possession soccer in the eyes of college coaches

sportsnerd wrote:

skiberdad wrote:

KeeperCommander wrote:

and btw i have been called alot worse then dumbass before so no biggie...

That definitely does not surprise me... but me too, so touche!

Well, I haven't so y'all must be really dumb... lmao  

if you haven't been called a dumbass in your life, then your not really trying...

lmao.....

skiberdad wrote:

KeeperCommander wrote:

and btw i have been called alot worse then dumbass before so no biggie...

That definitely does not surprise me... but me too, so touche!

Well, I haven't so y'all must be really dumb... lmao  

Aww, my middle finger likes you.

skiberdad wrote:

sportsnerd wrote:

skiberdad wrote:

KeeperCommander wrote:

and btw i have been called alot worse then dumbass before so no biggie...

That definitely does not surprise me... but me too, so touche!

Well, I haven't so y'all must be really dumb... lmao  

if you haven't been called a dumbass in your life, then your not really trying...

lmao.....

I guess I am trying too hard

KeeperCommander wrote:

skiberdad wrote:

KeeperCommander wrote:

and btw i have been called alot worse then dumbass before so no biggie...

That definitely does not surprise me... but me too, so touche!

Well, I haven't so y'all must be really dumb... lmao  

Aww, my middle finger likes you.

hahahahahahahaha

timmyh wrote:

sportsnerd wrote:  ...they don't care if you can play possession soccer or build up through the back, they just want someone big, aggressive, strong and fast and who can win in the air...

For what it's worth, I don't believe any college coaches told you that they don't care if a player has any technical skills - much less "all of them."

btw, i never said they don't care if a player has technical skills... to quote my original post...

"They look at technical skills as well, but the biggest thing they want is the player who can out muscle, out run or out jump for the ball."

sportsnerd wrote:

timmyh wrote:

sportsnerd wrote:  ...they don't care if you can play possession soccer or build up through the back, they just want someone big, aggressive, strong and fast and who can win in the air...

For what it's worth, I don't believe any college coaches told you that they don't care if a player has any technical skills - much less "all of them."

btw, i never said they don't care if a player has technical skills... to quote my original post...

"They look at technical skills as well, but the biggest thing they want is the player who can out muscle, out run or out jump for the ball."

The reason I asked what position, and the reason it makes a difference, is that small, technically gifted players are still in high demand in a forward position. If your DD is more of a defensive mid or back, athleticism is more important. In any sport, all things being equal, the best athletics win!!

ONLYASOCCERDAD wrote:

sportsnerd wrote:

timmyh wrote:

sportsnerd wrote:  ...they don't care if you can play possession soccer or build up through the back, they just want someone big, aggressive, strong and fast and who can win in the air...

For what it's worth, I don't believe any college coaches told you that they don't care if a player has any technical skills - much less "all of them."

btw, i never said they don't care if a player has technical skills... to quote my original post...

"They look at technical skills as well, but the biggest thing they want is the player who can out muscle, out run or out jump for the ball."

The reason I asked what position, and the reason it makes a difference, is that small, technically gifted players are still in high demand in a forward position. If your DD is more of a defensive mid or back, athleticism is more important. In any sport, all things being equal, the best athletics win!!

All things being equal for the "technically gifted", the coach will take the bigger, stronger one each time in my opinion. the adjective small is usually not on the list of things college coaches are looking for (at least in my limited experience). Unfortunately size can be a limiting factor in all this, take the case of the local girl who set the high school scoring record, she is technically gifted (but only 4'10") but big time D1 offers were not flowing in... she ended up at a D1 school, but not one of your traditional powerhouses...

sportsnerd wrote:

ONLYASOCCERDAD wrote:

sportsnerd wrote:

timmyh wrote:

sportsnerd wrote:  ...they don't care if you can play possession soccer or build up through the back, they just want someone big, aggressive, strong and fast and who can win in the air...

