# Bigger, faster, stronger........



## socalkdg (Aug 9, 2016)

Saw this quote from another poster "Soccer is the only sport you can get away with saying, "we were the better team... they were just bigger, faster, stronger, more physical and have girls that can score".

Must say when skills are fairly close, bigger, faster, stronger makes a huge difference.   Had a scrimmage vs a 2004 legends team and my daughters 2005 team was dominated 6-0.  There were other factors involved including length of time playing together, experience, etc., but it was a big contrast.

Interesting to watch, and not entirely sure it was good for our team, but time will tell.  Didn't realize the physical difference between 10/11 year old girls and 11/12 year old girls was so dramatic.  Every girl seemed to have 15 lbs and 3 inches on our girls with no loss in speed.  

At what age do the girls start equaling out size wise?   Makes me glad soccer is broken down into yearly groups.


----------



## Mystery Train (Aug 9, 2016)

Your daughter is right in that age group where it is so tough for late bloomers or average sized girls to play and develop.  My kid was/is a late bloomer.  Didn't hit puberty until almost 14, but there were girls on her team who started at 11.  The worst part is that because the coaches and DOC's put so much value on winning, you will notice that the girls side is dominated by size and strength at the top levels in the 11-14 year old groups.  This means that smaller girls don't get a chance on top level teams very often, unless they have world-class speed.  But  many of those early maturing beasts that dominated the top team at my kids' old club haven't grown an inch since and at the upper levels, a lot of girls who used to be on the B teams or lower flights who kept working and developing are now catching up or have surpassed them.  The issue for me is that because of that emphasis on winning, the "best" teams and coaches focus on unusual size and strength early, so those kids get the benefit of more attention and investment early on rather than having very talented average sized kids be truly groomed and developed by the top coaches.  Interestingly, when I watch the boys' games, I don't see this problem.  Speed is much more the equalizer in the boys games, and being big and strong doesn't seem to be so valued.  My personal theory is that boys' physicality is not defined by size.  They throw themselves into contact no matter what, whereas girls tend to shy away from it if they are smallish.


----------



## Wez (Aug 9, 2016)

05 / 04 is a huge year for growth spurts, puberty kicking in big time.  Same for boys, 04s are physically dominant.


----------



## mirage (Aug 9, 2016)

Couple of years ago on the old forum, in boys section, there was a lengthy debate about how bigger, faster and stronger is always better than smaller, slower and weaker.

If you look at any American dominated sports, that's how we win.  Bigger, faster and stronger.  I had argued, at the time, that why wouldn't anyone want bigger, stronger and faster over anything else, if the technical skills are equivalent.  So did several others but if we were to have the same argument today, I would be in a different side - at least in boys/mens soccer.  Why?  Because all things are not equal technically.

Soccer is a game played in a tight spaces over a large field.  Typically, its 2/3-v-1 or 1-v-1 in a tight space that opens up to a large space.  The ball is typically passed on at that point to another tight space contest.

As children become adults, I have found that being bigger is not always wanted in tight spaces.  I find many. many 6'+ player outplayed by shorter (5'7"~5-11") with more compact motions and able to play lower to the ground and quicker.  Exceptions exist but generally speaking, the ability to create space and separation in a tight area quickly require agility, balance and more compact motions that lanky, larger motions often possessed by big players.  

Speed and strength matters a lot but the way I would put it is lack of speed and strength is more of an issue than anything.  Naturally, faster and stronger is better as long as it comes with everything else needed for the sport.

Style of play clearly dictates what type of player is needed.  If its over the top, more direct style of play, then size and speed have impact on the outcome than possession style where technical skills and agility have more impact.   

Statistically, girls enters puberty earlier than boys by couple of years.  Since boys teams evens out by the time U16 rolls around, including late bloomers, I would assume girls teams would do the same around U14, U15 at the latest.  Meanwhile you'll see some strange results depending on which team had the benefit of early puberty or several of the players gaining size over a short period of time.


