possession soccer in the eyes of college coaches

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.

KeeperCommander wrote:

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.
 

Ok, you keep thinking that and let me know in a few years how it all went, once you explain this to all the coaches that will be involved in the recruiting of your DD in 5 years or so, you explain what they should be looking for... I am just passing along what i have found and the fact that it surprised me... it is almost comical to hear some of these "learned" posters who think they know how it all works... when some (not all) haven't even dipped their toe in the pool yet. Go into the process with your eyes wide open in my opinion. Another funny thing is because of my opinion people on these boards assume its because my DD was turned down or didn't have any of the physical traits i am talking about and i am bitter which is absolutely false, again it was just a surprise at what they really look at and what gets their attention and what they stress when you have discussions with the coaches...

Good luck to all, and as i was told many times... there is a place for each player if they want to continue on with the game... you just have to go find it.

SoccerTexas wrote:

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.  They 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.

Couple of you points ring true with our experience.

SoccerTexas wrote:

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.

Look no further than the Sting/early WNT/Anson Dorrance model of success. Superior athleticism and fitness to wear your opponent down. Created the template for many years to come.

It takes coaches like Swanson/Krikorian/Stone and others to have the same level of success for things to begin changing. Their commitment to technically-based athletes and systems are laying the groundwork for the future of the women's college game. But it also takes highly-technical, high-soccer IQ, superior athletes and there still are not enough of them to go around. Never will be to fill all the available options out there. There are 344 D1 programs alone.

The good news is that across the board we are developing more technically-sound, soccer-savvy players than we were 10 years ago. And 5 years from now it should be even better. But it should come as no surprise that the great majority of college soccer programs are completely direct and focus on athleticism. Look at what they have to choose from. In any age group, in any part of the country, there are only a handful of teams at best that have a squad full of technically-sound athletic soccer players.

5050Ball wrote:

SoccerTexas wrote:

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.

Look no further than the Sting/early WNT/Anson Dorrance model of success.  Superior athleticism and fitness to wear your opponent down.  Created the template for many years to come.

It takes coaches like Swanson/Krikorian/Stone and others to have the same level of success for things to begin changing.  Their commitment to technically-based athletes and systems are laying the groundwork for the future of the women's college game.  But it also takes highly-technical, high-soccer IQ, superior athletes and there still are not enough of them to go around.  Never will be to fill all the available options out there.  There are 344 D1 programs alone.  

The good news is that across the board we are developing more technically-sound, soccer-savvy players than we were 10 years ago.  And 5 years from now it should be even better.  But it should come as no surprise that the great majority of college soccer programs are completely direct and focus on athleticism.  Look at what they have to choose from.  In any age group, in any part of the country, there are only a handful of teams at best that have a squad full of technically-sound athletic soccer players.

Nailed it!

5050Ball wrote:

SoccerTexas wrote:

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.

Look no further than the Sting/early WNT/Anson Dorrance model of success.  Superior athleticism and fitness to wear your opponent down.  Created the template for many years to come.

It takes coaches like Swanson/Krikorian/Stone and others to have the same level of success for things to begin changing.  Their commitment to technically-based athletes and systems are laying the groundwork for the future of the women's college game.  But it also takes highly-technical, high-soccer IQ, superior athletes and there still are not enough of them to go around.  Never will be to fill all the available options out there.  There are 344 D1 programs alone.  

The good news is that across the board we are developing more technically-sound, soccer-savvy players than we were 10 years ago.  And 5 years from now it should be even better.  But it should come as no surprise that the great majority of college soccer programs are completely direct and focus on athleticism.  Look at what they have to choose from.  In any age group, in any part of the country, there are only a handful of teams at best that have a squad full of technically-sound athletic soccer players.

The good news in this topic is a technical player can learn a direct style easier than a direct player learns a possession style.

KeeperCommander wrote:
The good news in this topic is a technical player can learn a direct style easier than a direct player learns a possession style.  

Conversely we have realized our ECNL level DD will prob never be 5'6"+ so that certainly narrows options.  Now I can understand why the clubs start sizing up the parents at U11/U12 etc.  They are trying to gauge how tall the player will become.

But agree now that USWNT has Dunn at 5'1", Klingenberg at 5'2", Pugh at 5'4" etc times are changing since Wambach's retirement.  It may someday filter down to the club level hopefully so they also adapt and allow more players that dont fit the typical mold through the system.  As noted, the clubs give what the colleges want so that will continue to really drive most everything.  It will be interesting to see if the girls DA takes a new direction since they have been fairly open with their disdain for the current college system.

SoccerTexas wrote:

KeeperCommander wrote:
The good news in this topic is a technical player can learn a direct style easier than a direct player learns a possession style.  

