Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The stick skills and game are IQ are easily learned. I am a former D1 player and current HS coach, so please believe me when I say these two things are the most essential, and neither can really be learned. #1: Speed. #2: Size--for girls that means tall, for guys that means tall and large. I don't the boys side as well, but I promise you, for girls, if a player lacks with speed or size, they will not be a great player. They can play well enough, but will not be serious D1 bound. Yes, unfortunately, girls lacrosse basically comes down to genetics.

Tell me more! I have an entering 5th grader who has only ever played rec lacrosse (but he's on a very strong travel team in another sport). He is tall, strong and fast and can run through contact and is also strong on defense, but he's got no game! Can't really pass well or shoot, and often turns over the ball because he makes dumb choices (despite being a bright kid). We're wondering how to help him level up so he can tryout for a club team next spring/summer...

Funny you should say this (I'm a mom and one of the former D1 player and former coach posters above who insists that stick skills are easy to learn), because I was just noticing that a kid who played with my son when they were in 5th grade just graduated HS and is probably one of, if not the, top recruit in the country. He's very big, very strong, and very fast. In 5th grade, he couldn't catch, had no clue what was going on, and could not hit the side of a barn. I was shocked to see how far he came. But what got him where is, I promise you, is his size and speed. If your kid is big and fast, get him a coach to show him the basics, then throw against a wall for 30 minutes to an hour every day, using both hands. If he is a natural athlete, he will learn the stick skills very easily that way. When he goes for tryouts, if he is the biggest and fastest, if they're any good, they'll grab him.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Meeting the Tewaaraton finalists (girls) none were super tall. All looked strong but not insane physiques of track athletes for example - and nothing like swimming or basketball, where certain genetic traits like height make or a break and athlete.

I do think speed for girls is key.

As for skills vs talent, great players obviously have both.

Of the last three Tewaaraton winners on the men's side all are now professional athletes, one NBA D league, one NFL most likely practice squad, and one in the PLL. This is a very silly debate some are having. All are great athletes and all would not say the stick skills are not important or easily picked up. It takes all of the athleticism, stick skills, lax IQ, and hard work to be great. There are plenty of athletes that did not make it as they were not able to master the game just as there are players with great stick skills that who lack speed. The best have all of the above.

Agree with all of this, but adding that stick skills and IQ are easier to teach than athleticism, which is more based on generics plus playing a lot of sports from a young age.

Anonymous wrote:Meeting the Tewaaraton finalists (girls) none were super tall. All looked strong but not insane physiques of track athletes for example - and nothing like swimming or basketball, where certain genetic traits like height make or a break and athlete.

I do think speed for girls is key.

As for skills vs talent, great players obviously have both.

Of the last three Tewaaraton winners on the men's side all are now professional athletes, one NBA D league, one NFL most likely practice squad, and one in the PLL. This is a very silly debate some are having. All are great athletes and all would not say the stick skills are not important or easily picked up. It takes all of the athleticism, stick skills, lax IQ, and hard work to be great. There are plenty of athletes that did not make it as they were not able to master the game just as there are players with great stick skills that who lack speed. The best have all of the above.

Meeting the Tewaaraton finalists (girls) none were super tall. All looked strong but not insane physiques of track athletes for example - and nothing like swimming or basketball, where certain genetic traits like height make or a break and athlete.

I do think speed for girls is key.

As for skills vs talent, great players obviously have both.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The stick skills and game are IQ are easily learned. I am a former D1 player and current HS coach, so please believe me when I say these two things are the most essential, and neither can really be learned. #1: Speed. #2: Size--for girls that means tall, for guys that means tall and large. I don't the boys side as well, but I promise you, for girls, if a player lacks with speed or size, they will not be a great player. They can play well enough, but will not be serious D1 bound. Yes, unfortunately, girls lacrosse basically comes down to genetics.

This really should have been clarified between boys and girls. Can speak for the girls game but no former D1 men's player would post that and I doubt it is accurate for women's lacrosse. The girl from BC looks like she spent a lot of time on her wind up crank shot, that is what makes her the best not just size and speed but hours in the back yard.

Charlotte North is a freak of nature. Did not pick up a stick until 13. Holds all of her high school BASKETBALL scoring records. I'm sure she works hard, but it is the insane base athleticism that allows her to be great.

Anonymous wrote:I agree with the PP, lacrosse specific skills do require athleticism but I would not claim the are easily acquired. The best lacrosse players are those that work the hardest not just the most gifted.

Sorry, this is just not true. The best lacrosse players are highly gifted athletes that also work hard. Working hard is, unfortunately, not enough.

Anonymous wrote:The stick skills and game are IQ are easily learned. I am a former D1 player and current HS coach, so please believe me when I say these two things are the most essential, and neither can really be learned. #1: Speed. #2: Size--for girls that means tall, for guys that means tall and large. I don't the boys side as well, but I promise you, for girls, if a player lacks with speed or size, they will not be a great player. They can play well enough, but will not be serious D1 bound. Yes, unfortunately, girls lacrosse basically comes down to genetics.

This really should have been clarified between boys and girls. Can speak for the girls game but no former D1 men's player would post that and I doubt it is accurate for women's lacrosse. The girl from BC looks like she spent a lot of time on her wind up crank shot, that is what makes her the best not just size and speed but hours in the back yard.

