Size VS Skill, when do you see a difference.

[Messi>CR7]

Usain Bolt supposedly is trying out for Borussia Dortmund. Let's see if speed matters

https://www.bundesliga.com/en/news/...nchester-united-dream-for-jamaican-467874.jsp

 

[wildcat66]

Size vs skill is neutralized in one vs one, but when it is team vs team it is a different story. I have seen those big, strong aggressive teams who play that more physical type of soccer really take the skillful, speedy team out of the game. When every tackle is a collision, every 50/50 ball results in someone coming off their feet, and player are not afraid to push the envelope of getting fouls or cards (part of the game as far as I am concerned) the size/strength factor is a big plus. Imagine if Messi was laid out by a 240+ defender a few times each game, Ronaldo got run over by a linebacker sized mid fielder frequently, and when you are trying to kick a pk against a guy the size of Lebron James every time.

 

[mirage]

......No matter how hard he works or how smart he plays, a donkey is still a donkey, and a smart slow player will always be a major defensive liability, never win through balls and lose out on most 50-50 balls.........

You know, what you'er saying makes logical sense and like you, I used to be one of those people who believed bigger, faster and stronger is better. Given if all things being equal, who wouldn't want someone faster, bigger and stronger? Right? I noticed not just this thread but you advocated the same points in the other thread too.

What I've seen and have learned is that not all things are equal and there is an optimal size for any given sports. Soccer happens to require not just top speed and strength, but agility and quickness that comes with having compact motions and knowing how best to use angles. Soccer players need to create separation somehow. It can come from brut force strength and speed or from quickness and agility. When someone is tall (say over 6'), the limbs and motions tend to be bigger and actual time to make changes in direction or any action takes longer than someone who is 5-8"~5-10". (there are exception here too - just look at Cristiano or better yet bigger LeBron James)

Since soccer is a compilation of small, tight space game played on a large field, the players ability to create separation and quick movements are of significant value.

Without making any references to Messi and Naymars' of the world, because they are truly exceptions and there are always exceptions but relatively meaningless when we speak in generality, it the Americana athlete syndrome that really hurts our ability to compete effectively in World Cup. Unfortunately, large percentage of American coaches believe in what you believe in - bigger, faster and stronger is necessary.

During my kid's recruiting days for college, we attended ID camps that the coaches didn't believe our kid was a forward because he was only 5-10" 160lbs, until he won headers, held the ball, played with his back to the goal and multiple goals in any given scrimmage they held during the camp. The reason being he didn't fit the "stereotypical" forward - 6+ and 180 lbs+ that they are looking for. Our kid was not given a second look from some of the coaches just because of his size. He was, however, recruited by four schools that played possession-based soccer and is playing for one of them.

The point is it would be over generalization to say size, speed and strength genetic lottery is the determining factor for athletic success. Perhaps its half of it but there are other physical attributes that goes beyond simple notion mentioned. It would be a mistake, in my mind, if one puts too much emphasis on just this half and underplay all the other attributes that make an athlete (e.g., technical skills, agility, intelligence/IQ, instinct and mental toughness and so on).

Since soccer is not a track and field event, where speed or distance jumped is measured against absolutes, one can take more variables into an account.

 

[espola]

You know, what you'er saying makes logical sense and like you, I used to be one of those people who believed bigger, faster and stronger is better. Given if all things being equal, who wouldn't want someone faster, bigger and stronger? Right? I noticed not just this thread but you advocated the same points in the other thread too.

What I've seen and have learned is that not all things are equal and there is an optimal size for any given sports. Soccer happens to require not just top speed and strength, but agility and quickness that comes with having compact motions and knowing how best to use angles. Soccer players need to create separation somehow. It can come from brut force strength and speed or from quickness and agility. When someone is tall (say over 6'), the limbs and motions tend to be bigger and actual time to make changes in direction or any action takes longer than someone who is 5-8"~5-10". (there are exception here too - just look at Cristiano or better yet bigger LeBron James)

Since soccer is a compilation of small, tight space game played on a large field, the players ability to create separation and quick movements are of significant value.

