Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I haven’t seen good youth soccer programs placing kids according to size at U9 or later. That would be silly, as you can’t tell how tall a kid will ultimately be at that age, and also because height is not an advantage for most soccer positions. There is a reason why the worlds’ best soccer players are, on average, average sized. It makes perfect sense to select for athleticism at any age, because you cannot be an elite player without being a great athlete. Speed can change over the years—it’s certainly true that puberty helps some kids and hurts others speedwise—but coordination, balance, and speed of thought on the field (which I view as a component of athleticism) don’t change all that much over time.

Picking kids who have good physical tools and investing good training in their development is not something anyone should criticize, but I think a lot of parents can’t judge their kids’ athleticism. There is kind of a weird false dichotomy that a lot of people seem to believe that a kid is either small and skillful or big and relying only on size, speed and strength. Athletic kids of all sizes are capable of learning skills and being great with the right training. OP’s point that at U16 you mostly see tall kids succeeding is not necessarily true in my experience, but to the extent it is, the reason is that the tall, athletic U9 player was picked for the top team back then for whatever reason and received top team training all the way through. Some of those tall U16s were small U9s, and all the small teens I know who were standouts at U9 and stayed on the top team are still great at U16.

I agree with most of this, but you are confusing the issue somewhat by including coordination, balance and speed of thought as part of athleticism. In general the "athlete" vs "skilled" debate is one of speed/size/strength vs "ball skills" where ball skills includes coordination/balance/speed of thought as well as amount of practise.

Yeah, I absolutely view coordination and balance as components of athleticism. Speed of thought on the pitch can be debated. But you can definitely have great foot skills without having above average balance or coordination. It just takes dedication and repetition.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I haven’t seen good youth soccer programs placing kids according to size at U9 or later. That would be silly, as you can’t tell how tall a kid will ultimately be at that age, and also because height is not an advantage for most soccer positions. There is a reason why the worlds’ best soccer players are, on average, average sized. It makes perfect sense to select for athleticism at any age, because you cannot be an elite player without being a great athlete. Speed can change over the years—it’s certainly true that puberty helps some kids and hurts others speedwise—but coordination, balance, and speed of thought on the field (which I view as a component of athleticism) don’t change all that much over time.

Picking kids who have good physical tools and investing good training in their development is not something anyone should criticize, but I think a lot of parents can’t judge their kids’ athleticism. There is kind of a weird false dichotomy that a lot of people seem to believe that a kid is either small and skillful or big and relying only on size, speed and strength. Athletic kids of all sizes are capable of learning skills and being great with the right training. OP’s point that at U16 you mostly see tall kids succeeding is not necessarily true in my experience, but to the extent it is, the reason is that the tall, athletic U9 player was picked for the top team back then for whatever reason and received top team training all the way through. Some of those tall U16s were small U9s, and all the small teens I know who were standouts at U9 and stayed on the top team are still great at U16.

I agree with most of this, but you are confusing the issue somewhat by including coordination, balance and speed of thought as part of athleticism. In general the "athlete" vs "skilled" debate is one of speed/size/strength vs "ball skills" where ball skills includes coordination/balance/speed of thought as well as amount of practise.

Anonymous wrote:I haven’t seen good youth soccer programs placing kids according to size at U9 or later. That would be silly, as you can’t tell how tall a kid will ultimately be at that age, and also because height is not an advantage for most soccer positions. There is a reason why the worlds’ best soccer players are, on average, average sized. It makes perfect sense to select for athleticism at any age, because you cannot be an elite player without being a great athlete. Speed can change over the years—it’s certainly true that puberty helps some kids and hurts others speedwise—but coordination, balance, and speed of thought on the field (which I view as a component of athleticism) don’t change all that much over time.

Picking kids who have good physical tools and investing good training in their development is not something anyone should criticize, but I think a lot of parents can’t judge their kids’ athleticism. There is kind of a weird false dichotomy that a lot of people seem to believe that a kid is either small and skillful or big and relying only on size, speed and strength. Athletic kids of all sizes are capable of learning skills and being great with the right training. OP’s point that at U16 you mostly see tall kids succeeding is not necessarily true in my experience, but to the extent it is, the reason is that the tall, athletic U9 player was picked for the top team back then for whatever reason and received top team training all the way through. Some of those tall U16s were small U9s, and all the small teens I know who were standouts at U9 and stayed on the top team are still great at U16.

Anonymous wrote:Every year We hear abut the coaches choosing size and speed over the smaller kid who is technically strong. If you fast forward to U16. You will find that that coaches were more right than wrong. Yes there are the smaller kids who have outworked the majority to be technically much better. The small kids who are finally hitting their growth spurs and catching up. For the most part the bigger, faster, more athletic kids are still making up the majority of the top rosters. Far to often at U16 you have the same parents that were back at U9 advocating for the smaller kids still preaching the same things. The smaller kid is more technically sound or he's a late grower. The truth is even though that smaller less athletic kid usually is more technically sound. They haven't developed enough to separate themselves to be more valuable than the bigger faster kids. Very few have have gotten so technically better that its enough to overlook the size and athleticism. I think many times that bigger faster kid movs on to other sports opening up roster spots for those smaller kids leading even more credence to the fact most of the time back at U9 or U10 the coaches get it right.

Anonymous wrote:Make sure to tell this to Spain, England, and Italy