# Height and Soccer



## Woodwork (Jul 21, 2021)

This came up a couple different places, but I feel like it deserves its own thread.

Discounting the CB and GK positions, the average height of the current USWNT is 66.6 inches.  That is 2 1/2 inches taller than the average american female.  The median height of the team is 5'7.  There are only two players at or below average height, Dunn and Lavelle.  Other than CB or GK, there are only two players 5'9 or taller.  This would suggest an advantage in women's advancement to being taller than average, but not by more than 5 inches unless most males in non-CB/GK positions on the USMNT would be over 6 feet tall.

The USMNT average height for non-CB/GK position is 68.6 inches, or a half inch under 5'9.  There are 9 non-CB/GK players at or below the American male average of 5'9.  The median height is 5'9.  only two of these players are 3 inches taller than average, with Gyasi Zardes at 6'2 as the tallest.

It makes you wonder what accounts for this difference.

Is the USWNT emphasizing a physical approach that potentially devalues skilled players?  Is this a result of choices by coaches at developmental stages or some other disparity in the player pools?


----------



## Woodwork (Jul 21, 2021)

Woodwork said:


> This came up a couple different places, but I feel like it deserves its own thread.
> 
> Discounting the CB and GK positions, the average height of the current USWNT is 66.6 inches.  That is 2 1/2 inches taller than the average american female.  The median height of the team is 5'7.  There are only two players at or below average height, Dunn and Lavelle.  Other than CB or GK, there are only two players 5'9 or taller.  This would suggest an advantage in women's advancement to being taller than average, but not by more than 5 inches unless most males in non-CB/GK positions on the USMNT would be over 6 feet tall.
> 
> ...


In the second paragraph, I meant to say:
This would suggest an advantage in women's advancement to being taller than average, but not by more than 5 inches. If this applied to men, most males in non-CB/GK positions on the USMNT would be over 6 feet tall.


----------



## lafalafa (Jul 21, 2021)

Height can be a factor but people of all shapes and sizes can compete in soccer.

Tall or smaller players each has an advantage and disadvantage but yeah that can vary depending
on what position(s) you play.

Players like Sam Mewis @ 6' do have some advantage in aerial duels but that doesn't determine the physical attributes required for soccer like it does for the NBA or WNBA  where a very small % of the population have the size, strength, jumping ability to compete.

Speed might be a better indicator of a physical attribute that higher levels soccer players need.


----------



## Woodwork (Jul 21, 2021)

lafalafa said:


> Height can be a factor but people of all shapes and sizes can compete in soccer.
> 
> Tall or smaller players each has an advantage and disadvantage but yeah that can vary depending
> on what position(s) you play.
> ...


For men, what you are saying clearly plays out.  The height ranges seem to reflect height doesn't matter for non centerback or goalkeeper positions.  What is your explanation for the clear height advantage to selection in the USWNT?


----------



## espola (Jul 21, 2021)

Woodwork said:


> For men, what you are saying clearly plays out.  The height ranges seem to reflect height doesn't matter for non centerback or goalkeeper positions.  What is your explanation for the clear height advantage to selection in the USWNT?


It starts with the coaches of 10-year-old girls looking for tall players.


----------



## soccermail2020 (Jul 21, 2021)

espola said:


> It starts with the coaches of 10-year-old girls looking for tall players.


Absolutely.  Teaching these kids that you HAVE to be big to compete is why the US suffers in so many ways at the highest levels. Watch soccer played all over the world and you will not see this same “bigger is best” mentality.


----------



## Yours in futbol (Jul 21, 2021)

Should we factor into this "USA suffers because it focuses on height and the rest of the world is catching up" analysis that the average height of the Swedish team, excluding D and GK, is the same as the USWNT, 5'7"?  

And that outside of D and GK, there are 5 players on the Swedish team that are 5'9" or taller (compared to only 2 for the USWNT)?