Without making any references to Messi and Naymars' of the world, because they are truly exceptions and there are always exceptions but relatively meaningless when we speak in generality, it the Americana athlete syndrome that really hurts our ability to compete effectively in World Cup. Unfortunately, large percentage of American coaches believe in what you believe in - bigger, faster and stronger is necessary.

During my kid's recruiting days for college, we attended ID camps that the coaches didn't believe our kid was a forward because he was only 5-10" 160lbs, until he won headers, held the ball, played with his back to the goal and multiple goals in any given scrimmage they held during the camp. The reason being he didn't fit the "stereotypical" forward - 6+ and 180 lbs+ that they are looking for. Our kid was not given a second look from some of the coaches just because of his size. He was, however, recruited by four schools that played possession-based soccer and is playing for one of them.

The point is it would be over generalization to say size, speed and strength genetic lottery is the determining factor for athletic success. Perhaps its half of it but there are other physical attributes that goes beyond simple notion mentioned. It would be a mistake, in my mind, if one puts too much emphasis on just this half and underplay all the other attributes that make an athlete (e.g., technical skills, agility, intelligence/IQ, instinct and mental toughness and so on).

Since soccer is not a track and field event, where speed or distance jumped is measured against absolutes, one can take more variables into an account.

"The reason being he didn't fit the "stereotypical" forward - 6+ and 180 lbs+ that they are looking for."

??? I have seen lots of small forwards.

 

[mirage]

"The reason being he didn't fit the "stereotypical" forward - 6+ and 180 lbs+ that they are looking for."

??? I have seen lots of small forwards.

Go look at forwards in mens college teams, especially in the east coast. Small forwards are not very often found because the backline tends to be 6-2~6-4 in many college teams.

 

[Jace]

So i am very curious about the role of maturity and how it plays in all of this?

I see lots of opinions... some seem knowledgeable some not. Some you can tell they have experience of their kid playing at the highest level... others repeating what they read on the interweb.

But this is a discussion about kids. You cannot have this discussion without the talking about the role of puberty. How significant that is.

In the the u littles you have some kids 11 mo older than others on same team. The effect of relative age and puberty at the youth leavel is huge.

Differences of maturity can be plus or minus several years.

The power, strength, or speed you are seeing at young ages... now is that genetic superiorority... or are you failing to recognize the differences of maturity?

 

[espola]

Go look at forwards in mens college teams, especially in the east coast. Small forwards are not very often found because the backline tends to be 6-2~6-4 in many college teams.

Most of the time, the ball is on the ground.

 

[Jace]

I will follow up... everyone thinks their johnnie is the exception.

Well im no different. My son plays at highest level... his touch and IQ stands out... as well as his intensity and determination. He plays a hard position... actually multiple... only one on his team. He has played different style all over the country.

Now, as great i think he is... he lacks explosiveness... and at the younger ages... that can affect confidence. Sometimes i think he might struggle with that while on the ball.

But he effectively competes at highest level and stands out regardless. Now if i could put the maturity in him that i see that other players have... the power and explosiveness... well... then we have a national player imo.

You can look at the youngers faces, legs, movement... you can see the late vs early bloomers. And many early bloomers are ruling the roost right now. Some relying on that early maturity to their own detriment. People mistake seeing this as the better athlete. This is false.

But with puberty its the roll of the dice...with late bloomers... just never know until you go thru it with your kid.

All you can do is enjoy the ride. Enjoy watching your kid play soccer. Believe in and support your kid as much as you can... and its a win win.

 

[mirage]

When I read maturity, it means more behavioral and not necessarily physical development. After your second post, its clear that you mean physical development as a child goes through puberty.

Some of the earlier comments, including my own, are more generic discussion in particular to the end state of the development - adults (or at least young adults) and not pre-puberty kids.

