Originally Posted by Anonymous
The man-child reference seems to imply a big, strong player that has hit puperty early and can physically dominate players. It's not just that, to dominate you still need some good skill, but the differentiating factor is hitting puberty early. While it can make some players seems like absolute stars in those middle school years, I don't think it serves their development well. Because they start to rely on being able to physically overpower players, bodying them, etc and don't need to focus as much on refining dodging technique, speed development. Then several years later in HS everybody catches up with their growth spurts and playing that game to physically overwhelm doesn't work. Then the players that didn't have the middle school size advantage but have great skills/speed start to outshine. So there is the potential that being big early can hinder players' development ... to their detriment down the road.


He was indeed a very skilled player, big, but not huge but definitely more athletically developed. Anyone who played youth sports through HS is well aware of the stories of the dominant bigger players in 8th grade fading as the rest of the kids worked through puberty. It's a tough period of years to be a youth athlete. No doubt that those dominant kids in 8th grade could continue to be standouts but what often happens is that once their size can't help them they are not willing to devote the time and effort to become better lacrosse players.