I think speed and agility work at young ages actually can increase the adult ceiling. And all players in even decent pro leagues are superb athletes, so you do need that ability. What I am not sure of is if anything beyond lots of 1 v 1 is needed. I think that you need some non- ball work like tag etc. because with the ball you aren't cutting or sprinting at your maximum, but I am not sure.
Not always in soccer because a team can use other methods to cancel out a height advantage. The current Barcelona squad is arguably one of the best teams in history. They have defenders under six feet tall in Puyol (5-10), Alves (5-7), Alba (5-7), a host of excellent midfielders including Fabregas (5-10), Xavi, Iniesta (5-7), Mascherano (5-9) and forwards Villa and Messi (5-9 and 5-7 respectively.) Height is great if your defending crosses or long balls in the box all day long, but it doesn't do as much good when the opposing team possesses the ball most of the time and can carve up a defense through excellent passing and by keeping the ball on the deck 90% of the time. Soccer is the great equalizer. While other sports' athletes keep growing taller and larger in order to compete (you don't see many college/pro point guards under 6' 2" these days), in soccer the small and large can both compete effectively on the same field.
I clearly stated (twice) "all things being equal". Did you see that? Or is it your belief that a 5'-7" Messi is as valuable as a 5'-8" Messi?
I disagree with this too. When the ball is near the ground, being tall is a disadvantage. Shorter limbs allow quicker movements than longer limbs. And shorter people have a lower center of gravity than taller people, which is an advantage in any physical confrontation. You probably won't find the relative advantages of different body types discussed in anything soccer specific BECAUSE, other than most professional players being mesamorphs (which may be due to an extent by the extensive training professional athletes do), anyone can find a niche in soccer. Chosing a system and lineup is part of coaching. Players adjust to their role. You will find that body type advantages are discussed in strength and conditioning materials, as well as the advantages of certain body types being conventional wisdom in literature in sports like gymnastics, wrestling, and track and field.
Again, as I reiterated to equus (above) -- "all things being equal". Or is it your belief that a 5'-7" Messi is as valuable as a 5'-8" Messi?
There is a wrong body type for our game. But if the player works hard gets good coaching and becomes extremely skillful, and has a never give up personality. He will be a success in our game. I have had players like that. I was buying soccer stuff at my local soccer store which is relatively famous here in NYC. A lot of college, and senior club team coaches were their that day.So since we all know each other the conversations turns to talking about players that we all know that are playing with us now and in the past. We start talking about this player that I have had he was playing in Italy then. Oh everyone hates his father another senior coach. Except me he was a friend of mine. Everyone is talking about the players weaknesses. It went on for about 15 minutes. Then the coach that complained about him the most said at the end. "I wish I had him, and we all said yeah I wish I had him to. Then we all started to laugh
I see what you're getting at, but when are all things ever equal? If you clone Barcelona and the cloned team are all 6+ feet tall, have the same abilities yet still play the Barcelona way (possession, on the deck, high pass completion %) and play against the original Barcelona does the extra height matter? The original point of the thread is coaches favoring taller kids during tryouts even though some are not be as skilled as shorter kids because the coach feels in order to compete they are trying to make their team more "equal" in height rather than taking the shorter, skilled players and developing game play around their strengths.
"Again, as I reiterated to equus (above) -- "all things being equal". Or is it your belief that a 5'-7" Messi is as valuable as a 5'-8" Messi?" First, trying to prove a universal truth by using the best player in the world as an example is not going to sell me. No matter how many times you repeat it. Second, I don't believe another inch of height would make Messi more "valuable." Or more effective. Or a better player. He is an attacking player, not a keeper or centerback trying to defend against high crosses. Third, I do believe that a 5'3" Messi would not be as effective as the actual Messi. Apparently his club thought the same, because they paid for the medical treatments that allowed him to reach a normal height. Fourth, the tallest, most athletic players are typically the keepers. You mentioned "valuable." Who gets paid the most? Not keepers. Not even close. http://www.therichest.org/sports/highest-paid-football-players/ Andy Najar and GK Bill Hamid are comtempories playing for DC United, both "home grown" players, both internationals. Najar is paid about twice what Hamid gets. But Hamid is taller
I resembled that remark at age 25. (5'11" and 210 lbs.) I am 100th percentile for bone size (about 25 lbs of extra bone) and 10th percentile for lung capacity (about a quart below average). This made me a relatively slow sprinter, but due to years of training I was the quickest, strongest, fitest player on the field. After 30 minutes of play, I was the fastest sprinter.