----------



## Woodwork (Jul 21, 2021)

Yours in futbol said:


> Should we factor into this "USA suffers because it focuses on height and the rest of the world is catching up" analysis that the average height of the Swedish team, excluding D and GK, is the same as the USWNT, 5'7"?
> 
> And that outside of D and GK, there are 5 players on the Swedish team that are 5'9" or taller (compared to only 2 for the USWNT)?


Average female height in Sweden is 1.25 inches taller.  We definitely can’t rely on height to win all games.


----------



## eastbaysoccer (Jul 21, 2021)

I think we need to measure the size of the heart:

messi is doing well
Tyrek Hill with the KC chiefs at WR is uncoverable
Trae Young atlanta Hawks is pretty damn good.
The japanese do well in soccer both women and men.
the list goes on.


----------



## supercell (Jul 22, 2021)

soccermail2020 said:


> Absolutely.  Teaching these kids that you HAVE to be big to compete is why the US suffers in so many ways at the highest levels. Watch soccer played all over the world and you will not see this same “bigger is best” mentality.


Are you sure about that? I don't have stats, but I would wager that the average size of pro soccer players worldwide has increased in the last 3 decades.


----------



## oh canada (Jul 22, 2021)

Woodwork said:


> This came up a couple different places, but I feel like it deserves its own thread.
> 
> Discounting the CB and GK positions, the average height of the current USWNT is 66.6 inches.  That is 2 1/2 inches taller than the average american female.  The median height of the team is 5'7.  There are only two players at or below average height, Dunn and Lavelle.  Other than CB or GK, there are only two players 5'9 or taller.  This would suggest an advantage in women's advancement to being taller than average, but not by more than 5 inches unless most males in non-CB/GK positions on the USMNT would be over 6 feet tall.
> 
> ...


cue all the parents of shorter kids to post an argument that size doesn't matter.  Cue all the parents of taller kids to post that height does matter.

Your original post focuses on the female side.   And you make height/size v. skill as a zero sum game.  It's not either a player is big and physical or they're skilled.  A coach will ALWAYS take a bigger and faster player with the same skill over a shorter player.  They will also ALWAYS prefer a bigger player with similar speed and skill.  They will almost ALWAYS take a bigger player with more skill, even if they are a step slower than a shorter player.  
The USWNT has been way more successful than the men's side.  And yes, 5'7" is the average height.  It's also very rare to see a player under 5'5" on a top womens college roster.  Maybe the less successful USMNT needs to start finding more 6'2" CMs?


----------



## Messi>CR7 (Jul 22, 2021)

Woodwork said:


> For men, what you are saying clearly plays out.  The height ranges seem to reflect height doesn't matter for non centerback or goalkeeper positions.  What is your explanation for the clear height advantage to selection in the USWNT?


The way I interpret your data is that at the highest level (men's top flight clubs, national teams), soccer is about first touch, passing, soccer IQ, movement, ability to accurately and effortless make/trap a 40-yard pass, etc., i.e. all the important soccer stuff that are not given for a born athlete.  There are still players who are faster than others, but everyone has the required speed and strength to compete.

All levels below that from AYSO to USWNT, you can still outrun/outmuscle the opponents to various extents.


----------



## Dargle (Jul 22, 2021)

My experience with the girls side is that it’s really aggressiveness, rather than height, that makes a difference at the younger ages.  Height is just an imperfect proxy for that.  A bigger girl might be more willing to be aggressive because of her size, but there are plenty of short aggressive players and there are plenty of passive tall players afraid of contact or getting hit with the ball.  There are also girls who are individually pretty skilled, but never advance much unless or until they get over their lack of aggressiveness.


----------



## Emma (Jul 22, 2021)

Dargle said:


> My experience with the girls side is that it’s really aggressiveness, rather than height, that makes a difference at the younger ages.  Height is just an imperfect proxy for that.  A bigger girl might be more willing to be aggressive because of her size, but there are plenty of short aggressive players and there are plenty of passive tall players afraid of contact or getting hit with the ball.  There are also girls who are individually pretty skilled, but never advance much unless or until they get over their lack of aggressiveness.


