# Scouting metrics



## stoppagetime (Jun 7, 2017)

I'm wondering if anyone knows if there is a set of standardized scouting measurements at the collegiate/national program/professional level used to evaluate soccer players? 

In baseball, it's traditionally been the 5-tools for field players (Glove, arm, speed, hit for power, hit for avg) while pitchers are evaluated on quality of each pitch category they throw on a 100 point scale in 10-20 point increments. Sabermetrics and advanced technology is adding more dimension to these scouting evaluations, but the 5-tools are still a good shorthand for how to think about a player, their potential, what positions they could play, where they should hit in a lineup, etc. 

I never played the sport that now consumes my ulittle daughter's life, but even after watching many many many games on TV (international coverage, PL, La Liga, Bundesliga, NCAA)  I've yet to hear a standardized set of evaluation measurements for soccer players. There are definitely terms thrown around...touch, speed, vision, etc...but I'm trying to connect what I am learning about soccer and my ulittle's progress with how she will be evaluated in as objective a way as possible.

Thanks in advance for replies.


----------



## espola (Jun 7, 2017)

stoppagetime said:


> I'm wondering if anyone knows if there is a set of standardized scouting measurements at the collegiate/national program/professional level used to evaluate soccer players?
> 
> In baseball, it's traditionally been the 5-tools for field players (Glove, arm, speed, hit for power, hit for avg) while pitchers are evaluated on quality of each pitch category they throw on a 100 point scale in 10-20 point increments. Sabermetrics and advanced technology is adding more dimension to these scouting evaluations, but the 5-tools are still a good shorthand for how to think about a player, their potential, what positions they could play, where they should hit in a lineup, etc.
> 
> ...


Speed, size, agility, endurance, both feet, trap, pass, shoot, heading, defending.  Isn't that obvious?


----------



## MakeAPlay (Jun 7, 2017)

stoppagetime said:


> I'm wondering if anyone knows if there is a set of standardized scouting measurements at the collegiate/national program/professional level used to evaluate soccer players?
> 
> In baseball, it's traditionally been the 5-tools for field players (Glove, arm, speed, hit for power, hit for avg) while pitchers are evaluated on quality of each pitch category they throw on a 100 point scale in 10-20 point increments. Sabermetrics and advanced technology is adding more dimension to these scouting evaluations, but the 5-tools are still a good shorthand for how to think about a player, their potential, what positions they could play, where they should hit in a lineup, etc.
> 
> ...


Unfortunately in soccer beauty is in the eye of the beholder.  Most things are so subjective.  If you asked 5 coaches to evaluate a typical player you would get a continuum of 5 answers that could vary from bad to good all watching the same practice/game.  Even the things like completion percentage has to be taken with a grain of salt because some passes are more difficult to complete and if the person that a player is passing it to has a donkey touch then a good pass can be incomplete.

The only measurable that I can think of are the fitness and agility/speed testing things that they do at YNT camp.  However, those are necessarily a good indicator of a players technical sophistication, their tactical understanding or their heart and hustle which all play such a significant role in soccer.  Unfortunately, the big sports in America (football, basketball, baseball and hockey) are sports that are very dependent upon athleticism which can be measured in various ways.  Soccer isn't able to be canned so easily and to be honest football, which is the most physical of those sports, often misses on excellent players that don't fit the measurables and they often draft players with great measurables but poor technique, instincts, understanding of the game ("workout warriors") that turn out to be busts.


----------



## stoppagetime (Jun 7, 2017)

espola said:


> Speed, size, agility, endurance, both feet, trap, pass, shoot, heading, defending.  Isn't that obvious?


Thanks?


----------



## pulguita (Jun 7, 2017)

stoppagetime said:


> I'm wondering if anyone knows if there is a set of standardized scouting measurements at the collegiate/national program/professional level used to evaluate soccer players?
> 
> In baseball, it's traditionally been the 5-tools for field players (Glove, arm, speed, hit for power, hit for avg) while pitchers are evaluated on quality of each pitch category they throw on a 100 point scale in 10-20 point increments. Sabermetrics and advanced technology is adding more dimension to these scouting evaluations, but the 5-tools are still a good shorthand for how to think about a player, their potential, what positions they could play, where they should hit in a lineup, etc.
> 
> ...


