Does Soccer do it Better?

[pk500]

Re: Does Soccer do it Better?

The difference i see is that...

Top soccer teams, for whatever reason, are willing to pass up good young talent. This gives the smaller clubs a chance at these players.

Say what? Give me an example of this. If anything, the exact OPPOSITE is true. As soon as a top young player emerges, one of the top four or five clubs in England snaps him up faster than you can say Eric Cantona.

A few recent examples of young players purchased away from smaller teams by top English clubs:

Man U
Michael Carrick
Wayne Rooney
Cristiano Ronaldo
Louis Saha
Ji-Sung Park
Mikael Silvestre

Chelsea
Shawn Wright-Phillips
Damien Duff (since joined Newcastle)
Scott Parker (since joined Newcastle)
Arjen Robben
Wayne Bridge

Liverpool
Xabi Alonso
Peter Crouch
Jermaine Pennant
Luis Garcia
Dirk Kuyt

Arsenal
Cesc Fabregas
Robin van Persie
Kolo Toure
Mathieu Flamini
Theo Walcott

Spurs
Pascal Chimbonda
Jermaine Defoe
Mido
Michael Dawson

The days of powerhouse squads built through homegrown talent in the youth system, the base of Man U's dominant teams in the 90s, are gone. Free agency, via transfers, reigns as supreme in soccer as any sport.

Take care,
PK

[NoSkillz50]

Re: Does Soccer do it Better?

I would say soccer is definately full of powerhouses which is why I wouldn't like that system in the NFL and NBA. Earlier someone posted that bad teams are still able to get younger players in soccer since the better teams have established veterans so I was going off of that.

[pk500]

Re: Does Soccer do it Better?

In soccer, bad teams develop local kids through their youth systems because they can't afford to buy better players. That's the only reason these days, as opposed to the early 90s when Man U's youth system delivered Giggs, Beckham, the Nevilles, Butt, etc.

Take care,
PK

[CMH]

Re: Does Soccer do it Better?

I didn't read this thread. Just wanted to chime in.

The football/soccer system would never work in North America simply because of player unions.

In addition, owners of teams have too much at stake in terms of revenue to include the possibility of being delegated to a minor league.

The majority if fans would never approve of this either.

I'm sorry, but it's obvious that fans, players, and leagues are very different across the globe especially when comparing Europe to North America.

[pk500]

Re: Does Soccer do it Better?

The majority if fans would never approve of this either.

I disagree. If you're a Kansas City Royals fan, what has caused you anxiety or thrills since late April? Not a damn thing.

But if the majors had three teams relegated every year, fans of the Royals, Cubbies, Pirates, Devil Rays, Nationals and Orioles would be sh*tting bricks right now due to their clubs in relegation fights.

Let's say the Royals and Orioles had a series the final weekend of the regular season, with the winner of two games staying up and the loser going down to AAA. Are you trying to tell me that Kaufmann Stadium wouldn't be packed for that? If the same two teams played a final-weekend set now, you might see 20,000 in the stands.

That's the beauty of relegation/promotion. It adds so much more meaning to the season for more teams.

Take care,
PK

[CMH]

Re: Does Soccer do it Better?

I disagree. If you're a Kansas City Royals fan, what has caused you anxiety or thrills since late April? Not a damn thing.

But if the majors had three teams relegated every year, fans of the Royals, Cubbies, Pirates, Devil Rays, Nationals and Orioles would be sh*tting bricks right now due to their clubs in relegation fights.

Rather than laying bricks, I'd say that the fans of those teams would be extremely upset that their favorite team is no longer in the majors.

In the States, it would draw fans away from the franchise and the ballpark (and we already know that the teams you mentioned can't afford to lose anymore fans).

[pk500]

Re: Does Soccer do it Better?

Rather than laying bricks, I'd say that the fans of those teams would be extremely upset that their favorite team is no longer in the majors.

In the States, it would draw fans away from the franchise and the ballpark (and we already know that the teams you mentioned can't afford to lose anymore fans).

The relegation fight would keep fans away? How? Wouldn't they come in droves, trying to root their team to stay up?

If the teams were relegated, yes, they would lose fans. But not during the relegation battle while still in the majors.

Take care,
PK

[nkhera1]

Re: Does Soccer do it Better?

Biggest problem with the soccer system is that money dominates too much. Besides Arsenal, I honestly can't think of any team that doesn't spend a lot and still wins or contends, and with Chelsea having billions of dollars they are a lock to win the league for as long as their owner is willing to lose money.