Which positions are most in demand

[Anonymous]

From a coaching perspective the toughest position to find is a really good GK. Finding a tall fast athlete that wants to play the position and can play it well is like finding a needle in a haystack. By U13+ no chance you move a field player there. I start there and build the team from the back forward.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:OP here. Thanks for all the discussion! I was looking at it from from a coach’s perspective, which position is the hardest to find/recruit. All other things equal, meaning they are a good player at their position, does a player have a better chance at making a team if they play a certain position. From the responses it seems like it varies a lot, maybe GK and defender, lefties are in shorter supply. But like all things it depends on many other factors.

That sums it up. Those are often the hardest to fill and have the least players wanting to fill them, but it's always team and coach dependent. For example. oalie is hard to fill, but once a team has a good one, it's no longer as urgent. Usually there are plenty of players targeting midfield, but if the ones on the team are all either slow or weak technically, then that becomes the hardest to fill. And some teams have almost everything, but can't seem to recruit a true forward nor convert anyone else into one.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:To the economist - technically you are correct. Goal scorers and creators have the highest market value, even though there is no supply shortage of players wanting to play these roles, precisely because they are the most in demand. The international transfer market demonstrates this today, as it always has: https://www.transfermarkt.co.uk/uefa-champions-league/marktwerte/pokalwettbewerb/CL

However, in context this was a question by a parent asking which positions were most "in demand" by club teams and college recruiters. He or she may not have used the right terminology, but I took the question to be more along the lines of "what positition should my kid play to have the best chance of (getting selected/playing time on a good team, playing in college, etc...)." In other words, I think what they were really asking about had more to do with talent scarcity. A better way to ask the question might have been "in which positions is there a shortage of supply."

A lot of the responses make more sense if you look at the issue that way. A fast and skillful left footed player has a better chance competing for a spot at left back, than right forward. A tall and athletic player has a better chance competing for a spot at center back than center forward. A player who can play 2-3 midfield positions, and either right or left full back, has a better chance of breaking into a team than someone who insists they have to play "10".

In youth soccer the desire must also meet the ideal player and player profile. From U9-U13 finding a kid who WANTS to play in the back, on either side is hard. Finding a kid, particularly with girls, a kid who wants to play keeper is even harder.

Add the ideal profile of a left back and things get more complicated. You mentioned ideally they should be left footed. Well, only 10% of the population is even left handed to begin with. Now, we need a bigger and fast kid as well. That puts a general genetic makeup on the prototypical player before we have even determined if the kid has any skill.

It is more life finding a center in basketball. To have a good to great center is a huge competitive advantage but how many are simply just good enough. But without a quality point guard you are screwed.

With soccer, that truly dynamic Left back is rare but most teams do simply get by with good enough. A coach can scheme defense and as long as a unit is well coached and plays disciplined you can succeed with good enough players.

Having a skillful and creative midfielder or forward cannot be schemed. A midfielder rarely has the option of "when in doubt kick it out" on their side. Their ability to control the ball, take space, distribute, know where options are 360 degrees is far more impactful and far, far harder to find. That more midfielders get converted to other positions like left back does not in fact demonstrate the greater value of a left back, it demonstrates the overall value of a midfielder to be a smart enough and skilled enough player to trust anywhere on the field.

It’s not actually been established that midfielders are as a trend being converted to left back. In any case, what you are saying about midfield is more reflective of traditional styles of play. Everything used to revolve around midfield, but the game has evolved beyond that. Actually a common trend I see now is to move away from having midfielders have to carry the team in makings plays. In fact, we’ve been in multiple clubs now that simply want one touch possession play from midfielders with more creative license going to the wingers and wing backs.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:To the economist - technically you are correct. Goal scorers and creators have the highest market value, even though there is no supply shortage of players wanting to play these roles, precisely because they are the most in demand. The international transfer market demonstrates this today, as it always has: https://www.transfermarkt.co.uk/uefa-champions-league/marktwerte/pokalwettbewerb/CL

However, in context this was a question by a parent asking which positions were most "in demand" by club teams and college recruiters. He or she may not have used the right terminology, but I took the question to be more along the lines of "what positition should my kid play to have the best chance of (getting selected/playing time on a good team, playing in college, etc...)." In other words, I think what they were really asking about had more to do with talent scarcity. A better way to ask the question might have been "in which positions is there a shortage of supply."