----------



## timbuck (Aug 9, 2016)

Bigger, faster, stronger = older, more mature, genetics.
Look at the old age groups.  The Flight 1 teams were predominantly made up of players born in Sept, October, November.  With the new age groups, we've just kicked the can down the road and now Flight 1 teams have kids born in January, February, March.  
Being 9-12 months older than someone when you are only 10 years old is a pretty big difference.
And how many coaches perk up when they see a kid walking to a tryout with a 6'6", 220 lb dad and a 5'8", 125 pound mom?


----------



## BornToRun (Aug 10, 2016)

It kinda just depends-- but if bigger, stronger, faster was always best in soccer, the WNT would look more like the WNBA.


----------



## smellycleats (Aug 10, 2016)

Mystery Train said:


> Your daughter is right in that age group where it is so tough for late bloomers or average sized girls to play and develop.  My kid was/is a late bloomer.  Didn't hit puberty until almost 14, but there were girls on her team who started at 11.  The worst part is that because the coaches and DOC's put so much value on winning, you will notice that the girls side is dominated by size and strength at the top levels in the 11-14 year old groups.  This means that smaller girls don't get a chance on top level teams very often, unless they have world-class speed.  But  many of those early maturing beasts that dominated the top team at my kids' old club haven't grown an inch since and at the upper levels, a lot of girls who used to be on the B teams or lower flights who kept working and developing are now catching up or have surpassed them.  The issue for me is that because of that emphasis on winning, the "best" teams and coaches focus on unusual size and strength early, so those kids get the benefit of more attention and investment early on rather than having very talented average sized kids be truly groomed and developed by the top coaches.  Interestingly, when I watch the boys' games, I don't see this problem.  Speed is much more the equalizer in the boys games, and being big and strong doesn't seem to be so valued.  My personal theory is that boys' physicality is not defined by size.  They throw themselves into contact no matter what, whereas girls tend to shy away from it if they are smallish.


I completely agree with this assessment. My daughter is a younger 04 who is also a late bloomer. Some of the bigger girls on her team are nearly finished growing while my daughter hasn't really started yet. When she was a rec player and one of the older players on her Ulittle team she tended to rely on her size and physicality. Now that she's one of the smaller and younger players on her team she has been forced her to focus on technical development. Hopefully it all evens out in time as she develops....


----------



## mommato2girls (Aug 16, 2016)

My daughter is an older 05 (Feb bday) and is bigger, taller etc. At 5'5 and 11 she towers over most of her peers. She plays 04 where she is still one of the tallest, but shes really been working on her technical skills, ball control, accuracy etc. We tell her all the time that she may stop growing and the other girls may sprout past her so she has to stay conditioned and fast. I personally think conditioning is the equalizer. The smaller kids tend to be more conditioned and fast, it doesn't matter how big of a kick you have if you are beat to the ball every time or you are dead on your feet after 10 mins of running. So while being big and tall is advantageous in the beginning it means nothing if the player doesn't develop in other areas. However, what someone commented above is true, she definitely gets a lot more attention, play time, coaching etc bc of her size and speed.


----------



## Sped (Aug 16, 2016)

mommato2girls said:


> My daughter is an older 05 (Feb bday) and is bigger, taller etc. At 5'5 and 11 she towers over most of her peers. She plays 04 where she is still one of the tallest, but shes really been working on her technical skills, ball control, accuracy etc. We tell her all the time that she may stop growing and the other girls may sprout past her so she has to stay conditioned and fast. I personally think conditioning is the equalizer. The smaller kids tend to be more conditioned and fast, it doesn't matter how big of a kick you have if you are beat to the ball every time or you are dead on your feet after 10 mins of running. So while being big and tall is advantageous in the beginning it means nothing if the player doesn't develop in other areas. However, what someone commented above is true, she definitely gets a lot more attention, play time, coaching etc bc of her size and speed.


Lol, I think the odds are pretty good that she will in fact stop growing.


----------



## mommato2girls (Aug 16, 2016)

Sped said:


> Lol, I think the odds are pretty good that she will in fact stop growing.


I hope so  My wallet is crying from buying bigger cleats every 3 months!


