Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:From a coaching perspective, the hardest position to find is a CDM who knows what they’re doing in the position and can essentially be a playmaker from deep, as well as a “3rd centerback” when the fullbacks push up. Not a Casemiro but a Busquets.

Most coaches in the US aren't looking for a Busquets and wouldn't even recognize that skill set if it was right in front of them.

+1, Busquets is not athletic enough, at best b team material, most US coaches would say. They will be looking for next Michael Bradley.

Anonymous wrote:From a coaching perspective, the hardest position to find is a CDM who knows what they’re doing in the position and can essentially be a playmaker from deep, as well as a “3rd centerback” when the fullbacks push up. Not a Casemiro but a Busquets.

Most coaches in the US aren't looking for a Busquets and wouldn't even recognize that skill set if it was right in front of them.

From a coaching perspective, the hardest position to find is a CDM who knows what they’re doing in the position and can essentially be a playmaker from deep, as well as a “3rd centerback” when the fullbacks push up. Not a Casemiro but a Busquets.

Anonymous wrote:To the economist - technically you are correct. Goal scorers and creators have the highest market value, even though there is no supply shortage of players wanting to play these roles, precisely because they are the most in demand. The international transfer market demonstrates this today, as it always has: https://www.transfermarkt.co.uk/uefa-champions-league/marktwerte/pokalwettbewerb/CL

However, in context this was a question by a parent asking which positions were most "in demand" by club teams and college recruiters. He or she may not have used the right terminology, but I took the question to be more along the lines of "what positition should my kid play to have the best chance of (getting selected/playing time on a good team, playing in college, etc...)." In other words, I think what they were really asking about had more to do with talent scarcity. A better way to ask the question might have been "in which positions is there a shortage of supply."

A lot of the responses make more sense if you look at the issue that way. A fast and skillful left footed player has a better chance competing for a spot at left back, than right forward. A tall and athletic player has a better chance competing for a spot at center back than center forward. A player who can play 2-3 midfield positions, and either right or left full back, has a better chance of breaking into a team than someone who insists they have to play "10".

In youth soccer the desire must also meet the ideal player and player profile. From U9-U13 finding a kid who WANTS to play in the back, on either side is hard. Finding a kid, particularly with girls, a kid who wants to play keeper is even harder.

Add the ideal profile of a left back and things get more complicated. You mentioned ideally they should be left footed. Well, only 10% of the population is even left handed to begin with. Now, we need a bigger and fast kid as well. That puts a general genetic makeup on the prototypical player before we have even determined if the kid has any skill.

It is more life finding a center in basketball. To have a good to great center is a huge competitive advantage but how many are simply just good enough. But without a quality point guard you are screwed.

With soccer, that truly dynamic Left back is rare but most teams do simply get by with good enough. A coach can scheme defense and as long as a unit is well coached and plays disciplined you can succeed with good enough players.

Having a skillful and creative midfielder or forward cannot be schemed. A midfielder rarely has the option of "when in doubt kick it out" on their side. Their ability to control the ball, take space, distribute, know where options are 360 degrees is far more impactful and far, far harder to find. That more midfielders get converted to other positions like left back does not in fact demonstrate the greater value of a left back, it demonstrates the overall value of a midfielder to be a smart enough and skilled enough player to trust anywhere on the field.

OP here. Thanks for all the discussion! I was looking at it from from a coach’s perspective, which position is the hardest to find/recruit. All other things equal, meaning they are a good player at their position, does a player have a better chance at making a team if they play a certain position. From the responses it seems like it varies a lot, maybe GK and defender, lefties are in shorter supply. But like all things it depends on many other factors.

To the economist - technically you are correct. Goal scorers and creators have the highest market value, even though there is no supply shortage of players wanting to play these roles, precisely because they are the most in demand. The international transfer market demonstrates this today, as it always has: https://www.transfermarkt.co.uk/uefa-champions-league/marktwerte/pokalwettbewerb/CL

However, in context this was a question by a parent asking which positions were most "in demand" by club teams and college recruiters. He or she may not have used the right terminology, but I took the question to be more along the lines of "what positition should my kid play to have the best chance of (getting selected/playing time on a good team, playing in college, etc...)." In other words, I think what they were really asking about had more to do with talent scarcity. A better way to ask the question might have been "in which positions is there a shortage of supply."

