Originally posted by Unregistered
View Post
Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.
US Soccer Player Development Initiatives
Collapse
X
-
Unregistered
- Quote
-
Unregistered
Originally posted by Unregistered View Post5.77 feet isn't 5 feet 7.7 inches. It's actually 5 feet and (.77*12inches) or 9.3 inches. In other words, 69.3 inches is 5 feet 9.3 inches.
Better get back to math class Tall fella.
- Quote
Comment
-
Unregistered
Originally posted by Unregistered View PostI hope you aren't teaching your kids math.
You just keep digging.......
So again, here's your math lesson for the day.
CDC data: male average 69.3 inches and female average 63.8 inches
69.3 inches * (1/12) = 5.775. This is 5 feet and .775 feet or 9.3 inches (.775*12).
63.8 inches * (1/12) = 5.32. This is 5 feet and .32 feet or 3.84 inches (.32*12).
Average US male is 5'9.3" and average UP, OSU, Timbers is 5'10".
Average US female is 5'4" and aveage UP, OSU, Thorns is 5'6".
So I grant you that female soccer players in the US are on average taller than the population, whereas male soccer players in the US are average in height. But then let's look at Japan's women's 2011 world cup winning team where the range of height is 5'1" to 5'8" with the average being 5'3".
Height doesn't matter... you can be short or tall. But, the other half of the size debate is weight. Wouldn't you say soccer players tend to be lighter than average?
- Quote
Comment
-
Unregistered
Originally posted by Unregistered View PostIn fact... I do. Let's hope you don't!
So again, here's your math lesson for the day.
CDC data: male average 69.3 inches and female average 63.8 inches
69.3 inches * (1/12) = 5.775. This is 5 feet and .775 feet or 9.3 inches (.775*12).
63.8 inches * (1/12) = 5.32. This is 5 feet and .32 feet or 3.84 inches (.32*12).
Average US male is 5'9.3" and average UP, OSU, Timbers is 5'10".
Average US female is 5'4" and aveage UP, OSU, Thorns is 5'6".
So I grant you that female soccer players in the US are on average taller than the population, whereas male soccer players in the US are average in height. But then let's look at Japan's women's 2011 world cup winning team where the range of height is 5'1" to 5'8" with the average being 5'3".
Height doesn't matter... you can be short or tall. But, the other half of the size debate is weight. Wouldn't you say soccer players tend to be lighter than average?
- Quote
Comment
-
Unregistered
Originally posted by Unregistered View PostDepends - are you comparing the women to the fat, overweight, fast-food diet of America or the fit Japanese women?
Speed does. Technique does. Soccer IQ does.
- Quote
Comment
-
Unregistered
At the highest levels on the men's side, height/weight seems to matter less than it does in the next tier down. For example, college teams tender to have bigger players than pro teams. At the highest levels, speed (both foot speed and thinking) tends to matter more than height/weight.
- Quote
Comment
-
Unregistered
Originally posted by Unregistered View PostGood question/point! My point is soccer players can be tall or short, thick or skinny. Size in the way people are thinking it's an advantage, ie tall and thick, are not necessarily an advantage in soccer as it is in other sports. But also understand that I don't think being tall and thick is a disadvantage. Again, the point is that size doesn't matter.
Speed does. Technique does. Soccer IQ does.
- Quote
Comment
-
Unregistered
Originally posted by Unregistered View PostSo the one consistent piece of feedback so far is speed! Unfortunately it's the one essential trait you must have to be a premier player and it can't be taught?! Speed will carry you a long way but eventually if the skill is not developed you'll get dropped for someone who has both. Can you be an excellent premier player without speed?
- Quote
Comment
-
Unregistered
Originally posted by Unregistered View PostNo one is saying that size matters in an absolute soccer sense. I don't think it does. However, What I'm saying is that the folks who pick elite players in the USA definitely believe size matters (even if it doesn't!) and consistently pick size over the small players (with an exception for the uber extraordinary small players). Perhaps that is one of the reasons why the USMNT doesn't do so well. We consistently pick the bigger kids from a young age & force feed them through the system. So, while size doesn't truly matter in soccer, the small American kid would tell you there was definitely a negative effect in their soccer careers due to their small size. Shouldn't be so, but it very much is. Perhaps US Soccer can mandate a "no size descrimination" policy!
Let's play a hypothetical. I have player A who is 5'5" and 155lbs and a player B who is 6'0 and 185lbs. EVERYTHING IS EQUAL EXCEPT SIZE (IQ, Speed, Quickness, Skill, Attitude).
Across the board, at every position, I would take the larger player. The pure physical aspect of sport favors the larger athlete (think balls in the air, shoulder challenges, a goal keeper diving - length).
So it isn't an argument about size - it is a truth within any physical activity wear size can have an advantage.
