[ul]
[li]Men’s and women’s basketball (USA)[/li][li]Women’s soccer (USA)[/li][li]Table tennis (China)[/li][/ul]
Nations like Brazil wouldn’t quite count for men’s soccer, because even though Brazil has won the most FIFA soccer World Cups (5,) the Germans and Italians are right behind with 4 apiece and Brazil hasn’t won the trophy in eighteen years.
Canada was an Olympic powerhouse in ice hockey recently but that wasn’t true dominance; there was still a lot of parity in the sport.
In cricket, Australia has done well of late, but it doesn’t count as an utterly lopsided advantage.
What other international sports are there in which one nation just far outclasses all others?
How are you defining “international sport”? Baseball is popular in lots of places, and most will agree that American teams are much stronger than teams elsewhere, even though they don’t generally play each other. Though there are one or two Canadian teams in MLB, so I guess that’s technically international competition, and I don’t think any of the Canadian MLB teams have been serious contenders in a very long time.
Then there are sports that are in the Olympics, and so international, but played mostly in a single nation, like curling.
New Zealand are the foremost rugby playing nation but they certainly don’t hold a crushing advantage.
It’s not a team sport but the snooker world championship is almost always won by a Brit. Although an Australian has recently topped the world rankings and the Chinese love the sport and are now producing some wonderful players.
The Australian men’s team certainly does not dominate, but I think there could be a reasonable argument made for the Australian women’s cricket team. They don’t always win, but they have a very impressive record.
But in international play the USA is nowhere near dominant. Japan, Cuba, and the Dominican Republic all field outstanding teams, and Venezuela, Canada and Korea are no slouches. For international play purposes Puerto Rico is independent of the USA and they kick ass too. In the four World Baseball Classics the USA has only won once and twice didn’t even make the medal round.
The USA has the most baseball talent, but “Best” isn’t “Dominant.” “Dominant” means winning almost every time.
“International sport” defined as, in a nation vs nation international contest event (Olympics, World Cup, etc.)
American MLB teams would dominate against any other nation’s baseball-league teams, but in international competition it’s not New York Yankees vs. Yomiuri Giants, it’s each national roster against national roster.
But - yes - NBA players crush opponents (when playing in Olympics,) but MLB just doesn’t send its best players to international play.
Women’s softball was very USA dominant, and I believe one of the reasons it got dropped from the Olympics (not sure how much it even gets played now)
I know China was pretty dominant in diving for a couple Olympic cycles, but I also know that’s a sport where one or two superstars can come out with half a dozen medals, so I’m not sure how much of that was institutional dominance and how much was them getting the right couple of people.
No, but I understand that Montreal baseball fans were pretty happy about that.
The 2015 and 2016 Toronto Blue Jays were pretty good, winning the American League East division each year, before losing both years in the ALCS. Since then, the Jays have been a little disappointing, though.
NZ have an international record stretching back over 598 games since 1903. They have won 79.1% of their matches. Of the other major rugby union playing nations, the next highest winning percentage is South Africa on 65%.
Since 1st January 2010, New Zealand have won 88.7% of all their matches stretching over 140 games. The average result is 34-15 in their favour. Over the same period, their win percentage at home is 95% over 63 matches.
I was going to mention curling. Canada has several very good teams, in men’s, women’s, and mixed doubles, and any of their top teams could go to the World Championships or Olympics and put in a decent performance. But they only send one team in each discipline, and against the best from other countries they haven’t been dominating lately. Switzerland has 4 of the last 6 women’s champions, and Sweden has 4 of the last 7 for men.
Engeland is dominant in snooker. The Netherlands in speed skating and to some extent field hockey (especially the women). Netherlands is currently dominating cyclocross, although it normally is Belgium.
There are a lot of relatively small sports that are dominated by one country (or maybe a few).
I would suggest Australia and Rugby League fit the criteria.
The international scene is relatively small, with realistically three ‘top tier’ teams, Australia, New Zealand and England, with a handful of second tier teams, and a whole bunch of minnows.
The Rugby League World Cup is generally played every four years, Australia have won 11 of the 15 played since 1954. and 8 out of 9 since 1975.
There’s actually a legal angle to this aspect. In soccer, the world governing body, FIFA, has rules in place which oblige clubs to let their players play in national rosters if the national coach in question calls them up for the team. For the clubs this is a two-edged sword: On the one hand, it’s prestigious for the club if some of its players are also in national rosters, and it tends to increase the market value of the player. On the other hand, each game that the player does for the national team carries a risk of injury. The issue is an ongoing bone of contention between clubs and national associations, and there have been legal challenges against this obligation of clubs to release players from an antitrust perspective.
In baseball, the situation is politically different: The national association that runs the national roster, USA Baseball, is too weak to push for a similar obligation that would require MLB teams to release players.
Of course the bar is set high, I imagine thats why the OP says “crushing” advantage instead of simply just an advantage.
The All Blacks are generally the best side in the world but they are not crushingly dominant, they lose regularly and in last years world cup they were comprehensively beaten by England in the semi-finals.
The All Blacks are first among equals whereas I imagine the OP is talking about sides like the 1992 dream team that were basically untouchable by any other side.
I don’t think I can agree. I am well aware that NZ lost in the last World Cup, that’s the only game they have lost in a World Cup since 2007; they even beat the eventual winners in pool play in 2019. Of the 10/11 major nations in World Rugby, they have never lost to Scotland, Argentina and Italy, haven’t lost to Wales since 1953, have lost to England 5 or 6 times ever, and so on and so on. They are justifiably favourites in every match up, in any stadium in the world with the possible exception of facing South Africa in South Africa. If they’re not allowed a bad day at the office ever, despite out scoring the opposition by on average more than double their score for the last decade, then this list will be very short and dominated by niche sports. Which is fine, and probably even interesting, since it will uncover things I’ve never heard of, but, as I say is a very high bar indeed.
If you’re looking for total infallibility, fine. But USA Basketball to most fair minded people does hold a crushing dominance over the field - yet didn’t win gold in 2008 and sent a pretty good team to the last FIBA championships and didn’t win that either.
I am sure the OP themselves can tell us what they mean and what they’re looking for.
