Its not only Indians, its all of Asia. Even after decades of access to top coaching, infrastructure, youth development, professional leagues, China, Japan, South Korea, Qatar, Iran, UAE cant match up with even second tier European and Latin teams. We genetically lag behind the whites in four key aspects of football: speed, skill, stamina and strength. Asian teams may win an odd match here or there against them, but cannot dominate them consistently! Its in the genetics.
Hardly anything to do with just infrastructure only, Brazilian kids aren't becoming stars in top quality stadiums.
Asian teams surely don't dominate but countries with better culture jn Asia perform way better than others.
According to you your logic all African and European teams then must be insane in football. Why isn't Kenya up there ? Or south Africa ? Why isn't carribean creating good footballers ? Why do some European teams lay around in 100+ ranking ? Blaming genes is a narrow way of looking at it.
Let's look at African countries with your apparent 'footballic genes'
Gambia, Liberia, Ethiopia, equ guniea, Rwanda, Tanzania, Sudan, Togo, Gibon, Zimbabwe, Kenya and many more are ranked lower than India.
We lack behind because of footballing culture.
When football runs in our blood, we go watch every match, discuss over dinner, kids get interested as young as 2, that's when change really happens. Blaming it on genes is stupid and unscientific.
Sure I can agree that blacks have bigger stature and speed but football is just not about that. World's best player .is around 5'5 and 60 kgs.
Lol don't compare wartorn African country's with India, football is not there first priority and most of there ranking low just because they don't play that much fifa games per year, do you seriously think India can beat Gambia or Liberia ? Ethiopia and Rwanda are better then as ranking means nothing, those Africans easily dominant Indian football due to there superior genetic don't give football culture crap, the country's like China and Korea has football culture but they can't even win a single youth WC, Indian genetics are even worst then that.
ON A sunny Saturday afternoon, within kicking distance of Uruguay’s national football stadium, 14 seven-year-olds walk onto a bumpy pitch. They are cheered by their parents, who are also the coaches, kit-washers and caterers. The match is one of hundreds played every weekend as part of Baby Football, a national scheme for children aged four to 13. Among the graduates are Luis Suárez and Edinson Cavani, two of the world’s best strikers.
Messrs Suárez and Cavani are Uruguay’s spearheads at the World Cup, which kicks off in Russia on June 14th. Bookmakers reckon La Celeste are ninth-favourites to win, for what would be the third time. Only Brazil, Germany and Italy have won more, even though Uruguay’s population of 3.4m is less than Berlin’s. Though it is no longer the giant that it was in the early 20th century, Uruguay still punches well above its weight. Messrs Suárez and Cavani reached the semi-finals in 2010 and secured a record 15th South American championship in 2011. Their faces adorn Montevideo’s football museum, along with a century’s worth of tattered shirts and gleaming trophies.
If tiny Uruguay can be so successful, why not much larger or richer countries? That question appears to torment Xi Jinping, China’s president, who wants his country to become a football superpower by 2050. His plan includes 20,000 new training centres, to go with the world’s biggest academy in Guangzhou, which cost $185m. The United Arab Emirates and Qatar have spent billions of dollars buying top European clubs, hoping to learn from them. Saudi Arabia is paying to send the Spanish league nine players. A former amateur footballer named Viktor Orban, who is now Hungary’s autocratic prime minister, has splurged on stadiums that are rarely filled. So far these countries have little to show for their spending. China failed to qualify for this year’s World Cup, and even lost 1-0 to Syria—a humiliation that provoked street protests.
Footballer, meet model
The Economist has built a statistical model to identify what makes a country good at football. Our aim is not to predict the winner in Russia, which can be done best by looking at a team’s recent results or the calibre of its squad. Instead we want to discover the underlying sporting and economic factors that determine a country’s footballing potential—and to work out why some countries exceed expectations or improve rapidly. We take the results of all international games since 1990 and see which variables are correlated with the goal difference between teams.
We started with economics. Stefan Szymanski, an economist at the University of Michigan who has built a similar model, has shown that wealthier countries tend to be sportier. Football has plenty of rags-to-riches stars, but those who grow up in poor places face the greatest obstacles. In Senegal, coaches have to deworm and feed some players before they can train them; one official reckons only three places in the country have grass pitches. So we included GDP per head in our model.
Then we tried to gauge football’s popularity. In 2006 FIFA, the sport’s governing body, asked national federations to estimate the number of teams and players of any standard. We added population figures, to show the overall participation rate. We supplemented these guesses with more recent data: how often people searched for football on Google between 2004 and 2018, relative to other team sports such as rugby, cricket, American football, baseball, basketball and ice hockey. Football got 90% of Africa’s attention compared with 20% in America and just 10% in cricket-loving South Asia. To capture national enthusiasm and spending on sports in general, we also included Olympic medals won per person.
