Size VS Skill, when do you see a difference.

[MyDaughtersAKeeper]

For the love of everything holy, this isn't (shouldn't be a) a debate. You cannot play at an elite level if you are slow - sorry but it is the truth; no matter how many times you mark my comment(s) as dumb. Yes, you also have to possess: skills, soccer IQ, conditioning, etc..., etc... If your kid doesn't have speed - get working on it; all of those highly motivated fast players that don't have the same skill level are coming.

 

[JJP]

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.

Lol. My observations on the out of position good slow player are based on what actually happens in real games. Not sure what you are watching.

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 don’t understand why you would deduce my kid would have to play D for my observations to make sense. FYI, my kid plays 10 and 7/11, so I don’t understand what you even mean. Not sure what kind of D you watch but the D on most academy teams are actually very skilled, they actually handle the ball more than any other position because the academy teams emphasize building out the back.

You don’t have to be a genius or have a son playing a certain position to know that when the good slow player 4, 5 or 6 are deeper than the 10 or 8 on a regular basis, and the other team is blasting thru the hole in the D, something is really wrong.

Congrats on your boy being a successful DI player. It’s a great accomplishment and you must be proud of him.

 

[Mystery Train]

I haven't read this whole thread, but when y'all are saying "slow," I wonder if there is an agreed upon definition of what a "slow player" is, since the term is purely relative. I also don't know if anyone here really has a good definition of "elite." Elite for youth soccer? Elite for college? Elite for professional?

Personally, I always thought of myself as a "slow" player because when my HS team ran sprints, I was always in the bottom third. I had suddenly grown big feet and long legs that didn't mesh with the stride I'd developed as a youngster. But I made up for it with awareness, instincts, IQ and hustle. I was a defender and only once in 3 years of starting varsity did I ever let a faster player get behind me for a scoring chance (and I promptly fouled him). I had "game" speed. Now, that being said, I'd never classify myself as "elite," either. But I was solid and I played with and against some "elite" athletes who went on to play D1 sports. I had two team mates who ran sub 4.5 40's. I could read the game better, compete with them, and hold my own despite my below average speed. I don't disagree that having speed is better than not having it. I'm just glad I didn't have some of you as my coach. I'd never have seen the field.

 

[JJP]

Personally, I always thought of myself as a "slow" player because when my HS team ran sprints, I was always in the bottom third. I had suddenly grown big feet and long legs that didn't mesh with the stride I'd developed as a youngster.

You may have thought of yourself as slow because you went through an awkward stage with your stride not matching your long legs, but you weren’t slow. You just needed some time to hit your stride and then I bet you were pretty fast. That kind of speed, slow start but fast finish, works fine for a long defender. Use your body length and long arms to slow down the opposing attacker, then get your long legs in stride to keep up with him.

 

[*GOBEARGO*]

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.

The ball has and always will outrun any player.

 

[ChargerPride]

Just throwing in my two cents here,
Everyone is different and can't judge all books by their cover. While speed kills, just ask Al Davis. Without the IQ, you just have a fast player. Reality is that it is hard to just define one as slow and then shelve them in a group. Because soccer really is complex, the faster you think of the situation and either react or anticipate can have a huge difference in outcome regardless of speed. My DD isn't the biggest, the fastest or the strongest, yet what makes her so uniquely special is her ball skills and her high soccer IQ. Which allow her to anticipate and it doesn't hurt that she is very aggressive, always trying to win those 50/50's. In the end if you can have the ball at your feet regardless of the play then isn't that one of the biggest advantages in soccer. Possessing the ball. Don't get me wrong. I constantly remind my DD that the faster she can move the better the result will be along with her current advantages.

 

[RichMan]

Just throwing in my two cents here,
Everyone is different and can't judge all books by their cover. While speed kills, just ask Al Davis. Without the IQ, you just have a fast player. Reality is that it is hard to just define one as slow and then shelve them in a group. Because soccer really is complex, the faster you think of the situation and either react or anticipate can have a huge difference in outcome regardless of speed. My DD isn't the biggest, the fastest or the strongest, yet what makes her so uniquely special is her ball skills and her high soccer IQ. Which allow her to anticipate and it doesn't hurt that she is very aggressive, always trying to win those 50/50's. In the end if you can have the ball at your feet regardless of the play then isn't that one of the biggest advantages in soccer. Possessing the ball. Don't get me wrong. I constantly remind my DD that the faster she can move the better the result will be along with her current advantages.