Hate to be a smart ass but there aren't.  That is why the US continues to fail.  They can't deal with the intangibles of an artist which is what an elite soccer player is.  They want to put everyone into their little boxes.  How do you measure touch?  What is speed?  Is it a 40 time?  Not very useful for real soccer. What about passing? Inside foot, outside foot, laces, can they pass short medium long with texture, placement, etc.  Does the pass accelerate past the defensive line and then die or does it roll off the table?  Can they bend a shot, can they "tres dados" a ball?  Can they use both feet?  Can they send a piercing diagonal across the field ala Macherano.  Everyone can trap a ball with time and space.  Can they clean up the crappy ball with no time and space and make it look like they are on a picnic. It is endless. That is just the physical!  They real measure is IQ and creativity.  How do you measure that?   Sorry, it will never happen.


----------



## stoppagetime (Jun 7, 2017)

MakeAPlay said:


> Unfortunately in soccer beauty is in the eye of the beholder.  Most things are so subjective.  If you asked 5 coaches to evaluate a typical player you would get a continuum of 5 answers that could vary from bad to good all watching the same practice/game.  Even the things like completion percentage has to be taken with a grain of salt because some passes are more difficult to complete and if the person that a player is passing it to has a donkey touch then a good pass can be incomplete.
> 
> The only measurable that I can think of are the fitness and agility/speed testing things that they do at YNT camp.  However, those are necessarily a good indicator of a players technical sophistication, their tactical understanding or their heart and hustle which all play such a significant role in soccer.  Unfortunately, the big sports in America (football, basketball, baseball and hockey) are sports that are very dependent upon athleticism which can be measured in various ways.  Soccer isn't able to be canned so easily and to be honest football, which is the most physical of those sports, often misses on excellent players that don't fit the measurables and they often draft players with great measurables but poor technique, instincts, understanding of the game ("workout warriors") that turn out to be busts.


Agree about subjectivity, and there's lots of it in scouting for any sport. Was talking to a baseball coach about this and his thought was baseball is a pretty consistent game...a player being able to jump into any team and not be lost in a system or way of playing...which is obviously not the case in soccer, so perhaps that accounts for variations in evaluation you describe. 

It feels to me that US collegiate and national team soccer is very dependent on athleticism as well, but I am not a coach or scout...just a parent/fan!


----------



## MakeAPlay (Jun 7, 2017)

stoppagetime said:


> Agree about subjectivity, and there's lots of it in scouting for any sport. Was talking to a baseball coach about this and his thought was baseball is a pretty consistent game...a player being able to jump into any team and not be lost in a system or way of playing...which is obviously not the case in soccer, so perhaps that accounts for variations in evaluation you describe.
> 
> It feels to me that US collegiate and national team soccer is very dependent on athleticism as well, but I am not a coach or scout...just a parent/fan!


The best player on my daughter's college team although a great athlete is not at the top on the things like weightlifting, 40 yard sprint speed or vertical jump.  She isn't big (5'4 and half) and she doesn't look like a rocket in the open field.  However, her soccer IQ is off the charts (think Isaac Newton of soccer), her touch is quite honestly remarkable (the ball seems glued to her feet), she can strike an accurate ball with pace from 30 yards out into the upper V of the goal and she nutmegs top college players, YNT players and full national team players in games!!  If I posted a picture of her team (or national team) you absolutely wouldn't give her a second look.  She is super soft spoken and about as sweet and determined as possible.

With all that being said she is the best player in the country and routinely makes  bigger, faster more athletic players look like a training cones.  Soccer is just one of those sports that the package that you get isn't always the sum of the parts.  Way too many intangibles.


----------



## stoppagetime (Jun 7, 2017)

pulguita said:


> Hate to be a smart ass but there aren't.  That is why the US continues to fail.  They can't deal with the intangibles of an artist which is what an elite soccer player is.  They want to put everyone into their little boxes.  How do you measure touch?  What is speed?  Is it a 40 time?  Not very useful for real soccer. What about passing? Inside foot, outside foot, laces, can they pass short medium long with texture, placement, etc.  Does the pass accelerate past the defensive line and then die or does it roll off the table?  Can they bend a shot, can they "tres dados" a ball?  Can they use both feet?  Can they send a piercing diagonal across the field ala Macherano.  Everyone can trap a ball with time and space.  Can they clean up the crappy ball with no time and space and make it look like they are on a picnic. It is endless. That is just the physical!  They real measure is IQ and creativity.  How do you measure that?   Sorry, it will never happen.


Not taking this is being a smart ass. And I'm not advocating for a stats-only based evaluation system, as I agree that could never happen. I do, however, believe that as more money is invested in soccer, especially in this country, the expectation to evaluate players with something more than the eye-test will become the norm.


----------



## Sheriff Joe (Jun 7, 2017)

stoppagetime said:


> Thanks?


Don't listen to Espola, he is just sitting on the patio waiting for his caretaker to change his diaper.


