Anonymous wrote:I can't read this entire thread.

Just wanted to chime in that i played in the ACC and i check out games and highlights whenever i can.

Miami is a team full of giants - like 5'11" or taller in the back. And they're HORRIBLE. I watched a few highlights of other teams just murdering them in the back. I don't know what is wrong with their coach, but it looked to me like she recruited players for the physical attributes and ended up with a bunch of just truly bad players.

UNC, Duke FSU and UVA all have players who start in the midfield back who are 5'5" and under. In fact some of the best players on each of those teams are "short".

Those teams are by a vast majority taller than average.

Anonymous wrote:Reach, Leverage, Mass and Strength. That's what is comes down to. Size is an advantage in most sports including soccer. Soccer is not only played on the ground. But even on the ground size matters.

1. The taller player is on average heavier and stronger and will thus generally win the 1v1 physical battle on the ball. In all contact ball sports. The shorter player has to rely on speed to win. Until they meet a fast tall player and then they are again disadvantaged due to reach, leverage, mass and strength.

2. The taller player has greater reach with legs and can make tackles or strikes/volleys that a shorter player cannot. Another advantage for tall defenders and forwards.

And in the aerial game...

3. The taller player has greater vertical reach and will win the aerial battle for the ball on headers in both boxes. This is why CBs and Strikers are tall.

4. Due to the reach issue - in certain positions there is a clear height cutoff. Goalies at 5'9 for example.

For the relatively smaller player (average or shorter than average) to make it they need to have "Best in the World" abilities on the ball or foot skills aka Dunn, Lavelle or Messi. These athletes are an absolute joy to watch.

The leverage is a big deal. Stand a tall and shorter person next to each other fighting for the ball. The taller person needs less force to push the shorter person off the ball.

Same as how using a longer lever requires less force than a short lever.

I can't read this entire thread.

Just wanted to chime in that i played in the ACC and i check out games and highlights whenever i can.

Miami is a team full of giants - like 5'11" or taller in the back. And they're HORRIBLE. I watched a few highlights of other teams just murdering them in the back. I don't know what is wrong with their coach, but it looked to me like she recruited players for the physical attributes and ended up with a bunch of just truly bad players.

UNC, Duke FSU and UVA all have players who start in the midfield back who are 5'5" and under. In fact some of the best players on each of those teams are "short".

USMNT is tall and they suck

^^move off the Brazilian roster and get back to me for men.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Parents of tall players will point out height advantages. Parents of short players will point out exceptions (Lavelle, etc.)

It all boils down to what college coaches and recruiters value more based upon their teams’ makeup, style of play and needs. So unless anyone of the posters in this thread is a college coach or recruiter, it really doesn’t matter what we think or say. (I am just a parent and not a college coach/recruiter.)

Or you can look at a college rosters and see the size of the players. The short players(5’-4” or shorter) are about 15-20% of the team(80% of shorter players are 5’-3” to 5’-4”). 60-75% of the team is 5’-6 or taller. Why is this even a debate. They start selecting for this at u9.

So the vast majority are within and inch or two of the national average. Not a big advantage.This was said fifty pages back. It was also said that most heights are fabricated by at least an inch....or at a minimum, rounded up. This is fact. The difference between a 6'6 and 6'4 is what? Should we stop looking at 6'4 kids and go for 6'8 kids because they have an advantage over the 6'6 kid? How about we go 7'0 next. Its madness. Either the kid can compete at that level or they can't. Thats what should be evaluated. Its all about winning space.

I read an article once talking about how Messi would have never made it in America. Let that sink in.

Go watch women’s college soccer. 3/4 of the women on the field are tall. If the player is listed 5’4” or 5’5” they are noticeable smaller vs other players on the field. The smaller players are at a disadvantage vs the bigger player. It seems you have made a choice to ignore the facts and focus on the except. My DD is average height in college 5’6”. So I see reality on the field.

Just stop with Messi. Messi would have been a super star in America. He is explosive- extremely fast and quick. Speed and size are selection criteria in the US. Soccer iq, technical ability and vision are things that the US system does emphasize in the younger ages.

On the men’s side there are vastly more high demand players(and highly compensated) who are over 5’11” vs players under 5’8”. There is an advantage to being tall in soccer. It is shown in the player selection and their production on the field. You can say they round up or lie about size and therefore all the players are really short but they are not short. There is a height distribution that is pretty consistent across all levels.

+1000

I would dare to say that soccer/football is the only contact sport in which being tall doesn’t give you an advantage of any type (except for some positions). In fact, most of the best soccer players in history were short players in stature.

