Wide variety of sports versus year round specialization?

[Anonymous]

We didn't plan to specialize in one sport - it just happened. I initially signed up my daughter for soccer, thinking it was a fall sport and we'd do something else (softball) in the spring. But she liked soccer and we liked our team a lot. If you don't play both seasons, you lose your roster spot, so soccer then became a two-season sport for us. Then she got good enough to make travel, but wanted to stay with her rec team, so now we do both. It's about 5 days a week of soccer, maybe 20 weeks a year. (the rest of the time, it's 1-2 days/week of soccer.)

We do non-soccer things in the off-season - basketball in the winter, dance class year round, swimming lessons in winter and summer. Before we joined the soccer team, we tried a bunch of sports (t-ball, b-ball, lax, among others) so at least she's familiar.

Ultimately, I wouldn't mind if she switched from soccer to LAX or field hockey.

[Anonymous]

My experience has been that if a child really loves one sport and is talented then specialization just happens. DD started travel soccer at a young age and was always a good player on a top team but slowly started to develop a passion for lacrosse through rec and eventually she quit soccer altogether to play club lacrosse. I'm glad she didn't stop lacrosse while playing club soccer because it made the switch easier. She made this change around 4th grade but if your child is athletic and a hard worker they can do it later, like 6th. Now DD has taken up field hockey as her second sport and I'm impressed with how good she has become in a few years of rec and camps, I think her other sports have helped that. A few club teams really want her to play for them but there is just no time so rec and her middle school team allow her to enjoy the sport without the stress of adding a club commitment.

Good luck!

[Anonymous]

Soccer at high levels means requiring the footskills at the critical learning ages 8-12. You just can't be an expert on the ball if you pick it up later. It is very heavily skill-based.

Football is different, as is lacrosse. They are able to give former football players a stick in late HS, etc and they become some of the best players. I know some college F1 stats that didn't pick up football until 14.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Soccer at high levels means requiring the footskills at the critical learning ages 8-12. You just can't be an expert on the ball if you pick it up later. It is very heavily skill-based.

It is, at least in terms of any sort of very high-level play.

That said, I've seen kids pick up soccer at age 12 who are good enough to play for high school teams. I know that's a shock to people who signed their kids up for U7 WonderFootSkill class so they'd be "ahead," but some people simply have that much athleticism and aptitude to pick up skills.

And many soccer pros -- in the U.S., sure, but also elsewhere, including people who've played at Premier League level -- played other sports as well (usually basketball, a good complement to soccer) until they were roughly 14.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Soccer at high levels means requiring the footskills at the critical learning ages 8-12. You just can't be an expert on the ball if you pick it up later. It is very heavily skill-based.

It is, at least in terms of any sort of very high-level play.

That said, I've seen kids pick up soccer at age 12 who are good enough to play for high school teams. I know that's a shock to people who signed their kids up for U7 WonderFootSkill class so they'd be "ahead," but some people simply have that much athleticism and aptitude to pick up skills.

And many soccer pros -- in the U.S., sure, but also elsewhere, including people who've played at Premier League level -- played other sports as well (usually basketball, a good complement to soccer) until they were roughly 14.

Yep. It's why our Natuonal team sucks. You are really not playing soccer at all I. That situation. You are just getting the biggest, fastest kids to mow the ball down the field. We need a new name for this sport. It resemble nothing of the original game and a style that gets crushed anywhere else I. The world.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Soccer at high levels means requiring the footskills at the critical learning ages 8-12. You just can't be an expert on the ball if you pick it up later. It is very heavily skill-based.

It is, at least in terms of any sort of very high-level play.

That said, I've seen kids pick up soccer at age 12 who are good enough to play for high school teams. I know that's a shock to people who signed their kids up for U7 WonderFootSkill class so they'd be "ahead," but some people simply have that much athleticism and aptitude to pick up skills.

And many soccer pros -- in the U.S., sure, but also elsewhere, including people who've played at Premier League level -- played other sports as well (usually basketball, a good complement to soccer) until they were roughly 14.

Yep. It's why our Natuonal team sucks. You are really not playing soccer at all I. That situation. You are just getting the biggest, fastest kids to mow the ball down the field. We need a new name for this sport. It resemble nothing of the original game and a style that gets crushed anywhere else I. The world.

Pardon me while I face-palm over your air of superiority, but the notion of ignorant Americans who don't know how to play and just rely on athleticism is about as outdated as cheap synthesizers in music.

In fact, if you ask Jurgen Klinsmann (he's a guy who played at a really, really high level in and for Germany and now coaches the U.S. national team), he was not happy with the U.S. players' athleticism when he took the job.

And I did mention that many athletes elsewhere have played other sports as well. That would include the Americans who have played in the Premier League. And players from elsewhere, too.

If you want the experts' take (you don't, because you obviously consider yourself THE expert among us heathen unwashed, but just in case), take a look ...

http://changingthegameproject.com/is-it-wise-to-specialize/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3658407/
http://www.humankinetics.com/acucustom/sitename/Documents/DocumentItem/12188.pdf (note the INTERNATIONAL citations)
etc., etc. ...

And frankly -- as we've started to specialize more and more, our national teams have gotten worse and worse. Check the results -- not just men's World Cup but women's competition and youth competitions both male and female.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Soccer at high levels means requiring the footskills at the critical learning ages 8-12. You just can't be an expert on the ball if you pick it up later. It is very heavily skill-based.

It is, at least in terms of any sort of very high-level play.

That said, I've seen kids pick up soccer at age 12 who are good enough to play for high school teams. I know that's a shock to people who signed their kids up for U7 WonderFootSkill class so they'd be "ahead," but some people simply have that much athleticism and aptitude to pick up skills.