A lot of the responses make more sense if you look at the issue that way. A fast and skillful left footed player has a better chance competing for a spot at left back, than right forward. A tall and athletic player has a better chance competing for a spot at center back than center forward. A player who can play 2-3 midfield positions, and either right or left full back, has a better chance of breaking into a team than someone who insists they have to play "10".

Ok you are just patting yourself on the back. It’s hard to believe one person on this board does not understand basic economics. Two people? No way.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:For the economist out there, Messi, Ronaldo and Neymar do not play the same position. They are generational talents, and Messi is in the discussion of being the best player ever. They sell jerseys and fill the stadiums. The discussion is not which position is the best paid or has the most prominent talent, but about which position is the hardest to fill.

You are correct this is about which position is hardest to fill. In a labor market, salaries are generally determined by talent scarcity. This is particularly true in labor markets because skills are elastic (people have choices). In general the people with the rarest skill get paid the most. Why? Because the supply curve will move until an equilibrium price is obtained (more people will start playing the position). This stops when the supply runs out (talent scarcity). Therefore salaries paid are a great way to determine which position is the hardest to fill. Especially in labor markets.

Therefore the people that score in soccer are the most in demand. Does not help my kid but he loves playing keeper. Oh well.

+1

For all their talent and ability to sell jerseys, neither Messi, nor Ronaldo, nor Neymar won the world cup. Argentina, for example, had plenty of prolific goalscorers, which you argue is the hardest position to fill: Messi, Aguero, Higuain, Dybala, Di Maria, Pavon, etc. You need more than a world class goalscorer to be successful and perhaps some other positions are harder to fill.

+100

It is a team effort. Yes, that one player can make a difference and create magic---but you need a supporting crew just as good.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:For the economist out there, Messi, Ronaldo and Neymar do not play the same position. They are generational talents, and Messi is in the discussion of being the best player ever. They sell jerseys and fill the stadiums. The discussion is not which position is the best paid or has the most prominent talent, but about which position is the hardest to fill.

You are correct this is about which position is hardest to fill. In a labor market, salaries are generally determined by talent scarcity. This is particularly true in labor markets because skills are elastic (people have choices). In general the people with the rarest skill get paid the most. Why? Because the supply curve will move until an equilibrium price is obtained (more people will start playing the position). This stops when the supply runs out (talent scarcity). Therefore salaries paid are a great way to determine which position is the hardest to fill. Especially in labor markets.

Therefore the people that score in soccer are the most in demand. Does not help my kid but he loves playing keeper. Oh well.

+1

For all their talent and ability to sell jerseys, neither Messi, nor Ronaldo, nor Neymar won the world cup. Argentina, for example, had plenty of prolific goalscorers, which you argue is the hardest position to fill: Messi, Aguero, Higuain, Dybala, Di Maria, Pavon, etc. You need more than a world class goalscorer to be successful and perhaps some other positions are harder to fill.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:For the economist out there, Messi, Ronaldo and Neymar do not play the same position. They are generational talents, and Messi is in the discussion of being the best player ever. They sell jerseys and fill the stadiums. The discussion is not which position is the best paid or has the most prominent talent, but about which position is the hardest to fill.

You are correct this is about which position is hardest to fill. In a labor market, salaries are generally determined by talent scarcity. This is particularly true in labor markets because skills are elastic (people have choices). In general the people with the rarest skill get paid the most. Why? Because the supply curve will move until an equilibrium price is obtained (more people will start playing the position). This stops when the supply runs out (talent scarcity). Therefore salaries paid are a great way to determine which position is the hardest to fill. Especially in labor markets.

Therefore the people that score in soccer are the most in demand. Does not help my kid but he loves playing keeper. Oh well.