Well said! I'm referring to that speed often as well. My lil one's always been big, fast and aggressive. Buuuuut, when her body started changing, her speed wasn't the same and her skill needed to start making up the difference. But focusing on skills caused quite a regression in her overall aggression with all of the over-thinking and second-guessing.

However, with her beginning to understand her body and the speed starting to come back, it's a beautiful thing to watch when they work in tandem. Things just don't come as easy as they once did and she gotta work for it. That's where soccer IQ is vital.

 

[ChargerPride]

So I am adding a little more after going through the thread.
When your DD moves from the small field to the big fields is usually the best indicator of how they will fare. However, their development is dependent on how they are trained. Each club has a mission and vision that identifies their style, that separates them from the pack. Some clubs have been around longer and have a reputation. In my case the most important thing was, the coach. I was able to watch my DD play against his teams and as we moved around trying to find the best fit. We finally made the move in which we thought it was the best for her overall development. A style and training that would enhance her current abilities and challenge her to be a better player. Once the skills were taught, they moved on to incorporating those skills and techniques into a team vision of possession, just like you see the top European countries play. It is not easy by no means and takes alot of time and patience to learn, getting all players and parents to buy into such a cerebral approach. There are times when the bigger, faster, stronger team just seemed like too big an obstacle, girls seemed hesitant and a little afraid. How to defend such Elite speed. It seems like most love to play the long ball with hopes of taking as many shots and hoping for the defense to make a mistake. However as the system worked and the team became more unified. Eventually those bigger, faster, stronger team were not as scary. Reason was that once the possession/IQ along with skill, kicked in, the opposing team was starting to chase. Pretty soon that was all they were doing, was chasing all the passes. Funny that no matter how fast you are, a good passes is almost always faster. Possession, requires skillful and smart players, and while speed is king. Sometimes being just fast enough with skill and IQ is more than enough. Did I mention, after running around alot, players tend to get tired. Some of the best soccer was always in the second half.

I did read about heart, and I agree to a point. However my biggest thing about heart, is that it will only get you so far. If you ever watched the movie Rudy, you will know what I mean. I remember a coach who left me speechless. My DD had a team mate who was quick, one might even say fast for her size, but would never give up. I agree she had heart. Yet she lacked skill, IQ, and just didn't have the atheticism for the game. The coach said that if he could have 11 girls like her, that he would never lose. Most parents and myself were left speechless. I didn't say anything to the coach, but I would take 11 girls like my DD and crush his heart girls. Their is a reason why there are different levels of soccer. Players with god given abilities like size, speed, natural atheticism, will always be in high demand, and yet without the skill and IQ to back it up. You will just have an athlete. An elite athlete, but just an athlete. While the ratio may differ from player to player, I feel that once you have all 5, that's when you have struck gold. All those attributes can be improved, some are harder than others, but can still be improved. Add heart as a bonus. You may have scored a future Messi.

Ultimately, a player is defined how they perform on the pitch/field. Their desire to want to improve can only be done by them. Wanting to practice, hone their skills. Repeat and continue to improve. I hope all our DD's continue to play this amazing game, that I feel is one of the best sports for conditioning and good health.

 

[Buddhabman]

Just watching the NFL combine today,WR, TE, DL, LB drills has me wondering if coaches are not working enough on getting our kids to move to ball at full speed. Running to a ball that is being passed to them. To take a ball coming to them at speed, receive it and move with speed. We need to make sure our kids can receive and maneuver and pass a ball out at full speed.

 

[push_up]

A plethora of good posts. The last one is dumb.

 

[Lambchop]

I agree that receiving and playing at speed is crucial, and one of the most reliable indicators of development as a player. You cannot play at speed without a solid technical foundation. Teams that receive and play at speed are always highly competitive. And yes, we can learn a lot from the NFL, especially in the way they structure practices. NFL teams have a coach for every positional group, such as linebacker and receiver coaches. We could do more to follow their example in training specialty skills.

Some DA clubs actually have specialty coaches at their practices and games, while some clubs do the same old same old, one coach.

 

[Buddhabman]

I agree that receiving and playing at speed is crucial, and one of the most reliable indicators of development as a player. You cannot play at speed without a solid technical foundation. Teams that receive and play at speed are always highly competitive. And yes, we can learn a lot from the NFL, especially in the way they structure practices. NFL teams have a coach for every positional group, such as linebacker and receiver coaches. We could do more to follow their example in training specialty skills.