For what it's worth, I don't believe any college coaches told you that they don't care if a player has any technical skills - much less "all of them."

btw, i never said they don't care if a player has technical skills... to quote my original post...

"They look at technical skills as well, but the biggest thing they want is the player who can out muscle, out run or out jump for the ball."

The reason I asked what position, and the reason it makes a difference, is that small, technically gifted players are still in high demand in a forward position. If your DD is more of a defensive mid or back, athleticism is more important. In any sport, all things being equal, the best athletics win!!

All things being equal for the "technically gifted", the coach will take the bigger, stronger one each time in my opinion. the adjective small is usually not on the list of things college coaches are looking for (at least in my limited experience). Unfortunately size can be a limiting factor in all this, take the case of the local girl who set the high school scoring record, she is technically gifted (but only 4'10") but big time D1 offers were not flowing in... she ended up at a D1 school, but not one of your traditional powerhouses...

You are probably right. Messi is one of the worst I have ever seen.

KeeperCommander wrote:

sportsnerd wrote:

ONLYASOCCERDAD wrote:

sportsnerd wrote:

timmyh wrote:

sportsnerd wrote:  ...they don't care if you can play possession soccer or build up through the back, they just want someone big, aggressive, strong and fast and who can win in the air...

For what it's worth, I don't believe any college coaches told you that they don't care if a player has any technical skills - much less "all of them."

btw, i never said they don't care if a player has technical skills... to quote my original post...

"They look at technical skills as well, but the biggest thing they want is the player who can out muscle, out run or out jump for the ball."

The reason I asked what position, and the reason it makes a difference, is that small, technically gifted players are still in high demand in a forward position. If your DD is more of a defensive mid or back, athleticism is more important. In any sport, all things being equal, the best athletics win!!

All things being equal for the "technically gifted", the coach will take the bigger, stronger one each time in my opinion. the adjective small is usually not on the list of things college coaches are looking for (at least in my limited experience). Unfortunately size can be a limiting factor in all this, take the case of the local girl who set the high school scoring record, she is technically gifted (but only 4'10") but big time D1 offers were not flowing in... she ended up at a D1 school, but not one of your traditional powerhouses...

You are probably right. Messi is one of the worst I have ever seen.

ok, lets take a complete outlier to prove a point... there are Messi's in every city, on every club team right...

sportsnerd wrote:

KeeperCommander wrote:

sportsnerd wrote:

ONLYASOCCERDAD wrote:

sportsnerd wrote:

timmyh wrote:

For what it's worth, I don't believe any college coaches told you that they don't care if a player has any technical skills - much less "all of them."

btw, i never said they don't care if a player has technical skills... to quote my original post...

"They look at technical skills as well, but the biggest thing they want is the player who can out muscle, out run or out jump for the ball."

The reason I asked what position, and the reason it makes a difference, is that small, technically gifted players are still in high demand in a forward position. If your DD is more of a defensive mid or back, athleticism is more important. In any sport, all things being equal, the best athletics win!!

All things being equal for the "technically gifted", the coach will take the bigger, stronger one each time in my opinion. the adjective small is usually not on the list of things college coaches are looking for (at least in my limited experience). Unfortunately size can be a limiting factor in all this, take the case of the local girl who set the high school scoring record, she is technically gifted (but only 4'10") but big time D1 offers were not flowing in... she ended up at a D1 school, but not one of your traditional powerhouses...

You are probably right. Messi is one of the worst I have ever seen.

ok, lets take a complete outlier to prove a point... there are Messi's in every city, on every club team right...

I wouldn't normally hit back with that. However you said "All things being equal for the "technically gifted", the coach will take the bigger, stronger one each time in my opinion"

sportsnerd wrote:i am so glad everyone's DD on these boards is off to a big time D1 program, they sure are the lucky ones. Seeing as most players will not be in that boat, soccer is just a means to help get a kid through college. I have no fantasy or visions that my daughter will be playing for the USWNT in the future instead she will just be a doctor or dentist or nurse or some other lowly profession.

