Anonymous wrote:New coach - same pattern. The shorter kids are sitting on the bench regardless of their talent. Coach is giving the bulk of the minutes based sheerly on size. How long will this continue in America? The same coach has repeatedly seen his teams destroyed by smaller players but has apparently bought into the American philosophy that bigger is better. Everyone thinks their own kid deserves more playing time. But, there's a couple of other kids who actually deserve it more than mine who are not getting on the field while larger (out of shape) players with zero shot at playing college soccer eat up the minutes. Is this the NFL mentality of America or what?

Shorter kids definitely can play and start. They have to be good however. My son is probably the 2 or 3 shortest kid on his u15 team end he is a regular stater day in and day out. He is however, when of the quickest on the team and is fairly strong. If a child is the shortest, skinny, slow, and can’t play well — when then shit…

Anonymous wrote:Not nonsense at all. My DD is the small and super technical player who is really not a great athlete. She has not learned to use her body in that way… but is amazing when she is 1:1 with the ball. Her lack of athleticism shows up in games where she cannot win the ball, cannot keep the ball, or cannot get big balls out of the air. It doesn’t matter that she can do a million juggles, every move in the books, or rainbow after rainbow at age 10. She is less effective in games because of what she lacks in her body. Just stating facts.

What's that got to do with the price of beans? Here's the original nonsense statement taken line by line:

"Remember You can teach an elite athlete to have great technical skills but its almost impossible to teach a great technical player to be an elite athlete."
False. It is no easier to teach a tall, strong, fast kid to have great technical skills than it is to teach a kid with incredible balance and eye-ball-foot coordination to run faster. Nor is it easy to get a kid who can't be bothered to practise his skills to put in the thousands of hours work necessary to gain those skills either.

"The top level players at the college a pro levels are both elite athletes with elite skills."
No they aren't. This is plain not true. The top players all have elite skills, and most are above-average athletes but they are not all elite athletes. This is because all those factors are important for success, but the technical skills are more important.

"So just to play the percentages for successful development. Youth academy coaches should and usually do select the better athlete."
This isn't true either. They should select the kid with best all around combination of skills and weight technical skills more heavily than athleticism since the technical skills are more important.

"Leaving the smaller least athletic player to work harder to extend their playing career."
Sure, all other things being equal, it is better to be more athletic too. But all other things are not equal. Technical skills are not something which can just be acquired by any kid who can run fast. So while the less atheltic player may have to work hard to extend their career, the unskilled player's career is already finished.

So back to your daughter.

1. Her 1v1 ability is important and a good thing. Juggling and rainbows are not. Practising freestyle skills definitely helps improve technical skills so I would hope that her ability to perform those skills is reflected in her first touch and control - which should lead to her being able to keep the ball. Keeping the ball is largely a product of technical ability and if she really can't says more about her technical ability than her athleticism.

2. Winning the ball in the air is a skill which depends on athleticism - so that's a reaosnable area where you could argue her athleticism is holding her back. It's a tertiary skill though and just not all that important in the grand scheme of things.

3. Winning the ball in general is more about anticipation and aggression than it is about athleticism. The best ball winners are usually not the fastest kids or the strongest kids - they are just the kids that refuse to quit.

Anonymous wrote:Not nonsense at all. My DD is the small and super technical player who is really not a great athlete. She has not learned to use her body in that way… but is amazing when she is 1:1 with the ball. Her lack of athleticism shows up in games where she cannot win the ball, cannot keep the ball, or cannot get big balls out of the air. It doesn’t matter that she can do a million juggles, every move in the books, or rainbow after rainbow at age 10. She is less effective in games because of what she lacks in her body. Just stating facts.

OK but that's not the same as saying that tall kids are getting playing time and short kids are sitting. From what you described, your DD is not getting playing time not because she's short, but because she "cannot win the ball, cannot keep the ball" etc. Many short kids have these skills and are often the best players on the team.

Not nonsense at all. My DD is the small and super technical player who is really not a great athlete. She has not learned to use her body in that way… but is amazing when she is 1:1 with the ball. Her lack of athleticism shows up in games where she cannot win the ball, cannot keep the ball, or cannot get big balls out of the air. It doesn’t matter that she can do a million juggles, every move in the books, or rainbow after rainbow at age 10. She is less effective in games because of what she lacks in her body. Just stating facts.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Remember You can teach an elite athlete to have great technical skills but its almost impossible to teach a great technical player to be an elite athlete. The top level players at the college a pro levels are both elite athletes with elite skills. So just to play the percentages for successful development. Youth academy coaches should and usually do select the better athlete. Leaving the smaller least athletic player to work harder to extend their playing career. Everyone pulls for the under dog. Unfortunately almost every youth player is the under dog. Its natural for everyone to want to think their child is better than some others for many different reasons. The truth is even if they are better chances are it is all minutia. If your not an elite athlete with elite skills as your secondary trait your simply another average fish in the school.

Total nonsense.

No total truth even the diminutive Leonel Messi is a much better athlete first. Athletes can learn the foot skills much faster than a hardworking average kid.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP here. To be fair, the observances are not independent to this team or club. If someone knows of an ECNL coach / club who isn't afraid to play smaller kids and focuses more on ball skills vs. physical dominance - references welcome.

Arlington focuses heavily on technical ability. Alexandria too.

Bethesda also. They have lots of small players on their top teams that win games consistently. This is for 9-13 year olds.