This is true and the blame here might lie in our sexist refs who chose to card and call fouls on our boys but not with our girls.  You are promoting aggressive girls as the better player, not the more skilled player.  Start handing out those cards and calling more fouls.  When we watch our son's game, there are 20 fouls each half called.  When we watch our daughter, maybe 3 fouls are called. 

5'7 is probably the ideal height for soccer movement and winning aerial balls.   You're low enough to the ground but tall enough to jump for aerial balls.  if we play on the ground more, then height matters less but free kicks and corner kicks rely on height.  Winning balls cleared by defenders requires height.  Some games, it feels more like headball not futbol.


----------



## Woodwork (Jul 22, 2021)

oh canada said:


> cue all the parents of shorter kids to post an argument that size doesn't matter.  Cue all the parents of taller kids to post that height does matter.
> 
> Your original post focuses on the female side.   And you make height/size v. skill as a zero sum game.  It's not either a player is big and physical or they're skilled.  A coach will ALWAYS take a bigger and faster player with the same skill over a shorter player.  They will also ALWAYS prefer a bigger player with similar speed and skill.  They will almost ALWAYS take a bigger player with more skill, even if they are a step slower than a shorter player.
> The USWNT has been way more successful than the men's side.  And yes, 5'7" is the average height.  It's also very rare to see a player under 5'5" on a top womens college roster.  Maybe the less successful USMNT needs to start finding more 6'2" CMs?


I don't make height/size v. skill a zero sum game.  The word "devalues" means to lower the value, especially in relation to something else, but not necessarily devaluing it to zero.  This would happen if height was overvalued, for example.

The comparison between the USMNT isn't necessarily the best one because they play in different leagues.  There are too many variables affecting why one performs better than the other in different leagues. I am focusing on selection to each team as an outcome of perceived quality.  Then I am asking whether height is one of those qualities.

You posit, "Maybe the less successful USMNT needs to start finding more 6'2" CMs?"  Removing the "less successful" part of the question, this is basically the obverse of my question, whether it is overvalued on the women's side; whether it is undervalued on the men's side.  Fair enough, but do you have an opinion?  If it preferable for the USMNT to choose taller players (and you suggest coaches always do), why is the team fully of average and below-average height players in most positions?  For example, is it a result of the taller youth in the men's pool of athletes choosing other sports?  Does men's soccer get stuck with the rejects from other sports, the runts of the litter, the Danny Devito twin?


----------



## Woodwork (Jul 22, 2021)

Emma said:


> This is true and the blame here might lie in our sexist refs who chose to card and call fouls on our boys but not with our girls.  You are promoting aggressive girls as the better player, not the more skilled player.  Start handing out those cards and calling more fouls.  When we watch our son's game, there are 20 fouls each half called.  When we watch our daughter, maybe 3 fouls are called.
> 
> 5'7 is probably the ideal height for soccer movement and winning aerial balls.   You're low enough to the ground but tall enough to jump for aerial balls.  if we play on the ground more, then height matters less but free kicks and corner kicks rely on height.  Winning balls cleared by defenders requires height.  Some games, it feels more like headball not futbol.


I am hesitant to blame refs when they may just be adapting to the culture of the teams in front of them.  Biology could have something to do with it.  More than I want to get into here, but both male and female professional soccer player skew towards a certain body type.  Not many built like linebackers.


----------



## Woodwork (Jul 22, 2021)

Dargle said:


> My experience with the girls side is that it’s really aggressiveness, rather than height, that makes a difference at the younger ages.  Height is just an imperfect proxy for that.  A bigger girl might be more willing to be aggressive because of her size, but there are plenty of short aggressive players and there are plenty of passive tall players afraid of contact or getting hit with the ball.  There are also girls who are individually pretty skilled, but never advance much unless or until they get over their lack of aggressiveness.


At the younger ages, under 7, girth beats all.