Since that is the case we have visited with quite a few coaches and been to quite a few camps and this is the general opinion of what i have heard, whether its good for the overall health of soccer at the high levels i could not care less, that isn't my interest or area, i want my DD to be a productive member of society and if soccer helps that happen then so be it. i think the majority of parents with kids that play will have the same opinion (unless your DD is one of the best which of course will be the minority of the population) and understand. I went into this process thinking that wow the skills and technical ability will be what the coaches are looking for, but was surprised in what i found (and its not just D2, this exists as well in D1 whether you wish to admit it or not)

If that is truly the case, then you and your DD are missing the boat even considering playing in college. There are many more academic $ available, to better schools, for kids for academics than there are for soccer.

One of ours had the opportunity for partial D1 soccer scholarships but had many more $ available to much better academic institutions for grades & test scores. Not to mention after 3 recruiting trips she decided she had no interest in 'working for a coach' in college.

Lefty wrote:

sportsnerd wrote:i am so glad everyone's DD on these boards is off to a big time D1 program, they sure are the lucky ones. Seeing as most players will not be in that boat, soccer is just a means to help get a kid through college. I have no fantasy or visions that my daughter will be playing for the USWNT in the future instead she will just be a doctor or dentist or nurse or some other lowly profession.

Since that is the case we have visited with quite a few coaches and been to quite a few camps and this is the general opinion of what i have heard, whether its good for the overall health of soccer at the high levels i could not care less, that isn't my interest or area, i want my DD to be a productive member of society and if soccer helps that happen then so be it. i think the majority of parents with kids that play will have the same opinion (unless your DD is one of the best which of course will be the minority of the population) and understand. I went into this process thinking that wow the skills and technical ability will be what the coaches are looking for, but was surprised in what i found (and its not just D2, this exists as well in D1 whether you wish to admit it or not)

If that is truly the case, then you and your DD are missing the boat even considering playing in college.  There are many more academic $ available, to better schools, for kids for academics than there are for soccer.  

One of ours had the opportunity for partial D1 soccer scholarships but had many more $ available to much better academic institutions for grades & test scores.  Not to mention after 3 recruiting trips she decided she had no interest in 'working for a coach' in college.

glad that worked for you... each to their own... situations not always the same for each kid.

I am amazed that you know so well what is best in our situation that you can say we are missing the boat, by even considering to play for a lowly D2 school. I am amazed you can see with your nose so turned up in the air...

So every kid that knows they are not USWNT material should just give up the game they love?

KeeperCommander wrote:

sportsnerd wrote:

KeeperCommander wrote:

sportsnerd wrote:

ONLYASOCCERDAD wrote:

sportsnerd wrote:

btw, i never said they don't care if a player has technical skills... to quote my original post...

"They look at technical skills as well, but the biggest thing they want is the player who can out muscle, out run or out jump for the ball."

The reason I asked what position, and the reason it makes a difference, is that small, technically gifted players are still in high demand in a forward position. If your DD is more of a defensive mid or back, athleticism is more important. In any sport, all things being equal, the best athletics win!!

All things being equal for the "technically gifted", the coach will take the bigger, stronger one each most of the time in my opinion. the adjective small is usually not on the list of things college coaches are looking for (at least in my limited experience). Unfortunately size can be a limiting factor in all this, take the case of the local girl who set the high school scoring record, she is technically gifted (but only 4'10") but big time D1 offers were not flowing in... she ended up at a D1 school, but not one of your traditional powerhouses...

You are probably right. Messi is one of the worst I have ever seen.

ok, lets take a complete outlier to prove a point... there are Messi's in every city, on every club team right...

I wouldn't normally hit back with that. However you said "All things being equal for the "technically gifted", the coach will take the bigger, stronger one each time in my opinion"

point taken, should have said in most cases....

sportsnerd wrote:

Lefty wrote:

sportsnerd wrote:i am so glad everyone's DD on these boards is off to a big time D1 program, they sure are the lucky ones. Seeing as most players will not be in that boat, soccer is just a means to help get a kid through college. I have no fantasy or visions that my daughter will be playing for the USWNT in the future instead she will just be a doctor or dentist or nurse or some other lowly profession.

