One thing is clear at seemingly all levels of competitive sports, in virtually all sports.
Size matters.
At least it seems to matter a great deal to scouts, analysts and those who too often make decisions—including in the youth sports world—about who is deserving of playing on a certain team, or at a certain level.
An interesting study out of the University of Saskatchewan reminds us that size may be over-rated.
Various media outlets have commented on the study, conducted by University of Saskatchewan researcher Lauren Sherar, which will be published in the November issue of the Journal of Sports Sciences.
The Toronto Star quotes Sherar in a story reviewing his findings:
"All coaches would agree they want to pick the best team but they also need to consider how best to foster future talent," Sherar said in an interview. "By selecting only the biggest kids they are possibly ignoring the smaller, more talented kid who is small because they are late maturing or have a birthday late in the selection year."
This assessment, while important and perhaps newsworthy to some, should not shock any of us who have been around for a while.
While the study seems to focus largely on the late-year birthday factor, too often in sports, from the youngest ages to the professional ranks, players are often dismissed as potential candidates because they simply aren’t “big enough”.
Indeed, a player with skills, determination, a great work ethic and an outstanding attitude who also happens to have good size would seem to have an advantage of sorts over the “small” player with similar attributes. (Yet Dave Keon, to cite but one hockey example at the professional level, competed against Jean Beliveau very well for many years, despite his relatively small stature compared with the much larger Montreal captain. Keon compensated by utilizing his own unique traits.)
But size should not be the key determining factor, especially in youth sports.
Youth coaches often miss players, in hockey and soccer especially, who lack only size to be considered capable of playing at the highest levels.
As the study suggests, if we lose kids at early ages simply because they were weeded out as a result of their size, when in fact (as the study indicates) many of these young athletes often catch up later on in their development, this is surely not a good thing.
And what if some athletes don’t catch up in size?
That should not be the end of their opportunity to compete, either.
If David Eckstein (a major-league baseball player who stands about 5 feet 7 inches, who helped the Angels win the World Series in 2002, and was justifiably named MVP of the 2006 World Series as the shortstop for the St. Louise Cardinals) had listened to those who dismissed him over the years because of his size, lack of arm strength, and other “failings” he would never had made it to the highest levels of his chosen athletic profession.
Ecsktein has made it on determination, work ethic, and attitude.
Not because he was “big” enough to make a team.
Imagine all the people along the way who must have told him he’d never make it.
