U9 reevaluated at U16

[Anonymous]

Every year We hear abut the coaches choosing size and speed over the smaller kid who is technically strong. If you fast forward to U16. You will find that that coaches were more right than wrong. Yes there are the smaller kids who have outworked the majority to be technically much better. The small kids who are finally hitting their growth spurs and catching up. For the most part the bigger, faster, more athletic kids are still making up the majority of the top rosters. Far to often at U16 you have the same parents that were back at U9 advocating for the smaller kids still preaching the same things. The smaller kid is more technically sound or he's a late grower. The truth is even though that smaller less athletic kid usually is more technically sound. They haven't developed enough to separate themselves to be more valuable than the bigger faster kids. Very few have have gotten so technically better that its enough to overlook the size and athleticism. I think many times that bigger faster kid movs on to other sports opening up roster spots for those smaller kids leading even more credence to the fact most of the time back at U9 or U10 the coaches get it right.

[Anonymous]

Make sure to tell this to Spain, England, and Italy

[Anonymous]

We see the cuts start happening and the kids can’t take being moved down so it’s about time they leave the sport. Right around HS and not for another sport.

[Anonymous]

Small but technically better kids will be passed over if they are also not athletic and at least as fast as those in their age group. I don’t believe it is just about size. The small kid with the better tech skills is no competition to someone who is more athletic and faster and with decent tech skills. No coach is picking kids based on just tech skills.

At U9, coaches are probably looking at kids who are playing above their age group because they are skilled and athletic (not bc of size). I imagine coaches also look for soccer intelligence in their players, the ability to see and make plays with their teammates. That is a skill I don’t see as much even with team’s star players.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Make sure to tell this to Spain, England, and Italy

We are not talking about anyone else but the USA. Also just looking at the broad scope not the elite Youth national team. I think it is also a small poke at the parents who complain their DC is always passed over for more athletic kids with slightly less technical skill.

[Anonymous]

Soccer is an athletic sport. They are called athletes for a reason. There is no substitute for speed and athletic coordination and quickness in any athletic sport. Two players, same technical abilities, one is more athletic, the athletic one will be preferred almost every time. It’s not fair but some are just born with more athletic ability. Some can compensate enough by conditioning and working harder. At least in the non-national team level leagues, there are enough athletic kids with decent enough technical skills to edge out any technical only players

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Every year We hear abut the coaches choosing size and speed over the smaller kid who is technically strong. If you fast forward to U16. You will find that that coaches were more right than wrong. Yes there are the smaller kids who have outworked the majority to be technically much better. The small kids who are finally hitting their growth spurs and catching up. For the most part the bigger, faster, more athletic kids are still making up the majority of the top rosters. Far to often at U16 you have the same parents that were back at U9 advocating for the smaller kids still preaching the same things. The smaller kid is more technically sound or he's a late grower. The truth is even though that smaller less athletic kid usually is more technically sound. They haven't developed enough to separate themselves to be more valuable than the bigger faster kids. Very few have have gotten so technically better that its enough to overlook the size and athleticism. I think many times that bigger faster kid movs on to other sports opening up roster spots for those smaller kids leading even more credence to the fact most of the time back at U9 or U10 the coaches get it right.

It's always a blend - athleticism counts as do technical skills. The main difference is that better coaches weight technical ability more than the lesser coaches when selecting kids, and know how to teach the kids to play together to take advantage of their technical skill to win games.

The weaker coaches do not know how to teach a team of less physical but more skilled players to beat a team of more physical but less skilled players. That remains as true at U16 as it was at U9. So coaches who don't know what to do with more technical kids at U9 still don't know what to do with them at U16. And those clubs still get beat by the ones that do.

[Anonymous]

I haven’t seen good youth soccer programs placing kids according to size at U9 or later. That would be silly, as you can’t tell how tall a kid will ultimately be at that age, and also because height is not an advantage for most soccer positions. There is a reason why the worlds’ best soccer players are, on average, average sized. It makes perfect sense to select for athleticism at any age, because you cannot be an elite player without being a great athlete. Speed can change over the years—it’s certainly true that puberty helps some kids and hurts others speedwise—but coordination, balance, and speed of thought on the field (which I view as a component of athleticism) don’t change all that much over time.

Picking kids who have good physical tools and investing good training in their development is not something anyone should criticize, but I think a lot of parents can’t judge their kids’ athleticism. There is kind of a weird false dichotomy that a lot of people seem to believe that a kid is either small and skillful or big and relying only on size, speed and strength. Athletic kids of all sizes are capable of learning skills and being great with the right training. OP’s point that at U16 you mostly see tall kids succeeding is not necessarily true in my experience, but to the extent it is, the reason is that the tall, athletic U9 player was picked for the top team back then for whatever reason and received top team training all the way through. Some of those tall U16s were small U9s, and all the small teens I know who were standouts at U9 and stayed on the top team are still great at U16.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I haven’t seen good youth soccer programs placing kids according to size at U9 or later. That would be silly, as you can’t tell how tall a kid will ultimately be at that age, and also because height is not an advantage for most soccer positions. There is a reason why the worlds’ best soccer players are, on average, average sized. It makes perfect sense to select for athleticism at any age, because you cannot be an elite player without being a great athlete. Speed can change over the years—it’s certainly true that puberty helps some kids and hurts others speedwise—but coordination, balance, and speed of thought on the field (which I view as a component of athleticism) don’t change all that much over time.

