How much did size (height/strength) impact kids athletic chances in middle school?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:We have really tough try out teams by this age. I’m curious what impact size had on kids ability to stand out.

You can't really coach size so if size is important to your sport then it's going to impact your ability to stand out.

My kid is on a volleyball team. Very skilled but not tall (like 3" shorter than the rest of the team) and they can be replaced by a much less skilled taller kid, not one of two inches but if a much less killed kid with an extra 6" came along they would have to think about whether my kid is a good fit for their team (that's a euphemism for whether they would be cut)

[Anonymous]

My son was always the best athlete but in middle school he ended up on the B team for his most competitive sport. He did not hit puberty until 9th grade.

He grew in 11th grade - sophomore in college. It was tough, he had to walk on in college but ended up being an All American.

But middle school was so tough.

[Anonymous]

Middle school sports can be extremely difficult for smaller or late-developing kids, especially for boys.

The impact of size/strength and height depends on the specific sport. In addition, a kid's stage of development and height are two separate issues. For example, people mention soccer as being a sport where height doesn't matter as much as a sport like basketball, and that is true to some extent. However, when you are talking about middle school years, just being short may not be as much of a disadvantage as being late to puberty. My son had the challenging combination of being a skilled soccer player, not even on the growth chart small (height and weight), and a late developer. There were always other shorter kids, but many of them had mustaches by 7th grade, so they had a level of physicality that a less developed kid did not. It was absolutely heartbreaking to watch my son struggle during the middle school years. He wound up quitting basketball, which he once loved because he couldn't hang. He stuck with soccer and things got much better once he went through puberty around sophomore year.

[Anonymous]

You have to be born tough

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yes, athletic kids so much better in sports.

Expensive sports are less competitive.

This is not true. Ask any volleyball parent. I’ve been spending many hours driving to pre tryout clinics for my middle school DD and spending too much money so she hopefully gets looked at during upcoming tryouts, and then we can spend thousands if she makes a team. The taller the kid, the bigger the advantage in this expensive sport.

How come it’s so expensive? I’ve heard a lot of girls want to play so they can wear bikinis or short bike shorts and put their hair cute. But maybe it’s just fun. There’s no running up and down a large field or basketball court.

Are you the poster who was concerned about your daughters playing an unfeminine sport?

Volleyball has to get court space, pay tournament fees, good clubs travel, pay coaches, uniforms aren't cheap, all the things.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yes, athletic kids so much better in sports.

Expensive sports are less competitive.

This is not true. Ask any volleyball parent. I’ve been spending many hours driving to pre tryout clinics for my middle school DD and spending too much money so she hopefully gets looked at during upcoming tryouts, and then we can spend thousands if she makes a team. The taller the kid, the bigger the advantage in this expensive sport.

DP. So it might seem competitive to you but the number of kids whose parents can afford to spend the time and money as you do makes it less competitive. There will be less kids participating and as a results less competitive. So instead of 500 kids trying out you may get 36. Ask yourself If your kid would make the team if it was 28 kids competing for each position vs 3. Is your kid in the top 5% athletically and or size?

I guarantee the more expensive the sport the less competitive.

Also if you have to spend that much time and money too makes the team it does not look good for the future. At some point you max out your technical skills. A good athlete will beat a good technician if the technician does not have the athletic skills or size. The top 5% of athletes(including size) can easily beat the of 90% of players without good technique.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yes, athletic kids so much better in sports.

Expensive sports are less competitive.

This is not true. Ask any volleyball parent. I’ve been spending many hours driving to pre tryout clinics for my middle school DD and spending too much money so she hopefully gets looked at during upcoming tryouts, and then we can spend thousands if she makes a team. The taller the kid, the bigger the advantage in this expensive sport.

DP. So it might seem competitive to you but the number of kids whose parents can afford to spend the time and money as you do makes it less competitive. There will be less kids participating and as a results less competitive. So instead of 500 kids trying out you may get 36. Ask yourself If your kid would make the team if it was 28 kids competing for each position vs 3. Is your kid in the top 5% athletically and or size?

I guarantee the more expensive the sport the less competitive.

Also if you have to spend that much time and money too makes the team it does not look good for the future. At some point you max out your technical skills. A good athlete will beat a good technician if the technician does not have the athletic skills or size. The top 5% of athletes(including size) can easily beat the of 90% of players without good technique.

You are a babbling moron

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
Also if you have to spend that much time and money too makes the team it does not look good for the future. At some point you max out your technical skills. A good athlete will beat a good technician if the technician does not have the athletic skills or size. The top 5% of athletes(including size) can easily beat the of 90% of players without good technique.

While the point is good that athletes can beat out technical players in middle school, its not accurate as players get older and sports get more competitive with a smaller pool of players. Once you get above rec leagues, there is a minimum amount of athletic ability and coordination required for almost all sports. If you can't meet that standard, you won't be playing the sport for long. The inverse of your statement is true at older ages -- the top 10% of players with good technique can easily beat the 95% of good athletes, provided those skilled players meet the minimum athletic standard for their age and competition level.

