Weaker players as striker?

[Anonymous]

F*ck you, OP . My kid is on a new team this year and been put on striker for the very first time. For 4 years kid was a center back and holding mid, a bit at attacking mid. Never came out of the game, phenomenal at those positions.

Yes, this is a sane response to someone asking a question regarding whether their kids' team is typical. You are not too invested at all ...

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Many slow, fat and weak kids play striker as you can hide weakness there

More fast kids with low soccer iq and no technical skills get placed at striker(and defender). Strikers make a lot of mistakes and most parents are oblivious. Slow kids do not play striker on competitive teams.

On high level teams, a striker is not slow.

+1

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Not sure wth your kids play, but the strikers on all of my kids' teams (first teams of high level clubs) were always some of the best 1V1 and hungry for the goal. They were definitely on the high end of technical compared to the backs they used for clearing the ball and physically stopping the opposing forwards.

Ive never seen the striker the best player on any higher youth level team . You must be not understanding the whole game.

[Anonymous]

Many slow, fat and weak kids play striker as you can hide weakness there


More fast kids with low soccer iq and no technical skills get placed at striker(and defender). Strikers make a lot of mistakes and most parents are oblivious. Slow kids do not play striker on competitive teams.


On high level teams, a striker is not slow.


+1

Right, I am assuming that on a high level team there should be no major issues with any of the players, so that is clearly not the question.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

How do you define weaker? Like physically? Strikers are often smaller (and therefore faster), but never seen them be less talented players overall..

No, I would not define weaker as smaller. One of my kids is a wing back and tiny. I mean not making good tactical decisions, and doing things like pulling up rather than moving forward when appropriate. But sounds like maybe this is an aberration particular to my kids' teams.

Making good tactical decisions as a striker is something many kids do not learn until 14/15.

It would be unsuual for a striker to be a weaker player technically, or be very slow. But if they just haven't figured things out tactically that's very normal - especially if the kid is not particularly fast.

+100

You can see the level of soccer knowledge is lacking with this crew, when you keep seeing 'big and physical' as the primary means for what determines good. I see parents clueless about what a god-awful first touch so many players have. They can't bring the ball out of the air on a dime, they can't trap, the ball ricochets off their foot or body since they have zero familiarity with it. These are the things good coaches and knowledgeable notice first and foremost in a player: first touch. But, a player needs to have comfort on the ball, the touch between the first and second leading into the pass needs to be quick. Know when to pass the ball harder or softer, accuracy. Open up the body while the ball is coming to you, so you are ready to put it where you want.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Is this recreational soccer or young kids soccer?

I'm a PP, DD's team is U14 EDP. Striker is the one position where a blown assignment will never results in the other team having a clean shot on goal. Meanwhile, midfielders and the starting striker can all score

Skilled midfielders can make a bad striker look good, a good striker great. Bad midfield will make great strike average to below.

+100

[b]My kid mentions that his new team does not place the balls/passes to run onto. They play direct to feet which is too late for the movement of the game. The player has already passed the spot where they are aiming the ball.[b]

He also thinks quicker than players around him and they are not in the spot they should be, making the proper runs.

The more you know about the game, the things the average joe thinks is 'good' or 'bad' is very uninformed. A good coach and a smart player sees through that, and then things your average soccer parent with very little high level experience even notices. AND, you can tell this by the type of sh*t they say during a game.

Big pet peeve of mine.

[Anonymous]

The more you know about the game, the things the average joe thinks is 'good' or 'bad' is very uninformed. A good coach and a smart player sees through that, and then things your average soccer parent with very little high level experience even notices. AND, you can tell this by the type of sh*t they say during a game.

No one ever says anything negative about teammates during our games, and I have three kids. Opponents is a different story.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

The more you know about the game, the things the average joe thinks is 'good' or 'bad' is very uninformed. A good coach and a smart player sees through that, and then things your average soccer parent with very little high level experience even notices. AND, you can tell this by the type of sh*t they say during a game.