"it has been scientifically proven, footballic gene gives a person footballing brain,Desire to play and score goal's, increases technical ability and many more things in India only Chhetri got this gene due to rare genetic mutation"
Please state your sources @goalkeepar. I for one would be very interested in knowing about this extraordinary research, particularly the part about Chhetri's genetic mutation
I dont understand why suddenly people here have started taking @goalkeepar's comments seriously, he is our resident archaic troll, he has been doing it since before trolling became mainstream.
Comments
Hardly anything to do with just infrastructure only, Brazilian kids aren't becoming stars in top quality stadiums.
Asian teams surely don't dominate but countries with better culture jn Asia perform way better than others.
According to you your logic all African and European teams then must be insane in football. Why isn't Kenya up there ? Or south Africa ? Why isn't carribean creating good footballers ? Why do some European teams lay around in 100+ ranking ? Blaming genes is a narrow way of looking at it.
Let's look at African countries with your apparent 'footballic genes'
Gambia, Liberia, Ethiopia, equ guniea, Rwanda, Tanzania, Sudan, Togo, Gibon, Zimbabwe, Kenya and many more are ranked lower than India.
We lack behind because of footballing culture.
When football runs in our blood, we go watch every match, discuss over dinner, kids get interested as young as 2, that's when change really happens. Blaming it on genes is stupid and unscientific.
Sure I can agree that blacks have bigger stature and speed but football is just not about that. World's best player .is around 5'5 and 60 kgs.
Educate yourself
Wealth, size and interest in football explain almost half of countries’ international performance. The rest can be taught
Print edition | International
Jun 9th 2018| DAKAR AND MONTEVIDEOON A sunny Saturday afternoon, within kicking distance of Uruguay’s national football stadium, 14 seven-year-olds walk onto a bumpy pitch. They are cheered by their parents, who are also the coaches, kit-washers and caterers. The match is one of hundreds played every weekend as part of Baby Football, a national scheme for children aged four to 13. Among the graduates are Luis Suárez and Edinson Cavani, two of the world’s best strikers.
Messrs Suárez and Cavani are Uruguay’s spearheads at the World Cup, which kicks off in Russia on June 14th. Bookmakers reckon La Celeste are ninth-favourites to win, for what would be the third time. Only Brazil, Germany and Italy have won more, even though Uruguay’s population of 3.4m is less than Berlin’s. Though it is no longer the giant that it was in the early 20th century, Uruguay still punches well above its weight. Messrs Suárez and Cavani reached the semi-finals in 2010 and secured a record 15th South American championship in 2011. Their faces adorn Montevideo’s football museum, along with a century’s worth of tattered shirts and gleaming trophies.
If tiny Uruguay can be so successful, why not much larger or richer countries? That question appears to torment Xi Jinping, China’s president, who wants his country to become a football superpower by 2050. His plan includes 20,000 new training centres, to go with the world’s biggest academy in Guangzhou, which cost $185m. The United Arab Emirates and Qatar have spent billions of dollars buying top European clubs, hoping to learn from them. Saudi Arabia is paying to send the Spanish league nine players. A former amateur footballer named Viktor Orban, who is now Hungary’s autocratic prime minister, has splurged on stadiums that are rarely filled. So far these countries have little to show for their spending. China failed to qualify for this year’s World Cup, and even lost 1-0 to Syria—a humiliation that provoked street protests.
Footballer, meet model
The Economist has built a statistical model to identify what makes a country good at football. Our aim is not to predict the winner in Russia, which can be done best by looking at a team’s recent results or the calibre of its squad. Instead we want to discover the underlying sporting and economic factors that determine a country’s footballing potential—and to work out why some countries exceed expectations or improve rapidly. We take the results of all international games since 1990 and see which variables are correlated with the goal difference between teams.
We started with economics. Stefan Szymanski, an economist at the University of Michigan who has built a similar model, has shown that wealthier countries tend to be sportier. Football has plenty of rags-to-riches stars, but those who grow up in poor places face the greatest obstacles. In Senegal, coaches have to deworm and feed some players before they can train them; one official reckons only three places in the country have grass pitches. So we included GDP per head in our model.
Then we tried to gauge football’s popularity. In 2006 FIFA, the sport’s governing body, asked national federations to estimate the number of teams and players of any standard. We added population figures, to show the overall participation rate. We supplemented these guesses with more recent data: how often people searched for football on Google between 2004 and 2018, relative to other team sports such as rugby, cricket, American football, baseball, basketball and ice hockey. Football got 90% of Africa’s attention compared with 20% in America and just 10% in cricket-loving South Asia. To capture national enthusiasm and spending on sports in general, we also included Olympic medals won per person.
"it has been scientifically proven, footballic gene gives a person footballing brain,Desire to play and score goal's, increases technical ability and many more things in India only Chhetri got this gene due to rare genetic mutation"
Please state your sources @goalkeepar. I for one would be very interested in knowing about this extraordinary research, particularly the part about Chhetri's genetic mutation