Anonymous wrote:Remember You can teach an elite athlete to have great technical skills but its almost impossible to teach a great technical player to be an elite athlete. The top level players at the college a pro levels are both elite athletes with elite skills. So just to play the percentages for successful development. Youth academy coaches should and usually do select the better athlete. Leaving the smaller least athletic player to work harder to extend their playing career. Everyone pulls for the under dog. Unfortunately almost every youth player is the under dog. Its natural for everyone to want to think their child is better than some others for many different reasons. The truth is even if they are better chances are it is all minutia. If your not an elite athlete with elite skills as your secondary trait your simply another average fish in the school.

Total nonsense.

Anonymous wrote:OP here. To be fair, the observances are not independent to this team or club. If someone knows of an ECNL coach / club who isn't afraid to play smaller kids and focuses more on ball skills vs. physical dominance - references welcome.

Arlington focuses heavily on technical ability. Alexandria too.

Anonymous wrote:I see tons of tiny kids playing at all sorts of clubs. I think you are just a troll.

Bingo!

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:New coach - same pattern. The shorter kids are sitting on the bench regardless of their talent. Coach is giving the bulk of the minutes based sheerly on size. How long will this continue in America? The same coach has repeatedly seen his teams destroyed by smaller players but has apparently bought into the American philosophy that bigger is better. Everyone thinks their own kid deserves more playing time. But, there's a couple of other kids who actually deserve it more than mine who are not getting on the field while larger (out of shape) players with zero shot at playing college soccer eat up the minutes. Is this the NFL mentality of America or what?

Name the club or this post is pointless. Because I definitely have not seen this in my years-long experience watching my kids play soccer.

No, don't name the club. Kids deserve to not have strangers talking about them online.

OK over protective idiot. You do know that kids rosters are posted as well as in AAU basketball the players are nationally ranked at 10u. Nobody wants to human traffic your kid or hold them for ransom. Your the same parent who you love for everyone to know your 17 yr old KID made the us national team u18 squad.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:New coach - same pattern. The shorter kids are sitting on the bench regardless of their talent. Coach is giving the bulk of the minutes based sheerly on size. How long will this continue in America? The same coach has repeatedly seen his teams destroyed by smaller players but has apparently bought into the American philosophy that bigger is better. Everyone thinks their own kid deserves more playing time. But, there's a couple of other kids who actually deserve it more than mine who are not getting on the field while larger (out of shape) players with zero shot at playing college soccer eat up the minutes. Is this the NFL mentality of America or what?

Name the club or this post is pointless. Because I definitely have not seen this in my years-long experience watching my kids play soccer.

No, don't name the club. Kids deserve to not have strangers talking about them online.

Anonymous wrote:New coach - same pattern. The shorter kids are sitting on the bench regardless of their talent. Coach is giving the bulk of the minutes based sheerly on size. How long will this continue in America? The same coach has repeatedly seen his teams destroyed by smaller players but has apparently bought into the American philosophy that bigger is better. Everyone thinks their own kid deserves more playing time. But, there's a couple of other kids who actually deserve it more than mine who are not getting on the field while larger (out of shape) players with zero shot at playing college soccer eat up the minutes. Is this the NFL mentality of America or what?

Name the club or this post is pointless. Because I definitely have not seen this in my years-long experience watching my kids play soccer.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It is a conundrum. My DD is small with great foot skills, and is fast. BUT… she is outmatched easily when it is someone a head taller and 30 pounds heavier. It is very hard for her to shoulder off someone that size, or win a 50 50 ball. I am lucky that she plays a lot, we switched teams to get her the minutes, but I can see why some coaches lean toward big, strong, and fast. If they have decent skill, the BS and F players will win the day.

If you're trying to develop players, always focus on the kids with the best technical skills, passing, and game awareness. These are the kids who will rise above the cream (regardless of size) and play soccer for a long time. A big, barreling kid with little footwork is a short-term project that may help get some wins but won't develop the best talent.

Its not about size its about athletic ability. you can have small athletes but its about athletic ability. Athletes pick up skills faster and have more tools to use them than just a kid who have technical skills.

The problem is when small athletes with skills are replaced by big, non-athletic kids with no skills or speed. This is what is particularly egregious about youth soccer in America.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It is a conundrum. My DD is small with great foot skills, and is fast. BUT… she is outmatched easily when it is someone a head taller and 30 pounds heavier. It is very hard for her to shoulder off someone that size, or win a 50 50 ball. I am lucky that she plays a lot, we switched teams to get her the minutes, but I can see why some coaches lean toward big, strong, and fast. If they have decent skill, the BS and F players will win the day.

If you're trying to develop players, always focus on the kids with the best technical skills, passing, and game awareness. These are the kids who will rise above the cream (regardless of size) and play soccer for a long time. A big, barreling kid with little footwork is a short-term project that may help get some wins but won't develop the best talent.

Its not about size its about athletic ability. you can have small athletes but its about athletic ability. Athletes pick up skills faster and have more tools to use them than just a kid who have technical skills.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It is a conundrum. My DD is small with great foot skills, and is fast. BUT… she is outmatched easily when it is someone a head taller and 30 pounds heavier. It is very hard for her to shoulder off someone that size, or win a 50 50 ball. I am lucky that she plays a lot, we switched teams to get her the minutes, but I can see why some coaches lean toward big, strong, and fast. If they have decent skill, the BS and F players will win the day.

If you're trying to develop players, always focus on the kids with the best technical skills, passing, and game awareness. These are the kids who will rise above the cream (regardless of size) and play soccer for a long time. A big, barreling kid with little footwork is a short-term project that may help get some wins but won't develop the best talent.

No the way it goes is the big barreling kid or the fast kid with no ball skill will start, get lots of coaching attention and make the top team. This will build confidence of those kids and kill the confidence of the technically skilled kids. The technical kids need other technical kids to play. There are not many of them because the coach is selecting for aggressive fast and physical kids. This dictates style of play which does not favor the more skilled players. Been there done that.