----------



## socalkdg (Jul 22, 2021)

oh canada said:


> And yes, 5'7" is the average height.  It's also very rare to see a player under 5'5" on a top womens college roster.


So UCLA roster has 9 girls 5' 4" or shorter.   6 on USC.  Stanford only 2.  Santa Clara had 9.


----------



## socalkdg (Jul 22, 2021)

Height listing on rosters of many sports seem to be rounded up a bit.   Back in the 80's my 5' 7" wife was listed 5'9" for High School and College basketball.   Cleats and high tops do add some height and they were measured in shoes and then rounded the number up.   All the players that are going to be drafted for NBA averaged about 1 inch less in socks than the listed heights on the teams website.   2019 saw the NBA start measuring all the players because of this occurance.


----------



## Grace T. (Jul 22, 2021)

Emma said:


> This is true and the blame here might lie in our sexist refs who chose to card and call fouls on our boys but not with our girls.  You are promoting aggressive girls as the better player, not the more skilled player.  Start handing out those cards and calling more fouls.  When we watch our son's game, there are 20 fouls each half called.  When we watch our daughter, maybe 3 fouls are called.
> 
> 5'7 is probably the ideal height for soccer movement and winning aerial balls.   You're low enough to the ground but tall enough to jump for aerial balls.  if we play on the ground more, then height matters less but free kicks and corner kicks rely on height.  Winning balls cleared by defenders requires height.  Some games, it feels more like headball not futbol.


If it’s true the boys game has more fouls called (not sure that’s true but think it’s possible) I’d argue the proportion of fouls called between the boys and girls is roughly the same.  The refs may very well call more fouls in the boys game, but the boys are playing a little more rough.  My gk son has even taken two stud up slides into him since the beginning of summer and no fouls called let alone cards issued. The issue isn’t that refs are sexist. The issue is there’s a school a referee thought out there that the kids should be allowed to “let them play” given the guidance that trifling fouls shouldn’t be called. Refs also are reluctant to issue cards (all summer I’ve seen maybe 4 yellows). So the boys have fouls going on that are egregious, but the refs on both games in this school are trying to avoid making calls (it’s just the boys force their hand more often, to the extent boys are even being called more)


----------



## oh canada (Jul 22, 2021)

socalkdg said:


> So UCLA roster has 9 girls 5' 4" or shorter.   6 on USC.  Stanford only 2.  Santa Clara had 9.


I stand corrected.  thank you.  Maybe there's a difference between rostered vs. who actually plays.  I remember watching UCLA in the College Cup and thinking, wow, they are big.  Santa Clara too.


----------



## Kicker4Life (Jul 22, 2021)

oh canada said:


> I stand corrected.  thank you.  Maybe there's a difference between rostered vs. who actually plays.  I remember watching UCLA in the College Cup and thinking, wow, they are big.  Santa Clara too.


Or perception isn’t the reality.


----------



## Emma (Jul 22, 2021)

oh canada said:


> I stand corrected.  thank you.  Maybe there's a difference between rostered vs. who actually plays.  I remember watching UCLA in the College Cup and thinking, wow, they are big.  Santa Clara too.


Wazzu has a giant team.


----------



## Soccer43 (Jul 22, 2021)

oh canada said:


> And yes, 5'7" is the average height.  It's also very rare to see a player under 5'5" on a top womens college roster.  Maybe the less successful USMNT needs to start finding more 6'2" CMs?


I don't know what rosters you are talking about. 
North Carolina - 12 players on the roster under 5'5"
Florida State - 6 players
Santa Clara - 9 players
UCLA -10 players
Virginia - 4 players
TCU - 6 players
Clemson- 5 players
Duke - 9 players

I would say those numbers are anything but "rare"

Those that play are those that are the best that produce results.  When you get to D1 level, it is about who produces results not how tall you are.


----------



## outside! (Jul 27, 2021)

Kicker4Life said:


> Or perception isn’t the reality.


When I attended a USC game, all of the USC players on the field except for 2 were 5'7" or taller. One of their better players was shorter than 5'7" and was injured before that game and did not play.


