letting "professinals" play in the > Olympics?? It doesn't seem to me that there is that much of a difference > between someone who is govt-supported, gets money for side endorsements, > or accepts money outright... > > jeff hmmmm Well being from the NW (we have more soccer players per-capita than anywhere else in the country) I have my own theory as to why the US never has performed well in International soccer. 1. We don't take it seriously enough. In other countries they treat soccer like Texas treats football. Kids in Europe and South America get soccer balls instead of a nerf or a baseball mitt. 2. Soccer is a matter of international pride in to other countries. Brazil wanted to go to war in 1978 when Argentina stompped Peru(?) and they thought that Peru's players had thrown the game (this allowed Argentina to edge Brazil in points). 3. Europe uses the US soccer leagues (now only the MISL survives) as a way to (a) keep players in shape during the off season. (b) give inexperienced players time to mature (c) let older players play a few more years when they can no longer compete sufficiently in Europe. Numbers 1 and 2 are what got us to this pathetic state and number three is keeping us there. I can hear the flames now on number 3, "but there are limits to the number of foreign player who can play on each MISL team!" True, but foreign players who have their cards don't count toward that quota so the number of European players is higher than we are led to believe. Our young players need something to shoot for and currently there is very little to pin a young person's hopes on. Here in the NW we have leagues that run year round (Men's, Women's, and Coed). Leagues are also broken down into over 30 and 40 classifications not to mention the indoor soccer clubs that are beginning to spring up. I hope that soccer continues to grow in this country. It is a great sport to play and in my 16 years of competitive soccer I have only seen two severe injuries (ie one broken leg and one knee requiring surgery). Oh well I have digressed far enough. Comments? Tom Hill
ewan@uw-june (Ewan Tempero) (11/01/85)
> > does something like national funding, etc, make a difference?? > I doubt it, believe it or not, there are countries out there who do do quite well with minimal ( to the point where they have rely on public donations and commercial sponsorship ). These players get their accomodation and airfares paid ( maybe meals....:-). The author to the comments below is probably correct ( no or little committment ) > and anyone know anything about letting "professinals" play in the > Olympics?? It doesn't seem to me that there is that much of a difference > between someone who is govt-supported, gets money for side endorsements, > or accepts money outright... Same comments as above, many of the players in Olympic teams are neither paid to play for a team during regular season or subsidised to train for such teams. ( Players have been known to lose jobs 'cos they take so much time ( unpaid ) off work... ) > 1. We don't take it seriously enough. In other countries they treat > soccer like Texas treats football. Kids in Europe and South > America get soccer balls instead of a nerf or a baseball mitt. Mainly true but it's not just that people don't play as much, they don't get any support from their fellow countrypersons. In countries such as Australia and New Zealand where Rugby rules, the country will still stop to support their soccer teams.....I hardly hear about *any* soccer here let alone international games. >Here in the NW we have leagues that run year round (Men's, Women's, and Coed) >Leagues are also broken down into over 30 and 40 classifications not to Yeah it's great! >mention the indoor soccer clubs that are beginning to spring up. A comment I saw in the paper some months ago by some guy who's big in US soccer said that indoor soccer ruins soccer players. It requires different skills ( or rather a subset of what's necessary ) and a different type of stamina to play indoor ( never mind the injuries you receive ) As James commented, US hasn't done as badly as you might think, it's just that no-one knows about it ( extremely biased media ) and most people don't care. However you would think, given the number of soccer players in the country ( while a small fraction of the total population, is probably larger than soccer populations of many soccer nations ) US could provide a better showing. By the way, US isn't the only country that has Europeans playing in the off-season but the other countries still seem to do well in the Cup ( maybe it's because the other countries send their players to Europe to play? ) -- Ewan ------------ Ewan Tempero "Oh no, not again" UUCP: ...!uw-beaver!uw-june!ewan ARPA: ewan@washington.ARPA Please check all nuclear arms at the door.
fsks@unc.UUCP (Frank Silbermann) (11/04/85)
>> 1. We don't take it seriously enough. In other countries they treat >> soccer like Texas treats football. Kids in Europe and South >> America get soccer balls instead of a nerf or a baseball mitt. Ewan Tempero: >Mainly true but it's not just that people don't play as much, >they don't get any support from their fellow countrypersons. >[...] >As James commented, US hasn't done as badly as you might think, >it's just that no-one knows about it ( extremely biased media ) >and most people don't care. However you would think, given the >number of soccer players in the country ( while a small fraction >of the total population, is probably larger than soccer populations >of many soccer nations ) US could provide a better showing. The main reason few people take soccer seriously in this country is that schools don't promote the sport. Most sports-minded youths put their effort into those sports with the biggest payoff, i.e. those sports with pep-rallies and pretty cheerleaders. Frank Silbermann
nunes@utai.UUCP (Joe Nunes) (11/05/85)
> What is real success? The United States has reached the semi-finals > as often as England, Scotland, Ireland, Northern Ireland, and Wales > COMBINED. In 1950, the US pulled off what may have been the biggest > upset in the history of World soccer (United States 1 England 0; the > English papers thought it was obviously a typo and meant 0-10!). > > The US does reasonably well in World Youth tournaments as well. > -- > James C. Armstrong, Jnr. {ihnp4,cbosgd,akgua}!abnji!nyssa What exactly do you mean by semi-finals? I would bet very large quantities of money that the US didn't make it to the World Cup more times than England never mind all of Great Britain and Ireland together. I would bet even larger quantities of money that the US never made it to the final round of the World Cup more often than England (if ever). I believe that the US made it to the World Cup 3 times. I know that England has made it at least twice, Scotland at least once, and Northern Ireland at least once. Does anyone out there have World Cup qualification histories at hand?
nyssa@abnji.UUCP (nyssa of traken) (11/07/85)
Each World Cup has narrowed down the teams to a "Final Four" at one
point or another.
In 1930, One semifinal featured Argentina vs the United States, the
US lost, 6-1.
In 1966, one semifinal featured England and Portugal, which England
won, 2-1. England went on to beat West Germany in the final, 4-2 aet.
That is the only time any of the United States, England, Scotland, Wales,
Ireland, or Northern Ireland reached the semi-finals.
If I remember, I shall bring in one of my books and post the histories
of teams in the World Cup Final Tournament.
--
James C. Armstrong, Jnr. {ihnp4,cbosgd,akgua}!abnji!nyssa
"All these corridors look the same to me!" Who said it, what story?