Nearly ten years ago I read an article in Sports Illustrated. The article explained how each sport has its own spefic needs in regards to fitness. I found it interesting that when they listed the most fit sports position (example= Football Quarterback, Soccer Center mid, Basketball Center, etc.) that the most fit position in all sports was water polo goal keeper. It made sense, as i grew up in southern California where H2O Polo is Huge! But I was shocked that S.I. listed the soccer Goal Keeper as number two. My Question is this: Does anyone have any information on sports positions and their level of fitness? or an article similiar to this? If not, how about specifically soccer positions? Thanks for your help in advance. If you do not know of any such thing, your thoughts are welcome as well.
Soccer isn't to complex when it comes to fitness I would say. Simply put, the players that would need to me the 'most' fit ( I say it like that because ALL players must be fit), would be your midfielders.
As a former Left Winger I'd have to say that a winger has to be the most fit, imagine spending 90 minutes running up and down the length of the pitch almost non stop ? It gets very tiring, I moved wide from Centre foreward and I noticed how different it was and how much of a strain it was on my fitness.
in the professional game, it is the outside backs (if playing a 4-4-2). there really aren't many 'wingers' left at the top of the professional ranks, so outside backs end up doing most of that, as well as defending. finnan was recently tracked doing something like 13000 meters during a match (around 9 miles).
workhorse central mids. Players like gattuso and hargreaves or box to box midfeilders like gerrard and essien. They need good pace, strength and stamina.
Not exactly an answer to your question, because it deals with sports generally and not positions specifically, but interesting none the less: ESPN.com: Page 2-Sport Skills Difficulty Rating.
I think the ESPN thing is complete nonsense, How baseball/softball can be above soccer is crazy. This isn't scientific, these are opinions. There are too many variables to say which is the most demanding sport.
Too many variables? Son, that's why Jesus invented multinomial probit analysis. In any case, you do think that boxing is more demanding than, say, fishing, right? Or, that ice hockey is more demanding than billiards. I would say that there is certainly some disagreement to be had, but we can certainly make important, broad distinctions. By the way, jury verdicts are a kind of opinion. Voting, too. The theory is that if you get enough people making independent judgements, they'll be smarter, and more likely to come closer to the truth, than any individual working alone. See The Rational Public by Page and Shapiro for more information. In any case, it's that 9.25 for hand-eye coordination, higher by far than any other sport, that gives baseball the boost. And yes, Jesus can hit a curveball. If it makes you feel any better, soccer is tops for agility and analytic ability.
Agreed. And they are stupid opinions. Maritals Arts has a "nerve" factor over two points lower than boxing does. There is even some full contact martial arts. This is a huge indication that the results are skewed. Only a non-soccer player would say that there is a low "nerve" factor in soccer. Professional keepers and strikers both have to be absolutely fearless when going for the ball. Any hesitation is a lost opportunity. In American football they play with pads and helmets but its nerve rating is higher than padless rugby. Baloney. Then there is skewing because of the scoring system itself. Soccer scores low in HAND/eye coordination. How about a FOOT/eye coordination comparision. How would boxing and baseball fare then in comparison? Obviously lower body coordination and STRENGTH is not given any weight. Compare the strength of a typical professional boxer's legs with the strength of a typical professional soccer player's legs. Lower body strength is important in soccer. Upper body strength is important for boxers (and keepers). In both cases they intentionally avoid increasing the body mass of the less important end. So obviously when they say strength, they only consider upper body strength. Again another example of skewed ratings.
The outside back... You've made a menacing overlapping run from your own half... you recieve the ball and steam down to the oppositions corner...where you beat a man off the dribble then pass it off to a teammate who proceeds to cough it up... the other team starts a quick counter by playing it into their center mid while you're in a dead sprint to recover... the center mid plays a cutting diagonal ball to his outside mid... now you're on the back foot and you have to jockey a speedy winger 1v1 with no support behind you.