Reply to Patrick Mahomes didn't stick to one sport, making him a prime example for multisport youths

Forum Index » Soccer

Reply to "Patrick Mahomes didn't stick to one sport, making him a prime example for multisport youths"

Subject:

Emoticons





More smilies

Text Color: Font: Close Marks

[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]yeah, I mean you can just play football, baseball, and basketball, and then become a great center midfielder at the college level just b/c of your well rounded athletic ability.[/quote]

Ah, you misunderstand. No one is saying that either (unless you’re Bo Jackson). Soccer is no more difficult to learn than basketball or hockey or lacrosse or football etc. that was my actual point. [/quote]

Do you actually think manipulating an object using feet is as easy as using hands?[/quote]

They also think learning how to ice skate in order to play hockey would be easy too.[/quote]

Yeah, kicking a ball is so much harder than manipulating a small puck on ice with a long stick while on ice skates, and also learning strategic team play, etc. LOL.[/quote]

You have some reading comprehension issue. A PP posted the following:

"Ah, you misunderstand. No one is saying that either (unless you’re Bo Jackson). Soccer is no more difficult to learn than basketball or hockey or lacrosse or football etc. that was my actual point."

THEIR argument is that soccer, basketball, hockey, lacrosse and football are all just as easy to pick up in 9th grade and excel in them. [/quote]

No, my point is that soccer is no more or less hard than those other sports to learn. They all have their challenges. I will say that trying to play a sport while ice skating if you’ve never skated would be quite hard. Most people have run, walked, and jumped before ... so the PP making the point about hockey is spot on. As far as b-ball, soccer, tennis, golf, and baseball I played them all. I was the best at soccer and the worst at golf. I found soccer extremely easy and intuitive to learn (along with b-ball). Unfortunately, I am not tall so as I got older bballl was tougher for me to excel in. Just the result of the basket being 10 ft in the air. Soccer I did not need to be tall, but I did need to be fast, have strength and endurance, and be smart. I could dribble a b-ball and soccer ball both very well. Making a pk was easier than making a free throw. Much larger target and most GKs have no chance anyhow. Splitting a defense with a thru ball or executing a pick and roll were both easy enough to learn. Anyhow ... my point was around some of the posters talking about how hard it is to learn and be good at soccer. That was not my experience. As far as focusing in on one sport vs. many, obviously the more you practice one thing the better you’ll get at it. But, mixing in at least one other sport (maybe not as intensely) is good to prevent burnout and typically lowers injury rates due to use of different muscle groups. [/quote]

Chess is easy to learn to play too.

Yes, someone can start and learn to play soccer at 15 but they will not be good at it. A kid starting soccer at 15 would not stand much of a chance making an elite soccer team unless their athletic attributes were far and away above anything the coach has seen. This player might be taken on as a project but the player will be light years behind in technical ability.

I have seen these types of players before and they almost never work out. Their shortcomings never make up for their athletic abilities and they either turn into liabilities or are simply not effective.

And soccer is different than your example of basketball. All your skill will not make you taller. In soccer, all your speed will not make you good with the ball at your feet. [/quote]

It’s not different. Here’s what I know from actually playing competitive soccer. I loved marking slow guys that were skillful. It was cake. Contain and let them waste time making useless moves. Meanwhile they slowed the game down and let the defense get their shape. Fast guys were so much harder to mark. Fast guys with skills, nearly impossible. Exact same thing in basketball. Speed and quickness kills. In ALL team sports. [/quote]

A slower skilled player can destroy defenses. They take space, dribble to slow the game, hold the ball or pass to speed up the game. They would have you running with your face to goal in no time. Mark Riquelme, Rivaldo, Figo and Zidane for half a game and get back to me on how easy it is to mark a slower skilled player. Hell I would bet you in your prime would have all kinds of problems with Wayne Rooney in his current form and he is not even considered a skilled player. Some of the best offensive mids in the world are not the fastest. They have average speed.

If you as a defender are having no problems with a “skilled” player chances are they are not skilled. At a certain level everyone can do a crossover, etc. This does not make them skilled. When a truly skilled player runs at you with ball glued to his/her feet, you will be back peddling in fear. They will tear through tight spaces and be where they wanted to be with you on their backside. Most importantly they will not dribble but pass before the defense can regain the shape. What you are described is not a skilled slow player but a player with slow speed of play/recognition.

The thing in team sports is the connector. The player who see the field three passes ahead and has the skill to make the connections. This can be the point guard, QB or midfielder and they do not have to be fast. You surround them with fast players.

[quote] Pure speed and absolute, linear speed has limited value on the soccer field. The way a player coordinates themselves on the ball is very different off the ball and many fast people are slow with the ball.

I was once told by a women's college coach that he was searching for fast players- he said 'all the fancy footwork stuff, I can teach them'- i argued that he could not because its extremely hard to teach older players. There are speed ladders, speed gyms, speed parachutes, speed shoes -the list is endless.  [b]When you hear a coach asking for fast athletic players then you know they wont be teaching much technique or tactical understanding to their players.[/b] You can count on one hand the amount of players who have successfully made the transition from track star to soccer star, and this transition was made in their early teenage years and only in extremely rare circumstances. If speed did have its place in soccer, then Olympic track athletes could be converted into soccer players and we all know this is impossible in the same way that Michael Jordan wast fast and big but would be lost on the soccer field and would need at least 10-15 years of basic technical training and years of playing to understand movement and how to read the game. He would have needed to start playing at a young age to become a decent player and even then he would have needed someone to prioritize technical and tactical development over physical. Being an 'athlete',  in the context of Jordan, implies that he is capable of excelling in all sports. In the right environment, perhaps he would have made a fine professional soccer player but the development would have needed to start between 6-8 years of age and this doesnt include the desire and dream to become one, the first ingredient an athlete needs to become a high level player. 
[/quote]
https://www.psvunion.org/page/show/468863-speed-and-soccer-the-myth
[/quote]

Options

	Disable HTML in this message
	Disable BB Code in this message
	Disable smilies in this message

Review message

Search Recent Topics Hottest Topics