Weaker players as striker?

[Anonymous]

I have noticed that on both of my boys' teams over the years, the coaches have put weaker players as striker. Their teams have always had good players as midfielders and wings (and since both of my boys are defenders, I would like to think the defenders as decent as well, but who knows), but the strikers have never been strong players, relative to their teammates. What is up with that? Is it typical?

[Anonymous]

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

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I have noticed that on both of my boys' teams over the years, the coaches have put weaker players as striker. Their teams have always had good players as midfielders and wings (and since both of my boys are defenders, I would like to think the defenders as decent as well, but who knows), but the strikers have never been strong players, relative to their teammates. What is up with that? Is it typical?

In youth soccer, it is easier to hide a weaker player in the striker position. Strikers have less responsibility defensively, and even weak players sometimes luck into goals created by mid-fielders or wingers simply by being in the right place at the right time.

[Anonymous]

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.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I have noticed that on both of my boys' teams over the years, the coaches have put weaker players as striker. Their teams have always had good players as midfielders and wings (and since both of my boys are defenders, I would like to think the defenders as decent as well, but who knows), but the strikers have never been strong players, relative to their teammates. What is up with that? Is it typical?

In youth soccer, it is easier to hide a weaker player in the striker position. Strikers have less responsibility defensively, and even weak players sometimes luck into goals created by mid-fielders or wingers simply by being in the right place at the right time.

That's basically the job description for striker, and it's not necessarily an easy skill

[Anonymous]

Coach is hiding the player. No big deal if you lose the ball not scoring, but it's a big deal if you lose the ball and get scored on. If you know the parent of player, tell them to get better and controlling the ball with both feet; so long as you don't give it away you're doing good enough.

[Anonymous]

If you know the parent of player, tell them to get better and controlling the ball with both feet; so long as you don't give it away you're doing good enough.

I wouldn't feel comfortable doing that. I'm not sure it matters, since the teams are generally working for my kids. I just thought it was odd because I assumed that the striker would be one of the most important positions and filled with stronger players, relatively.

[Anonymous]

This is definitely true, OP. And very common. Especially on a decent but not very high level team--the kind that has a big disparity in talent and speed. As a PP said, I think it is mostly because the striker has fewer defensive responsibilities. A mediocre striker may not score but likely isn't going to make a mistake that will result in a goal.

In my experience in the early years a coach will often put the fastest, even strongest player at center back. Once they get older, if the kid is skilled, this player will often move to the midfield.

[Anonymous]

Where to put weaker players? Defense? No. Midfield? No. They have to go on offense.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Coach is hiding the player. No big deal if you lose the ball not scoring, but it's a big deal if you lose the ball and get scored on. If you know the parent of player, tell them to get better and controlling the ball with both feet; so long as you don't give it away you're doing good enough.

This DD's team has one girl who is significantly slower and less skilled than the rest of the team. He doesn't believe in demoting a kid, so she plays striker. It's the only position where she won't be exposed on defense because it's the only position with no defensive responsibility. When she's on the field, the 10 essentially plays both their own position and the 9.

[Anonymous]

When she's on the field, the 10 essentially plays both their own position and the 9.

OP here. This is the case on one of my son's teams as well. The 10 is very good, and also a big, strong kid. He sort of plays both positions.

[Anonymous]

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.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Where to put weaker players? Defense? No. Midfield? No. They have to go on offense.

Usually they go on the wing, or perhaps fullback. Not typically striker.

[Anonymous]

Same on my kid's team. There is one player on the team who is fairly tall/fast for his age, however, he is the weakest technical player on the team: he has weak ball control ability and very little skill at shooting, too.

Yet, when he plays, he plays as striker! This makes it very difficult for the toothless offense to score when he's in the game.

Roughly speaking, if you were to classify players as either "creative" players who can control the ball and create attacking plays, versus "destructive" players who have a knack for breaking up the opponents' possession and attacks, this kid is CLEARLY a more destructive player. He can effectively use his speed and size to harass the other side and steal the ball. However, he lacks the ability to do anything with the ball once he gets it.

I try to stay out of the coach's business, and so I haven't said anything about it, but it's very puzzling to me why he plays this kid at striker.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Same on my kid's team. There is one player on the team who is fairly tall/fast for his age, however, he is the weakest technical player on the team: he has weak ball control ability and very little skill at shooting, too.

Yet, when he plays, he plays as striker! This makes it very difficult for the toothless offense to score when he's in the game.

Roughly speaking, if you were to classify players as either "creative" players who can control the ball and create attacking plays, versus "destructive" players who have a knack for breaking up the opponents' possession and attacks, this kid is CLEARLY a more destructive player. He can effectively use his speed and size to harass the other side and steal the ball. However, he lacks the ability to do anything with the ball once he gets it.

I try to stay out of the coach's business, and so I haven't said anything about it, but it's very puzzling to me why he plays this kid at striker.

Where would you put him? If your coach is worried about winning he/she is not going to trust him on D. The ball will never get out of midfield with this kid because he isn't skilled enough to move it up. I think this is why these kids end up as striker.