----------



## Sheriff Joe (Jun 7, 2017)

MakeAPlay said:


> The best player on my daughter's college team although a great athlete is not at the top on the things like weightlifting, 40 yard sprint speed or vertical jump.  She isn't big (5'4 and half) and she doesn't look like a rocket in the open field.  However, her soccer IQ is off the charts (think Isaac Newton of soccer), her touch is quite honestly remarkable (the ball seems glued to her feet), she can strike an accurate ball with pace from 30 yards out into the upper V of the goal and she nutmegs top college players, YNT players and full national team players in games!!  If I posted a picture of her team (or national team) you absolutely wouldn't give her a second look.  She is super soft spoken and about as sweet and determined as possible.
> 
> With all that being said she is the best player in the country and routinely makes  bigger, faster more athletic players look like a training cones.  Soccer is just one of those sports that the package that you get isn't always the sum of the parts.  Way too many intangibles.


Have you ever thought of writing a book?


----------



## stoppagetime (Jun 7, 2017)

Copy that, Sheriff!


----------



## clueless parent (Jun 7, 2017)

espola said:


> Speed, size, agility, endurance, both feet, trap, pass, shoot, heading, defending.  Isn't that obvious?


Espola,
You are usually very helpful to those parents who lack your experience and wisdom.  

The criteria is not obvious to me.  Please share your knowledge.  Seriously, many folks here are trying to learn in order to help our kids reach their goals.  Your post has a chilling effect on asking "obvious " questions.


----------



## Sheriff Joe (Jun 7, 2017)

clueless parent said:


> Espola,
> You are usually very helpful to those parents who lack your experience and wisdom.
> 
> The criteria is not obvious to me.  Please share your knowledge.  Seriously, many folks here are trying to learn in order to help our kids reach their goals.  Your post has a chilling effect on asking "obvious " questions.


He is probably napping as we speak, he will be in a better mood when/if he wakes up.


----------



## Striker17 (Jun 7, 2017)

MakeAPlay said:


> The best player on my daughter's college team although a great athlete is not at the top on the things like weightlifting, 40 yard sprint speed or vertical jump.  She isn't big (5'4 and half) and she doesn't look like a rocket in the open field.  However, her soccer IQ is off the charts (think Isaac Newton of soccer), her touch is quite honestly remarkable (the ball seems glued to her feet), she can strike an accurate ball with pace from 30 yards out into the upper V of the goal and she nutmegs top college players, YNT players and full national team players in games!!  If I posted a picture of her team (or national team) you absolutely wouldn't give her a second look.  She is super soft spoken and about as sweet and determined as possible.
> 
> With all that being said she is the best player in the country and routinely makes  bigger, faster more athletic players look like a training cones.  Soccer is just one of those sports that the package that you get isn't always the sum of the parts.  Way too many intangibles.


Your post reminds me of JF. She is spooky to watch.


----------



## PLSAP (Jun 7, 2017)

Hey @MakeAPlay when will the new UA gear be on display??


----------



## MakeAPlay (Jun 7, 2017)

Striker17 said:


> Your post reminds me of JF. She is spooky to watch.


I agree.  And she is a sweet kid.  Her parents are very soft spoken and extremely reserved people (think the opposite of LaVar Ball).  The funniest thing about her is that she is so good but so focused on being an engineer.  The Canadian WNT has even moved some camps to LA to accommodate her.  She is their future and the federation knows it.  Her education is her future and she knows it.  She is a soccer savant but through it all she keeps her eyes firmly on the prize.  It is refreshing.

http://www.sbnation.com/soccer/2016/8/29/12696776/jessie-fleming-gif-womens-ncaa-soccer-ucla-bruins


----------



## MakeAPlay (Jun 7, 2017)

PLSAP said:


> Hey @MakeAPlay when will the new UA gear be on display??


They get all new kits in August.


----------



## PLSAP (Jun 7, 2017)

MakeAPlay said:


> I agree.  And she is a sweet kid.  Her parents are very soft spoken and extremely reserved people (think the opposite of LaVar Ball).  The funniest thing about her is that she is so good but so focused on being an engineer.  The Canadian WNT has even moved some camps to LA to accommodate her.  She is their future and the federation knows it.  Her education is her future and she knows it.  She is a soccer savant but through it all she keeps her eyes firmly on the prize.  It is refreshing.
> 
> http://www.sbnation.com/soccer/2016/8/29/12696776/jessie-fleming-gif-womens-ncaa-soccer-ucla-bruins


----------



## pulguita (Jun 7, 2017)

stoppagetime said:


> Not taking this is being a smart ass. And I'm not advocating for a stats-only based evaluation system, as I agree that could never happen. I do, however, believe that as more money is invested in soccer, especially in this country, the expectation to evaluate players with something more than the eye-test will become the norm.


