Let's be honest, all things being equal a coach will take a tall girl over a shorter girl. Period. If you don't agree, you don't watch enough sports. Bigger is better, in EVERY sport.
"All things" are rarely if ever equal. Coaches want the best player they can get and unless the position requires height they want the best athlete. As far as all sports go, when was the last time you saw a 6'5" cornerback in the NFL? How about a 6'4" running back? Those are two of the most athletic positions in all of sport and the best in the world are average height .
Lacrosse is not basketball , there is no position where height is required.
Bigger? Really, bigger is better in every sport? do you see a lot of 6' 250 lb women's professional tennis players. Are there many 6'5" 250 lb shortstops playing MLB?
If your daughter didn't have offers from Maryland, Carolina, Northwestern and the like it was not because of her height.
Bringing up womens tennis really goes against your argument , the most dominant womens tennis player in the game and probably the best player in history is big by female athlete standards.
Wrong. Once again, height is not the reason that she is good. And relative to many other top female tennis players she would not considered tall. She is 5'9" , her sister is 6'1" . Things are never equal.... There are many "things" considered and just about off of them are more important than height. To the person who believes "you can't coach speed" you are 100% incorrect.
The original post was not intended to be a Tall vs Short debate. It was to demonstrate that college coaches will recruit the best player. There are many factors and height is not of major concern.
I was going to let this go because you are obviously a little slow but will give it a try. You mentioned womens tennis as an example of a sport where being bigger than average is not an advantage. It is pointed out to you that tennis is a bad sport to support your argument as the best player is taller than average and your response is that relative to the rest of the best players in the world she is not that tall. So in your opinion the best players in the world( professional players) are considerably taller than average but being tall is not an advantage in the sport of tennis, that makes no sense. We get it your short kid is every bit as good if not better than any kid that is taller than average. Please tell us the college lacrosse program that has passed on a kid because the kid was too tall. Again never are all things equal but if in a coaches mind you have 2 players of equal speed, IQ, stick skills etc. they are going to take the 5ft9 player over the 5 ft0 player, keep telling yourself that size is not an advantage in sports but you are just simply "wrong".
I have to chime in here. You miss the point again. Things are never equal. The original post identified several players who are considered by many to be some of the best in their class. Those players were all recruited by some of the top college programs in the country. Some would be considered tall, some would be considered short and many would be considered average. But that was not the point, the point was that "All" of the players were recruited by top tier college programs and height obviously did not negatively affect the players ability to be recruited. The post was in response to a question and was intended to be helpful. Someone turned it into a tall vs short thing and then morons like you keep going back to the "All things being equal" comment. Things are never equal and when we are talking about girls lacrosse , height is pretty far down the priority list at the top college programs. Your obsession with bigger/taller always being better demonstrates that you do not have a clue as to what is important to the top college coaches.
Reply
Quote
