Weaker players as striker?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

In middle school years really technical, smart kids that are teeny, tiny and then blossom. I had a kid that grew 9 inches at 15.5 years old (U16/17) that when he grew into that ball skill and had the physicality to go with it (speed came with the added size, inches and testosterone/muscle, toothpick legs turned into huge soccer thighs), got a D1 ride from a top school,,,,when he was passed around on 2nd level teams as he worked through Osgoods and growth plate issues, etc.

I'm obviously talking about kids that are very technical and have the genetics for late growth.

[Anonymous]

I have coached and done what OP is intimating for the purposes outlined--avoid the risk of a kid turning the ball over in our own third and/or simply being a disinterested player (e.g. rec level this is really common; and even at some travel levels no matter how good a kid is or what physical tools you all might think would make them a natural fit for a certain position many times they just cannot grasp how to play in certain positions or with a certain unit--or at least cannot grasp it yet). IMO part of the coach's responsibility is to set up individuals and the team for success while developing all of the players. Some of this means "hiding" players in certain situations.
If/when the teams I've had didn't have a marked drop-off from the bottom player to the middle player,s then I often would put one of the most skilled players at the striker position--without question.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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

What a douche . My 2 older kids are playing in college now. And other one on a top area team.

But, thanks for playing.

Anytime anyone points out the obvious, you get the stupid comeback: oh your kid must suck. I guess these comments touch a nerve for a reason.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

You are not talking a really high level of soccer for travel even the highest level. Sure they are better vs rec or lower level travel teams but they are not at the same level as the pros. So you can get away with a lot of stuff. Many are not technical but are fast, physical, have a bad touch, etc. and still score(not as much as they should or get shut out against good teams). Accuracy is a technical skill. There are a lot more of those type of player vs the fast technical, high iq players. If I have to choose would rather have that the better player in midfield getting a lot of touches vs as a striker.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I have coached and done what OP is intimating for the purposes outlined--avoid the risk of a kid turning the ball over in our own third and/or simply being a disinterested player (e.g. rec level this is really common; and even at some travel levels no matter how good a kid is or what physical tools you all might think would make them a natural fit for a certain position many times they just cannot grasp how to play in certain positions or with a certain unit--or at least cannot grasp it yet). IMO part of the coach's responsibility is to set up individuals and the team for success while developing all of the players. Some of this means "hiding" players in certain situations.
If/when the teams I've had didn't have a marked drop-off from the bottom player to the middle player,s then I often would put one of the most skilled players at the striker position--without question.

Same.

When there was a drop-off, I always hid them on the wings. NEVER in a central position.

[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.

This is way overblown.

The best technical players usually remain the best technical players. And the better coaches will have been playing those kids and winning all along against bigger, faster players.

The people who think everything changes as kids grow are the ones who just couldn't pick the best players out correctly to begin with and/or whose coaches were playing kickball.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

In middle school years really technical, smart kids that are teeny, tiny and then blossom. I had a kid that grew 9 inches at 15.5 years old (U16/17) that when he grew into that ball skill and had the physicality to go with it (speed came with the added size, inches and testosterone/muscle, toothpick legs turned into huge soccer thighs), got a D1 ride from a top school,,,,when he was passed around on 2nd level teams as he worked through Osgoods and growth plate issues, etc.

I'm obviously talking about kids that are very technical and have the genetics for late growth.

I have seen big kids in middle school who are really technical. Many times parents mistake quickness and speed for technical skill. Technical kids really need other technical kids around them to reach their full impact. They will carve up a team.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I have coached and done what OP is intimating for the purposes outlined--avoid the risk of a kid turning the ball over in our own third and/or simply being a disinterested player (e.g. rec level this is really common; and even at some travel levels no matter how good a kid is or what physical tools you all might think would make them a natural fit for a certain position many times they just cannot grasp how to play in certain positions or with a certain unit--or at least cannot grasp it yet). IMO part of the coach's responsibility is to set up individuals and the team for success while developing all of the players. Some of this means "hiding" players in certain situations.
If/when the teams I've had didn't have a marked drop-off from the bottom player to the middle player,s then I often would put one of the most skilled players at the striker position--without question.

Same.

When there was a drop-off, I always hid them on the wings. NEVER in a central position.

Yep. Wings. Always on the wings.

But, as others pointed out, when you are getting to the top tier older teams, there are no weak players. And, they often are specialized and have the characteristics for certain positions.

[Anonymous]

My pet peeve are the strikers who just stand at midfield with the defender. A good striker will get lost on the shoulder of the defender. They will make the defender turn around, move out of position and not know what’s going on down field.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:My pet peeve are the strikers who just stand at midfield with the defender. A good striker will get lost on the shoulder of the defender. They will make the defender turn around, move out of position and not know what’s going on down field.

Where is the Coach? Are they not teaching these types of things?

I find so many lacking in this area that they don't teach the kids what to do in the positions they are playing.

They have to learn it somewhere.

[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.


says the parent of a lower level kid


What a douche . My 2 older kids are playing in college now. And other one on a top area team.

But, thanks for playing.

Anytime anyone points out the obvious, you get the stupid comeback: oh your kid must suck. I guess these comments touch a nerve for a reason.

NP.
1) No one should say your kids suck, that is rude.
2) You should try to follow/read the thread before chiming in, because no matter how good or bad your kids may be, you missed the point of the discussion, and that is annoying.

[Anonymous]

When coaching, I often put the weakest kid at forward or right defender, where they were the least risk. At forward, I figured we might get lucky and he will get a rebound or wide open shot.

[Anonymous]

When coaching, I often put the weakest kid at forward or right defender, where they were the least risk.

Curious why right defender, rather than left?

[Anonymous]

It might not be that the player is weaker technically, but that they have less stamina. I had one big kid who would always ask to play forward, so they get to stand around a lot. I tended to make him play midfield, and tell him he better be running. Made our team worse, but figured the parent was looking to get his kid some exercise.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

When coaching, I often put the weakest kid at forward or right defender, where they were the least risk.

Curious why right defender, rather than left?

Opponents tended to attack down their right. I do my goal kicks to the right, so this is a problem, but usually I would pair him with a strong goalie who could bypass him.