rca2, Oh, you were serious… Given the choice, you would not prefer to have a taller Messi instead of a shorter Messi. While I respect the vehemence of your conviction, you really might want to reconsider some of your preconceived notions regarding the value of height in soccer, because: 1. FC Barcelona prefers a taller Messi. (We know this because the club invested thousands of dollars in hormone treatments to make Messi taller.) 2. Messi prefers a taller Messi. (We know this because he underwent hormone treatments to become taller.) But what do BC Barca and Messi know about the game of soccer that rca2 doesn’t know anyway? To my fellow soccer fans, The reason I originally chimed-in on this thread with the logic supporting “height as a good thing in soccer always” was to help put to rest a bit of the “guilt”, “reluctance”, "self-doubt" etc that I sometimes see in coaching circles when coaching taller players. My point is, give yourself a break. It’s OK, it’s logical, it’s common sensical for you to prefer a taller player to a shorter player. The game of soccer prefers taller players. It favors them whether or not you do. The game is currently somewhat “rigged” against shorter players. Physics says so, the rules of the game (see playing-area dimensions above) say so, the increasing average height of elite players globally says so, the planet’s best clubs say so, the planet’s best players say so. So, until the day when they put a reasonably low roof over the field of play a la handball, racquetball or squash (either literally or via penalizing some balls sent over a given height), it’s OK for coaches (and parents) to believe that the taller player, all things being equal, will be more successful than the shorter one. Because they are.
Barcelona didn't give Messi his treatment so he would be taller. It was to address a hormonal deficiency so he would reach physical maturity (muscle mass, weight, height, speed, agility, conditioning) not just so he would reach adult height. The global trend (source?) might be for the average player to be taller, Barcelona bucks that trend completely with an average height of 1.77 m (5 foot 8). Taller isn't always better or you would see 7 footers or even players of Peter Crouch's height (2 meters) 6'7" more regularly. While some sports might favor the more physically gifted players, Soccer is not one of those sports. If you can ball you will be given the opportunity, most of Barcelona, Giovinco of juventus, countless players in US and Mexico, all of South America playing professionally. (keane, beckham, donovan, marquez, dos santos, osorio, JB, castillo, it might be faster to list players who are taller than 6'0"...etc ) all under 6'0" This is a really long list. You say all things being equal but things wont' be equal. A taller player will have a higher center a gravity which is a disadvantage for dribbling, particularly changing direction, be more likely to resort to a physical game instead of developing technically, intellectually (sport-wise).
Something that hasn't been mentioned yet in the thread to this point -- since the topic is youth players instead of pros -- is relative age and cutoffs in youth sports, as noted in Malcolm Galdwell's Outliers and in Freakonomics. The birth month of European pro soccer players (2011). Cutoff date for youth players is Dec. 31. From A Star is Made : In the US, most age cutoffs are either July 1 or August 1, so a good percentage of those with August/September/October birthdays develop sooner than one the same age year-wise, but who was born in June. They both play in the same age groups in sports.