What are the best positions for short players? I would consider a 5,4 feet (1,65 meters) to 1,78 feet (5,9) person, to be short. According to these parameters, I would suggest that someone between those two heights would have no problem performing at any position in the soccer field EXCEPT as a goalkeeper, central defender, and, in some cases, as a central forward.This can vary a lot. It is not an absolute reality that short players can only play this positions. There are many variables to this topic.

The most important thing you need to know, is that height should not be an obstacle to play soccer. In fact, it can become an extra motivation, and I would be pretty sure to say that soccer is one of the best sports for short players to play at.

Advantages of being short

I think that the most memorable players I’ve played with, are relatively short. Being of short stature actually gives you different characteristics that tall players are hard to have.

One of them is the agility. Usually short players are a lot more agile than tall players. Why is this? It happens because, the shorter you are, the closer your center of gravity will be to the ground. This gives you a considerable advantage when making quick cuts, changes of speed and direction.

Usually short players are the best dribblers and the hardest to stop for defenders. They can easily squeeze in between tight spaces and leave defenders behind. When you get to read the 23 player examples you’ll see what I am trying to say.

Recommended positions

As I said before, short players will perform great in any position in the field EXCEPT as goalkeepers, central defenders, and, in some cases, as central forwards. I’m not saying it is impossible for a short person to play at these positions, but it is preferable to avoid them.

Goalkeepers tend to be very tall players. You can read my article Average Goalkeeper Height and Weight where I made a study analyzing the average height of 45 top class goalkeepers and got as a result that the average goalkeeper height was 6.2 feet (1.89 meters).

This is because goalkeepers need to cover as much space as possible of the goal. Tall players can do this duty better than short ones. If you are too short at these position, you may have trouble competing against tall players.

Next are Central Defenders. It is ideal for players in this position to be tall for many reasons. The first one is to defend the air game. Central defenders play inside the box and need to defend crosses from tall forwards. In corners, the central defenders from the opponents (which are also tall) will come up to your inside box and try to score via air game.

If you are too short in this position, possibly it will be hard for your team to defend the air game. Not saying it is impossible, but harder. Also, it is probable that your team has poor air game because, most of the times, the ones that go up the field to header the ball are central defenders. For example: Sergio Ramos which is 1.84 meters tall (about 6.1 feet).

If you’re not sure if you would be a good defender, go see my article about The 35 tips to be a better defender to see what defending is all about and what you’ll need to succeed.

Finally, central forwards. Actually this is the one I was not completely sure of mentioning because there are a lot of great forwards with short height. The factor that will determine if you will play well or bad at these position is your team playing tactic.

If the team you are playing at likes to do a lot of crosses to the box, and most of their game is by air, then they will need a tall central forward like Zlatan Ibrahimovic to win by air.

However, if the team plays with lots of passes, through balls, and quick feet, then it is totally fine to play at this position for short players.

If you’re not sure about this position, I also wrote an article explaining what it takes to be a great forward. It will help you figure out if you fit in this position.

23 Player Examples
Let’s start with these three beasts:

Pele: 5.6 feet (1.73 meters)
Diego Armando Maradona: 5.4 feet (1.65 meters)
Lionel Messi: 5.6 feet (1.70 meters)

Pele, won three world cups. Maradona won a world cup “by himself”, carrying Argentina in 1986. Lionel Messi, 5 time Balon’d’Or winner (best player in the world award).

We are talking here about three players that can easily be considered the three best players in football/soccer history. In fact, what made them be so notable is their short height, which gave them the ability to make quick cuts and changes of direction, being super fast players in reduced space. Maybe in a straight line run, a tall player could be faster, but in tight spaces, that require changes of speed and direction, it is very hard to find someone better.

Full Back Defenders
Dani Alves: 5.7 feet (1.72 meters)
Jordi Alba: 5.6 feet (1.70 meters)
Dani Carvajal: 5.7 feet (1.73 meters)
Marcelo: 5.7 feet (1.74 meters)
Roberto Carlos: 5.5 feet (1.68 meters)

Alves, Alba, Carvajal, and Marcelo can easily be considered the best full backs in world football/soccer right now. Roberto Carlos is said to be, by many, the best full back in the history of the sport. For me, Marcelo can enter that list with Roberto Carlos too.

What is great, for short players, playing as full backs, is that they don’t need to be the one heading the ball, but the ones making the crosses to the box. In corner kicks, they usually stay outside the box waiting for a rebound, meaning that height doesn’t play an important role in their game.