Conversely we have realized our ECNL level DD will prob never be 5'6"+ so that certainly narrows options.  Now I can understand why the clubs start sizing up the parents at U11/U12 etc.  They are trying to gauge how tall the player will become.

But agree now that USWNT has Dunn at 5'1", Klingenberg at 5'2", Pugh at 5'4" etc times are changing since Wambach's retirement.  It may someday filter down to the club level hopefully so they also adapt and allow more players that dont fit the typical mold through the system.  As noted, the clubs give what the colleges want so that will continue to really drive most everything.  It will be interesting to see if the girls DA takes a new direction since they have been fairly open with their disdain for the current college system.

You would hope, but I'm not overly optimistic.

At the end of the day what is the only realistic option for 99% of the girls who will be in DA to continue playing after they finish high school?

3 of Stone's top recent recruits: 5'1", 5'2", 5'3" plus 4 other players under 5'5"

2 of Angie Kelly's freshman from NTX are under 5'5", one an immediate starter

3 of Krikorians freshmen are under 5'4"

G's best player at A&M is 5'3", 2 other impact kids from NTX are under 5'4"

I think some of the size thing is situational in recruiting. Most programs still play the ball primarily in the air, so it makes perfect sense to have 5'10" center halfs. Likewise, when most scoring opportunities come from set pieces, tall forwards are key.

But maybe the average size of college rosters is more indicative of the available player pool than an actual overall preference. Maybe, just maybe, the preference shown to bigger kids at the youth levels has pushed all but the truly exceptional "smaller" player to the margins before they get recruited.

SoccerTexas wrote:Dunn at 5'1", Klingenberg at 5'2", Pugh at 5'4".

Two forwards and a left back. If they were slow, that would be more radical than being short.

Wow! sportsnerd is getting a lot of grief for just sharing a college recruitment experience. Could it be that a nerve was touched with all you "soccer experts" who have dumped thousands of dollars in club fees over the years because the coach with a funny accent told you it was necessary to learn "proper" football.

Most successful college soccer plan:
1. Keep DD in rec soccer until middle school.
2. If she is bigger or faster than the other girls, then start guest playing in showcases at U15, and just keep her in rec and high school soccer.
3. Sign full ride soccer scholarship with D1 school.
4. Buy vacation home with all the money you saved not playing club soccer.

Most successful women's college soccer programs:
1. Recruit four 5' 8"+ defenders.
2. Recruit 2 speedsters up front.
3. Recruit some midfielders athletic enough to load the equipment on the bus and fill in the rows on the team picture.
4. Win a national title.

Wanted to jump in here with a little of our experiences so far.  My DD is a smaller left back, 5'3" and rarely has too much trouble with bigger forwards.  She is being recruited by D1 school(s) but we have heard size is a concern from some.  So it does come into play.  I am the manager, aka sucker, for our team and have been on the sideline during a pretty fair amount of ECNL showcase game and often hear what the scouts/coaches are saying...  several times I have been within earshot of groups of coaches that consists of US Soccer Federation and many of the top 25 women's programs.  The words I have heard 95% of the time are big, fast, strong and physical with fast and physical being the most common.  Behind those I've heard out of the air and vision.  For somone that has taken my DD, in the past, to a ton of private training I would like to hear technical, ball control, etc...  but haven't.  The largest group of coaches I have personally saw watching a single player was about twenty.  Girl is a local U15 defender.  This player would routinely run through the girl she was defending and when a foul wasn't called she generally cleared the ball long or made an errant pass from the back, what I heard, big, fast physical and intimidating....  Sucks but that's where we are with most of D1.

Lefty wrote:

SoccerTexas wrote:

Conversely we have realized our ECNL level DD will prob never be 5'6"+ so that certainly narrows options.  Now I can understand why the clubs start sizing up the parents at U11/U12 etc.  They are trying to gauge how tall the player will become.

But agree now that USWNT has Dunn at 5'1", Klingenberg at 5'2", Pugh at 5'4" etc times are changing since Wambach's retirement.  It may someday filter down to the club level hopefully so they also adapt and allow more players that dont fit the typical mold through the system.  As noted, the clubs give what the colleges want so that will continue to really drive most everything.  It will be interesting to see if the girls DA takes a new direction since they have been fairly open with their disdain for the current college system.

You would hope, but I'm not overly optimistic.  

At the end of the day what is the only realistic option for 99% of the girls who will be in DA to continue playing after they finish high school?