Why would the US be so arrogant to think that they can come up with an evaluation system that would rival Bayern, Barcelona, Real Madrid etc?  Add Manchester and maybe 2 other pro clubs and their combined income and reserves exceeds the entire NFL.  Copy what they do.  Mostly the eye test!  They look for youngsters with promise (6-8 year olds).   What is promise?  That is pretty obvious if you've watched this age group at all.  They reevaluate every year.  Those progressing stay, those not replaced.  By the time they get to 16-17  they know if they are real or not.  Do they miss some?  Absolutely.  But more money will not develop a better evaluation system.  What it will do is hire people that know WTF they are doing and can spot talent and not overlook the diminutive little kid that is shy and introverted but lives every day of his life through the game, makes the bigger, stronger, faster players look like orange cones and evolves into the greatest player to play the game and regularly makes the games finest players still look like orange cones at a training session.  That is how change will come.  Not recycling the same losers and expecting something different.  That is called insanity.


----------



## NoGoal (Jun 7, 2017)

stoppagetime said:


> Agree about subjectivity, and there's lots of it in scouting for any sport. Was talking to a baseball coach about this and his thought was baseball is a pretty consistent game...a player being able to jump into any team and not be lost in a system or way of playing...which is obviously not the case in soccer, so perhaps that accounts for variations in evaluation you describe.
> 
> It feels to me that US collegiate and national team soccer is very dependent on athleticism as well, but I am not a coach or scout...just a parent/fan!


I read a year ago that Man U uses analytics when they compared Memphis Deepay and Marcus Rashford.  It wasn't to measure who was faster or had a better touch.  It showed where each player liked to receive the ball.  If I recall Deepay liked to receive the ball higher up the pitch than Rashford, but in doing so....he didn't get back on defense as much as Rashford.  This year Deepay is no longer with the team, but Rashford still is.

Sorry, but club teams and college coaches don't use analytics when evaluating players.


----------



## espola (Jun 7, 2017)

clueless parent said:


> Espola,
> You are usually very helpful to those parents who lack your experience and wisdom.
> 
> The criteria is not obvious to me.  Please share your knowledge.  Seriously, many folks here are trying to learn in order to help our kids reach their goals.  Your post has a chilling effect on asking "obvious " questions.


The best way to evaluate a player is in a game, but sometimes players go a long time without any time on the ball, which can limit what you can see.  Personally, I look for balanced left/right ability, ability to trap a difficult ball, and apparent knowledge of where to go without the ball.  The world is full of hot shooters, but playmakers are rare.


----------



## Kicknit22 (Jun 7, 2017)

Striker17 said:


> Your post reminds me of JF. She is spooky to watch.


This is who she's talking about


----------



## clueless parent (Jun 7, 2017)

espola said:


> The best way to evaluate a player is in a game, but sometimes players go a long time without any time on the ball, which can limit what you can see.  Personally, I look for balanced left/right ability, ability to trap a difficult ball, and apparent knowledge of where to go without the ball.  The world is full of hot shooters, but playmakers are rare.


Thank you Espola!


----------



## Lambchop (Jun 8, 2017)

pulguita said:


> Why would the US be so arrogant to think that they can come up with an evaluation system that would rival Bayern, Barcelona, Real Madrid etc?  Add Manchester and maybe 2 other pro clubs and their combined income and reserves exceeds the entire NFL.  Copy what they do.  Mostly the eye test!  They look for youngsters with promise (6-8 year olds).   What is promise?  That is pretty obvious if you've watched this age group at all.  They reevaluate every year.  Those progressing stay, those not replaced.  By the time they get to 16-17  they know if they are real or not.  Do they miss some?  Absolutely.  But more money will not develop a better evaluation system.  What it will do is hire people that know WTF they are doing and can spot talent and not overlook the diminutive little kid that is shy and introverted but lives every day of his life through the game, makes the bigger, stronger, faster players look like orange cones and evolves into the greatest player to play the game and regularly makes the games finest players still look like orange cones at a training session.  That is how change will come.  Not recycling the same losers and expecting something different.  That is called insanity.


Actually, if you took the best athletes from all our major sports and trained them from a young age in soccer, we would be on a level playing field with the rest of the world.  There are so many choices for our athletes! There are great small athletes and there are great average size athletes and there are great large athletes, get over the size issue.


----------



## clubfees (Jun 8, 2017)

I appreciate all the opinions on this and glad others chimed in!  I was too curious about about this topic and interesting to see that the soft skills are highly valued.


----------



## Sheriff Joe (Jun 8, 2017)

Lambchop said:


> get over the size issue.


Will you please tell my wife that?


----------