Central Midfielders
Andres Iniesta: 5.6 feet (1.71 meters)
Xavi Hernandez: 5.5 feet (1.68 meters)
Luka Modric: 5.6 feet (1.72 meters)
Ngolo Kante: 5.5 feet (1.68 meters)

I think the names talk by themselves. Iniesta made the winning goal for Spain to win the 2010 world cup. Xavi Hernandez is one of the best to ever play the position, and Luka Modric is currently one the best Central Midfielders in the world.

Creative Midfielders
Isco: 5.8 feet (1.76 meters)
Paulo Dybala 5.8 feet (1.77 meters)
Phillipe Coutinho: 5.6 feet (1.71 meters)

This are 3 of the best creative midfielders. I actually thought Isco was smaller. What characterizes them is their quick feet, changes of direction, and creativity.

If you are a short player, this could be a great position for you because most creative midfielders dedicate to move the ball around the field, putting great “through balls”, and making the best shots you’ll ever see. They have very little participation in the air game.

Wingers
Neymar: 5.7 feet (1.75 meters) Best player in world after CR7 and Messi
Douglas Costa: 5.6 feet (1.72 meters)
Raheem Sterling: 5.6 feet (1.70 meters)
Eden Hazard: 5.7 feet (1.73 meters) Won the Premiere League Player of the year in 2015
Franck Ribery: 5.6 feet (1.70 meters) Best player in Europe 2012/2013

Starting with Neymar. The Brazilian is always among the final top three players in the Ballon d Or award. There are only two players in the world that might be better than him: Cristiano Ronaldo and Messi. When they retire, possibly Neymar will be the best player in the world.

Something characteristic of all, is that they are SUPER fast. It’s just terrifying to see the fast and easy the leave defenders behind. Again, winger is a position that mostly makes crosses or penetrates the box by himself, height doesn’t play an important role if you don’t participate too much in the air game.

Forwards
Antoine Griezmann: 5.7 feet (1.75 meters)
Gabriel Jesus: 5.7 feet (1.75 meters)
Sergio “Kun” Aguero: 5.6 feet (1.73 meters)

I said central forward is not a position I recommend if you are short, but I brought this players (there are many more) to give you the example that it is possible to be a forward if you are short.

Griezmann was named the third best player in the world in 2016 and Segio Kun Aguero is a long time considered one of the best forwards in the world.

If you wan to be a forward, just be careful that your team’s strength is not the air game. Otherwise, you’ll probably have to migrate to another position, like a winger.

Conclusion

There is a ton of the best soccer players in history that are short. In fact, the best soccer players ever are most from short stature. Some people insist that being short may give you an advantage in this sport, while others say the opposite.

If you are a short guy, soccer may be one of the most favorable sports for you to play at. Being short, doesn’t give a disadvantage relating to other players like in Basketball or American Football.

However, there are some positions in soccer that require you to be tall like goalkeepers, central defenders, and, in some cases, central forwards. Just make sure to avoid this positions and you’ll be just fine, you can see what positions are in my article: How to choose the perfect soccer position for you.

By JY Lee

JULY 9, 2016
In my teens, I thought I was too short to be a soccer star. Real Madrid, my favorite team, was brimming with 6-foot-tall Galácticos David Beckham and Zinedine Zidane. By 2011, however, I had shifted allegiance to their nemesis Barcelona — not because Madrid picked up cocky Cristiano Ronaldo, but because all five of Barça’s attackers — Lionel Messi, Alexis Sánchez and Spaniards Pedro Rodriguez, Xavi Hernández and Andrés Iniesta — were my height: a cool 5-foot-7. And it turns out that was part of a greater trend.

The average height among elite players fell by two inches from 2005 to 2015.

This is according to in-house OZY analysis that looked at the 11 players selected each year for FIFA FIFPro World XI for that decade. Every year since 2005, over 20,000 professional soccer players around the world elect crème-de-la-crème footballers to World XI. The weighted average height of these soccer maestros fell by about two inches, from 6′0″ in 2005 to 5′10″ in 2015. The most dramatic diminution has been among the midfielders, as the average height of the three playmakers plummeted from 6′1″ in 2007 to 5′7″ in 2010 and 2013.

Trophies reflect this downward spiral, as teams led or captained by 5′7″ players won the last two World Cups and the Euros, as well as the Champions League in four out of the last seven years. The driving force behind the rise of shorties was the emergence of tiki-taka, a playing style that relies on short, agile and technically gifted players such as the Catalan trinity of Messi, Xavi and Iniesta. Pioneered and perfected at Barcelona and adopted by Spain, the tactic, equally admired and abhorred for its obsession with passing and possession, made these teams untouchable between 2008 and 2012.

