Originally Posted by Anonymous
Originally Posted by Anonymous
Originally Posted by Anonymous
My coach always said "you cant teach speed or size"....you either have it or you don't.


Nor heart and determination. Height isn't the true measure of a man!


There isn't a doubt that if you take two lacrosse players where one is 5'8 and 170 pounds and one who is 6'2 and 200+ pounds were both are equally fast, agile and skilled the great advantage goes to the athlete with stature. You can't go to the gym and work on getting taller or longer. In lacrosse length to play bigger and cover more space or hold a stick away from defenders is an advantage. Being physically bigger and stronger than another smaller player is always an advantage assuming the bigger kid can run with the smaller player. That isn't even a debate. People who point at the past successes of undersized lacrosse players are focusing on attackmen and I maintain that is always possible for attackmen who are exceptionally fast. Beyond that, all there is to point at is lacrosse history to here is whitewashed by he fact that it has historically been a sanctuary for white, prep school, privileged and small kids who'd not succeed in other sports. Lacrosse is a comp to sports like squash and fencing in that regard.


And, what is the excuse for hockey?