A lot of the responses make more sense if you look at the issue that way. A fast and skillful left footed player has a better chance competing for a spot at left back, than right forward. A tall and athletic player has a better chance competing for a spot at center back than center forward. A player who can play 2-3 midfield positions, and either right or left full back, has a better chance of breaking into a team than someone who insists they have to play "10".

In youth soccer the desire must also meet the ideal player and player profile. From U9-U13 finding a kid who WANTS to play in the back, on either side is hard. Finding a kid, particularly with girls, a kid who wants to play keeper is even harder.

Add the ideal profile of a left back and things get more complicated. You mentioned ideally they should be left footed. Well, only 10% of the population is even left handed to begin with. Now, we need a bigger and fast kid as well. That puts a general genetic makeup on the prototypical player before we have even determined if the kid has any skill.

It is more life finding a center in basketball. To have a good to great center is a huge competitive advantage but how many are simply just good enough. But without a quality point guard you are screwed.

With soccer, that truly dynamic Left back is rare but most teams do simply get by with good enough. A coach can scheme defense and as long as a unit is well coached and plays disciplined you can succeed with good enough players.

Having a skillful and creative midfielder or forward cannot be schemed. A midfielder rarely has the option of "when in doubt kick it out" on their side. Their ability to control the ball, take space, distribute, know where options are 360 degrees is far more impactful and far, far harder to find. That more midfielders get converted to other positions like left back does not in fact demonstrate the greater value of a left back, it demonstrates the overall value of a midfielder to be a smart enough and skilled enough player to trust anywhere on the field.

It’s not actually been established that midfielders are as a trend being converted to left back. In any case, what you are saying about midfield is more reflective of traditional styles of play. Everything used to revolve around midfield, but the game has evolved beyond that. Actually a common trend I see now is to move away from having midfielders have to carry the team in makings plays. In fact, we’ve been in multiple clubs now that simply want one touch possession play from midfielders with more creative license going to the wingers and wing backs.

Accurate, well waited one touch passing requires a highly intelligent and technical midfielder. Their impact in the middle of the field directing the play is not diminished because more is demanded of the speed of play.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:To the economist - technically you are correct. Goal scorers and creators have the highest market value, even though there is no supply shortage of players wanting to play these roles, precisely because they are the most in demand. The international transfer market demonstrates this today, as it always has: https://www.transfermarkt.co.uk/uefa-champions-league/marktwerte/pokalwettbewerb/CL

However, in context this was a question by a parent asking which positions were most "in demand" by club teams and college recruiters. He or she may not have used the right terminology, but I took the question to be more along the lines of "what positition should my kid play to have the best chance of (getting selected/playing time on a good team, playing in college, etc...)." In other words, I think what they were really asking about had more to do with talent scarcity. A better way to ask the question might have been "in which positions is there a shortage of supply."

A lot of the responses make more sense if you look at the issue that way. A fast and skillful left footed player has a better chance competing for a spot at left back, than right forward. A tall and athletic player has a better chance competing for a spot at center back than center forward. A player who can play 2-3 midfield positions, and either right or left full back, has a better chance of breaking into a team than someone who insists they have to play "10".

In youth soccer the desire must also meet the ideal player and player profile. From U9-U13 finding a kid who WANTS to play in the back, on either side is hard. Finding a kid, particularly with girls, a kid who wants to play keeper is even harder.