After his formidable spell as the manager of Barcelona during its heyday, Pep Guardiola migrated to Bayern Munich in 2013 to evangelize tiki-taka. With Bayern players forming the backbone of its squad, Germany won the World Cup a year later thanks to 5′9″ midfielder Mario Götze’s extra-time goal. “Once Barcelona and Spain succeeded at the highest level, short players benefited as teams kept the ball on the ground more and used technical skills over physicality,” says 5′7″ San Jose Earthquakes midfielder Tommy Thompson. Lots of defenders say the smallest players give you the biggest problems, he adds, “because they go under you with faster pivot.”

More research is needed to definitively establish a trend — a sample size of 11 players over 11 years obviously has its limits. Plus, soccer geniuses have appeared in every size, as legendary Pele was 5′8″ and Diego Maradona 5′5″. “One thing about soccer that makes it a great sport is that there is no physical type required,” says Duke professor Laurent DuBois, author of Soccer Empire: The World Cup and the Future of France. According to DuBois, it’s the combination of physical and mental traits, “the strategic as well as technical sense,” that makes a great player. It may be that we just witnessed a phenomenally talented generation of dwarfs. A number of things could buck the trend: the rising crop of superstars, such as 6′3″ midfielder Paul Pogba, or Madrid, which cracked tiki-taka by defending like a limpet before unleashing blitz counterattacks.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Parents of tall players will point out height advantages. Parents of short players will point out exceptions (Lavelle, etc.)

It all boils down to what college coaches and recruiters value more based upon their teams’ makeup, style of play and needs. So unless anyone of the posters in this thread is a college coach or recruiter, it really doesn’t matter what we think or say. (I am just a parent and not a college coach/recruiter.)

Or you can look at a college rosters and see the size of the players. The short players(5’-4” or shorter) are about 15-20% of the team(80% of shorter players are 5’-3” to 5’-4”). 60-75% of the team is 5’-6 or taller. Why is this even a debate. They start selecting for this at u9.

So the vast majority are within and inch or two of the national average. Not a big advantage.This was said fifty pages back. It was also said that most heights are fabricated by at least an inch....or at a minimum, rounded up. This is fact. The difference between a 6'6 and 6'4 is what? Should we stop looking at 6'4 kids and go for 6'8 kids because they have an advantage over the 6'6 kid? How about we go 7'0 next. Its madness. Either the kid can compete at that level or they can't. Thats what should be evaluated. Its all about winning space.

I read an article once talking about how Messi would have never made it in America. Let that sink in.

Go watch women’s college soccer. 3/4 of the women on the field are tall. If the player is listed 5’4” or 5’5” they are noticeable smaller vs other players on the field. The smaller players are at a disadvantage vs the bigger player. It seems you have made a choice to ignore the facts and focus on the except. My DD is average height in college 5’6”. So I see reality on the field.

Just stop with Messi. Messi would have been a super star in America. He is explosive- extremely fast and quick. Speed and size are selection criteria in the US. Soccer iq, technical ability and vision are things that the US system does emphasize in the younger ages.

On the men’s side there are vastly more high demand players(and highly compensated) who are over 5’11” vs players under 5’8”. There is an advantage to being tall in soccer. It is shown in the player selection and their production on the field. You can say they round up or lie about size and therefore all the players are really short but they are not short. There is a height distribution that is pretty consistent across all levels.

What is the advantage?

Anonymous wrote:This thread is clearly an eye opening reality check for some parents

What's eye opening?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Parents of tall players will point out height advantages. Parents of short players will point out exceptions (Lavelle, etc.)

It all boils down to what college coaches and recruiters value more based upon their teams’ makeup, style of play and needs. So unless anyone of the posters in this thread is a college coach or recruiter, it really doesn’t matter what we think or say. (I am just a parent and not a college coach/recruiter.)

Or you can look at a college rosters and see the size of the players. The short players(5’-4” or shorter) are about 15-20% of the team(80% of shorter players are 5’-3” to 5’-4”). 60-75% of the team is 5’-6 or taller. Why is this even a debate. They start selecting for this at u9.

So the vast majority are within and inch or two of the national average. Not a big advantage.This was said fifty pages back. It was also said that most heights are fabricated by at least an inch....or at a minimum, rounded up. This is fact. The difference between a 6'6 and 6'4 is what? Should we stop looking at 6'4 kids and go for 6'8 kids because they have an advantage over the 6'6 kid? How about we go 7'0 next. Its madness. Either the kid can compete at that level or they can't. Thats what should be evaluated. Its all about winning space.

I read an article once talking about how Messi would have never made it in America. Let that sink in.

