Travel Soccer teams around NOVA let's discuss

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Messi has a June Birthday. Maradona has an October birthday. Pele has an October birthday. Lewandowski has a late August birthday. Ibrahimovic has a late October birthday. Mueller has a September birthday. George Best has a May birthday. Neymar has a February birthday.

Gladwell doesn't apply to soccer.

If you have skill and talent it doesn't matter what month you were born in for godsakes.

In fact-- I laugh every time I hear some douchey parent talking about their kids 10,000 hours and birthdate. I look at the uncoordinated, goofy parents and think 'hey buddy--you are missing the genetic aspect".

This and 'I really loved watching you play". All these type As read a script for success and sound like a bunch of lemmings on the sidelines.

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.

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.

A friend of mine from St. Louis told me that they just stopped selling beer at the concession stand where her son's league plays because they found that the rowdy parents became violent with too many beers. My first thought was that it was probably a good call, but then I got wistful about how much less PC their soccer games must be if they are just now deciding that drunken screaming goes too far.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:US Youth Soccer has a PDF up on their website documenting how RAE shows up in soccer. I don't think that the statement that RAE doesn't apply to soccer matches with the documented research.

https://www.usyouthsoccer.org/FileDownload.aspx?D=kZsL75+f16c7X37+8388Uj7eKDnOZiRTmA1pWJuGkb0=

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.

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.

You really can't paint with such a broad brush. My son's club has very small, skillful boys on their top teams all the way up through the oldest ages. And the US youth teams on the boys' side are often much smaller than than their European counterparts, and at least as skillful. There have been a lot of changes in soccer in the last decade or so, even if your travel program hasn't gotten the news.

[Anonymous]

Studies have shown those Jan-Mar kids don't develop the grit needed to continue to compete at the higher levels. They had early success, while the younger smaller kids had to fight from the beginning. Not sure why Canadian hockey is so different than International soccer.

[Anonymous]

Wait, wait, wait, wait ...

There are places when you can buy beer when you're watching travel soccer games?

That might actually make it easier for parents like me. Maybe I wouldn't be biting my tongue so hard when the ref lets every arm-to-face challenge go unpunished. And I'd keep a sense of humor with all the funny mistakes that make relatively competitive U9 games end up with 10-0 scores.

Why are we not doing this?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Wait, wait, wait, wait ...

There are places when you can buy beer when you're watching travel soccer games?

That might actually make it easier for parents like me. Maybe I wouldn't be biting my tongue so hard when the ref lets every arm-to-face challenge go unpunished. And I'd keep a sense of humor with all the funny mistakes that make relatively competitive U9 games end up with 10-0 scores.

Why are we not doing this?

See, this again is why I love the Netherlands model. Instead of grinding hour teeth to dust on the sidelines over whatever idiocy you are witnessing, you can retire to the clubhouse and enjoy yourself with nice alcoholic beverages and warm snacks while you observe your progeny from a benevolent distance. So civilized!

[Anonymous]

I'm pretty sure the referees I've seen so far this season have been bombed out of their minds on absinthe and gasoline. Time for the parents to get in on the fun with unlimited free booze at every travel soccer tentlet in the DMV.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Studies have shown those Jan-Mar kids don't develop the grit needed to continue to compete at the higher levels. They had early success, while the younger smaller kids had to fight from the beginning. Not sure why Canadian hockey is so different than International soccer.

Could you link those studies? I haven't seen anything like that in the various soccer studies that have been done that I know about but there's always new research.

[Anonymous]

Yes, please share the studies. Sounds like wishful thinking, but who knows. Older kids aren't always bigger relative to their peers, by the way. Some of them are small because they will eventually grow into the bodies of their squat, pear-shaped fathers. I've seen it happen . . . to me.

[Anonymous]

PP who wrote the long article about the proposed changes, thanks. I was the one who asked for feedback and I appreciate it.