----------



## Highlander (Jul 28, 2021)

Great topic as I have wondered about this. Where is the female Messi, Maradona, Pele, Xavi, etc...so many great players that are below average height. Seems like on the male side being small is an advantage for attacking players. My only thought is that females play the game differently than males...the smaller players don't take advantage of their speed/quickness as much as the male players do...allowing the big Oh-ffs to use their size to push their way around.


----------



## Emma (Jul 28, 2021)

Highlander said:


> Great topic as I have wondered about this. Where is the female Messi, Maradona, Pele, Xavi, etc...so many great players that are below average height. Seems like on the male side being small is an advantage for attacking players. My only thought is that females play the game differently than males...the smaller players don't take advantage of their speed/quickness as much as the male players do...allowing the big Oh-ffs to use their size to push their way around.


Refs allow big defenders to attack small attackers in the girl's game.  Watch my boy and girl play every weekend and it's always the same story, boys get called for knocking players around while girls are reinforced to do it.  Makes it hard for small girls to advance in soccer as a forward.


----------



## what-happened (Jul 28, 2021)

Highlander said:


> Great topic as I have wondered about this. Where is the female Messi, Maradona, Pele, Xavi, etc...so many great players that are below average height. Seems like on the male side being small is an advantage for attacking players. My only thought is that females play the game differently than males...the smaller players don't take advantage of their speed/quickness as much as the male players do...allowing the big Oh-ffs to use their size to push their way around.


Marta comes to mind -She's 5'4" and generally considered an all time great.


----------



## Grace T. (Jul 28, 2021)

Highlander said:


> Seems like on the male side being small is an advantage for attacking players.


Here's an article on why being shorter helped out in the pros for attacking players...it has to do with the steps being shorter and being able to turn quicker.....









						Soccer Is the Perfect Sport for Short Men
					

Unlike in other sports, some of soccer's biggest stars are small in stature.




					www.theatlantic.com
				




It's also true, however, that among the male pros in Europe, the players have been getting taller, including strikers









						Soccer-European players getting taller, faster and older - study
					

European footballers are on average playing at the top level until they are older, growing taller and running faster, according to a study of football across the continent published on Wednesday.




					www.reuters.com
				








__





						Are You Tall Enough To Be A Premier League Player? – The Versed
					






					www.theversed.com
				




I think the most likely explanation is that the increase coincides with the rise in the academy system, and to survive the academy (given how ruthless it's become and how few are now willing to take a chance like on a short Messi) the player needs to survive year over year.  Among the boys, something happens around age 12 (earlier for higher flight players, later for lower flight players)...the GKs begin to get their training basics down and the defenders begin to master the fundamentals of the offside rule so it becomes a lot harder for players to score just from a direct shot on goal.  That means you are left with scoring on a PK or kick, a 1 v 1 (or higher like a 2v1) or a cross.  For the cross you have to be able to beat the goalkeeper or defenders to the header (most European countries don't have the antiheader rule for the very young)....if the GKs and defenders have been increasing in height, the strikers must as well to be able to get the ball on the cross.


----------



## Grace T. (Jul 28, 2021)

Grace T. said:


> Here's an article on why being shorter helped out in the pros for attacking players...it has to do with the steps being shorter and being able to turn quicker.....
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Interestingly there was a study run by Tifo football on GK height.  The pros have been recruiting taller and taller goalkeepers under the theory that it covers more of the goal.  Tifo posited that the ideal height, IIRC, for a male GK is roughly 6'2 to 6'3.  Any higher than that and the GK has a timing problem getting the hands to ground and becomes substantially less effective at the lower shots.  Any shorter than that, and the GK is unable to maximize the coverage of the goal particularly high shots.  But the EPL is now over the ideal height average for GKS.  They didn't posit why, but I'd argue it's the same dynamic...to get through the academies year over year the more effective goalkeepers are the ones who are simply taller.  If you have a beast at age 13 that can easily touch the cross bar, that kid is just going to be more effective than one of equal training that can't and therefore is more likely to make it through the academy, which has its pick of hard workers and talent.