Anonymous wrote:The stick skills and game are IQ are easily learned. I am a former D1 player and current HS coach, so please believe me when I say these two things are the most essential, and neither can really be learned. #1: Speed. #2: Size--for girls that means tall, for guys that means tall and large. I don't the boys side as well, but I promise you, for girls, if a player lacks with speed or size, they will not be a great player. They can play well enough, but will not be serious D1 bound. Yes, unfortunately, girls lacrosse basically comes down to genetics.

Tell me more! I have an entering 5th grader who has only ever played rec lacrosse (but he's on a very strong travel team in another sport). He is tall, strong and fast and can run through contact and is also strong on defense, but he's got no game! Can't really pass well or shoot, and often turns over the ball because he makes dumb choices (despite being a bright kid). We're wondering how to help him level up so he can tryout for a club team next spring/summer...

I agree with the PP, lacrosse specific skills do require athleticism but I would not claim the are easily acquired. The best lacrosse players are those that work the hardest not just the most gifted.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yeah in terms of becoming an elite player, say from 8th grade on, for boys size and speed swamp everything else. Average athletes with good stick skills do well in the elementary years. But for high school and beyond it is really about athleticism. Stick skills are easily learned.

Clearly this is a dad post from a non player. Stick skills take hours and years, great athletes without stick skills cannot play this game. All the kids at the elite level have speed, size really depends on position, lots of great players who were not huge. Stick skills and lacrosse IQ are key. Some kids are just ballers.

Another lifelong, D1 lacrosse player here. Lacrosse stick skills are super easy to learn, seriously. Those saying they aren't are the ones who obviously never played. Athleticism, specifically speed and size, are the key. Without those, don't bother.

Not buying it. No lifelong D1 lacrosse player would ever post that. The rest of us just know.

I don’t know why this is controversial. Top D1 is a bunch of elite athletes. Elite athletes have . . . elite athleticism that allows them to pick skills, including stick skills, very easily. Without athleticism it’s not going to happen.

I don't disagree with you on elite athleticism. But, stickwork is essential. Nothing matters until you get that. I would say it is relatively easy to get a basic level of stickwork on your dominate hand, to truly be special with a stick, does take time and effort. It isn't just your dominate hand but being able to go to your non-dominate hand and be at the same level that makes someone truly special. That does take work.

I also firmly believe that some players just get it athletically and sports IQ wise. They have the correct set of genes and the correct synapses that things just fall into place just by picking up a stick. Think of Paul Rabil. He fully admits never picking up a lacrosse stick until he was 12 or 13 and when he it just clicked for him. Don't get me wrong, he worked his tail off to get to his level (and was blessed with great genes) but he still just got it when he started. Same thing can be said for many of the top players. There are kids that through working out and training that can get better and ultimately, their top end will be just getting on the field. But, there are some kids that will have to do nothing and will be able to play at a competitive level (this is youth and even to some extent HS) without much effort. They will just be. They will have a different gear that no one else on the field has. If you go to a youth tournament there will be one or two of these kids in an entire age group. But, this is true in almost everything everyone does in life.

Size certainly helps but size doesn't work without speed. Speed is the first thing that most coaches look at figuring stickwork can come. Sports IQ is generally a missing element that many coaches think can be coached. But, those truly special kids (the ones I describe above) generally already have it.

I think of it this way https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ibxuzkFdcec

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yeah in terms of becoming an elite player, say from 8th grade on, for boys size and speed swamp everything else. Average athletes with good stick skills do well in the elementary years. But for high school and beyond it is really about athleticism. Stick skills are easily learned.

Clearly this is a dad post from a non player. Stick skills take hours and years, great athletes without stick skills cannot play this game. All the kids at the elite level have speed, size really depends on position, lots of great players who were not huge. Stick skills and lacrosse IQ are key. Some kids are just ballers.

Another lifelong, D1 lacrosse player here. Lacrosse stick skills are super easy to learn, seriously. Those saying they aren't are the ones who obviously never played. Athleticism, specifically speed and size, are the key. Without those, don't bother.

Not buying it. No lifelong D1 lacrosse player would ever post that. The rest of us just know.

I don’t know why this is controversial. Top D1 is a bunch of elite athletes. Elite athletes have . . . elite athleticism that allows them to pick skills, including stick skills, very easily. Without athleticism it’s not going to happen.

DP. There are a lot of shrimpy guys, presumably they make up for size being fast or quick. But there are few shrimpy girls. If not talk then strong. Frequently both.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yeah in terms of becoming an elite player, say from 8th grade on, for boys size and speed swamp everything else. Average athletes with good stick skills do well in the elementary years. But for high school and beyond it is really about athleticism. Stick skills are easily learned.

Clearly this is a dad post from a non player. Stick skills take hours and years, great athletes without stick skills cannot play this game. All the kids at the elite level have speed, size really depends on position, lots of great players who were not huge. Stick skills and lacrosse IQ are key. Some kids are just ballers.

Another lifelong, D1 lacrosse player here. Lacrosse stick skills are super easy to learn, seriously. Those saying they aren't are the ones who obviously never played. Athleticism, specifically speed and size, are the key. Without those, don't bother.

Not buying it. No lifelong D1 lacrosse player would ever post that. The rest of us just know.

I don’t know why this is controversial. Top D1 is a bunch of elite athletes. Elite athletes have . . . elite athleticism that allows them to pick skills, including stick skills, very easily. Without athleticism it’s not going to happen.