The only thing I can share with you, after having two boys playing from U6 all the way into college for the older and U16/'02 still playing club and seeing hundreds of games through puberty ages, is that when life happens to a child it changes many, many things. Including attitude towards the game.

Sounds like your kid is not one of the early puberty kids (which for boys you start to notice the physical differences at U13 or so for the early ones). By the time everyone hits 15~16 years old, over 90% of puberty is done and things will equal out back to their own abilities. Some super fast kids become slower and some not to coordinated slow players have become more athletic. And large significant number of kids will have stopped playing by the time they are in high school.

I don't believe any competent youth coach will mistake an early puberty kid's use of body advantage for a talent or a skill advantage. Its just an advantage to win games for the coach. Further, most parents, I believe, also recognizes the difference.

As you may know, as the kid grows into older ages, in particular to soccer, his position will require very specific domain knowledge about how to play that spot. While its good to play multiple positions in younger years, to be effective and excel at the high level competition beyond U16+, will require tactical knowledge of the game with and without the ball specific to the position.

On this forum, there was a time when the critical mass of discussion was on the older ages but the current critical mass appear to be focused on yougers and mostly girls game perspective. So when there's an generic topic like this one, I'll contribute and share my experiences.

 

[JJP]

You know, what you'er saying makes logical sense and like you, I used to be one of those people who believed bigger, faster and stronger is better. Given if all things being equal, who wouldn't want someone faster, bigger and stronger? Right? I noticed not just this thread but you advocated the same points in the other thread too.

Since soccer is not a track and field event, where speed or distance jumped is measured against absolutes, one can take more variables into an account.

This is a complicated topic, and I have posted specific responses in various threads, and it seems like people are generalizing those specific responses to conclude that I favor size and speed over skill.

That’s not what I believe. In general, I think the priority for a pro level soccer player is first skill, then speed, and just enough size to not be knocked off the ball easily. In soccer, size can be an advantage, you have more mass to push off defenders, but it can also be a disadvantage because you have to carry extra weight for 90 mins.

In youth soccer, say from u12-u14, I love the bigger players, because they are usually the ones who have hit puberty early and are typically physically thrashing the smaller, less mature players. By the time the boys hit u15-16, they all have had a couple years of puberty and size differences matter a lot less.

So if you read my posts in a youth soccer thread, you might think JJP likes size, but I actually only care about size in youth soccer, I don’t care that much about size for adult soccer. I think about a well built 5’9” player is big enough, I don’t see 6’ adult players running over well built 5’9” players. What happens in youth soccer is you have 5’6” kids running over 5’ kids, so size has a big impact in the youth game.

I am, however, very much into speed. No matter how skilled a player you are, if the defender you beat 1v1 can run back so you have to beat that defender a second time, then you are just too slow to be an attacking player. Slow players create so many problems defensively, and are so limited offensively in terms of 1v1 or creating and exploiting space, that the skill level and soccer IQ has to be through the roof to make up for the lack of speed.

 

[espola]

This is a complicated topic, and I have posted specific responses in various threads, and it seems like people are generalizing those specific responses to conclude that I favor size and speed over skill.

That’s not what I believe. In general, I think the priority for a pro level soccer player is first skill, then speed, and just enough size to not be knocked off the ball easily. In soccer, size can be an advantage, you have more mass to push off defenders, but it can also be a disadvantage because you have to carry extra weight for 90 mins.

In youth soccer, say from u12-u14, I love the bigger players, because they are usually the ones who have hit puberty early and are typically physically thrashing the smaller, less mature players. By the time the boys hit u15-16, they all have had a couple years of puberty and size differences matter a lot less.

So if you read my posts in a youth soccer thread, you might think JJP likes size, but I actually only care about size in youth soccer, I don’t care that much about size for adult soccer. I think about a well built 5’9” player is big enough, I don’t see 6’ adult players running over well built 5’9” players. What happens in youth soccer is you have 5’6” kids running over 5’ kids, so size has a big impact in the youth game.