----------



## NorCalDad (Jul 28, 2021)

I suspect I have a controversial (and unscientific) take on this.  I personally think most youth coaches in the US aren't equipped to teach tactical play effectively.  I mean it's a hard thing to do especially with youngers.  The only way to beat bigger more physical teams is to have a smarter, more tactical game plan.  As a result many coaches run with the "if you can't beat'em, join'em" mentality.  I hope I'm wrong, but my guess is we lose a lot of highly skilled / high potential players as a result.

I have also observed an interesting dynamic between boys and girls. For boys size matters a ton at the very early ages and less so as they get older (excluding specific positions, e.g., CB).  For girls size matters more as they get older. I can't help but to believe that this emphasis on size and physicality for the girls is why many girls teams just don't seem that dynamic. Many of the teams I've seen play just seem to be lumbering in movement.

I don't have any supporting data, but I "feel" like coaches with UEFA licenses (and are European) vs USSF licenses don't particularly care about the size of a player.


----------



## lafalafa (Jul 28, 2021)

NorCalDad said:


> I suspect I have a controversial (and unscientific) take on this.  I personally think most youth coaches in the US aren't equipped to teach tactical play effectively.  I mean it's a hard thing to do especially with youngers.  The only way to beat bigger more physical teams is to have a smarter, more tactical game plan.  As a result many coaches run with the "if you can't beat'em, join'em" mentality.  I hope I'm wrong, but my guess is we lose a lot of highly skilled / high potential players as a result.
> 
> I have also observed an interesting dynamic between boys and girls. For boys size matters a ton at the very early ages and less so as they get older (excluding specific positions, e.g., CB).  For girls size matters more as they get older. I can't help but to believe that this emphasis on size and physicality for the girls is why many girls teams just don't seem that dynamic. Many of the teams I've seen play just seem to be lumbering in movement.
> 
> I don't have any supporting data, but I "feel" like coaches with UEFA licenses (and are European) vs USSF licenses don't particularly care about the size of a player.


Interesting we all have our own unique perspectives

With 2 boys and a girls playing through high school and the youngest a college freshman. All 3 players on the smaller to average size, one above in high school later so size & height weren't really a big factor on their teams that I recall. 

The change to calendar did highlight the potential size difference in some kids I do remember but the older the boys now men became the bigger, faster, stronger they became it seems.

College players are another step up in size and speed have to wonder if that's why the out of 50 high school players only 3 will make it own a team playing.


----------



## Highlander (Jul 29, 2021)

I think it's the coaching and just where the girls game is at today. They place more importance on size and share athleticism and the importance to win NOW....that is what ECNL is all about after all, and let's face it, parents demand it. I do think this will change...someone is going to get smart out there and build a team with some small/quick players and one will emerge to be "Messi" like.


----------



## Grace T. (Jul 29, 2021)

NorCalDad said:


> I suspect I have a controversial (and unscientific) take on this.  I personally think most youth coaches in the US aren't equipped to teach tactical play effectively.  I mean it's a hard thing to do especially with youngers.  The only way to beat bigger more physical teams is to have a smarter, more tactical game plan.  As a result many coaches run with the "if you can't beat'em, join'em" mentality.  I hope I'm wrong, but my guess is we lose a lot of highly skilled / high potential players as a result.
> 
> I have also observed an interesting dynamic between boys and girls. For boys size matters a ton at the very early ages and less so as they get older (excluding specific positions, e.g., CB).  For girls size matters more as they get older. I can't help but to believe that this emphasis on size and physicality for the girls is why many girls teams just don't seem that dynamic. Many of the teams I've seen play just seem to be lumbering in movement.
> 
> I don't have any supporting data, but I "feel" like coaches with UEFA licenses (and are European) vs USSF licenses don't particularly care about the size of a player.


