Harsh Reality for your Beloved Soccer Player

[NOVASoccerCoach]

Anonymous wrote:

NOVASoccerCoach wrote:Ok, OP here. This has quickly gotten out of hand.

1. USWNT players are EXTREMELY TECHNICAL and freakishly athletic.
2. This thread was made because I hate seeing parents push their kids for their own vicarious aspirations. If your kid wants to play D1, ask them or even better, let them tell you. Let your kid enjoy soccer and see how far they want to go with it. Too many parents have these ECNL and D1 aspirations for their kid and their kid just wants to play!

That's pretty much it. It doesn't need to be anymore complicated than that. If you have any questions about development and your player, ask in the AMA thread I have.

I am a former female competitive soccer player with many top players in my family.

#2 is so on point. These parents worrying about college soccer in the young kid years are ridiculous. I was a player on a team #1 in the Nation. I was recognized by scouts, etc. I had played since K. By the time I was 16, I knew I did not want to play in college. I loved the sport, but was ready to move on to other things. I was a biochemistry major with a minor in partying and enjoying my social life. About 75% of players on my team went on to play in college. A few even in a different sport---the goalie basketball, etc.

IF you had asked me at U12, I would have said I was going to be the next female Pele or Cryuff. My family was all about soccer. But, interests change with age---even for kids that are 100% passionate.

As my brother who was a pro player says, they just need to 'love the ball'. As a parent, you can't force it. You can't get caught up in vicariously living through your kids or if you see your kid is a good player at 11-years old seeing flashes of National team and pro career in your eyes. It has to come 100% from the kid.

My biggest job as a sports parent is to shelter my kids from all of the hoopla and serious craziness in the sport (much more than when I was a kid) and keep them having fun. Keep them having fun did mean moving from a Club filled with a bunch of lunatics fighting over color team placements and jockeying for favors which trickled down to the atmosphere and player attitude and behavior. It also meant looking to them. My younger kid who is probably better than his older sibling and touted as a 'star' by coaches---we downplay this to him--wanted to give it up and play basketball at 11. He was just an ok basketball player and won't have the height. I said 'go for it' even though I was cringing inside because soccer was our family sport and he was much more talented in soccer than basketball. After a year or so, HE decided he wanted to re-commit to soccer and he was a whirlwind ever since with a renewed passion. I almost think it was a test for him to see what we would do if he gave up the sport and didn't follow his older sibling. Once he saw he was in charge and didn't feel pressured to please us it was like a weight was lifted off of his shoulders.

I always tell my kids I don't care if they play. They need to choose what they love and when it stops being fun they don't have to do it anymore. I see far too many kids hanging onto the sport and looking to the sidelines because they are trying to please their parents. The parents will tell you 'oh but the kid loves playing for 2 teams and going to practice every day of the week[', but many of them look dead in the eyes by age 13.

Thanks for your anecdote. That is exactly the type of sports parent everyone not only in this thread but in this country needs to be like. Especially when it comes to soccer. Keep up the fantastic work with your kids!

[NOVASoccerCoach]

Anonymous wrote:
She is technical enough but she is not know for it. Heath for example is on another level. Here are the FIFA skills ratings between Morgan and Heath:
[url]https://www.fifaindex.com/player/226301/alex-morgan/fifa19/[/url]

https://www.fifaindex.com/player/226330/tobin-heath/

Lets stop the fantasy that a kid can pick up soccer at 12 and become Alex Morgan. She is an outlier and even with her athleticism she has several short comings.
Are you seriously relying on video game information for your argument...

They are all super technical at this level, you just don’t think so because you can’t judge the speed of play - it is very fast BTW. Relative speed is tough for people to grasp...

Whoever this is.....you did not just reference a video game come on......even so, just because someone doesn't do as many dribble moves in a game doesn't mean they aren't "technical"

[NOVASoccerCoach]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
I have two kids playing soccer in college right now with scholarships, one in D1, and I can tell you no local coaches thought anything of either of them at U12--they were still playing on their club's B team with the better coach at that age. They didn't even get selected for district ODP at U12. I noticed a difference, and sure, maybe a different coach could have picked them out, but none of the ones who saw them thought they were anything special so I have my reservations about your theory. Maybe you are the one coach who would have seen their potential at that age.

As a parent with a couple kids playing soccer in college whose been through the whole youth soccer cycle--if your kid is playing soccer for a scholarship and not for the love of the game you're wasting their time and yours. If your reasons are financial put the thousands you spend on elite soccer each season into a college fund and you'll be much better off. I know multiple players who chose to play club soccer in college or dropped off the team after the first year because when they got there they realized they just didn't love it that much.

