Not sure wth your kids play, but the strikers on all of my kids' teams (first teams of high level clubs) were always some of the best 1V1 and hungry for the goal. They were definitely on the high end of technical compared to the backs they used for clearing the ball and physically stopping the opposing forwards.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Many slow, fat and weak kids play striker as you can hide weakness there

More fast kids with low soccer iq and no technical skills get placed at striker(and defender). Strikers make a lot of mistakes and most parents are oblivious. Slow kids do not play striker on competitive teams.

On high level teams, a striker is not slow.

At younger ages U9-U12 The striker is usually the weakest player on the field. Less defensive skills and the first line of defense. Center Mid and Goalie are the 2 strongest players on most of the better teams. Both are the most difficult to learn and arguably the most valuable and hardest to replace with a quality player.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Is this recreational soccer or young kids soccer?

I'm a PP, DD's team is U14 EDP. Striker is the one position where a blown assignment will never results in the other team having a clean shot on goal. Meanwhile, midfielders and the starting striker can all score

Skilled midfielders can make a bad striker look good, a good striker great. Bad midfield will make great strike average to below.

+100

My kid mentions that his new team does not place the balls/passes to run onto. They play direct to feet which is too late for the movement of the game. The player has already passed the spot where they are aiming the ball.

He also thinks quicker than players around him and they are not in the spot they should be, making the proper runs.

The more you know about the game, the things the average joe thinks is 'good' or 'bad' is very uninformed. A good coach and a smart player sees through that, and then things your average soccer parent with very little high level experience even notices. AND, you can tell this by the type of sh*t they say during a game.

F*ck you, OP . My kid is on a new team this year and been put on striker for the very first time. For 4 years kid was a center back and holding mid, a bit at attacking mid. Never came out of the game, phenomenal at those positions.

Just started at striker on a new team and at U14 it is a big adjustment. Has a tendency to hold back, not press high based on his previous years experience. He is also (currently tiny and skinny--though most likely on a trajectory to be 6feet+ like older brother and cousins).

He has incredibly good touch and field vision, while we notice some of the 'good players' are big with pretty poor touch and passing accuracy.

It's all relative and if the kid was on a team that never rotated positions and in it for the first time there will be an adjustment period. It's only the first week in September for chrissakes.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Is this recreational soccer or young kids soccer?

I'm a PP, DD's team is U14 EDP. Striker is the one position where a blown assignment will never results in the other team having a clean shot on goal. Meanwhile, midfielders and the starting striker can all score

Skilled midfielders can make a bad striker look good, a good striker great. Bad midfield will make great strike average to below.

Anonymous wrote:Many slow, fat and weak kids play striker as you can hide weakness there

More fast kids with low soccer iq and no technical skills get placed at striker(and defender). Strikers make a lot of mistakes and most parents are oblivious. Slow kids do not play striker on competitive teams.

My DS was one of those weaker players on a good team when playing 7v7. He was a starter, but clearly the #7 of 7 starters. I was a bit shocked at him being a striker as it doesn't line up with his skill set (he has good endurance but is small, slow and not that technically talented). I think the reason the coach put him at striker vs outside midfielder or defender was partly the 'being a hole in the defense' discussion but also that the striker wasn't that critical for his team to score. On his team, the best players wouldn't pass that much and would dribble end to end and score. His role was basically to drag a defender out of the way of the better kids, which he did. Even when my DS was not in the game and they had a better player in position, the striker didn't score that many goals since we weren't exactly passing the ball around. One advantage of putting a weak player at striker is that they don't need skill or speed to just run after the ball, whether on goal kicks or when the other team is passing it around the back. My DS wouldn't intercept the passes, but he would cause mistakes that the rest of his team could take advantage of.

After shifting to 9v9 (and onto a weaker team) my DS shifted to outside mid/defender. Since he has good endurance, he can be helpful as a midfielder in transitions, and as a defender where, even if he gets beaten at the middle of the field, the opposing team's striker still has to dribble 20 yards to get a shot off which often gives him time to recover and make a play. This isn't a high-level team, but the reasons he was a striker on a 7v7 field don't make sense for him to be a striker on his 9v9 team. Good news is his lack of speed and 1v1 skills aren't as noticeable since those aren't as critical in 9v9. Being able to make a good pass or making good movement off the ball make a huge difference in 9v9 in a way that it didn't for 7v7.

Is this recreational soccer or young kids soccer?

U13 and U15. U13 son is on a mid-level travel team, U15 son is a lower level team (he doesn't do the things that my younger son does to stay in shape, like go jogging and lift weights).

Anonymous wrote:Is this recreational soccer or young kids soccer?