----------



## Surfref (Aug 16, 2016)

They never really equal out.  My DD college team has players from 5' to 6'2"  The difference maker for the players is speed and strength.  Just because a player is short does not mean they cannot be strong or fast.  On my DD team the strongest (lifting weights: bench press, squats) are the 5'2", 5'4" and 5'7" players and the quickest (40 yard sprint) are the 5'2", 5'4" and two 5'5" players.  My DD is short but if you run into her in a game you are not going to knock her down and there is a good chance you are going down.  She learned a long time ago that strength and speed can beat height any day.  So along with skills, have your kid work on speed and strength while they are younger and get into the weight room when they reach high school age.


----------



## Zoro (Aug 16, 2016)

I did a long analysis on the deleted forum of roster height of the FIFA top 10 WNTs and MNTs.  The women were all about a couple inches taller than the population of the country they came from.  The men were mostly inline with population.
From memory:
In general seemed on the field 5'11" was around average for men, and 5'8ish for women.  Where at that time (4 years ago) most the big name females were at the taller end of their roster.


----------



## Eusebio (Aug 18, 2016)

Surfref said:


> They never really equal out.  My DD college team has players from 5' to 6'2"  The difference maker for the players is speed and strength.  Just because a player is short does not mean they cannot be strong or fast.  On my DD team the strongest (lifting weights: bench press, squats) are the 5'2", 5'4" and 5'7" players and the quickest (40 yard sprint) are the 5'2", 5'4" and two 5'5" players.


I think the problem with the u11-u14 age groups, is not just the height disparity but the weight disparity, especially on the boys side. For example my son who is a late-bloomer 13 year-old, he's around 5ft while many of the boys at his level are around 5'6 - 6'1". But the real problem is the weight where he literally weighs 60-80 pounds less than some of the kids. He's still in his "boy" body while he's playing against kids in his age group who already have their "man" body with 50-60 pounds of more muscle. He literally bounces off those players, it's like kids playing against adults.

I can keep telling him to be "first to the ball" (he does have very good quickness), but I can understand why he might not want to go 100% into a head-on tackle against someone who is nearly a foot taller and doubles his muscle mass. There were a few other players on our team who weren't quite as small as my son but still "late bloomers" and below the average weight/height.  A couple of those kids went head-on with 50-50 balls to the delight of the coach, but not surprisingly those kids were constantly getting hurt and taken off the field almost every game. A few times the injury was serious. So while I'm sure not always being "first to the ball" has hurt my son's playing time some, I'd rather have that than him getting smashed and injured by a man-child (who will probably play American football in a year) over a loose ball. If my son can make it to puberty without any serious injuries, I'll be happy. In the meantime, I've been having him focus on getting on the opposing player's second touch. This is often effective because bigger kids tend to have a poor first touch.

My daughter is also small but her uLittle team is small overall. Yes my daughter is quick as are a few other girls on our team, but the advantage of being big and strong at the early ages is that there is a certain built-in "intimidation" factor. Even if the big player is slower or has poor endurance, I noticed quite a few of the smaller girls tend to back off on challenges and not really use their speed advantage. I wish more coaches out there taught the smaller players how to use their "quickness" advantage against bigger players while avoid getting hurt. Instead most coaches just endlessly spout out, "Be more aggressive!". Most kids interpret this as "Be more reckless!", "Be wiling to get hurt!". If these coaches actually taught players proper body positioning and how to shield players off the ball, then you'd see more confident players on defense including the smaller players.


----------



## wildcat66 (Aug 18, 2016)

I am one of the soccer watchers who prefers the bigger stronger faster game to the skillfull speed and tactical "Barcelona " type of game.  I love watching the inland empire Coast teams who  play what I call     Blue Collar soccer against the more skillfull faster SCDSL Orange County rich kids.  Every 50/50 ball involves a collision with someone getting knocked down.  In many cases, the better team was not so successful when they faced the prospect of being flattened on every challenge.  Probably why  soccer isn't quite as popular as some would  hope here in the US.  Imagine if the teams were made of NFL size players who loved to make contact.


----------



## Zoro (Aug 18, 2016)

Physical soccer, Physical rugby, and football can look more the same than if those games are played with finesse.  I like the pure game.
A USA boy that prefers physical will tend to play football eventually.  Those kids move out of soccer league later which is another reason skill seems to improve in boys at older HS ages.