Add the ideal profile of a left back and things get more complicated. You mentioned ideally they should be left footed. Well, only 10% of the population is even left handed to begin with. Now, we need a bigger and fast kid as well. That puts a general genetic makeup on the prototypical player before we have even determined if the kid has any skill.

It is more life finding a center in basketball. To have a good to great center is a huge competitive advantage but how many are simply just good enough. But without a quality point guard you are screwed.

With soccer, that truly dynamic Left back is rare but most teams do simply get by with good enough. A coach can scheme defense and as long as a unit is well coached and plays disciplined you can succeed with good enough players.

Having a skillful and creative midfielder or forward cannot be schemed. A midfielder rarely has the option of "when in doubt kick it out" on their side. Their ability to control the ball, take space, distribute, know where options are 360 degrees is far more impactful and far, far harder to find. That more midfielders get converted to other positions like left back does not in fact demonstrate the greater value of a left back, it demonstrates the overall value of a midfielder to be a smart enough and skilled enough player to trust anywhere on the field.

Not every one that is left handed is left footed, only about half of left handlers are also left foot dominant. Not only that they have to complete in a world that is almost all right. So add to the characteristics you mentioned the fact that left footed back also has to be good with the right foot.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:To the economist - technically you are correct. Goal scorers and creators have the highest market value, even though there is no supply shortage of players wanting to play these roles, precisely because they are the most in demand. The international transfer market demonstrates this today, as it always has: https://www.transfermarkt.co.uk/uefa-champions-league/marktwerte/pokalwettbewerb/CL

However, in context this was a question by a parent asking which positions were most "in demand" by club teams and college recruiters. He or she may not have used the right terminology, but I took the question to be more along the lines of "what positition should my kid play to have the best chance of (getting selected/playing time on a good team, playing in college, etc...)." In other words, I think what they were really asking about had more to do with talent scarcity. A better way to ask the question might have been "in which positions is there a shortage of supply."

A lot of the responses make more sense if you look at the issue that way. A fast and skillful left footed player has a better chance competing for a spot at left back, than right forward. A tall and athletic player has a better chance competing for a spot at center back than center forward. A player who can play 2-3 midfield positions, and either right or left full back, has a better chance of breaking into a team than someone who insists they have to play "10".

In youth soccer the desire must also meet the ideal player and player profile. From U9-U13 finding a kid who WANTS to play in the back, on either side is hard. Finding a kid, particularly with girls, a kid who wants to play keeper is even harder.

Add the ideal profile of a left back and things get more complicated. You mentioned ideally they should be left footed. Well, only 10% of the population is even left handed to begin with. Now, we need a bigger and fast kid as well. That puts a general genetic makeup on the prototypical player before we have even determined if the kid has any skill.

It is more life finding a center in basketball. To have a good to great center is a huge competitive advantage but how many are simply just good enough. But without a quality point guard you are screwed.

With soccer, that truly dynamic Left back is rare but most teams do simply get by with good enough. A coach can scheme defense and as long as a unit is well coached and plays disciplined you can succeed with good enough players.

Having a skillful and creative midfielder or forward cannot be schemed. A midfielder rarely has the option of "when in doubt kick it out" on their side. Their ability to control the ball, take space, distribute, know where options are 360 degrees is far more impactful and far, far harder to find. That more midfielders get converted to other positions like left back does not in fact demonstrate the greater value of a left back, it demonstrates the overall value of a midfielder to be a smart enough and skilled enough player to trust anywhere on the field.

It’s not actually been established that midfielders are as a trend being converted to left back. In any case, what you are saying about midfield is more reflective of traditional styles of play. Everything used to revolve around midfield, but the game has evolved beyond that. Actually a common trend I see now is to move away from having midfielders have to carry the team in makings plays. In fact, we’ve been in multiple clubs now that simply want one touch possession play from midfielders with more creative license going to the wingers and wing backs.

Accurate, well waited one touch passing requires a highly intelligent and technical midfielder. Their impact in the middle of the field directing the play is not diminished because more is demanded of the speed of play.