I'm a PP, DD's team is U14 EDP. Striker is the one position where a blown assignment will never results in the other team having a clean shot on goal. Meanwhile, midfielders and the starting striker can all score

DC played goalie and when in the field was employed as a striker for club for the same reasons mentioned on this thread. He was good athlete but not up to the level of playing defense or midfield. No shame in that.

Even though he not good 1v1, he actually was a big benefit up front because he found spaces in holdup play and could distribute and also knew to time his runs well in the box when others had the ball. Some great strikers even in major leagues are not super athletic. They just have the knack of scoring.

Is this recreational soccer or young kids soccer?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Same on my kid's team. There is one player on the team who is fairly tall/fast for his age, however, he is the weakest technical player on the team: he has weak ball control ability and very little skill at shooting, too.

Yet, when he plays, he plays as striker! This makes it very difficult for the toothless offense to score when he's in the game.

Roughly speaking, if you were to classify players as either "creative" players who can control the ball and create attacking plays, versus "destructive" players who have a knack for breaking up the opponents' possession and attacks, this kid is CLEARLY a more destructive player. He can effectively use his speed and size to harass the other side and steal the ball. However, he lacks the ability to do anything with the ball once he gets it.

I try to stay out of the coach's business, and so I haven't said anything about it, but it's very puzzling to me why he plays this kid at striker.

Where would you put him? If your coach is worried about winning he/she is not going to trust him on D. The ball will never get out of midfield with this kid because he isn't skilled enough to move it up. I think this is why these kids end up as striker.

I disagree. With this kid (and any other player who fits the description) he's big and fast and decent enough at defending. Once he gets the ball, even a long kick forward or in the general direction of where his forward teammates are would be enough to get the job done on defense. (We are talking about U10 here.)

You can't win games by playing a "striker" who cannot score (or struggles to even have the confidence to shoot the ball, and rarely makes an on-target shot) -- not when you have only 7 players on the field, one of whom is a goalkeeper. Time and time again, other players get the ball forward to him, where he bobbles it, loses almost every 1 v 1, or just kicks it away out of bounds; really nice inbound crosses from the wings are wasted on him in the box. You can't win games if your offense is toothless.

"Other players can score, too." Sure, other players can try to pick up his slack on offense. Same goes for defense -- other players could pick up a weaker player's slack on defense, too. However, my main point is that for this kid (and others of his type) his weaknesses on defense are far less apparent -- he can defense decently enough, and his speed/size and toughness can be better put to use on defense.

I mean, there's a reason why in professional soccer the most technically talented players are not defenders.

Not many professional teams have to "hide" weak players..... Of course you hide the weak players up top. It's where they can hurt you the least.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Same on my kid's team. There is one player on the team who is fairly tall/fast for his age, however, he is the weakest technical player on the team: he has weak ball control ability and very little skill at shooting, too.

Yet, when he plays, he plays as striker! This makes it very difficult for the toothless offense to score when he's in the game.

Roughly speaking, if you were to classify players as either "creative" players who can control the ball and create attacking plays, versus "destructive" players who have a knack for breaking up the opponents' possession and attacks, this kid is CLEARLY a more destructive player. He can effectively use his speed and size to harass the other side and steal the ball. However, he lacks the ability to do anything with the ball once he gets it.

I try to stay out of the coach's business, and so I haven't said anything about it, but it's very puzzling to me why he plays this kid at striker.

Where would you put him? If your coach is worried about winning he/she is not going to trust him on D. The ball will never get out of midfield with this kid because he isn't skilled enough to move it up. I think this is why these kids end up as striker.

I disagree. With this kid (and any other player who fits the description) he's big and fast and decent enough at defending. Once he gets the ball, even a long kick forward or in the general direction of where his forward teammates are would be enough to get the job done on defense. (We are talking about U10 here.)

You can't win games by playing a "striker" who cannot score (or struggles to even have the confidence to shoot the ball, and rarely makes an on-target shot) -- not when you have only 7 players on the field, one of whom is a goalkeeper. Time and time again, other players get the ball forward to him, where he bobbles it, loses almost every 1 v 1, or just kicks it away out of bounds; really nice inbound crosses from the wings are wasted on him in the box. You can't win games if your offense is toothless.

"Other players can score, too." Sure, other players can try to pick up his slack on offense. Same goes for defense -- other players could pick up a weaker player's slack on defense, too. However, my main point is that for this kid (and others of his type) his weaknesses on defense are far less apparent -- he can defense decently enough, and his speed/size and toughness can be better put to use on defense.

I mean, there's a reason why in professional soccer the most technically talented players are not defenders.

Many slow, fat and weak kids play striker as you can hide weakness there