Thank you for fleshing out what I meant to continue on. Got distracted and couldn't finish my original thought. The idea is that our top flight 1 kids by the age of 12,13,14 should have the athleticism, technical competence to receive a ball, manipulate to one side or another, from one foot to another, dribble, pass and shoot at speed. Not half speed like in drill practice but at minimum 3/4 speed up to full sprint. If your kid is good at that, whether they are big or small it is very advantageous. You can see those special kids that take a ball on the move, regardless of ball speed, adjust their body to receive and then to either make the pass or take the ball at the dribble at full steam.

I agree also that we can take some coaching and practice methods from both NFL and NBA teams. Soccer tends to be free flowing in a sense, but the great teams have some very well drilled in patterns of play.

Getting to original question, "Speed vs Skill, when do you see a difference". My son is an 03 playing on flight 1 team. We have kids that start that range from 5'2" to 6'0" 105-110lbs to 160lbs. If the kid is small but skillful, quick/fast and heart of a lion, then size is not much of a factor. If the small kid is not particularly brave going against larger kids and becomes hesitant then you may have issues scrambling for 1st, 2nd lose balls, 50/50 balls. That can be troublesome depending on your kids position. Not so bad if he is a forward, not good as a midfielder, dangerous as a defender. You have to get their first, big or small.

I have gotten a chance to watch a few more high school soccer games this year, Freshman, JV and Varsity. Size and speed is a big difference maker at Varsity level. Have seen a few games with very technical kids in the middle, club players that are playing up as freshman because of their skill, get manhandled by some bigger players. Lots of long ball in the games i have watched, if your defenders don't have wheels and bit size to muscle kids away from ball, you are doomed.

 

[JJP]

Skill is the least important factor to me at these ages. I find it very easy to teach kids how to handle a ball and play a possession-style game. We probably do about 20,000 passing repetitions per player per year in practice, as well as Coerver-style drilling, and we have live scrimmages at nearly every practice. On top of that, our teams play in about 50 games and scrimmages per year. So the skill develops pretty quickly.

Conclusion: There is no single factor when selecting players. But there are factors that indicate that a player is a "no-go" for recruitment. The most common for me is when a kid is slow.

You sound like all the coaches who recruited my first boy. No skill at all but he literally ran over every kid and had the ball all the time before losing it and then hacking down whoever took it from him. The coaches would all say to him, “You have to play the ball, not the player.” And he’d say “What kind of stupid rule is that?” They’d all want him and I’d say, “Why? He’s gonna get a red within 5 minutes.” And they’d all say “I can teach him how to play, I can’t coach his speed and aggression?”

But he wasn’t that easy to coach, and neither were a bunch of the other kids on his team. In contrast the younger all Mexican teams played like junior pros.

Do you ever coach boys? I don’t have daughters but it seems to me that the girls were just a lot more coachable. Getting boys to do repetitive Coerver drills was not easy, or follow instructions is just about impossible.

 

[Mystery Train]

It's neither "speed," nor "IQ," nor "skill" which makes a player great, much less a team. It's a suite of talents which make a player talented, and a diversity of talents which make a team great.

I coach girls on the small-side fields, which means the youngest ages. All these teams are built from scratch, starting with zero players. Which compels me to spend most of my weekends scouting for talent and recruiting players. Having zero players to start with is always a challenge, but at least it allows me the freedom to choose what type of player to look for.

One thing learned over the years is that great players come in all shapes and sizes. Diversity of skills on a team are highly important. So, rather than choose just for "speed" or "IQ," I look at a continuum of 4 factors, in descending importance:

• dominance on the field;
• aggressiveness;
• speed; and
• skill

Dominance on the field is the most important factor. A player who is always finding the ball usually has something which makes her great. It might be IQ, or skills, or aggressiveness, or it might be speed. Whatever it is, it makes that player special.

Aggressiveness follows in importance. Kids who crave the ball and get to the ball first are like gold. You might need to teach them how to play intelligently. But each of those kids might give your team an extra 5-10 possessions during a game.

You cannot have "slow" kids on the field if you want a competitive team. Median speed is fine for most players, but kids who really are "slow" have no business playing on a club-level team. They cannot get to the ball unless somebody serves it to them. They win few 50-50 balls because they are always a step behind. I don't care about a kid's "soccer IQ;" if she can't get to the ball then she can't do a lot to contribute.