Since that is the case we have visited with quite a few coaches and been to quite a few camps and this is the general opinion of what i have heard, whether its good for the overall health of soccer at the high levels i could not care less, that isn't my interest or area, i want my DD to be a productive member of society and if soccer helps that happen then so be it. i think the majority of parents with kids that play will have the same opinion (unless your DD is one of the best which of course will be the minority of the population) and understand. I went into this process thinking that wow the skills and technical ability will be what the coaches are looking for, but was surprised in what i found (and its not just D2, this exists as well in D1 whether you wish to admit it or not)

If that is truly the case, then you and your DD are missing the boat even considering playing in college.  There are many more academic $ available, to better schools, for kids for academics than there are for soccer.  

One of ours had the opportunity for partial D1 soccer scholarships but had many more $ available to much better academic institutions for grades & test scores.  Not to mention after 3 recruiting trips she decided she had no interest in 'working for a coach' in college.

glad that worked for you... each to their own... situations not always the same for each kid.

I am amazed that you know so well what is best in our situation that you can say we are missing the boat, by even considering to play for a lowly D2 school. I am amazed you can see with your nose so turned up in the air...

So every kid that knows they are not USWNT material should just give up the game they love?

You are the one who said 'just a means to get a kid through college' & mentioned 'will be a doctor, dentist or some other lowly profession'.  

Merely responding that there are a whole lot more $ available for avenues other than soccer.  

I said nothing demeaning about D2, and what's the difference if they are on academic $.  

And no they should not give up the game they love.  We were just fortunate and happy that ours kept soccer in perspective and she does still play in Med School.

Lefty wrote:

sportsnerd wrote:

Lefty wrote:

sportsnerd wrote:i am so glad everyone's DD on these boards is off to a big time D1 program, they sure are the lucky ones. Seeing as most players will not be in that boat, soccer is just a means to help get a kid through college. I have no fantasy or visions that my daughter will be playing for the USWNT in the future instead she will just be a doctor or dentist or nurse or some other lowly profession.

Since that is the case we have visited with quite a few coaches and been to quite a few camps and this is the general opinion of what i have heard, whether its good for the overall health of soccer at the high levels i could not care less, that isn't my interest or area, i want my DD to be a productive member of society and if soccer helps that happen then so be it. i think the majority of parents with kids that play will have the same opinion (unless your DD is one of the best which of course will be the minority of the population) and understand. I went into this process thinking that wow the skills and technical ability will be what the coaches are looking for, but was surprised in what i found (and its not just D2, this exists as well in D1 whether you wish to admit it or not)

If that is truly the case, then you and your DD are missing the boat even considering playing in college.  There are many more academic $ available, to better schools, for kids for academics than there are for soccer.  

One of ours had the opportunity for partial D1 soccer scholarships but had many more $ available to much better academic institutions for grades & test scores.  Not to mention after 3 recruiting trips she decided she had no interest in 'working for a coach' in college.

glad that worked for you... each to their own... situations not always the same for each kid.

I am amazed that you know so well what is best in our situation that you can say we are missing the boat, by even considering to play for a lowly D2 school. I am amazed you can see with your nose so turned up in the air...

So every kid that knows they are not USWNT material should just give up the game they love?

You are the one who said 'just a means to get a kid through college' & mentioned 'will be a doctor, dentist or some other lowly profession'.  

Merely responding that there are a whole lot more $ available for avenues other than soccer.  

I said nothing demeaning about D2, and what's the difference if they are on academic $.  

And no they should not give up the game they love.  Ours still plays in Med School.

'will be a doctor, dentist or some other lowly profession' = sarcasm...

i took your phrase of "then you and your DD are missing the boat even considering playing in college" as relating to having no visions of playing on the USWNT then why play at all...

