Forum Index
»
Sports General Discussion
Travel Soccer teams around NOVA let's discuss
![[Post New]](/jforum/templates/default/images/icon_minipost_new.gif){kind=icon}
Anonymous
Again-- you are quoting a US soccer study so you have blatantly missed the points addressed above. There is no age related effect Internationally because unlike the incredibly, sucky, horribly bad US Men's Soccer programs--the rest of the World recognizes attributes other than pure size and speed. This is what has been documented through the years. US coaches think a big fast, kid that pounds the ball down the field is all they need to win....then they go abroad and get crushed. |
Anonymous
One only has to look how they separate kids at a travel tryout around here...you can have a teeny, tiny kid doing Cryuffs, nutmegs, Maradonas and wiping the floor with everyone in his group---and they pick the big, tall, toe-kickers. I am watching it with the upcoming U-9/2nd graders right now. I really don't care what any US soccer study shows. My faith in US soccer on the men's side is just not there. |
Anonymous
Why are most of Italy's top players born in September? |
Anonymous
And why does Germany have many more born in April than May? And yet-- most of the superstars quoted in the post above had birthdates from Aug-October. I guess it is quality over quantity. If you have a Messi and a Pele in your group--you will beat the National teams with many January bdays anyways. |
Anonymous
Most telling--- is that NOTHING to do with the age switch is going to help identify players overlooked due to birthdate. We are just shifting the birth dates. The article specifically said by creating 6-month bandwidths instead of 1-year; the age effect would go away and truly, talented kids would not be overlooked. Yet we are doing no such thing with the new mandates. Fabulous. |
Anonymous
Yes!! While respecting the intent of the "I really loved watching you play" movement, the sidelines of soccer games are becoming so Stepford-esque that hearing someone yelling inappropriate things would be a welcome relief. |
Anonymous
You didn't read the PDF. The PDF isnt a single US study. It discussed international RAE as well. I am not sure why you are so frothy about this. There is plenty of data to show RAE exists in soccer. I don't think it's considered a disputed fact at this time. The existence of superstars doesn't remove the overall data analysis. |
Anonymous
Ha- totally! I miss soccer from the 70s/80s. Now those were some rowdy sidelines...and our travel coaches used to have a cooler of beer at every game. |
Anonymous
What does it matter is the point??? As stated above: NOTHING to do with the mandated age switch is going to help identify players overlooked due to birthdate. We are just shifting the birth dates. The article specifically said by creating 6-month bandwidths instead of 1-year; the age effect would go away and truly, talented kids would not be overlooked. |
Anonymous
You are backtracking. You said quite forcefully above that there is no such thing as RAE in soccer. Now, presented with a fraction of the data that there is, you are saying it doesn't matter. What is your point? |
Anonymous
My point is---they aren't fixing any perceived problem, they are only shifting it. And--again--truly talented players are not affected by an age change. There may be more volume in certain months but the saying goes in soccer 'the cream will rise to the top'. Talent will find a way. |
Anonymous
Previous dude, sure likes his stats. I am sure he's got an Excel spreadsheet counting up his kids' 10,000 hours 
|
Anonymous
| I haven't been involved in these recent exchanges, but I just wanted to pontificate (pope-like) for a minute about something. Ever since the calendar-year change was announced, this board has been host to much ignorance masquerading as common sense, denial of sound sports science, and airing of very, very, very stale soccer stereotypes (right, all tall kids toe the ball). I wish the grade-year system would be retained, but are there no truly good arguments for doing so? |
Anonymous
Soccer is a social sport that kids like to play with their peers/classmates. How's that? |
Anonymous
I'm the poster who sees some potential positives from the age group change, and I wanted to respond to you and the PP who asked for links to articles discussing the issue. Here are a couple that I think are good: http://www.soccerwire.com/blog-posts/lebolt-september-is-youth-soccer-month-and-bad-press-is-killing-us/ and http://www.soccerwire.com/blog-posts/osullivan-some-thoughts-on-u-s-soccers-mandatory-changes-in-youth-soccer/ . My perspective on the changes are similar to those of Wendy LeBolt's and I like her attitude in the piece. The O'Sullivan article has a number of great comments both from people who are concerned about the change and those who don't see it as a problem. I thought these made for interesting reading. As background, I'm a soccer parent who has kids who have gone through the system from pre-school rec to college ball. My kids have had varying abilities and interests in the sport, from the elite level down to one who still prefers to chat with teammates while playing instead of focusing on the ball. I don't pretend to be any kind of expert, and I don't have any stake in the new mandates (i.e., I'm not someone who would have any reason to just be "regurgitating the company line"). I'm just someone who has learned to love the game and take an interest in the broader US soccer scene in the course of spending a huge portion of my free time on my kids' soccer activities. So, here's what I like about the age group changes: 1. The simplicity of it. The current U-whatever system is odd and confusing, and you can't say it really lines up with school year calendars. Not all school districts have a September 1 cutoff, and even for those that do, the current soccer age group classification doesn't match up since it has a July 31 rather than an August 31 cut-off. I think some clubs and leagues actually are very committed to combatting the RAE effects, and it's just more intuitive for everyone if you can say that you are working on making sure that the Jan-March kids don't have an advantage over the Nov.-December ones. In the happy event that some clubs start experimenting with grouping kids in 6 month intervals for some training and games, it will be way easier for everyone to wrap their heads around Jan-June and July-December groups than August [September]-January [February], etc. I recognize that this point basically boils down to "I'm pleased that I won't have to do math to figure out what age group my child is in," but I know I'm not alone in wanting to avoid math in every day settings. As an aside, I'm extremely thankful that under the current system and the calendar year one there is no possibility of kids being grouped by team based on graduation year alone. I think it's horrifying that in lacrosse (and maybe other sports?), parents are given incentives to hold their kids back a grade or two to give them an advantage for college recruiting. 2. The amount of publicity the changes are getting. Virtually everyone seems to agree that the changes related to small-sided games are a positive, and those rules are standard in our area anyway. The age group reclassification is different, because it will cause actual changes for large numbers of kids and teams during the transition period. People throughout the country are thinking what it will mean to their kids and teams, talking about it with their friends, and taking to message boards to debate it, etc. I think it is good for the advancement of soccer in general when we have more people involved in public discourse about it. Maybe some parents who never really thought about soccer as an option for their kid will think about it for the first time because of all the talk. Maybe some who just thought of soccer as an opportunity for exercise and friendships will be inspired to help make sure their kids are learning skills that could help them get to the next level if they want to. Maybe some families will realize that there is a higher level their kids can be playing at that will make their college recruitment or admissions dreams more realistic. Maybe some families with kids who can't afford to pay travel fees will consider that US Soccer's interest in producing top players might mean there are scholarship options that they'd never considered. At a minimum, hopefully in reading and talking about the issue, a lot of people will end up becoming more educated consumers of whatever product their local club is selling. Or maybe none of these things will happen, and people will quit soccer in droves because they don't want to be separated from their classmates. Who knows! But I'm an optimist, so I'm hoping and expecting that all the publicity will bring about a lot of good. As I've said before, I do really feel for the older high school kids and families who didn't expect to have to look for a new team or change their recruiting strategies. No one needs that kind of stress on top of all the other junior year of high school stress. Again, because I'm an optimist, I think most everyone else will adjust fine after the transition is complete assuming the various leagues allow teams flexibility to play kids up if they want to do so. |