Let's try it this way. Let's start by making four assertions: 1. The game of soccer is fundamentally about moving a ball through time and space better than your opponent does. 2. The study of objects moving through time and space is called physics. 3. Physics says that moving an object (i.e. a ball) through time and space will favor those who possess more of certain physical traits (mental traits excluded for now). 4. Among the most commonly measured “physical” traits in soccer are: - Quickness - Speed - Ball skills - Height Now, rather than getting us tripped up again by my use of the phrase “all things being equal”, let me make my point (my only point) this way: Imagine you are a soccer coach looking for a midfielder for your team. You have the names of two midfielders on a piece of paper in front of you. All you know about the two is their: - Quickness. Both players are quick, scoring 9 out of 10 in quickness testing. - Speed. Both players are fast, running the 40-yard dash in 4.5 seconds. - Ball Skills. Both players possess great ball skills, scoring 9 out of 10 in ball skills testing. - Height. The player on the left side of the page is 5’-9’ and the player on the right side is 5’-10”. Which midfielder would you pick? My point is that any (sober) coach would pick the midfielder on the right. This is a rational decision on the coach’s part and it is consistent with the laws of physics. The taller midfielder can access more playing space (one-inch more across the entire length and width of the field) than the shorter midfielder can access. Which brings us back to tarc’s question that began this thread -- and I have added three others to clarify my point: “As a coach, do you favor physical/tall kids during tryout?” (tarc's question) “As a coach, do you favor fast kids during tryout?” “As a coach, do you favor quick kids during tryout?” “As a coach, do you favor kids with good ball skills during tryout?” The answer to all four questions is “Yes”. All four physical traits are always good things to have-- not bad things, not neutral things -- because a soccer coach’s fundamental objective always is to move an object through time and space better than an opponent does.
This is I think why we disagree. You have to imagine you are a soccer coach. I don't. I played for 50 years and coached for 20. Your comments are based on imagination rather than experience. My experience likely differs from other people's experiences, but it certainly differs from your imagination. When I coached youth, the players were assigned to me. I did not select them. When I coached adults, I selected the players based on trials with the team. During trials I did not think about positions at all. I was simply looking for good players. The only exception was that I specifically recruited keepers for that position. I looked at two aspects--personality (at the adult level coaching is not about player development, but team development and team chemistry are extremely important) and playing ability. "Height" had absolutely nothing to do with the selection process and very little to do with my lineup selections. I assigned positions purely based on demonstrated effectiveness on the field.
Exactly. The same way a players shouldn't be rejected for his lack of size, a player with too much size and great ball skills can be successful (Ibrahimovic is the prime example in the pro game)
I think I have an example here of why "All things equal" does not make any sense as an argument here. The best corner in NFL history was Darreel Green, a 5' 8" inch guy. D. Sanders was 6 1, but that's around the top height that a corner can be. 6'5 guys can't be NFL corners. There is a curve between agility and height that describes the best tradeoff between them. As you get taller the best human agility can get is limited. The NFL doesn't look for 300 lb linemen who can run 4.4., that is beyond the human envelope. Messi's agility and burst look to me to be near the top of the envelope. I think at even 5 10 or 5 11 the top of the human envelope for agility is lower. So the all else equal is silly because nobody is going to be all else equal to Messi. Taller guys can do different things well, but they aren't going match Messi in the things he is best in the world at.
I don't think this argument really applies to adult soccer which seems to be where the discussion topic seems to be heading. Back to youth team selection tryouts. Like RCA2 said....You evaluate players based on effectiveness on the field and choose accordingly. Most of the time, the larger children will be more effective on the pitch and smaller children will struggle. Yes there are exceptions as I've seen some really phenomal small players out there but as a general rule, bigger usually is better and more effective. Adolesent years and teen years even more so, where you men playing with boys and women playing with girls (same age but drastically different phyisical differences).
Are we trying to win games or develop the best players? I think as coaches we get caught up in dominating in U7 rather then training the most capable athlete.
This has basically been the England model for a long time- take the big kids who look good at 12 - if you haven't noticed, it hasn't worked out for them so well. This is a terrible way to do youth selection for development. Xavi probably would not have made it past this filter, probably not Scholes either, who got really lucky his coaches were willing to keep him on despite being small and weak through his teens. I take that back, if you want to play Stoke city style kickball, this is great. Just please be upfront and honest with everybody about your goals and preferred style of play.