Agreed.  Ironically we have found that even though there are over 300 D1 programs, over 250 D2 and over 400 D3 programs in the US, it creates a false sense that the process will be easy.  A significantly smaller subset of those schools turn out to be an actual fit/match for most student athletes due to a myriad of reasons.  Most of our local players that signed early don't even know what programs or majors are offered by the colleges they are committed to nor seem to even care about academics at all.  Really there are a wide range of priorities out there with no wrong or right way to go.  Just alot of learning as we go.

1more_dd_dad wrote:Wanted to jump in here with a little of our experiences so far.  My DD is a smaller left back, 5'3" and rarely has too much trouble with bigger forwards.  She is being recruited by D1 school(s) but we have heard size is a concern from some.  So it does come into play.  I am the manager, aka sucker, for our team and have been on the sideline during a pretty fair amount of ECNL showcase game and often hear what the scouts/coaches are saying...  several times I have been within earshot of groups of coaches that consists of US Soccer Federation and many of the top 25 women's programs.  The words I have heard 95% of the time are big, fast, strong and physical with fast and physical being the most common.  Behind those I've heard out of the air and vision.  For somone that has taken my DD, in the past, to a ton of private training I would like to hear technical, ball control, etc...  but haven't.  The largest group of coaches I have personally saw watching a single player was about twenty.  Girl is a local U15 defender.  This player would routinely run through the girl she was defending and when a foul wasn't called she generally cleared the ball long or made an errant pass from the back, what I heard, big, fast physical and intimidating....  Sucks but that's where we are with most of D1.

This sounds consistent to what we have seen regarding commitments.  Since our DD has been playing in ECNL for years everyone knows who the overtly physical players are in the conference.  Well at least before this year it was easy to see card accumulations on the ECNL website.  Virtually all of the physical players were committed.  Not all to top programs of course but they were all committed early.  Ironically in all of the college games I have watched, the refs call the games significantly tighter than youth games.  The stuff that goes on at the youth level is not permitted at the games I have seen.  SEC, CUSA, B12, Southland, etc

SoccerTexas wrote:

1more_dd_dad wrote:Wanted to jump in here with a little of our experiences so far.  My DD is a smaller left back, 5'3" and rarely has too much trouble with bigger forwards.  She is being recruited by D1 school(s) but we have heard size is a concern from some.  So it does come into play.  I am the manager, aka sucker, for our team and have been on the sideline during a pretty fair amount of ECNL showcase game and often hear what the scouts/coaches are saying...  several times I have been within earshot of groups of coaches that consists of US Soccer Federation and many of the top 25 women's programs.  The words I have heard 95% of the time are big, fast, strong and physical with fast and physical being the most common.  Behind those I've heard out of the air and vision.  For somone that has taken my DD, in the past, to a ton of private training I would like to hear technical, ball control, etc...  but haven't.  The largest group of coaches I have personally saw watching a single player was about twenty.  Girl is a local U15 defender.  This player would routinely run through the girl she was defending and when a foul wasn't called she generally cleared the ball long or made an errant pass from the back, what I heard, big, fast physical and intimidating....  Sucks but that's where we are with most of D1.

This sounds consistent to what we have seen regarding commitments.  Since our DD has been playing in ECNL for years everyone knows who the overtly physical players are in the conference.  Well at least before this year it was easy to see card accumulations on the ECNL website.  Virtually all of the physical players were committed.  Not all to top programs of course but they were all committed early.  Ironically in all of the college games I have watched, the refs call the games significantly tighter than youth games.  The stuff that goes on at the youth level is not permitted at the games I have seen.  SEC, CUSA, B12, Southland, etc

Could it be related to the investment (pay the players), fixed rosters, and the need to keep them healthy, that the college game has vs at the youth/club level (pay to play) and ability to replenish rosters as needed?

Lefty wrote:

SoccerTexas wrote:

This sounds consistent to what we have seen regarding commitments.  Since our DD has been playing in ECNL for years everyone knows who the overtly physical players are in the conference.  Well at least before this year it was easy to see card accumulations on the ECNL website.  Virtually all of the physical players were committed.  Not all to top programs of course but they were all committed early.  Ironically in all of the college games I have watched, the refs call the games significantly tighter than youth games.  The stuff that goes on at the youth level is not permitted at the games I have seen.  SEC, CUSA, B12, Southland, etc

Could it be related to the investment (pay the players), fixed rosters, and the need to keep them healthy, that the college game has vs at the youth/club level (pay to play) and ability to replenish rosters as needed?

Its most likely a combination of better skilled players that can control themselves physically and better refs. Just like bad parenting, its easier to do nothing as a ref. Everyone can agree it takes more effort to call a game correctly. It also takes effort when a youth player is mentally or physically tired to not resort to egregious fouls if that has worked since u little. If you have watched MLS or NWSL or any other pro league you know they dont allow two hand straight arm pushes, hockey style shoulder checks off the ball, running through players, elbows to the face, etc.

