Originally Posted by Anonymous
I am not going to make this about a specific kid by name or even inference, but recently my son attended the U-19 tryouts for US lacrosse indoor team. There were a few 2017 kids there, each of whom I believe are early commits and were also holdbacks and are 17 year old sophomores. As the tryouts played out, these 2017 kids who were the youngest ones invited did in my estimation hang on and you could say they belonged on the field with their skill. None of them stood out though, and none of them were kids who seemed to separate and be an obvious pick for the team USA roster. I believe the reason why is they were playing against very skilled 18 and 19 year olds, and for the first time in their young lacrosse careers looked up and not down at an age, maturity, size, strength advantage. It was very obvious that these younger guys struggled when they got bodied up and pushed, and the physicality delta was very obvious. Again, I think the youngsters held their line, but it was an eye opener to see them feeling out of sorts when the advantage played the other way. Anyone who does not believe it is a huge advantage in the teens to be a year or two older and physically mature at a high level of competition is just wrong IMHO.


Couldn't agree more. And that is why many private school parents hold their children back in Maryland and other areas. At a high level of play any advantage is a plus. I dont agree with this but it works. There are many that get no advantage from being older but for many it works like advertised. MIAA starters are full of holdbacks.

My biggest disagreement is that now these same parents want the advantage at a youth level. They are ruining youth lacrosse in the process.