Athletic ability always maxes out first. And even before it maxes, it takes months or years of work to improve fundamental athleticism. Technical ability never maxes, there's always something more to learn. As a result, top level sports teams often value consistency and performance much more than raw athletic ability.

At the MS level coaches will sometimes take the athletic ability because they believe they can train your DC to become a good player, or because your DC can just run through others on the field. But you won't see a successful middle school team filled with only athletes. In every MS sport, there is a mix of players-Athletic & Skilled, Skilled & Acceptably athletic, Athletic & Unskilled and not athletic & not skilled. The more popular the sport, the less likely it is that the last two groups make a team. Since cost limits sports participation, the lowest cost sports usually have the most players competing for spots and the more athletic and skilled you have to be to succeed.

[Anonymous]

It matters quite a bit in hockey, where checking is not allowed until 14U (14U ranges from kids who are 12 to 15, depending on the time of the year). Once checking is introduced, some small, highly skilled kids struggle with the game's physicality. I think the smaller kids who hit puberty late but stick it out end up as great players - the challenge is keeping them in the game through middle and high school until they hit their growth spurts.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Boy with a Fall birthday, always 95% + height/weight, always a top athlete. Made the MS soccer and basketball teams, same for HS.

Now plays club in college (not interested in playing for their D1 school, just attending games)

did they get an offer?

See I have the opposite kids, summer on time, 90% for height and weight

Girl with an end of summer birthday, went on time. 10% for height/weight for her age, which makes her seem even smaller as she's the very youngest. It's really hard when there are classmates >12" taller and 50 lbs heavier. It's like an average sized third grader playing against adults.

[Anonymous]

PP, we might have the same daughter. Late summer Bday. 9th grade, made varsity sport, but physicality is clearly an issue; not aggressiveness, but physical traits like raw strength and physical dominance. Compounded by the fact that many teammates were not exactly redshirted but have early Sept birthdays, which is for multiple grades, not just 9th.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yes, athletic kids so much better in sports.

Expensive sports are less competitive.

This is not true. Ask any volleyball parent. I’ve been spending many hours driving to pre tryout clinics for my middle school DD and spending too much money so she hopefully gets looked at during upcoming tryouts, and then we can spend thousands if she makes a team. The taller the kid, the bigger the advantage in this expensive sport.

How come it’s so expensive? I’ve heard a lot of girls want to play so they can wear bikinis or short bike shorts and put their hair cute. But maybe it’s just fun. There’s no running up and down a large field or basketball court.

Are you the poster who was concerned about your daughters playing an unfeminine sport?

Volleyball has to get court space, pay tournament fees, good clubs travel, pay coaches, uniforms aren't cheap, all the things.

That would describe most sports. And no, my daughter plays basketball and there’s nothing feminine about their outfits. That’s volleyball. Why do they wear two piece swimsuits? Because it started as a beach game?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yes, athletic kids so much better in sports.

Expensive sports are less competitive.

This is not true. Ask any volleyball parent. I’ve been spending many hours driving to pre tryout clinics for my middle school DD and spending too much money so she hopefully gets looked at during upcoming tryouts, and then we can spend thousands if she makes a team. The taller the kid, the bigger the advantage in this expensive sport.

DP. So it might seem competitive to you but the number of kids whose parents can afford to spend the time and money as you do makes it less competitive. There will be less kids participating and as a results less competitive. So instead of 500 kids trying out you may get 36. Ask yourself If your kid would make the team if it was 28 kids competing for each position vs 3. Is your kid in the top 5% athletically and or size?

I guarantee the more expensive the sport the less competitive.

Also if you have to spend that much time and money too makes the team it does not look good for the future. At some point you max out your technical skills. A good athlete will beat a good technician if the technician does not have the athletic skills or size. The top 5% of athletes(including size) can easily beat the of 90% of players without good technique.

You are a babbling moron

No, it does make sense.

[Anonymous]

Are we talking about school sports or club sports? School sports seems to be the last gasp for athletic boys who are not big in the sports where size matters. Competitive club sports really start favoring larger kids by this age, even if they are less skilled.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Middle school sports can be extremely difficult for smaller or late-developing kids, especially for boys.

The impact of size/strength and height depends on the specific sport. In addition, a kid's stage of development and height are two separate issues. For example, people mention soccer as being a sport where height doesn't matter as much as a sport like basketball, and that is true to some extent. However, when you are talking about middle school years, just being short may not be as much of a disadvantage as being late to puberty. My son had the challenging combination of being a skilled soccer player, not even on the growth chart small (height and weight), and a late developer. There were always other shorter kids, but many of them had mustaches by 7th grade, so they had a level of physicality that a less developed kid did not. It was absolutely heartbreaking to watch my son struggle during the middle school years. He wound up quitting basketball, which he once loved because he couldn't hang. He stuck with soccer and things got much better once he went through puberty around sophomore year.

+1

Height is not really the issue, other than in a few sports (basketball for one).

Puberty/late development is the main concern at this age. It can be very challenging for the later bloomers to keep up/ some sports being more difficult than others. There is a big difference physically between one boy who is 5’5” 95lbs & hasn’t hit puberty yet VS another who is 5’5” 140lbs with man muscles and a deep voice. The latter kid is generally going to be more successful at sports than the former- at this age.