Female physical attributes for positions

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:While there are always exceptions but this article shows the typical size and skills needed by positions in women’s college soccer:

https://www.ncsasports.org/womens-soccer/recruiting-guidelines

It seems most positions requires a player to be at least 5’5”.

Lmfao. Dumbest comment of the year

Why? The PP posted a good article explaining what college recruiters look for. Unless you have any better article, please STFU.

When I see dumb comments like this about sports and athletic ability, I like to post Tom Brady's evaluations from scouting reports back some 20 years ago. They go something like this:

"Poor build ... Skinny ... Lacks great physical stature and strength ... Lacks mobility and ability to avoid the rush ... Lacks a really strong arm ... Can’t drive the ball downfield ... Does not throw a really tight spiral ... System-type player who can get exposed if forced to ad lib ... Gets knocked down easily."

Yeah. Tom Brady was a bum. Dunn and Messi are short. Gates and Zuckerberg dropped out of college. Every year people win the lottery. Good luck setting your expectations in life based on the world's most notable outliers.

Good luck following BS guidelines that mean nothing and will ensure you are always average!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Reading through, seems like if you're a mid/outside/forward short or tall, just be fast and nimble. So I wonder what defensive backs and keepers physical attributes are? I see so many high shots on keepers because they are like 5'5" in ECNL. Crazy, but coaches just can't take the tallest and make them keepers. In football, the adage is cornerbacks are just WRs who can't catch... are DBs in soccer forwards that can't score?

Fast and nimble and short is far better than tall and slow. Tall and fast and nimble is even better and as you move up, there are more players who are technically skilled, fast, nimble and tall

You f@cking wish. Lmfao

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The vast majority of you couldn't tell the difference between a 5'4, 5'5, a d a 5'6 girl on the field. And you think its a significant advantage? Okey Dokie

The vast majority of us are not D1 coaches. But looking at D1 rosters it seems like there is a cutoff somewhere in that range you posted.

Lol. None of you are D1 coaches. Thats number #1. The vast majority are not even former athletes that played at the collegiate level. Thats #2. Most of you dont do a deeper analysis. Thats #3. Some of you are clueless. Thats #4.

#5. The average height for females in the US is 5'4 -5'5. If a player at either of those heights measure a tick above, the become 5-5 and 5'6. Once you take that into consideration, the numbers change a little.

#6. The schools you mentioned are the best in the nation. They get the best kids in the nation. The best kids in the nation typically have all the attributes.

+1. The best schools will pick the athletes that have it all including above average height. The lower teams will be willing to take the shorter player who is fast. The bottom team will take the player who is skilled but lacks in many areas.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:While there are always exceptions but this article shows the typical size and skills needed by positions in women’s college soccer:

https://www.ncsasports.org/womens-soccer/recruiting-guidelines

It seems most positions requires a player to be at least 5’5”.

Thanks for the link. I think I saw it a while back, but like most articles, they are gleaned from generalizations and I had hoped for some parents to comment on their kid's experiences with this. I've seen some girls so thin, they crumple to the ground at first sign of physical contact. Does a college coach ask them to bulk up? Not unheard of in other sports.

Colleges make their players spend a lot of time in the weight room to get stronger, etc.

My daughter is a college freshman playing for a D3 soccer program. She's a midfielder with great foot skills, good soccer IQ/vision, and high fitness (speed and endurance). All that being said, she's 5'3" and 105 pounds soaking wet. She played (and started) for ECNL and then GA clubs but I believe her size and lack of strength was a turnoff to many of the D1 coaches. And to be fair, she got pushed off the ball a good bit, so it's a legit weakness/concern. Also, her shots lacked power...precise, but sometimes weak. Her D3 coach told us he wasn't worried about her size - they have a great strength and conditioning program and assured us he would help her build muscle to round out her skills and fitness. And he was willing to work around her STEM major, which many D1 programs weren't. So I do think size matters to many coaches. But the right fit is out there. She went D3 so she could play her game (and hopefully get meaningful playing time), get a bump with admission into a competitive college, and pursue her STEM major with the full support of her coach. This season hasn't been typical but so far she's really happy with her decision. In hindsight though, more time in the weight room in high school would have served her game well.