College soccer here is miserable. Terrible coaching with too many games crammed into too short of a season. At the end of the season half the team is nursing overuse injuries if they're lucky enough to escape actual injuries. If they got good coaching as a youth player and really understand the game and how to play it--college soccer will probably make them dumber not smarter. With a handful of exceptions it's pretty much high school soccer at a faster pace. They ones that realized they didn't want it that bad and chose to play club or do something else are the lucky ones. Please don't push your kids into that unless they are so passionate they can survive four years of that without losing their passion. The vast majority of seniors I have talked to don't want to ever touch a ball again after they graduate. Hopefully after some time away from the game they'll come back around to it, but if you're pushing your kid to play college soccer that's the reality of what you're pushing them into.

I believe you are referencing my theory, which I think you and the Andi Sullivan poster misunderstand. In no way am I claiming that the average coach can predict which U12 or U13 player will make it to college or the pros--even generously compensated pro scouts at the world's top clubs have a poor track record with this, which is in no way surprising given how many things have to line up for a kid to make it to and at those levels. What most coaches can do is assess which kids do not have the baseline athletic ability to play at a high level. Puberty does of course make a big difference in kids' athletic abilities, but it almost never will make a massive difference for a kid who has terrible balance and no coordination. Some kids are just not athletes no matter how much they may enjoy the game. This is very different from a coach saying your kid, or mine, or young Andi Sullivan is "nothing special". By that they could mean that they don't like the way the kid plays for any number of reasons, including that they prefer big fast players to small technical ones (or vice versa), that the kid doesn't fit the coach's system, or that other, flashier players catch their eye more for whatever reason. Every kid who has played in college or beyond has had a coach tell him or her that they think the kid is overrated (at least all the ones I know have had this happen to them).

I too have a kid playing D1, and while I wouldn't say all of college soccer is uniformly miserable, there are huge structural problems with the way it is set up. I absolutely support the idea of a 10 month season, and hope that the NCAA someday changes the rules to permit it.

If all you're saying is that some kids aren't great athletes and never will be... well duh. I have two kids who play soccer. One is on a travel team and a good general athlete. (Although he's tiny, and not a standout, and he has no desire to do all the extra work to be elite.) The other one... God bless her... she tries so hard. She's so focused and hard working at practice. But she simply has no inherent coordination or athletic ability. I could have told you at age 5 that she wouldn't be a college athlete (except for maybe a coxswain or something...) Literally anyone who watcher her play for any length of time could have said that. So I'm not sure I really get your point....

Thanks, I'm glad you understand! It really is quite simple when you think about it.

[Anonymous]

Everyone understands some kids are so grossly unathletic they can’t play college soccer at any level at all, but here’s what was actually said:

“Here's what I have to say about all your ECNL dreams for your kid. Harsh reality is by U12 most can already make an assessment on whether your kid will be good enough for D1. This is not only from technical standpoint but from a Soccer IQ standpoint. If you watch your kid and your kid is losing the ball 50% of the time, can't beat players 1v1, can't dribble or looks to get rid of the ball quickly it's pretty much a wrap for your D1 hopes for your kid. Record your kid's stats whenever they touch the ball and you'll be shocked.“

The grossly unathletic kids will not make ECNL teams at u13, and if they continue to be unathletic then they won’t at older ages either.

The initial comment was more about separating kids at a D1 level from those who aren’t at the age of 11. That’s why people responded they way they did.

I’m glad we’ve backed off that to a more reasonable view.

[Anonymous]

Impossible at 11. You may be able to eliminate some from the mix but you cannot pick the ultimate too players. If you could, there would not be so so many one and dones at all the different ID opportunities out there. Many, but not all, kids that were dominant at 11 are no longer dominant as older teens.

[NOVASoccerCoach]

Anonymous wrote:Impossible at 11. You may be able to eliminate some from the mix but you cannot pick the ultimate too players. If you could, there would not be so so many one and dones at all the different ID opportunities out there. Many, but not all, kids that were dominant at 11 are no longer dominant as older teens.

Yeah when I made this thread I definitely meant eliminate, not select who would be.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What about the assessment for goalies? At what age do you see Division I potential?

As soon as they hit their growth spurt.

Meaning they need to be big? (Which they usually are) or am I misinterpreting?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What about the assessment for goalies? At what age do you see Division I potential?

As soon as they hit their growth spurt.

Meaning they need to be big? (Which they usually are) or am I misinterpreting?

Keepers need to be big, like a center in basketball. Keeper is the only position in soccer where a lack of height or size can be a limiting factor.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What about the assessment for goalies? At what age do you see Division I potential?

As soon as they hit their growth spurt.