Picking kids who have good physical tools and investing good training in their development is not something anyone should criticize, but I think a lot of parents can’t judge their kids’ athleticism. There is kind of a weird false dichotomy that a lot of people seem to believe that a kid is either small and skillful or big and relying only on size, speed and strength. Athletic kids of all sizes are capable of learning skills and being great with the right training. OP’s point that at U16 you mostly see tall kids succeeding is not necessarily true in my experience, but to the extent it is, the reason is that the tall, athletic U9 player was picked for the top team back then for whatever reason and received top team training all the way through. Some of those tall U16s were small U9s, and all the small teens I know who were standouts at U9 and stayed on the top team are still great at U16.

I agree with most of this, but you are confusing the issue somewhat by including coordination, balance and speed of thought as part of athleticism. In general the "athlete" vs "skilled" debate is one of speed/size/strength vs "ball skills" where ball skills includes coordination/balance/speed of thought as well as amount of practise.

[Anonymous]

At the U-little ages, the big kids are often slower than the small kids.

[Anonymous]

No wonder US soccer is never going to be any good. Coaches still have the football mentality, picking big, fast, and athletic types of players. They don't know any better.

[Anonymous]

Hand eye coordination is still king.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I haven’t seen good youth soccer programs placing kids according to size at U9 or later. That would be silly, as you can’t tell how tall a kid will ultimately be at that age, and also because height is not an advantage for most soccer positions. There is a reason why the worlds’ best soccer players are, on average, average sized. It makes perfect sense to select for athleticism at any age, because you cannot be an elite player without being a great athlete. Speed can change over the years—it’s certainly true that puberty helps some kids and hurts others speedwise—but coordination, balance, and speed of thought on the field (which I view as a component of athleticism) don’t change all that much over time.

Picking kids who have good physical tools and investing good training in their development is not something anyone should criticize, but I think a lot of parents can’t judge their kids’ athleticism. There is kind of a weird false dichotomy that a lot of people seem to believe that a kid is either small and skillful or big and relying only on size, speed and strength. Athletic kids of all sizes are capable of learning skills and being great with the right training. OP’s point that at U16 you mostly see tall kids succeeding is not necessarily true in my experience, but to the extent it is, the reason is that the tall, athletic U9 player was picked for the top team back then for whatever reason and received top team training all the way through. Some of those tall U16s were small U9s, and all the small teens I know who were standouts at U9 and stayed on the top team are still great at U16.

I agree with most of this, but you are confusing the issue somewhat by including coordination, balance and speed of thought as part of athleticism. In general the "athlete" vs "skilled" debate is one of speed/size/strength vs "ball skills" where ball skills includes coordination/balance/speed of thought as well as amount of practise.

Yeah, I absolutely view coordination and balance as components of athleticism. Speed of thought on the pitch can be debated. But you can definitely have great foot skills without having above average balance or coordination. It just takes dedication and repetition.

[Anonymous]

Look at this forum board. Parents trying to find the best team at u9, u10, and u11. Of course coaches are going to pick the biggest fastest kids if it means that they will win and parents will stay in the club. If players wouldn’t just leave because they think the grass is greener somewhere else then it would allow coaches to focus more on technical ability. Of course there has to be a balance with what the coach is actually coaching as well.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I haven’t seen good youth soccer programs placing kids according to size at U9 or later. That would be silly, as you can’t tell how tall a kid will ultimately be at that age, and also because height is not an advantage for most soccer positions. There is a reason why the worlds’ best soccer players are, on average, average sized. It makes perfect sense to select for athleticism at any age, because you cannot be an elite player without being a great athlete. Speed can change over the years—it’s certainly true that puberty helps some kids and hurts others speedwise—but coordination, balance, and speed of thought on the field (which I view as a component of athleticism) don’t change all that much over time.

Picking kids who have good physical tools and investing good training in their development is not something anyone should criticize, but I think a lot of parents can’t judge their kids’ athleticism. There is kind of a weird false dichotomy that a lot of people seem to believe that a kid is either small and skillful or big and relying only on size, speed and strength. Athletic kids of all sizes are capable of learning skills and being great with the right training. OP’s point that at U16 you mostly see tall kids succeeding is not necessarily true in my experience, but to the extent it is, the reason is that the tall, athletic U9 player was picked for the top team back then for whatever reason and received top team training all the way through. Some of those tall U16s were small U9s, and all the small teens I know who were standouts at U9 and stayed on the top team are still great at U16.

I agree with most of this, but you are confusing the issue somewhat by including coordination, balance and speed of thought as part of athleticism. In general the "athlete" vs "skilled" debate is one of speed/size/strength vs "ball skills" where ball skills includes coordination/balance/speed of thought as well as amount of practise.

Yeah, I absolutely view coordination and balance as components of athleticism. Speed of thought on the pitch can be debated. But you can definitely have great foot skills without having above average balance or coordination. It just takes dedication and repetition.

No. There are a lot of players who work on foot skill all the time but can never reach the level of the naturals. Some players are just better. It’s like speed and soccer IQ. There is a range you can import to but not beyond.