Good points all. I am not in favor of break out programs for "elite" U-Littles. The most important predictor of future success is mentality. What can you tell about a 6 year olds mentality? Not much really. A six year old is still not exercising any independence from his parents. By 9 or 10 you will have a better idea about the child's motivation as opposed to the parent's goals. So my thinking is you need to train as many kids as possible at the earliest ages (through U10) and let them self-select for elite soccer by U12 (ages 10 and 11). By self-select I mean some children will choose to play more sports than others. And it will show in the level of their basic athletic skills. Better athletic skills = better dribblers. Just in time to concentrate on ball mastery by age 12. I don't mean children can sit back do nothing and then elect to be elite soccer players when they turn 10. We all know you don't gain athletic skills sitting on a couch.
Actually I didn't say that about youth teams. I said that about adult players. Height is a very misleading basis for comparisons of athletic ability in youth. Consistent with your comments, the two best U-Little girls I saw play (one was my son's team mate one year and the other I coached--both about 7 or 8 years old) were both relatively short but very muscular. Short as in short, not slow bloomers. I suspect this body type (muscular) is a big advantage for women athletes. I don't know for a fact but I suspect both were gymnasts or dancers. They had body control that would make adults jealous. They were both very quick in every sense. I occasionally wonder how far they went in athletics, but I could never recall their names.
And how often are all other things being equal? Amongst current or former players, who is the 6'3" exact equivalent of Messi? Sure, a 6'3" otherwise carbon copy of Messi would bring an additional threat. But the same laws of physics you referred that dictate that bigger players tend to be stronger also dictate that smaller players with a lower center of gravity tend to be quicker. This is why in basketball, smaller players tend to be guards (a position that requires ball skills, agility and quickness) and bigger players tend to be forwards and centers (positions that require strength and being able to jump really high). Sure, you get the rare exceptions, like Magic Johnson in basketball or Ibrahimovic in soccer. But in the real world, all things rarely are equal. Barca may have preferred the 6'3" Messi in theory -- a dubious prospect given how many other similar sized players they've chosen to develop and include in their starting XI -- but I think they're happy with the 5'7" Messi, one of the three best players in the history of the game. Ibrahimovic is a fantastic player and is often cited to show that big players can have great agility and ball skill. He's the exception that proves the rule. He stands out precisely because, all things rarely are equal, bigger players rarely are as quick and agile as smaller players. As great as Ibra is, I'd still take the much smaller Messi if I had to pick. Speaking of which, of those three best players in the history of the game, two (Maradona and Messi) of them were 5'7" and the other (Pele) 5'9". This illustrates that all other things rarely are equal.