I read all the links you provided and some other articles that were linked in the comments/articles. I was neutral on the idea beforehand, but now I think it's a pretty bad idea. I think that the argument that this will combat RAE seems weak at best. The stronger argument seems to be one of convenience: it's easier to just group them together by calendar year. I am pretty skeptical about that, too, and I thought that was one of the weak points of the LeBolt article.

The arguments in favor seem pretty tenuous at best, but the amount of disruption it's going to cause to millions of current kids down to U11 or so seems pretty shocking to me. If I am understanding all this correctly (and maybe I am not), it's going to leave many kids who are Aug-Dec birthdays without a team to play on during their senior year in high school. Kids who are currently fall kids who have been with their current teams for years will have to find a new team. For instance, if you have a fall U12 boy born in 2003, that boy will be trying out next fall against U14s, not U13s, which I think is going to cause a lot of kids to just drop out. Dropping out is a big problem for youth soccer: we can get kids to start it, but we can't keep them. It seems like this is going to knock the legs out from under a lot of kids just as soccer is picking up steam in the U.S.

It seems very misguided now that I understand it. I do agree with small-sided changes, but this one seems pretty bad. The fact that fall birthdays won't have a team to play on for senior year is shocking to me. Please let me know if I misunderstood that, because I find that a horrible consequence.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:PP who wrote the long article about the proposed changes, thanks. I was the one who asked for feedback and I appreciate it.

I read all the links you provided and some other articles that were linked in the comments/articles. I was neutral on the idea beforehand, but now I think it's a pretty bad idea. I think that the argument that this will combat RAE seems weak at best. The stronger argument seems to be one of convenience: it's easier to just group them together by calendar year. I am pretty skeptical about that, too, and I thought that was one of the weak points of the LeBolt article.

The arguments in favor seem pretty tenuous at best, but the amount of disruption it's going to cause to millions of current kids down to U11 or so seems pretty shocking to me. If I am understanding all this correctly (and maybe I am not), it's going to leave many kids who are Aug-Dec birthdays without a team to play on during their senior year in high school. Kids who are currently fall kids who have been with their current teams for years will have to find a new team. For instance, if you have a fall U12 boy born in 2003, that boy will be trying out next fall against U14s, not U13s, which I think is going to cause a lot of kids to just drop out. Dropping out is a big problem for youth soccer: we can get kids to start it, but we can't keep them. It seems like this is going to knock the legs out from under a lot of kids just as soccer is picking up steam in the U.S.

It seems very misguided now that I understand it. I do agree with small-sided changes, but this one seems pretty bad. The fact that fall birthdays won't have a team to play on for senior year is shocking to me. Please let me know if I misunderstood that, because I find that a horrible consequence.

Thanks for seeing the light.

I always thought they should just grandfather and start this with rising 2008 who aren't technically in the travel system yet.

I also think if they truly want to solve the RAE development problem--they could do what the study suggests; 6-month age groups...at least in the younger years.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:PP who wrote the long article about the proposed changes, thanks. I was the one who asked for feedback and I appreciate it.

I read all the links you provided and some other articles that were linked in the comments/articles. I was neutral on the idea beforehand, but now I think it's a pretty bad idea. I think that the argument that this will combat RAE seems weak at best. The stronger argument seems to be one of convenience: it's easier to just group them together by calendar year. I am pretty skeptical about that, too, and I thought that was one of the weak points of the LeBolt article.

The arguments in favor seem pretty tenuous at best, but the amount of disruption it's going to cause to millions of current kids down to U11 or so seems pretty shocking to me. If I am understanding all this correctly (and maybe I am not), it's going to leave many kids who are Aug-Dec birthdays without a team to play on during their senior year in high school. Kids who are currently fall kids who have been with their current teams for years will have to find a new team. For instance, if you have a fall U12 boy born in 2003, that boy will be trying out next fall against U14s, not U13s, which I think is going to cause a lot of kids to just drop out. Dropping out is a big problem for youth soccer: we can get kids to start it, but we can't keep them. It seems like this is going to knock the legs out from under a lot of kids just as soccer is picking up steam in the U.S.