I am, however, very much into speed. No matter how skilled a player you are, if the defender you beat 1v1 can run back so you have to beat that defender a second time, then you are just too slow to be an attacking player. Slow players create so many problems defensively, and are so limited offensively in terms of 1v1 or creating and exploiting space, that the skill level and soccer IQ has to be through the roof to make up for the lack of speed.

The best thing that could happen to a player who hits puberty early is to play up a year or two.

 

[MyDaughtersAKeeper]

This is a complicated topic, and I have posted specific responses in various threads, and it seems like people are generalizing those specific responses to conclude that I favor size and speed over skill.

That’s not what I believe. In general, I think the priority for a pro level soccer player is first skill, then speed, and just enough size to not be knocked off the ball easily. In soccer, size can be an advantage, you have more mass to push off defenders, but it can also be a disadvantage because you have to carry extra weight for 90 mins.

In youth soccer, say from u12-u14, I love the bigger players, because they are usually the ones who have hit puberty early and are typically physically thrashing the smaller, less mature players. By the time the boys hit u15-16, they all have had a couple years of puberty and size differences matter a lot less.

So if you read my posts in a youth soccer thread, you might think JJP likes size, but I actually only care about size in youth soccer, I don’t care that much about size for adult soccer. I think about a well built 5’9” player is big enough, I don’t see 6’ adult players running over well built 5’9” players. What happens in youth soccer is you have 5’6” kids running over 5’ kids, so size has a big impact in the youth game.

I am, however, very much into speed. No matter how skilled a player you are, if the defender you beat 1v1 can run back so you have to beat that defender a second time, then you are just too slow to be an attacking player. Slow players create so many problems defensively, and are so limited offensively in terms of 1v1 or creating and exploiting space, that the skill level and soccer IQ has to be through the roof to make up for the lack of speed.

It isn't a complicated topic. Speed is measurable; skill isn't. If your kid isn't fast you hold onto the hope that they are skilled enough to hang with faster players. I have never heard of having too much speed (or strength) in sports. My kid is a goalie, and I still warn her that she better work on her speed and quickness. Very few of us want to hear that our highly skilled slow footed kid isn't going to play at an elite level, but they aren't.

 

[espola]

It isn't a complicated topic. Speed is measurable; skill isn't. If your kid isn't fast you hold onto the hope that they are skilled enough to hang with faster players. I have never heard of having too much speed (or strength) in sports. My kid is a goalie, and I still warn her that she better work on her speed and quickness. Very few of us want to hear that our highly skilled slow footed kid isn't going to play at an elite level, but they aren't.

Skill can be measured.

 

[JJP]

It isn't a complicated topic. Speed is measurable; skill isn't. If your kid isn't fast you hold onto the hope that they are skilled enough to hang with faster players. I have never heard of having too much speed (or strength) in sports. My kid is a goalie, and I still warn her that she better work on her speed and quickness. Very few of us want to hear that our highly skilled slow footed kid isn't going to play at an elite level, but they aren't.

I don’t think it’s as simple as that. At certain age groups size matters more. Some kids are super fast but they can only run hard for 15 mins. Some kids are super quick for the first 3 or 4 steps but then they slow down. Some kids don’t have that burst, but as they stretch their legs out they cover tons of ground.

I do agree with you that if you want to play at the elite level you are going to need a good short term burst and the ability to sustain that speed for about 40 yards and do that repeatedly over 90 mins.

 

[mirage]

I am, however, very much into speed. No matter how skilled a player you are, if the defender you beat 1v1 can run back so you have to beat that defender a second time, then you are just too slow to be an attacking player. Slow players create so many problems defensively, and are so limited offensively in terms of 1v1 or creating and exploiting space, that the skill level and soccer IQ has to be through the roof to make up for the lack of speed.

