Looks the same to me; slightly lanky with non-obvious muscleage. Obviously their race, facial characteristics, hair color, etc. vary but if that’s your example of dissimilar physiques I’d have to wonder if you know what the word “physique” means.
Crouch is 6’7". Messi is 5’7". Of course, if you knew anything about the subject at hand, I wouldn’t have to tell you that.
So the beanpole 6’7" Peter Crouch, the impish 5’"7 Messi, and the brute of a man Didier Drogba (seriously, the guys a tank) all look the same to you?
Go. Specsavers. Now.
While Sage Rat’s claim that football players all have the same physique is nothing short of laughable, I had initially agreed with him on that same claim about soccer players. However, this stems from very, very rarely watching the sport.
So let me ask you, when you talk about “the beanpole 6’7” Peter Crouch, the impish 5’“7 Messi, and the brute of a man Didier Drogba”, are these guys typical of their position, or are they outliers?
Upthread, I had said that the “physique of defensive lineman is nothing like that of a running back which is nothing like that of a kicker”, and in each of these cases there is a relatively standard body type (less so for running backs than the others, but the point remains). So, do the general physiques of <quick Googling> Centre midfielders differ from Forwards which differ from Secondary Strikers?
A case could be made for them being outliers, but just take Messi as an example. A quite small man by most standards, but so were world greats like
Maradona, or Gianfranco Zola. Now what similarities do these great ATTACKERS, have with other attacking players such as the giant Jan Koller, The tall Crouch, or even the averagely sized Fernando Torres?
The great Zinedane Zidane was a big lad. He played the same position as Messi.
Midfielders could be built like brick shithouses, like Papa Bouba Diop (the fridge), or lithe sinewy buggers like Darren Fletcher. Both play the same position.
Defenders, the short Gary Neville, or the tall Rio Ferdinand, both were greats of the game.
There arent outliers, because there is such a range of physical attributes shown across the player base. Every name I, err, named here, I just pulled from memory. Easy to do when there are so many different types to choose from.
Great so of all characteristics of physique, height isn’t a significant factor. They still have the same muscle tone, same body proportions. That I couldn’t tell who was taller or shorter out of context is better evidence for my point than against it. Nor do I know how representative these guys are. Finding the exceptions isn’t a particularly rigorous overview.
And yet again, what relevance whether anyone can play has to a spectator sport is entirely being evaded by you.
You really havent a clue. Messi has the muscle tone of Didier Drogba? Sheesh.:rolleyes:
To be fair, you should have linked to photos that showed their differences. Comparing the pictures on the first page of results, I would never have guessed that they varied that much in build.
snip
No it just shows that you have poor observational skills without having two objects directly juxtaposed for comparison. I’m not even a fan, but I had no problem observing that Crouch was a very tall lanky man. I’m not sure that I would characterize Drogba as a “tank”. He is certainly heavier built that either of the other two though.
I also take offense at characterizing a man who is 5’7 as “impish”. I happen to be that height, and it is a perfectly average one in nearly all countries outside of the US and northern Europe. 
Also just to show a range…
Tallest: Kristof van Hout - 2.08m - (6ft10)
Belgian Goalkeeper who plays for the Belgium Jupiler League club, Standard Liege.
Shortest : 1. 55m- 5’.09 Jafal Rashel , Al Sadd (Qatar)
Lightest
125 - Argenis Fernandez (NE)
Heaviest
236 - Chris Seitz (RSL)
As for “tanks” you’d do better to look at Marcus Hahnemann. THAT is not lanky.
Those are the outliers, but if you look at the top ten of those lists, the others aren’t far behind in stats, and there is every other combination in between.
Source: “The Best Eleven” soccer fansite/ blog.
Crap. Missed the edit.
Just to compare I did the same for active NFL players.
The tallest one is 6’9, the shortest is 5’6-5’7 * there seems to be some disagreement on the validity of stats here.
The Heaviest is listed at 410 lbs, while the lightest is at 160. There is not so much of spread in stats here, though the numbers are smaller of course. Most players are over six feet and 180 lbs though, the majority seem over 200.
From the following sources, the data for men:
http://www.footballguys.com/10stuart_players_jahvidbest.php
http://ddr.nal.usda.gov/bitstream/10113/39692/1/IND43677267.pdf
Average American (20-29yo)
Height: 177.5cm ± 6.7
Weight: 79.2kg ± 16.6
Body Fat: 21.8% ± 6.2
Body Mass: 25.1kg ± 4.9
Association Football (minus goalkeepers)
Height: 175cm ± 5
Weight: 70kg ± 7
Body Fat (%): 14.7% ± 2.7
Body Mass: 60kg ± 5.5
American Football
Height: 188cm ± 4
Weight: 99kg ± 6.8
Body Fat (%): 14% ± 5
Body Mass: 107kg ± 4.8
The standard distribution for the sporting types is generally more restrictive. The only case where it isn’t (asc. football body mass), the average is still far outside the range for your average person.