It seems very misguided now that I understand it. I do agree with small-sided changes, but this one seems pretty bad. The fact that fall birthdays won't have a team to play on for senior year is shocking to me. Please let me know if I misunderstood that, because I find that a horrible consequence.

I agree. The only benefits the PP identified was that a Jan.1 cutoff is easier to understand than an Aug.1 deadline, but that's a specious argument at best, and that the change has generated attention but getting attention for a dumb decision (and then implementing that decision) will do little to benefit US soccer in the long-term.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:PP who wrote the long article about the proposed changes, thanks. I was the one who asked for feedback and I appreciate it.

I read all the links you provided and some other articles that were linked in the comments/articles. I was neutral on the idea beforehand, but now I think it's a pretty bad idea. I think that the argument that this will combat RAE seems weak at best. The stronger argument seems to be one of convenience: it's easier to just group them together by calendar year. I am pretty skeptical about that, too, and I thought that was one of the weak points of the LeBolt article.

The arguments in favor seem pretty tenuous at best, but the amount of disruption it's going to cause to millions of current kids down to U11 or so seems pretty shocking to me. If I am understanding all this correctly (and maybe I am not), it's going to leave many kids who are Aug-Dec birthdays without a team to play on during their senior year in high school. Kids who are currently fall kids who have been with their current teams for years will have to find a new team. For instance, if you have a fall U12 boy born in 2003, that boy will be trying out next fall against U14s, not U13s, which I think is going to cause a lot of kids to just drop out. Dropping out is a big problem for youth soccer: we can get kids to start it, but we can't keep them. It seems like this is going to knock the legs out from under a lot of kids just as soccer is picking up steam in the U.S.

It seems very misguided now that I understand it. I do agree with small-sided changes, but this one seems pretty bad. The fact that fall birthdays won't have a team to play on for senior year is shocking to me. Please let me know if I misunderstood that, because I find that a horrible consequence.

Hi PP. Long-winded poster here. I don't disagree at all that the arguments in favor of the age group change are tenuous for the most part. To clarify my position on this, I've never said that I think the change is a great idea, or that it will have a big impact on RAE (other than publicizing the problem) or that it's in the top 100 things that I personally feel need to change in order for more kids in the country to have the sort of development necessary to ensure that our men's teams are on par with the best in the world. My issue with the jerky poster I was responding to and others who have ranted in similar fashion is that this change is a done deal starting this coming fall for every league that I've heard of. Everyone has a right to express their opinion, but it's tedious to read the same rants over and over again, and it would be nice if those posters instead spent some time talking about what solutions might be available to help any kids who will be hurt by the change. Though others disagree, I really think that category mainly consists of current high school upperclassmen, because I think virtually everyone else will be able to roll with it the same way they did when the country used to use a calendar system and during the transition to the current system. The other things I'd mentioned as potential benefits of the reclassification just come from looking on the bright side since the changes are coming.

With respect to your example about the Fall 2003 kids, they may have to find new teams depending on whether their teammates are able/willing to play up, but they won't move to U14. Here's a helpful chart that shows how the changes will work for the 2016-2017 year: http://www.usyouthsoccer.org/assets/1/15/USYS-NEW-SOCCER-AGE-CHART-2016-BIRTH-YEAR-MATRIX%20v1.pdf The Fall 2003 kids will advance from U12 to U13 just like they would have under the current system, while the Jan-July 2004 kids will play in the U12 category for a second year. No one who doesn't play up will be trying out or playing with kids who are more than a year older. And USYSA has made it very clear that playing kids up will be an option for any current teams who want to stay together.

[Anonymous]

What about the senior year issue for fall birthdays going forward? Is it true they won't have a team? That seems like a terrible side effect if true. Thanks for explaining.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:PP who wrote the long article about the proposed changes, thanks. I was the one who asked for feedback and I appreciate it.