I agree with your conclusions but I don’t think it’s that they aren’t equipped to teach tactical play.  It’s that they are punished (with a loss and therefore no promotion or tournament win) if they do.  Soccer is after all a game of mistakes and teaching tactical play means making a lot of mistakes while learning.  To build from the back you have to have 4-8 kids connect their passes without losing the ball from gk to striker without a single mistake. It’s that the system encourages the short cuts.


----------



## watfly (Jul 29, 2021)

I may be wrong, but here is my theory...the American women's program paved the way for international soccer.  The "American Way" is bigger, faster, stronger which turned out to be a very successful approach.  So that approach gets ingrained in the development of US female players.

Whereas, on the men's side European and South America paved the way for international soccer.  Their soccer is more technical and tactical which doesn't necessarily require the biggest, fastest, strongest players.  More so it requires technical skill and soccer IQ. 

Soccer more than anything else is a player decision making sport, unlike most American sports where the decision making is controlled by the coach or their are limited decisions to make in the course of a play.  It will be curious to see if we develop a more soccer IQ approach to American soccer.  I think its very slowly happening on the boy's and men's side out of a necessity to compete.  Until the European and South American teams regularly beat our women with a technical and tactical approach, we probably won't see much change in the bigger, faster, stronger approach.


----------



## Grace T. (Jul 29, 2021)

watfly said:


> I may be wrong, but here is my theory...the American women's program paved the way for international soccer.  The "American Way" is bigger, faster, stronger which turned out to be a very successful approach.  So that approach gets ingrained in the development of US female players.
> 
> Whereas, on the men's side European and South America paved the way for international soccer.  Their soccer is more technical and tactical which doesn't necessarily require the biggest, fastest, strongest players.  More so it requires technical skill and soccer IQ.
> 
> Soccer more than anything else is a player decision making sport, unlike most American sports where the decision making is controlled by the coach or their are limited decisions to make in the course of a play.  It will be curious to see if we develop a more soccer IQ approach to American soccer.  I think its very slowly happening on the boy's and men's side out of a necessity to compete.  Until the European and South American teams regularly beat our women with a technical and tactical approach, we probably won't see much change in the bigger, faster, stronger approach.


Agree, but as I posted above, on the men's side this is changing too especially in Europe....players in the front and in the back (less so the mid) have been getting progressively taller on average over the last 20 years, which coincides with the rise and dominance of the academy system.


----------



## Grace T. (Jul 29, 2021)

Highlander said:


> I think it's the coaching and just where the girls game is at today. They place more importance on size and share athleticism and the importance to win NOW....that is what ECNL is all about after all, and let's face it, parents demand it. I do think this will change...someone is going to get smart out there and build a team with some small/quick players and one will emerge to be "Messi" like.


This is really hard to do with youth soccer.  One of the issue is that GK training has change in the last 10 years...it used to be that you wouldn't have GK start to specialize until at least age 12....but now if you look at GK camps they begin to specialize as early as 8 (some on these forums even argued remember there are elite GK at age 8)....so to score on the GK after the early ages it begins to limit your options to either shoot over the goalkeeper (until they are tall enough) or creative play and the former is just easier.  It's actually funny to watch the shift to 11 v 11 and see strikers that used to be able to just run the ball in past the goalkeeper now be able to be beaten by the goalkeepers that actually know their technique and don't just hold on the line like statutes...they turn around and wonder why they aren't scoring as much anymore.  Bigger legs mean a better ability to bang it either over the goalkeeper or so fast that they don't have time to react.

The second is the defenders.  Body checking is allowed in soccer and its an effective technique.  If you have to connected 4-8 passes to get it to goal and you can just bump off one of the attacking players with a body check, it disrupts the play.  It's just easier to teach your kids to disrupt the play through body checking than through tactical defense and the offside trap.  Plus the refs aren't going to call (let alone card) any but the more egregious plays so even if the body check goes too far it's a low risk play.