If i misunderstood, apologies... as i said, my DD loves to play and if she can and it helps get her through school then i have no beefs with where she plays and yes the best thing would be to stack the athletic money on top of the academic money, it all adds up...

sportsnerd wrote:

KeeperCommander wrote:

sportsnerd wrote:

KeeperCommander wrote:

sportsnerd wrote:

ONLYASOCCERDAD wrote:

The reason I asked what position, and the reason it makes a difference, is that small, technically gifted players are still in high demand in a forward position. If your DD is more of a defensive mid or back, athleticism is more important. In any sport, all things being equal, the best athletics win!!

All things being equal for the "technically gifted", the coach will take the bigger, stronger one each most of the time in my opinion. the adjective small is usually not on the list of things college coaches are looking for (at least in my limited experience). Unfortunately size can be a limiting factor in all this, take the case of the local girl who set the high school scoring record, she is technically gifted (but only 4'10") but big time D1 offers were not flowing in... she ended up at a D1 school, but not one of your traditional powerhouses...

You are probably right. Messi is one of the worst I have ever seen.

ok, lets take a complete outlier to prove a point... there are Messi's in every city, on every club team right...

I wouldn't normally hit back with that. However you said "All things being equal for the "technically gifted", the coach will take the bigger, stronger one each time in my opinion"

point taken, should have said in most cases....

My point was in his case they did take a bigger player. We all know how that turned out.
All things being equal the coach is going to play the style of soccer he is the most in tune with or grew up playing. If he does not have any truly gifted/skilled players then he will be forced to play Direct soccer, he will have no choice. If they have a skilled team then he can play possession soccer or really any way he wants to. Because they will have the talent to do so.

Just for fun, I took the rosters of the current top 5 ranked women's college soccer teams (West Virginia, South Carolina, Duke, USC, and Stanford) and calculated the players' average height (minus GKs). Since the teams don't publish the players' weights, I could only use height as an indicator of "size." The average height was 5' 6". Per the CDC, the average height for American females is 5' 3.5". Therefore (based on this small sample) it appears that the average U.S. female soccer player is approximately 2.5" taller that the average U.S. female.

However, we all know that sports teams have the propensity to fudge height numbers upward a bit to make their team look the absolute best on paper.

In addition, I think we all know that in the U.S., soccer teams, because of the cost, are mostly populated by players whose families have a higher socioeconomic status. And higher socioeconomic means better access to health care and better nutrition, which is directly linked to increased height.

Accordingly, I think that it is very likely that, if the sample height described above was compared to the average height of U.S. women soccer players, and not just the population in general, I think it would be very likely that the average height of U.S. D1 women soccer players is very close to the average height of U.S. women soccer players in general.

At this point, I'M not sure whose point this proves, I just thought it was interesting data to throw into the discussion.

TheMutt wrote:Just for fun, I took the rosters of the current top 5 ranked women's college soccer teams (West Virginia, South Carolina, Duke, USC, and Stanford) and calculated the players' average height (minus GKs).  Since the teams don't publish the players' weights, I could only use height as an indicator of "size."  The average height was 5' 6".  Per the CDC, the average height for American females is 5' 3.5".  Therefore (based on this small sample) it appears that the average U.S. female soccer player is approximately 2.5" taller that the average U.S. female.  

However, we all know that sports teams have the propensity to fudge height numbers upward a bit to make their team look the absolute best on paper.  

In addition, I think we all know that in the U.S., soccer teams, because of the cost, are mostly populated by players whose families have a higher socioeconomic status.  And higher socioeconomic means better access to health care and better nutrition, which is directly linked to increased height.  

Accordingly, I think that it is very likely that, if the sample height described above was compared to the average height of U.S. women soccer players, and not just the population in general, I think it would be very likely that the average height of U.S. D1 women soccer players is very close to the average height of U.S. women soccer players in general.

At this point, I'M not sure whose point this proves, I just thought it was interesting data to throw into the discussion.