With all due respect, this is exactly what's wrong with US soccer. So focused on absolute values. There is raw speed, and there is effective speed. As your follow on post reinforces;

I don’t think it’s as simple as that. At certain age groups size matters more. Some kids are super fast but they can only run hard for 15 mins. Some kids are super quick for the first 3 or 4 steps but then they slow down. Some kids don’t have that burst, but as they stretch their legs out they cover tons of ground.

I do agree with you that if you want to play at the elite level you are going to need a good short term burst and the ability to sustain that speed for about 40 yards and do that repeatedly over 90 mins.

40 yards! Yikes. Soccer is a series of small space games played on a large field. Rarely is the case where a player has to sprint for 40 yards/meters on his own with a ball at his feet to attack or defend. If that occurs, then there is a serious tactical mistake and you get what you get. If properly played, there is almost no need for a 40 yard sprint. Quick and short touches and accurate passes will move the ball round faster than any human can run.

I'm sure you'll agree with me that the ball moves faster than a player, no matter how fast he is.

Effective speed has to take into an account angles of player off the ball as well as movements prior to receiving the ball. Soccer is not a track event where everyone starts at the same block and runs to the finish line.

Skilled and high IQ players alway benefits from more speed and strength - agree. But they are enhancing and not enabling. In other words, skill trumps speed every time.

 

[jrcaesar]

In other words, skill trumps speed every time.

The ability to disrupt (without fouling), double-team, or harass/foul faster players makes this true - assuming there's never a bad decision or defensive breakdown by the skilled players.

 

[NickName]

The ability to disrupt (without fouling), double-team, or harass/foul faster players makes this true - assuming there's never a bad decision or defensive breakdown by the skilled players.

Funny, my kid (center defender) said he was trying to foul kids all last weekend but the kids were too big.

He’s joined me in the gym without complaint 3 times this week

 

[JJP]

40 yards! Yikes. Soccer is a series of small space games played on a large field. Rarely is the case where a player has to sprint for 40 yards/meters on his own with a ball at his feet to attack or defend. If that occurs, then there is a serious tactical mistake and you get what you get. If properly played, there is almost no need for a 40 yard sprint. Quick and short touches and accurate passes will move the ball round faster than any human can run.

40 yard runs happen all the time. There’s so many times a game a MF will pop out a long ball to the wings when the opposing D is playing a high press, causing forwards and opposing defenders to take off. The Dutch training method is that a socccer player should be able to do a flat out sprint for 5 seconds (which is about 40 yards), at which point he should shoot or pass.

I'm sure you'll agree with me that the ball moves faster than a player, no matter how fast he is.

Effective speed has to take into an account angles of player off the ball as well as movements prior to receiving the ball. Soccer is not a track event where everyone starts at the same block and runs to the finish line.

You are ignoring the importance of D and winning loose balls. A slow player in space is going to get beat like a drum. And unless they are closest to a loose ball, slow players are going to lose the battle to collect loose balls. Good D and winning loose balls is critical. It’s why I believe, at the youth level, there is really no such thing as a good slow player.

Guys like Xavi and Pirlo function best on teams that have 1) the speed to create space for them, and 2) the skill to maintain possession, so that their liabilities as defenders and inability to win loose balls is not exposed.

Those 2 conditions never exist in US youth soccer. Yes, the good slow player helps create some goals and makes some nice combinations, but if they are caught out of position on D they can’t get back and leave a giant hole on D. And the latter happens A LOT more than the former.

My observation is that the good slow players and their parents are in reality just team killers. They think they are offensive players, and they make tons of “almost”goals with their skills and high soccer IQ, but they rarely finish off plays because faster defenders catch up to them and interfere with their shot. But they are encouraged by their “almost” goals and keep pushing forward to contribute their good, slow skills to the offense. The parents of the good, slow player are also encouraged and think their good, slow player is on the verge of breaking through and cheer him on to push up and “contribute” to the offense. Of course, when the good slow player pushes up but doesn’t score (which is almost always), he can’t get back in time to play D, and a quick goal kick or good chip unleashes a counter where the opposing striker runs through the central hole where the good, slow player should have been. (The good, slow player is almost always a central player.) The good, slow players invariably remember the 2 or 3 beautiful, quality goals they scored, and forget the 15 to 20 counter goals blasting throughout the central hole where they should have been, because it’s not the fault of the good, slow player. He was busy contributing his good, slow skills to the offense, and it’s the responsibility of the fast players to run back and cover for the good, slow player.