Skill is the least important factor to me at these ages. I find it very easy to teach kids how to handle a ball and play a possession-style game. We probably do about 20,000 passing repetitions per player per year in practice, as well as Coerver-style drilling, and we have live scrimmages at nearly every practice. On top of that, our teams play in about 50 games and scrimmages per year. So the skill develops pretty quickly.

Conclusion: There is no single factor when selecting players. But there are factors that indicate that a player is a "no-go" for recruitment. The most common for me is when a kid is slow.

I appreciate a coaches' insight on what their thought process is like in selecting players. Very enlightening. This is almost exactly how my daughter's first club coach picked players, although speed was slightly higher. Not to put down this approach, but it does reflect your purpose: win games. I don't think you can avoid this in club soccer, because that's how you keep your job as a coach. I'd do the same if coaching youth soccer was putting food on my table. But I'm not convinced it translates to great results at the older levels. Almost 100% of the dominant players at my kid's u10 age group are nowhere to be seen today at u17. I'm no expert, but that's just what I've seen. And that club is a club that always preached "development." What I learned is that the priority for coaches is actually: 1. winning, 2.recruiting and 3.moving to a "better" club (ECNL, DA, etc.). Trying to improve their existing players' skills was way down on that list.

To the OP's original question, for girls I saw the drop-off of the "dominant" players gradually each year from U12-U15. A couple of them stayed at that high level, but they were kids with average size to begin with and exceptional speed who just kept working. None of the really big dominant kids that I knew at the Ulittle ages are anywhere near the top teams now. My daughter is a keeper, so size has always been a big deal to the coaches, and she was deemed too small for the top teams at U12, but is now the tallest kid on both her HS and club team. In her case, speed/quickness was her strength in Ulittles and few cared, but now that she's gotten tall and long, coaches are excited. That changed at about U15 for her.

 

[Gokicksomegrass]

I don't deny recruiting players to help "win games." While winning is not the "most important" objective when training youth soccer, it better be high on a coach's list. Winning serves development for all of a coach's players. A winning team usually has highly focused players, who pass their attitude onto others, making everyone better. Winning teams attract talented players, who will make practices more challenging for all. Winning teams are able to play in higher league flights, and compete in higher tournament brackets, resulting in better weekly competition for all players. There is no downside to having a team that regularly wins. Winning may not be the "only" thing, but it's a whole lot better than losing.

I deny the wisdom of recruiting players who cannot help a team win. Sure, today's "slow kid" with a great attitude and high "soccer IQ" might mature into a great athlete. But the actual likelihood of that happening is low. And putting that kid on a team where he or she will be near the bottom of the depth chart might be good for the slow player, but it detracts from the team's overall skill level, and may affect the team's performance. In my opinion - and there are many who would dispute it - a coach's first priority is to train the team to be the best it can be. Adding players who are below the team's level of competitiveness detracts from that objective. That slow kid who may be great one day should play at a lower level, until he blossoms.

THIS is the reason why a parent should always focus on the development of your kid, not
how much hardware your kid can hang up on the wall. "Winning team" means just towing the company line, like a good
company person should do. Clubs are just "non-profit" companies who need to make payroll and pay for DoC's new MB AMG G65.
(Ya, the black shiny one. Who could that be, folks wonder???) Keep that in mind and all will be known.

Many kids of parents who were loyal, bought stupid, expensive crap during the auction, and kissed ass were kicked to the
curb by another better kid developed outside of the club aka "recruiting".
A kid with developed skills, IQ, talent, and drive can be a free agent and can move freely about the cabin.
Find the right coach, be the advocate and protector of your child until they can fight for themselves. Good luck.

Yeah, I feel you, coach. Need to keep steaks in the frig. But that ain't my problem.

 

[Mystery Train]

THIS is the reason why a parent should always focus on the development of your kid, not
how much hardware your kid can hang up on the wall. "Winning team" means just towing the company line, like a good
company person should do. Clubs are just "non-profit" companies who need to make payroll and pay for DoC's new MB AMG G65.
(Ya, the black shiny one. Who could that be, folks wonder???) Keep that in mind and all will be known.

Many kids of parents who were loyal, bought stupid, expensive crap during the auction, and kissed ass were kicked to the
curb by another better kid developed outside of the club aka "recruiting".
A kid with developed skills, IQ, talent, and drive can be a free agent and can move freely about the cabin.
Find the right coach, be the advocate and protector of your child until they can fight for themselves. Good luck.

Yeah, I feel you, coach. Need to keep steaks in the frig. But that ain't my problem.