----------



## espola (Jul 29, 2021)

Grace T. said:


> This is really hard to do with youth soccer.  One of the issue is that GK training has change in the last 10 years...it used to be that you wouldn't have GK start to specialize until at least age 12....but now if you look at GK camps they begin to specialize as early as 8 (some on these forums even argued remember there are elite GK at age 8)....so to score on the GK after the early ages it begins to limit your options to either shoot over the goalkeeper (until they are tall enough) or creative play and the former is just easier.  It's actually funny to watch the shift to 11 v 11 and see strikers that used to be able to just run the ball in past the goalkeeper now be able to be beaten by the goalkeepers that actually know their technique and don't just hold on the line like statutes...they turn around and wonder why they aren't scoring as much anymore.  Bigger legs mean a better ability to bang it either over the goalkeeper or so fast that they don't have time to react.
> 
> The second is the defenders.  Body checking is allowed in soccer and its an effective technique.  If you have to connected 4-8 passes to get it to goal and you can just bump off one of the attacking players with a body check, it disrupts the play.  It's just easier to teach your kids to disrupt the play through body checking than through tactical defense and the offside trap.  Plus the refs aren't going to call (let alone card) any but the more egregious plays so even if the body check goes too far it's a low risk play.


It worries me to think that a registered referee would allow "body-checking".

But I was brought up playing more hockey than soccer, so perhaps you don't get the import of those words.


----------



## Grace T. (Jul 29, 2021)

espola said:


> It worries me to think that a registered referee would allow "body-checking".
> 
> But I was brought up playing more hockey than soccer, so perhaps you don't get the import of those words.


A proper shoulder to shoulder challenge, should you prefer.


----------



## Messi>CR7 (Jul 29, 2021)

watfly said:


> I may be wrong, but here is my theory...the American women's program paved the way for international soccer.  The "American Way" is bigger, faster, stronger which turned out to be a very successful approach.  So that approach gets ingrained in the development of US female players.
> 
> Whereas, on the men's side European and South America paved the way for international soccer.  Their soccer is more technical and tactical which doesn't necessarily require the biggest, fastest, strongest players.  More so it requires technical skill and soccer IQ.
> 
> Soccer more than anything else is a player decision making sport, unlike most American sports where the decision making is controlled by the coach or their are limited decisions to make in the course of a play.  It will be curious to see if we develop a more soccer IQ approach to American soccer.  I think its very slowly happening on the boy's and men's side out of a necessity to compete.  Until the European and South American teams regularly beat our women with a technical and tactical approach, we probably won't see much change in the bigger, faster, stronger approach.


To play the technical style you described, boys worldwide spend 10+ hours each week mastering their craft.  We tell our girls to focus on academics (and rightfully so) and most train perhaps 3 to 5 hours a week.  Without the necessary investment in time, the "American Way" might be the optimal strategy for girls.


----------



## Grace T. (Jul 29, 2021)

Messi>CR7 said:


> To play the technical style you described, boys worldwide spend 10+ hours each week mastering their craft.  We tell our girls to focus on academics (and rightfully so) and most train perhaps 3 to 5 hours a week.  Without the necessary investment in time, the "American Way" might be the optimal strategy for girls.


In other countries kids are tracked and sorted into the various university, sports, arts and trades.  The US is one of the few countries that tries for college for everyone.  So it makes sense for the European boy on the academy track to spend 10+ hours a week master his craft.  And for our girls to focus on academics needed for college.


----------



## espola (Jul 29, 2021)

Grace T. said:


> A proper shoulder to shoulder challenge, should you prefer.


In ice hockey that is known as "angling" and is permitted in many levels where body-checking itself is prohibited, such as in NCAA women's ice hockey.


----------



## watfly (Jul 29, 2021)

Grace T. said:


> Agree, but as I posted above, on the men's side this is changing too especially in Europe....players in the front and in the back (less so the mid) have been getting progressively taller on average over the last 20 years, which coincides with the rise and dominance of the academy system.


The size thing ebbs and flows over time.  Pre tiki taka Barcelona had a sign on their recruiting office door that said if your under X size don't even bother coming in.


----------