There is no doubt in my mind that there are some tall/physical girls in college playing soccer. It is in extreme doubt in my mind as well as every other person on this forum basically (who have commented) that it is what coaches look for exclusively. That is one of the more absurd statements I have ever read on this forum.

wait a second...........................you mean size matters?..............................my wife been lying to me all these years...........................my girlfriend too.......................

KeeperCommander wrote:

TheMutt wrote:Just for fun, I took the rosters of the current top 5 ranked women's college soccer teams (West Virginia, South Carolina, Duke, USC, and Stanford) and calculated the players' average height (minus GKs).  Since the teams don't publish the players' weights, I could only use height as an indicator of "size."  The average height was 5' 6".  Per the CDC, the average height for American females is 5' 3.5".  Therefore (based on this small sample) it appears that the average U.S. female soccer player is approximately 2.5" taller that the average U.S. female.  

However, we all know that sports teams have the propensity to fudge height numbers upward a bit to make their team look the absolute best on paper.  

In addition, I think we all know that in the U.S., soccer teams, because of the cost, are mostly populated by players whose families have a higher socioeconomic status.  And higher socioeconomic means better access to health care and better nutrition, which is directly linked to increased height.  

Accordingly, I think that it is very likely that, if the sample height described above was compared to the average height of U.S. women soccer players, and not just the population in general, I think it would be very likely that the average height of U.S. D1 women soccer players is very close to the average height of U.S. women soccer players in general.

At this point, I'M not sure whose point this proves, I just thought it was interesting data to throw into the discussion.

There is no doubt in my mind that there are some tall/physical girls in college playing soccer.  It is in extreme doubt in my mind as well as every other person on this forum basically (who have commented) that it is what coaches look for exclusively.  That is one of the more absurd statements I have ever read on this forum.

Our experience has been that most all coaches look for athletic, skilled players who see and read the game well.  The prior things being equal, the bigger and faster the player is the more desirable they are.  i.e. Messi has the first 3 traits.

Given that there are very few of those type players around, they start making compromises, again the bigger and faster the player is, all other things being equal, the more desirable the player is.

The younger the age, or the further you go down the athleticism, skill and soccer IQ spectrum for players at any age, the more and more raw size and/or raw speed can impact the game.  

Since most all coaches in the US are incented and rewarded for winning, and most of them act in their own best interest, it is fairly easy to see why they do what they do.

Lefty wrote:

KeeperCommander wrote:

TheMutt wrote:Just for fun, I took the rosters of the current top 5 ranked women's college soccer teams (West Virginia, South Carolina, Duke, USC, and Stanford) and calculated the players' average height (minus GKs).  Since the teams don't publish the players' weights, I could only use height as an indicator of "size."  The average height was 5' 6".  Per the CDC, the average height for American females is 5' 3.5".  Therefore (based on this small sample) it appears that the average U.S. female soccer player is approximately 2.5" taller that the average U.S. female.  

However, we all know that sports teams have the propensity to fudge height numbers upward a bit to make their team look the absolute best on paper.  

In addition, I think we all know that in the U.S., soccer teams, because of the cost, are mostly populated by players whose families have a higher socioeconomic status.  And higher socioeconomic means better access to health care and better nutrition, which is directly linked to increased height.  

Accordingly, I think that it is very likely that, if the sample height described above was compared to the average height of U.S. women soccer players, and not just the population in general, I think it would be very likely that the average height of U.S. D1 women soccer players is very close to the average height of U.S. women soccer players in general.

At this point, I'M not sure whose point this proves, I just thought it was interesting data to throw into the discussion.

There is no doubt in my mind that there are some tall/physical girls in college playing soccer.  It is in extreme doubt in my mind as well as every other person on this forum basically (who have commented) that it is what coaches look for exclusively.  That is one of the more absurd statements I have ever read on this forum.