I think I know this club and that AMG driver. Beware clubs that run auctions and fundraisers (mandatory) when the DoC makes north of 150 or 200 large per year.

@toucan , Even though your post was quoted, I don't think these comments were directed at you. You seem like an honest straight shooter. But there's plenty of clubs out there who use coaches like yourself to line the trophy case so they can line their wallets on empty promises to inexperienced club soccer parents.

 

[Juribe]

Would this kid be considered slow and possessing high "soccer iq"? Can't picture him winning any track events with his size.

 

[JJP]

@toucan , Even though your post was quoted, I don't think these comments were directed at you. You seem like an honest straight shooter. But there's plenty of clubs out there who use coaches like yourself to line the trophy case so they can line their wallets on empty promises to inexperienced club soccer parents.

I’m pretty sure they were directed at him since Gokicksomegrass’s response to toucan’s post started with a capitalized THIS.

THIS is the reason why a parent should always focus on the development of your kid, not how much hardware your kid can hang up on the wall. "Winning team" means just towing the company line, like a good company person should do. Clubs are just "non-profit" companies who need to make payroll and pay for DoC's new MB AMG G65.
(Ya, the black shiny one. Who could that be, folks wonder???) Keep that in mind and all will be known.

Many kids of parents who were loyal, bought stupid, expensive crap during the auction, and kissed ass were kicked to the curb by another better kid developed outside of the club aka "recruiting".

And this seems like a backhanded compliment.

Yeah, I feel you, coach. Need to keep steaks in the frig. But that ain't my problem.

Not sure why you’re pissed at toucan. He is building and recruiting winning teams that focus on ball control and possession through Coerver style drills. Sounds pretty good to me. I’d love to get coaching like that for free, but I’m willing to pay for it because I want my boys outside and playing instead of inside and gaming.

 

[jrcaesar]

The Board: "Someone please be honest: What are coaches looking for?"
Toucan: "Here are the 4 things all coaches look for, but won't tell you. If your kid doesn't have those 4 traits, there are plenty of Flight 2 teams for them. Also, winning is nice."
The Board: "How dare you!"

 

[MakeAPlay]

I have always coached girls teams, so maybe my process wouldn't work so well with a boy's team. My girls are almost universally attentive, hard working, and anxious to please. They love Coerver drills. And I rarely have trouble teaching one to play a possession-style game. True, some do it better than others, but for the most part all give a really great effort.

The last true possession girls club team I saw was Deanza Force 98/99 and maybe the Surf 98/99 team. I would love to see another one. What age group and level are you coaching? My player is off until June and I have some time to kill. What team are you talking about and where will they next be playing.

 

[Gokicksomegrass]

That was an interesting post directed at me, though snarky and wholly uninformed. Taking the points one-by-one:

• Building "winning teams" is not about getting hardware. It's about striving for excellence. Not that there is anything wrong with winning a couple of tournaments here and there.
• What "company line" are you talking about? That comment is senseless.
• Nobody at our club is making a ton of money. Our fees are about $1500 per player per year, which is in the middle of club fees in general. Our coaches get paid about $800-$1000 per team per month, which is about average. There isn't any extra money in the budget to make DOCs or anybody else very much money at all. No coach or DOC in our club is making much money from soccer, and none are driving BMWs or other expensive cars that I know of.
• My teams had no auctions or other fundraisers. To the extent any of my teams were short of money for tournaments, referee fees and other sundries, I paid those expenses myself, to the tune of about $5,000 in the last year. I could not support myself on the salary I earn as a coach, much less live in splendor. Though I have been coaching club soccer for many years, it is not my "day job."
• I didn't kick any kid to the curb last year. Of my two short-side teams I retained 23 of 24 players for our new club year starting this March. That is a 96% retention rate. There may be many reasons for this, but the fact that those teams had a collective record of 25-2-1 made them fun for the girls, and created a platform for all players to develop.

In any event, I don't know what this poster is angry about. If he wants his kid on a "losing" team rather than a "winning" team, well, bully for him. There are plenty of lessons that can be learned from losing. But most all of those same lessons can be learned while being on a team that wins more games than it loses, and most kids have a lot more fun on winning teams.

Nah, it's cool, bro. Just get all triggered when a coach who coaches ulittle girls 08/07, what 8,9, 10 year old prepubescent girls,
and talk about slow little girls are no good, recruiting some more faster little girls, and creating a "winning team". Sorry about that.