Why on this site is being a bigger, stronger more athletic soccer player a bad thing.I have never ever heard of being bigger, stronger more athletic being a bad thing in any sport.It is comical !
-
-
It’s not just insecure people. But I would say traditionally the American youth game is built this way. Because of how we play the game in this countryOriginally posted by Unregistered View Post -
Keeper bigger the better?Comment
-
I think being bigger is good if it is paired with other qualities such as technical ability and first touch. In South Florida even at the DA level most kids do not have a goof first touch which is the most important quality in soccer. So sometimes you see bigger and stronger kids put ahead of the more technical player but in the end the more technical player almost always wins out.Comment
-
The answer is simple. A lot of players have early success due to being bigger and faster than their peers. They get put on the good teams and get put in the scoring positions. They rely on that advantage and do not develop skill or soccer IQ. Just kick the ball forward and outrun everyone. Once the rest of the players catch up physically, they cannot dominate because they didn't develop their game. The smaller players are behind because they were not given a chance because they were small. So you end up with bigger players that didn't develop and smaller players that weren't given the chance to develop. And that is why US Soccer sucks.Originally posted by Unregistered View PostComment
-
english soccer is focused on big, strong players. Look at Tottenham - they don't care too much about possession, look for large, defensive oriented midfielders that are mediocre in possession but super strong in recovery and leave all the creativity to their forward players. The creative, average to smallish midfielder (or wingback for that matter) is currently not in the epl. But i would argue this is an epl only phenomenon. It is not so pronounced in Germany, Spain, or Italy, and curiously the MLS is filled with undersized attacking players. in south america, size is not as important as technque and craftiness.Originally posted by Unregistered View Post
The beauty of soccer is the variety of perspectives on how to succeed.Comment
-
You're missing the point, bright boy.Originally posted by Unregistered View Post
Many believe that if a player is bigger, stronger, faster, and more athletic that it compensates for a lack of technical skills. Technical excellence will always trump size, speed, and strength. If a player is technically excellent and has size, speed, and strength, then all the better.Comment
-
By and large undersized players struggle mightily until they catch up. The system is set up for big, fast, early developers. So, I am not sure what the OP is complaining about. It largely is a system that favors the kids that are 5'8" at 13 over the kid that is 5' but more skilled.Originally posted by Unregistered View PostComment
-
Does size matter as much on the girls side since when girls finish growing, there is not as big a discrepancy in the small and tall players?Originally posted by Unregistered View PostComment
-
The issue I have is that it’s okay to be small in height but not in muscle and upper body strength . Higher level club teenage players need to spend much more time in the gym and working with strength and speed coaches .Comment
-
Best solution would be at U12 and below segregate by size or weight instead of age . Isn’t that what football does .Comment
-
-
Agree, but the real problem with boys is that central puberty arrives at different times for different kids. For some it arrives at 12 and for others as late as 15 or 16. you cannot compare the muscle/athleticism of a boy post-puberty with a boy pre-puberty or at the beginning of puberty. The kids that hit puberty at 14, 15, 16 better be magicians technically to survive in US soccer.Originally posted by Unregistered View PostComment
-
segregate the kids who suck from the ones that are goodOriginally posted by Unregistered View PostComment
-
Boys are especially all over the map - some keep growing even into college. GYou can have a 17 year old who looks like he's in 7th grade playing against a 15 year old who can grow a full beard overnight. Girls pretty much stop 2 years after their first periods, at around 12-13. So by U15 or so there's not much height to be added, just muscle (and for girls fat also).Originally posted by Unregistered View PostComment
Comment