Our experience has been that most all coaches look for athletic, skilled players who see and read the game well.  The prior things being equal, the bigger and faster the player is the more desirable they are.  i.e. Messi has the first 3 traits.

Given that there are very few of those type players around, they start making compromises, again the bigger and faster the player is, all other things being equal, the more desirable the player is.

The younger the age, or the further you go down the athleticism, skill and soccer IQ spectrum for players at any age, the more and more raw size and/or raw speed can impact the game.  

Since most all coaches in the US are incented and rewarded for winning, and most of them act in their own best interest, it is fairly easy to see why they do what they do.

Well said, Lefty.

KeeperCommander wrote:

TheMutt wrote:Just for fun, I took the rosters of the current top 5 ranked women's college soccer teams (West Virginia, South Carolina, Duke, USC, and Stanford) and calculated the players' average height (minus GKs).  Since the teams don't publish the players' weights, I could only use height as an indicator of "size."  The average height was 5' 6".  Per the CDC, the average height for American females is 5' 3.5".  Therefore (based on this small sample) it appears that the average U.S. female soccer player is approximately 2.5" taller that the average U.S. female.  

However, we all know that sports teams have the propensity to fudge height numbers upward a bit to make their team look the absolute best on paper.  

In addition, I think we all know that in the U.S., soccer teams, because of the cost, are mostly populated by players whose families have a higher socioeconomic status.  And higher socioeconomic means better access to health care and better nutrition, which is directly linked to increased height.  

Accordingly, I think that it is very likely that, if the sample height described above was compared to the average height of U.S. women soccer players, and not just the population in general, I think it would be very likely that the average height of U.S. D1 women soccer players is very close to the average height of U.S. women soccer players in general.

At this point, I'M not sure whose point this proves, I just thought it was interesting data to throw into the discussion.

There is no doubt in my mind that there are some tall/physical girls in college playing soccer.  It is in extreme doubt in my mind as well as every other person on this forum basically (who have commented) that it is what coaches look for exclusively.  That is one of the more absurd statements I have ever read on this forum.

RIF - Reading is fundamental.... remember that public service campaign... i (or no one in this thread that i see) said coaches only look at height. It was said they want bigger stronger faster that help them play direct soccer. They like these players to have technical skills, but feel they can teach that part. It is not as important as the other physical factors, what will get someone noticed are these physical traits along with the aggressive streak that is really needed at the higher levels. They don't care near as much about playing pretty soccer as much as just getting the ball into the net, winning is what they get paid for. The whole point of my post was that the extent of this thinking at the higher levels surprised me.

take it for what its worth, i have no other agenda... just sharing

sportsnerd wrote:

KeeperCommander wrote:

TheMutt wrote:Just for fun, I took the rosters of the current top 5 ranked women's college soccer teams (West Virginia, South Carolina, Duke, USC, and Stanford) and calculated the players' average height (minus GKs).  Since the teams don't publish the players' weights, I could only use height as an indicator of "size."  The average height was 5' 6".  Per the CDC, the average height for American females is 5' 3.5".  Therefore (based on this small sample) it appears that the average U.S. female soccer player is approximately 2.5" taller that the average U.S. female.  

However, we all know that sports teams have the propensity to fudge height numbers upward a bit to make their team look the absolute best on paper.  

In addition, I think we all know that in the U.S., soccer teams, because of the cost, are mostly populated by players whose families have a higher socioeconomic status.  And higher socioeconomic means better access to health care and better nutrition, which is directly linked to increased height.  

Accordingly, I think that it is very likely that, if the sample height described above was compared to the average height of U.S. women soccer players, and not just the population in general, I think it would be very likely that the average height of U.S. D1 women soccer players is very close to the average height of U.S. women soccer players in general.

At this point, I'M not sure whose point this proves, I just thought it was interesting data to throw into the discussion.

There is no doubt in my mind that there are some tall/physical girls in college playing soccer.  It is in extreme doubt in my mind as well as every other person on this forum basically (who have commented) that it is what coaches look for exclusively.  That is one of the more absurd statements I have ever read on this forum.