+1

It's simple if you follow the train of thought of the thread and keep posts in context.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Thread police? That comment is completely out of touch with everything I said. I guess when you have nothing meaningful to offer, you think going after me personally is a good strategy.

You must be that same poster from other threads that likes to make personal attacks. Did you bring your sidekick too, or are you here all by your little lonesome?

Re-read your posts. You are not even making a case for which positions are most in demand. You are just arguing against other people's posts. Stand for something or you come off as the thread police, just here trying to catch others.

I was responding to those that claimed midfielder because they argued that MFs can be converted to elsewhere. Dunn was cited as an example of such a conversion.

In most demand are outside wingbacks. I've already stated that before. But in even higher demand are versatile players that a cocach knows he can play anywhere. Coaches love that, especially but not exclusively college coaches.

Anonymous wrote:For the economist out there, Messi, Ronaldo and Neymar do not play the same position. They are generational talents, and Messi is in the discussion of being the best player ever. They sell jerseys and fill the stadiums. The discussion is not which position is the best paid or has the most prominent talent, but about which position is the hardest to fill.

You are correct this is about which position is hardest to fill. In a labor market, salaries are generally determined by talent scarcity. This is particularly true in labor markets because skills are elastic (people have choices). In general the people with the rarest skill get paid the most. Why? Because the supply curve will move until an equilibrium price is obtained (more people will start playing the position). This stops when the supply runs out (talent scarcity). Therefore salaries paid are a great way to determine which position is the hardest to fill. Especially in labor markets.

Therefore the people that score in soccer are the most in demand. Does not help my kid but he loves playing keeper. Oh well.

Anonymous wrote:Thread police? That comment is completely out of touch with everything I said. I guess when you have nothing meaningful to offer, you think going after me personally is a good strategy.

You must be that same poster from other threads that likes to make personal attacks. Did you bring your sidekick too, or are you here all by your little lonesome?

Re-read your posts. You are not even making a case for which positions are most in demand. You are just arguing against other people's posts. Stand for something or you come off as the thread police, just here trying to catch others.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Correct - and now the MFs that were recently converted to the back as a pro are actually center backs because they played there as a youth! LOL

Maybe we are all fullbacks! I do think the Neymar and Ronaldo are secret fullbacks but not sure about Messi he seems more of a CB.

The same posters, taking everything personal again. You made a simple mistake about Dunn's background. She was not and never has been a career midfielder. If such a versatile player as her were to get any label, it would be forward. That is the position she spent the most time as during her youth. Even then, she played other positions, and when she went to college, she played forward, outside back and center back. When she played for Spirit's pro team, she came on as forward.

I get it. You love midfield and your kid probably plays it. But soccer requires 11 players on the field, and the smart move is to have little Mia play multiple positions. If you don't want to do that, fine. Just don't be surprised if later on, little Mia finds herself passed over in favor of players with a bigger resume.

Incidentally, Japan, whose women's program rivals our own in being among the top programs in the world, takes the versatile approach. They want any player to be able to move anywhere on the field.

No we are laughing at your posts because you think 'versatile players' and backs are the most in demand. That's just plain wrong. Why is Crystal Dunn not the highest paid female player? Because Alex Morgan has a more valuable skill than her. Why is Marta paid so much? Because like Morgan she has the rare skill that everyone wants - scoring goals. I love defense too. But look at the thread title - sorry but it is not the backs.

Oh I realize you are laughing. Donkeys are good at laughing too. You just don't know yet the joke is on you.

You use Dunn as an example of how easy it is to move a MF to wing back when it suits you, but dump her and say she's less important when you discover she isn't a midfielder.

She is also young, much younger than the players you mentioned, so it will take more time for her to reach that senior level of importance. Keep dumping on her though. Some lessons are best learned the hard way.

Gotcha. You are just the thread police. I thought you were here to discuss the topic 'Which positions are most in demand.' Now I see you are just completely lost on the board and have nothing to add.

Actually, he or she was completely on point and called out your gaps in logic while arguing the point. Tip, you gain more credibility when you admit mistakes instead of going on the attack when they are pointed out.