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."

It could be in your understanding of what the coaches want from what you "think" they want. I was told by a coach that he wants a kid that can control the ball, period. So a fast kid that can catch a ball in the air and quickly control can then decide how to play it. The kid needs to accomplish a pass to the feet,needs speed and athleticism. No coach wants a technical kid that can dance on a ball that's better suited to YouTube. They want players who are skilled to play the game and WIN!! At the end of the day, soccer at any level is a sprinters game. That takes muscle, speed, athleticism, aggressiveness, etc. I got the feeling reading your post and then subsequent defensiveness as contempt and naïveté of what a coach wants for a team. All these things you seemed to be surprised about actually surprised me that you didn't know. Possession soccer is ball control, and every coach wants ball control. The quickest, strongest most aggressive and skilled players control the ball the best. What coach doesn't want an athlete? This is not black or white. Possession vs. Direct. Etal..

So all kidding, sarcasm and cynicism aside, what's the best way to make sure that my daughter is 5'9" and has a 40" vertical leap by the time recruiting really picks up?  And does she have to play for a MLS-affiliated club to order to get a look?

TatonkaBurger wrote: what's the best way to make sure that my daughter is 5'9" and has a 40" vertical leap by the time recruiting really picks up?

Genetics...Find any number of pro BBall or some Football players in town looking to 'relax' before/after a game. Secretariat wasn't the progeny of Mr Ed.

TatonkaBurger wrote:So all kidding, sarcasm and cynicism aside, what's the best way to make sure that my daughter is 5'9" and has a 40" vertical leap by the time recruiting really picks up?  And does she have to play for a MLS-affiliated club to order to get a look?

Even though you are obviously joking here is some interesting info regarding the standing vertical jump for those taking this topic seriously:

"The average women’s Standing Vertical Jump (SVJ) is 14 inches. It’s very hard to find a record – there is a 29.5-inch jump listed at Nebraska track and field in 2002. In contrast, the men’s average is 22 inches, with a 46-inch jump at a 2006 NFL combine being the best controlled record I can find. "

"The SVJ test is a very good measurement of this “genetic” explosiveness endowment, because it measures your ability to accelerate your own body’s mass to impart sufficient momentum to carry you up in the air a measured distance after you stop applying f orce to the ground...."

"For this reason, the SVJ is a test of genetics, a pretty good way to assess the genotype of the prospective athlete. It responds quite minimally to practice, because it’s not very technical and there’s no way to “game” the test if the test administrator is paying attention. A kid who first tests his SVJ with a 95-pound squat, and who later tests it after accumulating a 365-pound squat will show a little improvement, maybe 15%, because the quantity being tested is not absolute f orce but the ability to recruit. For this same reason, some very strong powerlifters do not have big SVJs."

sidebar - when I type the word f o r c e single spaced the forum changes it to Dribble?

SoccerTexas wrote:

Even though you are obviously joking here is some interesting info regarding the standing vertical jump for those taking this topic seriously:

"The average women’s Standing Vertical Jump (SVJ) is 14 inches. It’s very hard to find a record – there is a 29.5-inch jump listed at Nebraska track and field in 2002. In contrast, the men’s average is 22 inches, with a 46-inch jump at a 2006 NFL combine being the best controlled record I can find. "

"The SVJ test is a very good measurement of this “genetic” explosiveness endowment, because it measures your ability to accelerate your own body’s mass to impart sufficient momentum to carry you up in the air a measured distance after you stop applying f orce to the ground...."

"For this reason, the SVJ is a test of genetics, a pretty good way to assess the genotype of the prospective athlete. It responds quite minimally to practice, because it’s not very technical and there’s no way to “game” the test if the test administrator is paying attention. A kid who first tests his SVJ with a 95-pound squat, and who later tests it after accumulating a 365-pound squat will show a little improvement, maybe 15%, because the quantity being tested is not absolute f orce but the ability to recruit. For this same reason, some very strong powerlifters do not have big SVJs."

I could so geek out on this topic, but I highly doubt that anyone cares.

Wow, Sportsnerd was just trying to relay some info is all.  Some folks wound a bit tight and got them in a wad.  Has been enjoyable reading though.  I have always said, if select soccer is being played and paid for with the purpose of college scholarship as #1 priority...most everyone would have been better off saving and investing all that money to pay for tuition.  Sure, a ton of these girls can play some level of college and maybe get a little money.  However, grades will usually pay for more.  Also, don't play college soccer just to play.  Pick the school that has the most to offer education wise...I assure you, virtually none of your DDs will play past college.