Meaning they need to be big? (Which they usually are) or am I misinterpreting?

Keepers need to be big, like a center in basketball. Keeper is the only position in soccer where a lack of height or size can be a limiting factor.

I think lack of height in a pure 9 is also a limiting factor, in the same kind of way. An argument could be made that it’s true for 4 and 5 as well. Just as a 5’5” woman _can_ play those positions, they can also play keeper, just with more limited reach for certain activities associated with those positions vs someone who is 5’8” or above.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What about the assessment for goalies? At what age do you see Division I potential?

As soon as they hit their growth spurt.

Meaning they need to be big? (Which they usually are) or am I misinterpreting?

Keepers need to be big, like a center in basketball. Keeper is the only position in soccer where a lack of height or size can be a limiting factor.

Center Defender in older years need height. It's an air ball game in the box in the older ages. Look at top FIFA central Ds over time--most are a minimum of 6 feet, many of the best are taller.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:My son grew up in Europe and he was taught not to dribble the ball - and to pass quickly. He was taught the one touch pass was the best way to go and that dribbling - unless you have a very clear field - was holding the ball and bad. Now you are saying that if he looks to get rid of the ball quickly, that is bad? Honest question because he needs to adapt to play here.

I think your question reveals the limits of Mr. Grumpy Coach.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What about the assessment for goalies? At what age do you see Division I potential?

As soon as they hit their growth spurt.

Meaning they need to be big? (Which they usually are) or am I misinterpreting?

Keepers need to be big, like a center in basketball. Keeper is the only position in soccer where a lack of height or size can be a limiting factor.

I think lack of height in a pure 9 is also a limiting factor, in the same kind of way. An argument could be made that it’s true for 4 and 5 as well. Just as a 5’5” woman _can_ play those positions, they can also play keeper, just with more limited reach for certain activities associated with those positions vs someone who is 5’8” or above.

A 5’5 or 5’6 keeper has limitations. No matter how fast they are or how good their positioning they will miss shots that a 5’9 or taller keeper can save. Therefore they tend to get weeded out. If your child will not be tall, do not allow them to play keeper.

[Anonymous]

Reading this thread has been a bit fun. My son has played for VYS, McLean, ABGC & Villarreal Virginia. He has guested with other teams just to play in some out of state tournaments as well. At VYS he was deemed 4th team by a director that didn't like him. At McLean, we found it to be totally compartmentalized with no movement available at all. Then we got caught up in a four year hurricane of ABGC-AUFC-VIVA-ABGC mess. Luckily we just let our kid play. Let him make his decisions from leaving Vienna to sticking it out with ABGC for the coaching. Now at over 6 foot tall, skilled and confident and still loving the sport. He has more choices going forward. We just focused on providing the most opportunities and positive exposure.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Have to love this feed. If a parent doesn't know that D1 is a long shot for most soccer players is just ridiculous. While I understand scholarships are what many are looking for academic ones are given more often without the worry of injury. Also, many boys grow a ton after age 12 and their abilities change good or not so. Most of the soccer and field hockey and lax clubs are money makers period. They are not going to definitely get your kid into D1. Does your kid enjoy playing, does your family enjoy spending the money and using up every weekend then awesome go for it.

I think it is a misnomer that academic scholarships are handed out so much easier than athletic ones. The end goal is for the kid to have a full experience in life. To get an academic scholarship I imagine that the kid will be spending a lot of time alone studying instead of being a member of a team playing soccer for a common cause. Does studying alone with make the kid better than a kid that balances a sport with academics? Do you want to work with a loner who made all A’s and does not know how to work on a team?

Personally I will take the soccer kid over straight A scholarship kid every day.

Dumbest comment ever.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Have to love this feed. If a parent doesn't know that D1 is a long shot for most soccer players is just ridiculous. While I understand scholarships are what many are looking for academic ones are given more often without the worry of injury. Also, many boys grow a ton after age 12 and their abilities change good or not so. Most of the soccer and field hockey and lax clubs are money makers period. They are not going to definitely get your kid into D1. Does your kid enjoy playing, does your family enjoy spending the money and using up every weekend then awesome go for it.

I think it is a misnomer that academic scholarships are handed out so much easier than athletic ones. The end goal is for the kid to have a full experience in life. To get an academic scholarship I imagine that the kid will be spending a lot of time alone studying instead of being a member of a team playing soccer for a common cause. Does studying alone with make the kid better than a kid that balances a sport with academics? Do you want to work with a loner who made all A’s and does not know how to work on a team?

Personally I will take the soccer kid over straight A scholarship kid every day.

Dumbest comment ever.

+1. I’m sure he chooses his doctors and surgeons based upon their soccer skills.