Sure, speed of play is important. No one isn’t arguing about that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:To the economist - technically you are correct. Goal scorers and creators have the highest market value, even though there is no supply shortage of players wanting to play these roles, precisely because they are the most in demand. The international transfer market demonstrates this today, as it always has: https://www.transfermarkt.co.uk/uefa-champions-league/marktwerte/pokalwettbewerb/CL

However, in context this was a question by a parent asking which positions were most "in demand" by club teams and college recruiters. He or she may not have used the right terminology, but I took the question to be more along the lines of "what positition should my kid play to have the best chance of (getting selected/playing time on a good team, playing in college, etc...)." In other words, I think what they were really asking about had more to do with talent scarcity. A better way to ask the question might have been "in which positions is there a shortage of supply."

A lot of the responses make more sense if you look at the issue that way. A fast and skillful left footed player has a better chance competing for a spot at left back, than right forward. A tall and athletic player has a better chance competing for a spot at center back than center forward. A player who can play 2-3 midfield positions, and either right or left full back, has a better chance of breaking into a team than someone who insists they have to play "10".

In youth soccer the desire must also meet the ideal player and player profile. From U9-U13 finding a kid who WANTS to play in the back, on either side is hard. Finding a kid, particularly with girls, a kid who wants to play keeper is even harder.

Add the ideal profile of a left back and things get more complicated. You mentioned ideally they should be left footed. Well, only 10% of the population is even left handed to begin with. Now, we need a bigger and fast kid as well. That puts a general genetic makeup on the prototypical player before we have even determined if the kid has any skill.

It is more life finding a center in basketball. To have a good to great center is a huge competitive advantage but how many are simply just good enough. But without a quality point guard you are screwed.

With soccer, that truly dynamic Left back is rare but most teams do simply get by with good enough. A coach can scheme defense and as long as a unit is well coached and plays disciplined you can succeed with good enough players.

Having a skillful and creative midfielder or forward cannot be schemed. A midfielder rarely has the option of "when in doubt kick it out" on their side. Their ability to control the ball, take space, distribute, know where options are 360 degrees is far more impactful and far, far harder to find. That more midfielders get converted to other positions like left back does not in fact demonstrate the greater value of a left back, it demonstrates the overall value of a midfielder to be a smart enough and skilled enough player to trust anywhere on the field.

Not every one that is left handed is left footed, only about half of left handlers are also left foot dominant. Not only that they have to complete in a world that is almost all right. So add to the characteristics you mentioned the fact that left footed back also has to be good with the right foot.

No doubt. A left footed solid ball handler who has the ability to carry the ball and create the attack, while still having the speed to track back and defend well is a game changer on any team.

[Anonymous]

In my family, footed-ness doesn't follow handed-ness. My right handed child is left footed. My left handed child is right footed.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:PP - I respectfully disagree, I have rarely seen coaches hide weaker players in the midfield. I think they seem to get parked in outside back positions, assuming there's a strong center back or two to defend the goal.

You put the weakest at forward, as 1 of 3 or 1 of 2 on the field. Let them run a bit, tire out or bang a defender. You'd never put the weakest player in midfield or at ANY spot on defense. Outside backs are supposed to be part of the attack, as well as defending. Have to be able to get up and down the field.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:PP - I respectfully disagree, I have rarely seen coaches hide weaker players in the midfield. I think they seem to get parked in outside back positions, assuming there's a strong center back or two to defend the goal.

You put the weakest at forward, as 1 of 3 or 1 of 2 on the field. Let them run a bit, tire out or bang a defender. You'd never put the weakest player in midfield or at ANY spot on defense. Outside backs are supposed to be part of the attack, as well as defending. Have to be able to get up and down the field.

Different experiences then. Multiple times I've seen it and not only that, some of them don't even remake the team. Now, as I said, that doesn't mean that if your DC is in midfield, they are the weakest. That's just usually where a coach hides them - in the club's ibe been involved with.