I read all the links you provided and some other articles that were linked in the comments/articles. I was neutral on the idea beforehand, but now I think it's a pretty bad idea. I think that the argument that this will combat RAE seems weak at best. The stronger argument seems to be one of convenience: it's easier to just group them together by calendar year. I am pretty skeptical about that, too, and I thought that was one of the weak points of the LeBolt article.

The arguments in favor seem pretty tenuous at best, but the amount of disruption it's going to cause to millions of current kids down to U11 or so seems pretty shocking to me. If I am understanding all this correctly (and maybe I am not), it's going to leave many kids who are Aug-Dec birthdays without a team to play on during their senior year in high school. Kids who are currently fall kids who have been with their current teams for years will have to find a new team. For instance, if you have a fall U12 boy born in 2003, that boy will be trying out next fall against U14s, not U13s, which I think is going to cause a lot of kids to just drop out. Dropping out is a big problem for youth soccer: we can get kids to start it, but we can't keep them. It seems like this is going to knock the legs out from under a lot of kids just as soccer is picking up steam in the U.S.

It seems very misguided now that I understand it. I do agree with small-sided changes, but this one seems pretty bad. The fact that fall birthdays won't have a team to play on for senior year is shocking to me. Please let me know if I misunderstood that, because I find that a horrible consequence.

Hi PP. Long-winded poster here. I don't disagree at all that the arguments in favor of the age group change are tenuous for the most part. To clarify my position on this, I've never said that I think the change is a great idea, or that it will have a big impact on RAE (other than publicizing the problem) or that it's in the top 100 things that I personally feel need to change in order for more kids in the country to have the sort of development necessary to ensure that our men's teams are on par with the best in the world. My issue with the jerky poster I was responding to and others who have ranted in similar fashion is that this change is a done deal starting this coming fall for every league that I've heard of. Everyone has a right to express their opinion, but it's tedious to read the same rants over and over again, and it would be nice if those posters instead spent some time talking about what solutions might be available to help any kids who will be hurt by the change. Though others disagree, I really think that category mainly consists of current high school upperclassmen, because I think virtually everyone else will be able to roll with it the same way they did when the country used to use a calendar system and during the transition to the current system. The other things I'd mentioned as potential benefits of the reclassification just come from looking on the bright side since the changes are coming.

With respect to your example about the Fall 2003 kids, they may have to find new teams depending on whether their teammates are able/willing to play up, but they won't move to U14. Here's a helpful chart that shows how the changes will work for the 2016-2017 year: http://www.usyouthsoccer.org/assets/1/15/USYS-NEW-SOCCER-AGE-CHART-2016-BIRTH-YEAR-MATRIX%20v1.pdf The Fall 2003 kids will advance from U12 to U13 just like they would have under the current system, while the Jan-July 2004 kids will play in the U12 category for a second year. No one who doesn't play up will be trying out or playing with kids who are more than a year older. And USYSA has made it very clear that playing kids up will be an option for any current teams who want to stay together.

How it plays out matters. Our club focuses on labeling a kid A-D. If a 'D' drops down an age group he automatically is placed on the 'A' team of the lower age group--even if the younger kids are more talented. I could see them just sticking with labels when they've proven so inadequate. Our A team continually gets clobbered while our lower teams blowout all of the competition. Our lower teams don't even get to scrimmage with the A and B teams. It's quite ridiculous.

My fear having a late birthday kid is this nonsense will continue. Kids will be broken off at tryouts by their 'pre-labeled' groups and never given a chance to show what they can do in front of the new coaches and against new teammates.

If we are truly cleaning things up--everyone should get a fear shot at tryouts in the spring.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote: Our club focuses on labeling a kid A-D. If a 'D' drops down an age group he automatically is placed on the 'A' team of the lower age group--even if the younger kids are more talented. I could see them just sticking with labels when they've proven so inadequate. Our A team continually gets clobbered while our lower teams blowout all of the competition. Our lower teams don't even get to scrimmage with the A and B teams. It's quite ridiculous.

You're in the wrong club....