No one ever says anything negative about teammates during our games, and I have three kids. Opponents is a different story.

Same with our sidelines, but some of my kids have been on some teams where that stuff is awful.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Not sure wth your kids play, but the strikers on all of my kids' teams (first teams of high level clubs) were always some of the best 1V1 and hungry for the goal. They were definitely on the high end of technical compared to the backs they used for clearing the ball and physically stopping the opposing forwards.

This is exactly my experience. A good team will have a goal-hungry striker with a knack for scoring; technical ability to shred defenders in a 1v1; good positional sense and soccer IQ to understand where he needs to be off the ball; and confidence on the ball under pressure.

A defender who is fast and can break up an opponent’s play and boot the ball forward into an area where his teammates are may not be ideal, but is good enough especially at younger ages.

And I say this as a parent of both type of players. One of my boys is big and fast and aggressive, he likes breaking up plays but will be the first to admit that his technical skills are below his peers on the team, and that he does not have a good shot. He still plays at a competitive level. My other son has amazing technical skills, is small for his age, and has been the top scorer on his team for the past 3 years. He has the confidence on ball to score under pressure. He is average at defense, but can be pushed around a bit and is not a very physical player.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Many slow, fat and weak kids play striker as you can hide weakness there

More fast kids with low soccer iq and no technical skills get placed at striker(and defender). Strikers make a lot of mistakes and most parents are oblivious. Slow kids do not play striker on competitive teams.

On high level teams, a striker is not slow.

+1

Slow kids are not selected on competitive high level teams period.

[Anonymous]

Weaker players become stronger players, stronger players become weaker players. Tiny kids become big, biggest kid stops growing in 8th grade.

Just wait.

If you are talking about U17, okay. But, if kids haven't even finished middle school and a good portion of the boys on your team haven't hit puberty yet: you are in for a shock.

Oh boy, do circumstances change.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Weaker players become stronger players, stronger players become weaker players. Tiny kids become big, biggest kid stops growing in 8th grade.

Just wait.

If you are talking about U17, okay. But, if kids haven't even finished middle school and a good portion of the boys on your team haven't hit puberty yet: you are in for a shock.

Oh boy, do circumstances change.

Of course. But puberty doesn't just magically give kids technical ability and ball control. They need to be developing those skills at any size, any age. Any relative evaluation of players (weaker v. stronger, bigger v. smaller, faster v. slower) is necessarily going to be merely a snapshot in time. But at any moment in time, trying to "hide" your weakest player in the striker position seems like something that is only done on teams trying to minimize the damage, not on teams playing to win.

[Anonymous]

Weaker players become stronger players, stronger players become weaker players. Tiny kids become big, biggest kid stops growing in 8th grade.

Just wait.

If you are talking about U17, okay. But, if kids haven't even finished middle school and a good portion of the boys on your team haven't hit puberty yet: you are in for a shock.

Oh boy, do circumstances change.

I'm sure that they do, but physical size is not the point - at all. If you are a U13 and can't figure out how NOT to perpetually be offside, there is a larger issue.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Weaker players become stronger players, stronger players become weaker players. Tiny kids become big, biggest kid stops growing in 8th grade.

Just wait.

If you are talking about U17, okay. But, if kids haven't even finished middle school and a good portion of the boys on your team haven't hit puberty yet: you are in for a shock.

Oh boy, do circumstances change.

says the parent of a lower level kid

[Anonymous]

Weaker players become stronger players, stronger players become weaker players. Tiny kids become big, biggest kid stops growing in 8th grade.

Just wait.

If you are talking about U17, okay. But, if kids haven't even finished middle school and a good portion of the boys on your team haven't hit puberty yet: you are in for a shock.

Oh boy, do circumstances change.

Also, read the posts before chiming in. It was explained that physical size was not the way in which "weaker" was meant.