Open-Minded Liberals at it again

[Dill]

(12-29-2017, 01:03 PM)hollodero Wrote: Hm, not really. Athletisism isn't the one major factor at soccer. Many great players aren't exactly model athletes (of course they aren't fat and they all are quite the sportsmen, but still). It's mainly a game of skill, being quick alone doesn't help much.

By all means, I always believed blacks are the superior athletes too. Maybe the term "athlete" isn't narrow enough, but the fastest sprinters are and were always black. I don't think that's coincidental.
That Africans can't compete in many sports probably has to do with training facilities and things like that (well, that was obvious).

If you are talking about professional soccer, I would have to disagree. You have to be FAR faster than average,in terms of acceleration, and have good endurance, to compete. One guy who is always outrun to the ball weakens they whole team system.  

But after that, then yes, it is a game of skill and smarts. And I would say often of skills acquired very young, and of competition and coaching. Which brings me to B-Zona's comment.

(12-29-2017, 11:13 AM)Bengalzona Wrote: I never believed in the whole "nature-vs-nurture" debate. I've always felt it was both. It is true that someone's genetics may provide them with certain advantages or handicaps in certain areas. But that could never be the sum total of why they achieve or fail as there is a plethora of examples of people with with certain handicaps or liabilities achieving and people with advantages failing.

I would add to this that national culture, opportunities, competing sports, social status, availability of great coaches--all these play role in why some nations are consistently better in soccer than others, even among those who have lots of manpower to draw on.