AMEN saabrian! I AGREE WITH YOU! This one point you have just made in this one sentence is the only point I have been trying to communicate in response to rca2’s mistaken assertion three days ago (rca2's assertion below): “As for height, this is not basketball with the goals 10 feet above the ground. Any attacking player above 5' 6" (66 inches) is not going to be disadvantaged in finishing with the head. The soccer goal starts on the ground and goes 8 foot (96 inches) in the air.” ... “On defense the circumstances are different (my underline). Being able to jump higher than 8 feet is a defensive advantage allowing defenders to make clearing headers before the service gets to the attacker. So every extra inch of height allows the defenders to clear more high crosses out of the box.” My point to rca2 is that he is mistaken to claim that, after a certain point, additional height only benefits defending players. It always benefits all players… as long as the additional height doesn’t negatively impact the player’s quickness, speed, etc. *********************************** In re what “all things being equal” means.... Several posters are misunderstanding it and therefore misusing it in their arguments. If anyone else would like to learn more about its use, and usefulness, I have added the below. I hope it is helpful. “All things being equal”is a scientific term used every day in the real-world. It does not make any sense, however, when comparing cornerbacks to tackles as ChapacoSoccer correctly observes. In fact, “all things being equal” (the “ceteris paribus assumption” in science experimention) requires that we avoid comparing different objects to one another. Instead, it requires we compare like objects – before and then after increasing the quantity of one of the object’s traits. The assumption would never be used to compare a cornerback to a tackle, a midfielder to a goalkeeper or an anti-biotic drug to an anti-viral drug. The assumption is widely accepted as very useful and it is heavily relied upon in the scientific and research and development (R&D) fields globally. 1. We begin by isolating an object , holding everything about it constant. 2. Next, we increase the quantity of one desirable trait, and only that one trait. 3. Next, we observe whether any of the object’s other desirable traits decreased in response to the increase. 4. If one of the other traits decreased, then a trade-off between the two traits exists, and we might not have improved the overall effectiveness of the object. However, if none of the other traits decreased, we have, demonstrably, unquestionably, developed a more effective object. And, we will continue to add more and more of the one trait until one of the other traits begins to decrease. At that point, the point just before one of the other traits begins to decrease, we have developed the most effective version of that object. That’s all there is to what I am saying. It’s basic R&D. So now, knowing that, here is a colloquial definition of “all things being equal” that may make more sense to you: “until the point that it causes any of the object’s other traits to change”. Hence my original and continued observation and assertion: “Height is always an advantage in the game of soccer, all things being equal.” Maybe two real-world (not imaginary, not theoretical) examples of the usefulness of the assumption will help: 1. If a U.S. military aircraft engineer is able to develop a fighter that goes faster than the current fighter model without decreasing any of the pre-existing desirable traits in the current model (like maneuverability, ruggedness, etc.), he has demonstrably, unquestionably, created a more effective fighter. The old fighters are slowly discarded (sold to the third world) and the new fighters are deployed into the battlefield to kick some butt. It is meaningless that, in the past, every time engineers had increased the plane’s speed, its maneuverability suffered. Because, now, through R&D, an engineer has developed a better fighter that does not sacrifice maneuverability for additional speed. Indeed, military aircraft developers are in the "overcoming trade-offs" business. 2. Soccer speed/strength/agility (SSA) trainers, like aircraft engineers, are also in the "overcoming trade-offs" business. But instead of developing more effective fighters or bombers, they develop more effective forwards and midfielders and defenders and goalkeepers. Soccer SSA trainers use the same basic R&D process as the aircraft engineers (employing the “all things being equal” assumption in one form or another). One trade-off soccer SSA trainers regularly overcome is the well-known trade-off that exists between height and quickness. I am not sure if rca2 believes that the trainers are imaginary or if the trainers' ability to overcome the trade-off is imaginary; but, in either case, he is wrong. SSA trainers, in the real world, demonstrably, unquestionably, have discovered new ways to do this (new strength training, agility drills, etc). The result is that today, through R&D, there are taller soccer players who have the same quickness as the shorter players of yesterday. Like the fighters, the old models are slowly discarded (sold to the Czechs or rca2) and the new models are deployed into the soccer field to kick some butt. Speed is a good thing for a fighter aircraft to have. A fighter engineer will always add more speed to a fighter, all things being equal. Maneuverability is a good thing for a fighter aircraft to have. A fighter engineer will always add more maneuverability to a fighter, all things being equal. Ruggedness is a good thing for a fighter aircraft to have. A fighter engineer will always add more ruggedness to the fighter, all things being equal. Speed is a good thing for a soccer player to have. A soccer player will always take more speed, all things being equal. Height is a good thing for a soccer player to have. A soccer player will always take more height, all things being equal. Quickness is a good thing for a soccer player to have. A soccer player will always take more quickness, all things being equal. More height is always an advantage in the game of soccer, all things being equal.* *To be clear, this does not mean I am in favor of a taller, more physical game. I am merely stating a scientific fact of the real world.