After several games of this bullshit, you end up with a team where the good, slow player pushes up at every opportunity, tons of almost goals, no actual goals, the fast players are confused whether they should play offense or defense, whether they should guard their man or the good slow player’s man, and which one of the fast players is supposed to guard the good, slow player’s man.

I’m telling you, stop overthinking this, looking at angles and all this other crap. That kind of stuff only matters if you have speed to take advantage of the opportunities you see. There is only one type of good slow player. A player who always keeps his shape and connection with teammates, never leaves a hole in the D, passes the ball as soon as he can. You will not find him in youth US soccer and it’s just about impossible to develop a good slow player in the US for the reasons I mentioned above.

 

[Gokicksomegrass]

40 yard runs happen all the time. There’s so many times a game a MF will pop out a long ball to the wings when the opposing D is playing a high press, causing forwards and opposing defenders to take off. The Dutch training method is that a socccer player should be able to do a flat out sprint for 5 seconds (which is about 40 yards), at which point he should shoot or pass.



You are ignoring the importance of D and winning loose balls. A slow player in space is going to get beat like a drum. And unless they are closest to a loose ball, slow players are going to lose the battle to collect loose balls. Good D and winning loose balls is critical. It’s why I believe, at the youth level, there is really no such thing as a good slow player.

Guys like Xavi and Pirlo function best on teams that have 1) the speed to create space for them, and 2) the skill to maintain possession, so that their liabilities as defenders and inability to win loose balls is not exposed.

Those 2 conditions never exist in US youth soccer. Yes, the good slow player helps create some goals and makes some nice combinations, but if they are caught out of position on D they can’t get back and leave a giant hole on D. And the latter happens A LOT more than the former.

My observation is that the good slow players and their parents are in reality just team killers. They think they are offensive players, and they make tons of “almost”goals with their skills and high soccer IQ, but they rarely finish off plays because faster defenders catch up to them and interfere with their shot. But they are encouraged by their “almost” goals and keep pushing forward to contribute their good, slow skills to the offense. The parents of the good, slow player are also encouraged and think their good, slow player is on the verge of breaking through and cheer him on to push up and “contribute” to the offense. Of course, when the good slow player pushes up but doesn’t score (which is almost always), he can’t get back in time to play D, and a quick goal kick or good chip unleashes a counter where the opposing striker runs through the central hole where the good, slow player should have been. (The good, slow player is almost always a central player.) The good, slow players invariably remember the 2 or 3 beautiful, quality goals they scored, and forget the 15 to 20 counter goals blasting throughout the central hole where they should have been, because it’s not the fault of the good, slow player. He was busy contributing his good, slow skills to the offense, and it’s the responsibility of the fast players to run back and cover for the good, slow player.

After several games of this bullshit, you end up with a team where the good, slow player pushes up at every opportunity, tons of almost goals, no actual goals, the fast players are confused whether they should play offense or defense, whether they should guard their man or the good slow player’s man, and which one of the fast players is supposed to guard the good, slow player’s man.

I’m telling you, stop overthinking this, looking at angles and all this other crap. That kind of stuff only matters if you have speed to take advantage of the opportunities you see. There is only one type of good slow player. A player who always keeps his shape and connection with teammates, never leaves a hole in the D, passes the ball as soon as he can. You will not find him in youth US soccer and it’s just about impossible to develop a good slow player in the US for the reasons I mentioned above.