Even now, our 2 weakest players on the team are both put in MF. One has been tried literally almost everywhere else, and this just is the easiest place to put the player. All it requires is simple passing and when you surround the player with stronger players in front and behind, they can hp compensate for the gap.

To be clear though, I'm not saying that being in MF - or anywhere - means a player is weak. Ideally, you want a side of a strong 11 players.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:PP - I respectfully disagree, I have rarely seen coaches hide weaker players in the midfield. I think they seem to get parked in outside back positions, assuming there's a strong center back or two to defend the goal.

You put the weakest at forward, as 1 of 3 or 1 of 2 on the field. Let them run a bit, tire out or bang a defender. You'd never put the weakest player in midfield or at ANY spot on defense. Outside backs are supposed to be part of the attack, as well as defending. Have to be able to get up and down the field.

Different experiences then. Multiple times I've seen it and not only that, some of them don't even remake the team. Now, as I said, that doesn't mean that if your DC is in midfield, they are the weakest. That's just usually where a coach hides them - in the club's ibe been involved with.

Even now, our 2 weakest players on the team are both put in MF. One has been tried literally almost everywhere else, and this just is the easiest place to put the player. All it requires is simple passing and when you surround the player with stronger players in front and behind, they can hp compensate for the gap.

To be clear though, I'm not saying that being in MF - or anywhere - means a player is weak. Ideally, you want a side of a strong 11 players.

Oh please stop, no coach ever hides the weakest player in the position that touches the ball the most. You are simply showing your long ball soccer heritage.
"All it requires is simple passing and when you surround the player with stronger players in front and behind, they can hp compensate for the gap." The previous quote might be the dumbest take on a soccer board ever uttered. Jesus, all that is required of midfielder is receive passes in tight spaces requiring excellent first touch, accurate passing in all directions, and fast decision making. Oh, and on top of have excellent tackling skills and aggressiveness. In other words, just non-descript simple stuff that any weak player who is surrounded by strong players can accomplish.

Your understanding is like saying, just hide the weakest player at quarterback.

[Anonymous]

Listen, I don't know what your issue is, but I'm telling you what is happening right now. There's nothing to stop. It is reality, right now. Another player who was also placed there last year didn't remake the team.

It's nothing personal for you to get offended at.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:receive passes in tight spaces requiring excellent first touch, accurate passing in all directions, and fast decision making. Oh, and on top of have excellent tackling skills and aggressiveness. In other words, just non-descript simple stuff that any weak player who is surrounded by strong players can accomplish.

That's the skills every great player should have. For example. It's hard to play well out of the back without any of that.

Our weakest players are in fact not winning balls and don't have excellent tackling skills. It's not as bad when they aren't both out there together at the same time.

One of our better tacklers plays outside back. Fast decision making is needed on all ends of the field but especially in each of the boxes. If you don't have it defensively, you make costly defensive errors. If you don't make it offensviely, you never score.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Listen, I don't know what your issue is, but I'm telling you what is happening right now. There's nothing to stop. It is reality, right now. Another player who was also placed there last year didn't remake the team.

It's nothing personal for you to get offended at.

This may indeed be happening in your DC's team, but it is not a reflection of what happens elsewhere.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Listen, I don't know what your issue is, but I'm telling you what is happening right now. There's nothing to stop. It is reality, right now. Another player who was also placed there last year didn't remake the team.

It's nothing personal for you to get offended at.

This may indeed be happening in your DC's team, but it is not a reflection of what happens elsewhere.

I did say different people have different experiences. Nothing is every 100% across the board, ever. But I saw it at the CCL level, then the ECNL level and now the DA level, for 4 different kids of different genders, so it does happen.

The biggest advantages to hiding them in the midfield is you can surround them with stronger players and also their mistakes are not in critical areas or stages of the game.

Everyone agrees ideally, there are no weak players that need to be worked in. When all players are strong, the entire tone of the team is different.