----------



## espola (Aug 18, 2016)

Zoro said:


> Physical soccer, Physical rugby, and football can look more the same than if those games are played with finesse.  I like the pure game.
> A USA boy that prefers physical will tend to play football eventually.  Those kids move out of soccer league later which is another reason skill seems to improve in boys at older HS ages.


Please define "pure game" as you see it.


----------



## Zoro (Aug 18, 2016)

espola said:


> Please define "pure game" as you see it.


A game where the elements unique to that sport are displayed.

For Rugby, the drawing of the tackle and the pass before the tackle - swift snappy ball movement.  A forward drop kick for a score, a strategic scrum, mall and a ruck.

For soccer - ball movement.  Direction from the back/keeper.  Keeper movement outside of PA.  Pushing up the back line for offside traps.  Recognizable formation and ball movement looking for opportunity to strike with some scene it was planned.   Control of the ball esp near feet.  Good heading, both from high jumps, but also accuracy.  Passes and crosses near the goal line.  

All of which can involve physical play, but very high levels of physical play limit how much the other parts are seen.


----------



## espola (Aug 18, 2016)

Zoro said:


> A game where the elements unique to that sport are displayed.
> 
> For Rugby, the drawing of the tackle and the pass before the tackle - swift snappy ball movement.  A forward drop kick for a score, a strategic scrum, mall and a ruck.
> 
> ...


When I was a Freshman in high school, I was a skinny 135 lbs, and I had to practice with Seniors some of whom were full-grown men in the neighborhood of 200 lbs.  I learned to bounce off the big guys and fall without getting hurt, to let the big guy have first touch as long as I got the last touch,  and to play near the touchline - my most effective play was a sprint with the ball to the right corner flag and a high cross toward my teammates waiting in front of the goal - actually, that was my only play.

Years later, when I was playing Sunday pickup games, I discovered that 50 added pounds allowed me to try different strategies as a defender.


----------



## Zoro (Aug 18, 2016)

I enjoy the variety.  Soccer is one of those sports not dominated by one body type, or even skill set.  I think stacking the defense, long ball or  Ticki-Taka or doing nothing to get to the next tournament stage are all valid.   I prefer to watch some styles over others, but the better team (for that contest) was the one that wins he hardware.  

I'm not much of a hockey watcher, but the skating skill and puck movement are much more interesting to me than the body checks - which I think I could do.


----------



## rainbow_unicorn (Oct 23, 2016)

It's all about quickness when it comes to soccer physicality.  Period.  (Quickness meaning how fast can they run a 10-yard shuttle run).  Messi and Neymar are perfect examples of this.


----------



## socalkdg (Oct 24, 2016)

I watched the UCSB vs CPSLO mens college game.   Could not believe how physical the game was.  Players getting grabbed with both arms, knocked down, kicked, tripped, most of it being allowed, with nothing in the box being called at all.  Even the women's game allows a lot of grabbing, pushing, bumping.


----------



## espola (Oct 24, 2016)

socalkdg said:


> I watched the UCSB vs CPSLO mens college game.   Could not believe how physical the game was.  Players getting grabbed with both arms, knocked down, kicked, tripped, most of it being allowed, with nothing in the box being called at all.  Even the women's game allows a lot of grabbing, pushing, bumping.


The refereeing in that game was horrible.  Spectators should have demanded their money back, since admission to UCSB's rugby games is free.


----------



## Surfref (Oct 24, 2016)

Having watched most of my DD college games these past two years, some of the worst refereeing I have seen has been at the college level.  I have refereed with a good number of these San Diego college referees and they call a much better game when working youth club, High School, and adult leagues.  In the college game it seems like the referees do not use cards properly (meaning too little use) and most swallow their whistles.  The college game in my opinion is far to physical causing senseless injuries. I stopped worked college games a number of years ago, so I am not sure what they are teaching the referees now.  I have also noticed a good number of college referees that should not be out on the college field because they are too old and slow to keep up with play which causes them to miss many fouls and misconduct because they are way out of position and too far away.  Most of these referees would have trouble keeping up with a G/BU14 game. They were all really good referees at one time, but they are evidently too vain to realize they cannot keep up with the older players and that they need to move down and work U-little games.  The college referee association should weed out these older and slower referees.  There are more than enough good young referees to take their place.


----------