Ah yes, the boot the ball over the top to the fast forward. Classic.
Didn't know that the player and parent can chose which position to play or get the minutes to play them.
Getting the opportunity to make dozens of SOG means they play lotta minutes.
So, did you share this insight with the coach and let them know the truth that fast players with two left feet are the way for the win?

 

[JJP]

Ah yes, the boot the ball over the top to the fast forward. Classic.
Didn't know that the player and parent can chose which position to play or get the minutes to play them.
Getting the opportunity to make dozens of SOG means they play lotta minutes.
So, did you share this insight with the coach and let them know the truth that fast players with two left feet are the way for the win?

No.

If you read my post, it was the opposing team that booted it into the space abandoned by our good slow player. Why would I talk to the other teams coach?

And nobody has to teach a coach how to beat the out of position, good slow player. There’s so many out of position good slow players at every level of soccer everyone knows how to beat them.

I’m sure I will get a bunch of butt hurt snide remarks like yours about boot ball blah blah development blah blah my good slow player son is playing real soccer blah blah, the fast players playing boot ball will never make it next level blah blah.

The best way to get rid of boot ball is dump the good slow player, because that’s the type of player that boot ball was designed to exploit.

 

[mirage]

........The Dutch training method is that a socccer player should be able to do a flat out sprint for 5 seconds (which is about 40 yards), at which point he should shoot or pass.

Its one of things and others too. Your scenario does not happen for 90 minutes as you've originally stated. It happens few times in a game and, really, its chase the ball. If the MF knows that the D is faster than F/W, then MF will not place the ball there. There are other options that a smart MF players make.

You are ignoring the importance of D and winning loose balls. A slow player in space is going to get beat like a drum. And unless they are closest to a loose ball, slow players are going to lose the battle to collect loose balls. Good D and winning loose balls is critical. It’s why I believe, at the youth level, there is really no such thing as a good slow player.

Guys like Xavi and Pirlo function best on teams that have 1) the speed to create space for them, and 2) the skill to maintain possession, so that their liabilities as defenders and inability to win loose balls is not exposed.

Not at all. Players should be positioned such that they have an advantage when without the ball. I do find it odd that you bring up Xavi and Pirlo while discussing youth soccer. I will note that no one is talking about exceptionally slow or a team made up full of slow players. On any given team, there are different speeds.

Your clearly entitled to have your own belief but I disagree your generalization about all slow youth players. I have seen quite a few games watching my kid play from U12 to U18 over the years. I say U12 on because prior to that there is no soccer IQ to speak of, for the most part. Also at U-little to about U12, speed dominates because there is nothing else. Which brings me to the next point.....

My observation is that the good slow players and their parents are in reality just team killers. They think they are offensive players, and they make tons of “almost”goals with their skills and high soccer IQ, but they rarely finish off plays because faster defenders catch up to them and interfere with their shot. But they are encouraged by their “almost” goals.......

After several games of this bullshit, you end up with a team where the good, slow player pushes up at every opportunity, tons of almost goals, no actual goals, the fast players are confused whether they should play offense or defense, whether they should guard their man or the good slow player’s man, and which one of the fast players is supposed to guard the good, slow player’s man.

You really have a very one sided, skewed view of the game. For clarification, I don't have a slow kid. My kid is playing in college as a Forward and has led scoring in every team he's ever played on from U6 to U18, including in DA. That said, parents like you who blame the slow kid and have opinions you've listed, simply tells me that you thoughts are predetermined and are not open to discovery. Try keeping an open mind and see what really happens objectively.

Sounds like your kid is D, given the detail you've provided in the examples. Most D's I've seen are not very technical or soccer IQ savvy, and is a bull in a china shop at the youth level. Make sense that your perspective is shaped the way it is.

I’m telling you, stop overthinking this, looking at angles and all this other crap...

That's just it isn't it. Not over thinking it. Angles do matter as well as off the ball movements. Its just how the game is played at the higher level.

I'm sure, like me, you've tire this subject enough so thanks for the banter and we agree to disagree.