RIF - Reading is fundamental.... remember that public service campaign... i (or no one in this thread that i see) said coaches only look at height. It was said they want bigger stronger faster that help them play direct soccer. They like these players to have technical skills, but feel they can teach that part. It is not as important as the other physical factors, what will get someone noticed are these physical traits along with the aggressive streak that is really needed at the higher levels. They don't care near as much about playing pretty soccer as much as just getting the ball into the net, winning is what they get paid for. The whole point of my post was that the extent of this thinking at the higher levels surprised me.

take it for what its worth, i have no other agenda... just sharing

I tell you what, I will give you the part about the height, however I was just lazy and didn't feel the need to use thirteen adjectives to describe something on a forum. Even though I was meaning what you described.

This aside I feel that any college coach that feels they have the time and inclination to teach technical/skills to a player that should already know them is lying. If they do not have the skills needed for their team it is quite simple, that player will not be playing for that university. Direct soccer is not an ugly form of soccer and possession soccer is not played to be pretty.

My point in previous post was that IMO college coaches do not look for big, strong, fast players exclusively or first and foremost. Do they look for the ones that strictly have the gifted/talent with the ball? No I do not think that either. They look for the ones that have the best combination of those traits and that they feel could help the team. Of course the big fast ones that have skill will go first because they are total package.

Way too many generalizations in this thread. College coaches are no more monolithic than ntx club coaches. Some want athleticism over all else, others prioritize technique first, many are somewhere in the middle. The college game has changed, and even deep south schools in the SEC can keep the ball and play attractive soccer. Also unlike pointy ball, D1 means nothing...there are D2 and D3 schools that play good soccer and would paste some of the bottom tier D1 programs. If one D2 coach said your kid isnt a good enough athlete,  a better fit is out there.

C'mon wussies, don't peter out now. This can go to 5 pages, I just know it.
The recent games of MC vs Everton and Arsenal vs Burnley come to mind. I typically like possession but Everton and Burnley had beautiful games.
College coaches are game managers not skills trainers. You compete with what you have.

timmyh wrote:You're missing quite a bit, though.
High level possession soccer beats kick and chase every time.  The reason most colleges play kick and chase is that there aren't enough technical players to play possession.  You need 11 of them to play properly.  A single black hole brings the whole thing down.
The more important point perhaps is that I can teach a team of 18 year olds to play a coordinated kick and chase style in a month or two.  It's impossible to suddenly teach a team of 18 year olds to play possession, because the skills required to do it well take YEARS to develop.
Thus, everyone should be teaching possession.  It builds the type of player that will be suited for any style down the road.  It also builds the type of player that can slot into a possession-based team that will likely whip a boot ball squad.

FWIW my DD's old club (ECNL) subscribed to this basically verbatim due to the D1 clubs that most of their players were recruited into.  The colleges their players mostly end up playing for want big, fast and aggressive so that is what the club looked for and trained for.  Im talking normally middle D1 and lower, although obviously top D1 is usually tall/athletic as well.  When their players go to a top D1 (a few a year) it has been due to natural athletic ability that the club had nothing to do with.  

It seems to be simply too hard for teams to be assembled to play a more possession style in college.  Not sure where that started but once there it seems hard to stop.  Kinda like the u-little teams that would just high press and rush a goal kick to overwhelm a defender, that kinda mentality.  We have found a few colleges that play a possession style but you have to seek them out.  We are finding the chance of locating a college match between soccer, academic offerings/programs, location, price all very difficult.  Congrats for sure to those that are able to navigate all the pieces and find a good match at a place the student actually wants to be with or without their sport.  Fortunately grades/test scores are opening lots of options for our DD.  

We find most college coaches (D1) we have talked to only care what your grades/scores are (if at all) just verify if you can get admitted.  The dont want to hear about big plans about studying engineering/pre med etc.  Its definitely been an eye opening process.  D3 is looking like a better fit for our student athlete.