- Quote
Comment
-
Unregistered
Originally posted by Unregistered View PostI think size does matter in soccer, and it will continue to become more important as larger sized athletes actually play it. Remember, it is a 3rd or 4th choice for athletic men (a bit different for women).
Let's play a hypothetical. I have player A who is 5'5" and 155lbs and a player B who is 6'0 and 185lbs. EVERYTHING IS EQUAL EXCEPT SIZE (IQ, Speed, Quickness, Skill, Attitude).
Across the board, at every position, I would take the larger player. The pure physical aspect of sport favors the larger athlete (think balls in the air, shoulder challenges, a goal keeper diving - length).
So it isn't an argument about size - it is a truth within any physical activity wear size can have an advantage.
I agree and disagree with your viewpoint. I agree with your hypothetical example and from that viewpoint maybe size does matter. However, the real world isn't the economist ceteris paribus ("all things being equal") argument. In other words, all things are rarely ever equal in the real world. In this country, there is a strong bias towards picking the biggest and strongest kids, even though their technical quality and soccer iq may be no where near the shorter, skinny kid.
AJAX use the TIPS model: Technique, Insight, Psychology, Speed
It seems here in US, clubs use a different model, more focused on size; which tends to favor the early developers.
- Quote
Comment
-
Unregistered
size does Matter.
Originally posted by Unregistered View PostGood question/point! My point is soccer players can be tall or short, thick or skinny. Size in the way people are thinking it's an advantage, ie tall and thick, are not necessarily an advantage in soccer as it is in other sports. But also understand that I don't think being tall and thick is a disadvantage. Again, the point is that size doesn't matter.
Speed does. Technique does. Soccer IQ does.
- Quote
Comment
-
Unregistered
Originally posted by Unregistered View PostWith all the talk of change to birth year, lost in the discussion is the attempt to identify players based on skill and talent, rather than by physical size, speed, and general early maturation.
How do you identify skill and talent? How does size and speed range within your team and, most interestingly, how does it compare across teams (A vs B vs C)? Are kids on first team generally bigger, stronger, faster? Are players on first team more skillful or just bigger, faster, stronger? Do your coaches seem to appreciate quick and accurate decision making? Any differences in selection bias between boys and girls?
Please chime in with how you identify talent and mistakes you see others making.
I recently had firsthand experience with this. My son had been on the first team for two years in the academy program of this club. He had the same coach for two years and this coach was about 5'10". Enter the new, 6'2" coach. My son, always a starter for two years, was benched for the first few games simply because of his size. The new coach said that he needed to start the bigger kids to match the "size" of the competition. A few weeks later, my son was moved to the second team, along with the other smallest kid on the team. What's interesting is that when my son and this other small kid were in for a few minutes on the first team, the team was always in the attacking third because of their ability to move the ball forward and lead the counterattack. We decided to leave the club based on the new coaching staff and had my son trial at two better (higher standings and results) clubs and they both told us he would be placed on their first teams. Both coaches at these clubs were shorter than 5'10".
As for my daughter, she was always on the smaller size on each of her teams, but her physical appearance is different than my son. She is stocky and solid which gives her good balance, so she is almost always left standing on hard tackles against taller and stronger players. My son, on the other hand, is super skinny and slight, almost 20 pounds lighter than most of the boys on the first team, but he has superior technical skill than almost all the boys on the first team.
- Quote
Comment
-
Unregistered
Originally posted by Unregistered View PostBased on our experience with both children in competitive soccer, we observed consistently that if the coach is tall (6' and above) they tend to pick size over talent and that if the coach is shorter, then tend to pick talent over size. Seriously, this is no joke. Overall, the taller, stronger, and faster kids tend to get selected for the first teams while the smaller and slight kids get selected on the B team.
I recently had firsthand experience with this. My son had been on the first team for two years in the academy program of this club. He had the same coach for two years and this coach was about 5'10". Enter the new, 6'2" coach. My son, always a starter for two years, was benched for the first few games simply because of his size. The new coach said that he needed to start the bigger kids to match the "size" of the competition. A few weeks later, my son was moved to the second team, along with the other smallest kid on the team. What's interesting is that when my son and this other small kid were in for a few minutes on the first team, the team was always in the attacking third because of their ability to move the ball forward and lead the counterattack. We decided to leave the club based on the new coaching staff and had my son trial at two better (higher standings and results) clubs and they both told us he would be placed on their first teams. Both coaches at these clubs were shorter than 5'10".
As for my daughter, she was always on the smaller size on each of her teams, but her physical appearance is different than my son. She is stocky and solid which gives her good balance, so she is almost always left standing on hard tackles against taller and stronger players. My son, on the other hand, is super skinny and slight, almost 20 pounds lighter than most of the boys on the first team, but he has superior technical skill than almost all the boys on the first team.
Do you hear this on FOX? What a load of nonsense!!
- Quote
Comment
Comment