Do you mind if I ask you a question? I'd like to know if your DD's coaches are dismissive of the idea of strength training, power training. Most I've seen are very ignorant of the topic, saying "it'll just slow you down". I've seen so many players stick to using resistance bands (which are a joke for proper development) and doing ignorant 'agility drills', and then when they're on the field against better athletes they're fully exposed (that's it they haven't torn their ACL yet). Just curious as to what you recall what it was like for her during her youth playing years when it comes to athletic development.

I don't recall any of her coaches discouraging her from weight training and building muscle mass, but it certainly wasn't baked into the club's fitness program. She was practicing with her club 4x a week, traveling for soccer many weekends, and trying to manage a really full academic load with non-soccer extracurriculars so to be honest, weight training just didn't make the priority list. I have a younger HS daughter who is working with a trainer on strength, and she wants to start doing more in the new year. So I guess we're trying to learn from the older daughter's experience especially while school is virtual and the younger one has extra time on her hands. I don't really talk to her club coaches, but I assume they're supportive of anything that makes a player better.

Strength is huge, so is power. Good job on getting after it. Too many American coaches say things like it doesn't matter or "work on it on your own time" but you're right, there is no time. If they were training four times a week, 20% of that time should've been allocated to strength training (along with a off season training program).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The vast majority of you couldn't tell the difference between a 5'4, 5'5, a d a 5'6 girl on the field. And you think its a significant advantage? Okey Dokie

The vast majority of us are not D1 coaches. But looking at D1 rosters it seems like there is a cutoff somewhere in that range you posted.

Lol. None of you are D1 coaches. Thats number #1. The vast majority are not even former athletes that played at the collegiate level. Thats #2. Most of you dont do a deeper analysis. Thats #3. Some of you are clueless. Thats #4.

#5. The average height for females in the US is 5'4 -5'5. If a player at either of those heights measure a tick above, the become 5-5 and 5'6. Once you take that into consideration, the numbers change a little.

#6. The schools you mentioned are the best in the nation. They get the best kids in the nation. The best kids in the nation typically have all the attributes.

+1. The best schools will pick the athletes that have it all including above average height. The lower teams will be willing to take the shorter player who is fast. The bottom team will take the player who is skilled but lacks in many areas.

The vast majority of D1 girls are not playing at a top 25 school. They're not even playing top 100.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:While there are always exceptions but this article shows the typical size and skills needed by positions in women’s college soccer:

https://www.ncsasports.org/womens-soccer/recruiting-guidelines

It seems most positions requires a player to be at least 5’5”.

Lmfao. Dumbest comment of the year

Why? The PP posted a good article explaining what college recruiters look for. Unless you have any better article, please STFU.

When I see dumb comments like this about sports and athletic ability, I like to post Tom Brady's evaluations from scouting reports back some 20 years ago. They go something like this:

"Poor build ... Skinny ... Lacks great physical stature and strength ... Lacks mobility and ability to avoid the rush ... Lacks a really strong arm ... Can’t drive the ball downfield ... Does not throw a really tight spiral ... System-type player who can get exposed if forced to ad lib ... Gets knocked down easily."

His IQ and technical proficiency are more important for his position which doesn't require mobility, specifically in the offenses he's been in.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:While there are always exceptions but this article shows the typical size and skills needed by positions in women’s college soccer:

https://www.ncsasports.org/womens-soccer/recruiting-guidelines

It seems most positions requires a player to be at least 5’5”.

Lmfao. Dumbest comment of the year

Why? The PP posted a good article explaining what college recruiters look for. Unless you have any better article, please STFU.

When I see dumb comments like this about sports and athletic ability, I like to post Tom Brady's evaluations from scouting reports back some 20 years ago. They go something like this:

"Poor build ... Skinny ... Lacks great physical stature and strength ... Lacks mobility and ability to avoid the rush ... Lacks a really strong arm ... Can’t drive the ball downfield ... Does not throw a really tight spiral ... System-type player who can get exposed if forced to ad lib ... Gets knocked down easily."

His IQ and technical proficiency are more important for his position which doesn't require mobility, specifically in the offenses he's been in.

The troll who started this thread must be laughing his ass off.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The vast majority of you couldn't tell the difference between a 5'4, 5'5, a d a 5'6 girl on the field. And you think its a significant advantage? Okey Dokie

The vast majority of us are not D1 coaches. But looking at D1 rosters it seems like there is a cutoff somewhere in that range you posted.

Lol. None of you are D1 coaches. Thats number #1. The vast majority are not even former athletes that played at the collegiate level. Thats #2. Most of you dont do a deeper analysis. Thats #3. Some of you are clueless. Thats #4.