Go watch women’s college soccer. 3/4 of the women on the field are tall. If the player is listed 5’4” or 5’5” they are noticeable smaller vs other players on the field. The smaller players are at a disadvantage vs the bigger player. It seems you have made a choice to ignore the facts and focus on the except. My DD is average height in college 5’6”. So I see reality on the field.

Just stop with Messi. Messi would have been a super star in America. He is explosive- extremely fast and quick. Speed and size are selection criteria in the US. Soccer iq, technical ability and vision are things that the US system does emphasize in the younger ages.

On the men’s side there are vastly more high demand players(and highly compensated) who are over 5’11” vs players under 5’8”. There is an advantage to being tall in soccer. It is shown in the player selection and their production on the field. You can say they round up or lie about size and therefore all the players are really short but they are not short. There is a height distribution that is pretty consistent across all levels.

Anonymous wrote:The lower the level of soccer, the more size is a factor.

First time poster here! I agree that at lower levels of soccer, size is relatively more important than skill than at higher levels.

I think the almost unlimited substitutions in college soccer favor high intensity pressing and more physical players. It's hard to be a small skilled player when the opposing team can keep throwing fresh bigger players at you all game. In the pros, size is an advantage, but is somewhat neutralized by the fact that most players have to play all game. With limited subs you cannot keep up the same physical intensity for 90 minutes and skill has a higher chance to shine.

This thread is clearly an eye opening reality check for some parents

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Parents of tall players will point out height advantages. Parents of short players will point out exceptions (Lavelle, etc.)

It all boils down to what college coaches and recruiters value more based upon their teams’ makeup, style of play and needs. So unless anyone of the posters in this thread is a college coach or recruiter, it really doesn’t matter what we think or say. (I am just a parent and not a college coach/recruiter.)

Or you can look at a college rosters and see the size of the players. The short players(5’-4” or shorter) are about 15-20% of the team(80% of shorter players are 5’-3” to 5’-4”). 60-75% of the team is 5’-6 or taller. Why is this even a debate. They start selecting for this at u9.

So the vast majority are within and inch or two of the national average. Not a big advantage.This was said fifty pages back. It was also said that most heights are fabricated by at least an inch....or at a minimum, rounded up. This is fact. The difference between a 6'6 and 6'4 is what? Should we stop looking at 6'4 kids and go for 6'8 kids because they have an advantage over the 6'6 kid? How about we go 7'0 next. Its madness. Either the kid can compete at that level or they can't. Thats what should be evaluated. Its all about winning space.

I read an article once talking about how Messi would have never made it in America. Let that sink in.

It's not sinking in with you. The vast majority? Try again - only 30% are within 2 inches of the average. 8 on the team. The rest are taller. And this list below skips the 3 goalies.

1- 5’1”
1- 5”4”
3- 5’5”
3- 5’6”
7- 5’7”
1- 5’8”
1- 5’9”
1- 5’10”
1- 6’0”

Cool. So ...subtract one inch from all of them to get true height. You keep skipping over that

Ok you keep assuming that all of the heights on the roster are a lie.

Why don't you just buy some platform heels for your DD so you can feel better? Excuses seem to be your M.O.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Parents of tall players will point out height advantages. Parents of short players will point out exceptions (Lavelle, etc.)

It all boils down to what college coaches and recruiters value more based upon their teams’ makeup, style of play and needs. So unless anyone of the posters in this thread is a college coach or recruiter, it really doesn’t matter what we think or say. (I am just a parent and not a college coach/recruiter.)

Or you can look at a college rosters and see the size of the players. The short players(5’-4” or shorter) are about 15-20% of the team(80% of shorter players are 5’-3” to 5’-4”). 60-75% of the team is 5’-6 or taller. Why is this even a debate. They start selecting for this at u9.

So the vast majority are within and inch or two of the national average. Not a big advantage.This was said fifty pages back. It was also said that most heights are fabricated by at least an inch....or at a minimum, rounded up. This is fact. The difference between a 6'6 and 6'4 is what? Should we stop looking at 6'4 kids and go for 6'8 kids because they have an advantage over the 6'6 kid? How about we go 7'0 next. Its madness. Either the kid can compete at that level or they can't. Thats what should be evaluated. Its all about winning space.

I read an article once talking about how Messi would have never made it in America. Let that sink in.

It's not sinking in with you. The vast majority? Try again - only 30% are within 2 inches of the average. 8 on the team. The rest are taller. And this list below skips the 3 goalies.

1- 5’1”
1- 5”4”
3- 5’5”
3- 5’6”
7- 5’7”
1- 5’8”
1- 5’9”
1- 5’10”
1- 6’0”

Cool. So ...subtract one inch from all of them to get true height. You keep skipping over that