Association players are 9.2kg (20lbs) lighter than your average person, shorter, and entirely outside the standard distribution of both body fat and body mass.
American footballers are within a tighter deviation of height, weight, and body mass compared to asc. footballers, but less restrictive of body fat.
Overall I wouldn’t call an association football player particularly representative of your average 20-29 year old male. I particularly wouldn’t see the relevance this has to a spectator sport.
Ugh.
No.
You always always always need the genetics. Sometimes it’s less obvious.
Okay, let’s compare those two men to baseball players:
Messi: http://images.google.co.uk/images?hl=en&gbv=2&tbs=isch:1&sa=1&q=lionel+messi&aq=0&aqi=g10&aql=&oq=LIONEL+MESS&gs_rfai=
Drogba: http://images.google.co.uk/images?hl=en&gbv=2&tbs=isch:1&sa=1&q=DROGBA&aq=f&aqi=g10&aql=&oq=&gs_rfai=
Cordero: http://www.google.co.uk/images?um=1&hl=en&gbv=2&tbs=isch:1&sa=1&q=Chad+Cordero&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&oq=&gs_rfai=
Branyan: http://images.google.co.uk/images?hl=en&gbv=2&tbs=isch:1&sa=1&q=Russell+Branyan&aq=f&aqi=g1&aql=&oq=&gs_rfai=
In the first two images, I see men with particularly long limbs and toned but not particularly heavily muscled bodies. In the latter two images I see men of more average proportion with a medium-high level of muscles particularly about the gut and buttocks.
Crouch is certainly an outlier, at least among strikers, though players his size aren’t hugely unusual in central defence.
Messi’s not an outlier at all. He succeeded 5’7" Ariel Ortega as the playmaker for Argentina, who himself succeeded 5’5" Diego Maradona.
Drogba’s 6’3", and looks a lot like Terrell Owens shirtless. That’s a bit unusual since footballers tend not to carry much upper body muscle mass.
Missed the edit.
Does Randy Moss vs Jerry Rice say anything about the requisite genetic makeup it takes to be a NFL receiver?
snip.
That just shows that soccer players are in shape. 21% body fat is average for the American male, and that is a good deal higher than it ought to be; 15-18% is considered healthy. Athletes are usually in the 8-12% range.
The point however, is that playing soccer semi seriously is an attainable goal for most people if they were willing to put in the effort. Playing American style football in the same manner eliminates a large number of people. Soccer is friendlier to a wider audience in this respect and it adds to it’s popularity. People who watch often like to play, but it’s no fun if you get creamed every time. At least in soccer if you suck, it’s because you haven’t trained enough; not just because you happen to be of average or smaller size.
And, I never stated otherwise (though I would still argue that asc. football players have a lanky build – i.e. small torso, long arms and legs, compared to their height – but that doesn’t show up in my stats). I quote myself:
“in terms of simply playing the game for fun, sure, you’re better off to choose to play European football or baseball”
But what possible relevance does this have to a spectator sport? Americans play soccer as kids, from 1st grade to 12th. We have no problem enjoying watching sports that we haven’t played or never played well.
snip.
It has every relevance! Soccer players are athletes, and world cup members are elite to be sure, but they still represent joe everyman, they are everyday people. How often in American football do we hear about “giants of the field” and Titans of the gridiron" etc…? They are made out to be superhuman beings. They are almost cartoons in that gear and helmets. Robotic beings smashing head on into each other! Boom! Crash! Certainly entertaining.
That’s fun, but not easy to relate to. All you have is body language or sideline shots. On the other hand, soccer players are visible, they are average sized, average looking men or women who can be easily observed. We can see their facial expressions and the crowd shares in their emotions as they play. They are more attainable and easier to sympathize with or despise.
People who want that can watch Baseball, here. In my opinion, baseball players have an even more normal body shape compared to asc. football players. They might have more muscle than your average man, but in terms of height and bone structure (i.e. comparative limb length) they’re of average proportion, and anyone can add muscle if they want to.
And baseball has (slightly) more strategy than asc. football and waaaay more variety than either of the footballs. No scantily clad girls parading about nor violence, though.