#5. The average height for females in the US is 5'4 -5'5. If a player at either of those heights measure a tick above, the become 5-5 and 5'6. Once you take that into consideration, the numbers change a little.

#6. The schools you mentioned are the best in the nation. They get the best kids in the nation. The best kids in the nation typically have all the attributes.

+1. The best schools will pick the athletes that have it all including above average height. The lower teams will be willing to take the shorter player who is fast. The bottom team will take the player who is skilled but lacks in many areas.

The vast majority of D1 girls are not playing at a top 25 school. They're not even playing top 100.

the vast majority of parents around here will not jump for joy if DD tells them they are attending some random university in South Dakota to play D1 college soccer

[Anonymous]

Not a troll. Actually parent.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The vast majority of you couldn't tell the difference between a 5'4, 5'5, a d a 5'6 girl on the field. And you think its a significant advantage? Okey Dokie

The vast majority of us are not D1 coaches. But looking at D1 rosters it seems like there is a cutoff somewhere in that range you posted.

Lol. None of you are D1 coaches. Thats number #1. The vast majority are not even former athletes that played at the collegiate level. Thats #2. Most of you dont do a deeper analysis. Thats #3. Some of you are clueless. Thats #4.

#5. The average height for females in the US is 5'4 -5'5. If a player at either of those heights measure a tick above, the become 5-5 and 5'6. Once you take that into consideration, the numbers change a little.

#6. The schools you mentioned are the best in the nation. They get the best kids in the nation. The best kids in the nation typically have all the attributes.

+1. The best schools will pick the athletes that have it all including above average height. The lower teams will be willing to take the shorter player who is fast. The bottom team will take the player who is skilled but lacks in many areas.

The vast majority of D1 girls are not playing at a top 25 school. They're not even playing top 100.

the vast majority of parents around here will not jump for joy if DD tells them they are attending some random university in South Dakota to play D1 college soccer

I wouldn't jump for joy for out of a state. But in state, I would be happy.

[Anonymous]

Top 100 for VA

1. UVA
2. VT
3. ODU

Close

4. VCU

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:While there are always exceptions but this article shows the typical size and skills needed by positions in women’s college soccer:

https://www.ncsasports.org/womens-soccer/recruiting-guidelines

It seems most positions requires a player to be at least 5’5”.

Lmfao. Dumbest comment of the year

Why? The PP posted a good article explaining what college recruiters look for. Unless you have any better article, please STFU.

When I see dumb comments like this about sports and athletic ability, I like to post Tom Brady's evaluations from scouting reports back some 20 years ago. They go something like this:

"Poor build ... Skinny ... Lacks great physical stature and strength ... Lacks mobility and ability to avoid the rush ... Lacks a really strong arm ... Can’t drive the ball downfield ... Does not throw a really tight spiral ... System-type player who can get exposed if forced to ad lib ... Gets knocked down easily."

His IQ and technical proficiency are more important for his position which doesn't require mobility, specifically in the offenses he's been in.

My point is just at the end of the day recruiters can be wrong about potential and talent and are wrong a lot of the time. That's all.

Oh and Tom Brady said this about himself:

"I think my best asset as a player is that in the fourth quarter, with the game on the line, I have the desire to win and the feeling that our team is not going to lose."

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Top 100 for VA

1. UVA
2. VT
3. ODU

Close

4. VCU

Based on the 2020 commitments from this area, nobody reading this board has a kids who will be playing at schools in the top 25.

Yes that includes you FCV and Loudoun parents. Neither club placed a kid in the top 25 this year.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Top 100 for VA

1. UVA
2. VT
3. ODU

Close

4. VCU

Based on the 2020 commitments from this area, nobody reading this board has a kids who will be playing at schools in the top 25.

Yes that includes you FCV and Loudoun parents. Neither club placed a kid in the top 25 this year.

That's not true. Stop looking at those worthless websites.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Top 100 for VA

1. UVA
2. VT
3. ODU

Close

4. VCU

Based on the 2020 commitments from this area, nobody reading this board has a kids who will be playing at schools in the top 25.

Yes that includes you FCV and Loudoun parents. Neither club placed a kid in the top 25 this year.

That's not true. Stop looking at those worthless websites.

Stop pretending it’s 2018. No top 25 commits. Probably not even top 50. If you disagree name the school.