And many soccer pros -- in the U.S., sure, but also elsewhere, including people who've played at Premier League level -- played other sports as well (usually basketball, a good complement to soccer) until they were roughly 14.

It is not a shock that kids that start soccer at 12 can play in HS. HS soccer is in a bit of flux in regards to who play. Many high level club players are discouraged from playing HS soccer so it is a little more open than some other sports are. Some high level players do play HS for the experience of it but you do not need to be a soccer All Star to play in HS. But you do need to know how to play.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Soccer at high levels means requiring the footskills at the critical learning ages 8-12. You just can't be an expert on the ball if you pick it up later. It is very heavily skill-based.

It is, at least in terms of any sort of very high-level play.

That said, I've seen kids pick up soccer at age 12 who are good enough to play for high school teams. I know that's a shock to people who signed their kids up for U7 WonderFootSkill class so they'd be "ahead," but some people simply have that much athleticism and aptitude to pick up skills.

And many soccer pros -- in the U.S., sure, but also elsewhere, including people who've played at Premier League level -- played other sports as well (usually basketball, a good complement to soccer) until they were roughly 14.

It is not a shock that kids that start soccer at 12 can play in HS. HS soccer is in a bit of flux in regards to who play. Many high level club players are discouraged from playing HS soccer so it is a little more open than some other sports are. Some high level players do play HS for the experience of it but you do not need to be a soccer All Star to play in HS. But you do need to know how to play.

You really can't refer to HS soccer generically around here. The reality is that at some area high schools -- specifically the largest public and private/Catholic schools -- you DO need to be a good travel player on a competitive year round travel team in order to play on the varsity. If you are talking about smaller high schools, then sure -- you don't necessarily need to be playing on a travel team from U9 onward to make those varsity teams.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Soccer at high levels means requiring the footskills at the critical learning ages 8-12. You just can't be an expert on the ball if you pick it up later. It is very heavily skill-based.

It is, at least in terms of any sort of very high-level play.

That said, I've seen kids pick up soccer at age 12 who are good enough to play for high school teams. I know that's a shock to people who signed their kids up for U7 WonderFootSkill class so they'd be "ahead," but some people simply have that much athleticism and aptitude to pick up skills.

And many soccer pros -- in the U.S., sure, but also elsewhere, including people who've played at Premier League level -- played other sports as well (usually basketball, a good complement to soccer) until they were roughly 14.

It is not a shock that kids that start soccer at 12 can play in HS. HS soccer is in a bit of flux in regards to who play. Many high level club players are discouraged from playing HS soccer so it is a little more open than some other sports are. Some high level players do play HS for the experience of it but you do not need to be a soccer All Star to play in HS. But you do need to know how to play.

You really can't refer to HS soccer generically around here. The reality is that at some area high schools -- specifically the largest public and private/Catholic schools -- you DO need to be a good travel player on a competitive year round travel team in order to play on the varsity. If you are talking about smaller high schools, then sure -- you don't necessarily need to be playing on a travel team from U9 onward to make those varsity teams.

That is fair, the school in particular does matter, I'm only implying that one not need to have played seriously since 6 years old to play soccer in HS. If you can play, by all means tryout.

[Anonymous]

We should urge kids to avoid hyperspecialization and instead sample a variety of sports through at least age 12.

Nearly a third of youth athletes in a three-year longitudinal study led by Neeru Jayanthi, director of primary care sports medicine at Loyola University in Chicago, were highly specialized — they had quit multiple sports in order to focus on one for more than eight months a year — and another third weren’t far behind. Even controlling for age and the total number of weekly hours in sports, kids in the study who were highly specialized had a 36 percent increased risk of suffering a serious overuse injury. Dr. Jayanthi saw kids with stress fractures in their backs, arms or legs; damage to elbow ligaments; and cracks in the cartilage in their joints.....
....In the Loyola study, sport diversification had a protective effect. But in case health risks alone aren’t reason enough for parents to ignore the siren call of specialization, diversification also provides performance benefits.

Kids who play multiple “attacking” sports, like basketball or field hockey, transfer learned motor and anticipatory skills — the unconscious ability to read bodies and game situations — to other sports. They take less time to master the sport they ultimately choose.

Several studies on skill acquisition now show that elite athletes generally practiced their sport less through their early teenage years and specialized only in the mid-to-late teenage years, while so-called sub-elites — those who never quite cracked the highest ranks — homed in on a single sport much sooner.

Data presented at the April meeting of the American Medical Society for Sports Medicine showed that varsity athletes at U.C.L.A. — many with full scholarships — specialized on average at age 15.4, whereas U.C.L.A. undergrads who played sports in high school, but did not make the intercollegiate level, specialized at 14.2.

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/06/11/opinion/sports-should-be-childs-play.html?emc=eta1&_r=1

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Soccer at high levels means requiring the footskills at the critical learning ages 8-12. You just can't be an expert on the ball if you pick it up later. It is very heavily skill-based.

It is, at least in terms of any sort of very high-level play.

That said, I've seen kids pick up soccer at age 12 who are good enough to play for high school teams. I know that's a shock to people who signed their kids up for U7 WonderFootSkill class so they'd be "ahead," but some people simply have that much athleticism and aptitude to pick up skills.

And many soccer pros -- in the U.S., sure, but also elsewhere, including people who've played at Premier League level -- played other sports as well (usually basketball, a good complement to soccer) until they were roughly 14.

It is not a shock that kids that start soccer at 12 can play in HS. HS soccer is in a bit of flux in regards to who play. Many high level club players are discouraged from playing HS soccer so it is a little more open than some other sports are. Some high level players do play HS for the experience of it but you do not need to be a soccer All Star to play in HS. But you do need to know how to play.

You really can't refer to HS soccer generically around here. The reality is that at some area high schools -- specifically the largest public and private/Catholic schools -- you DO need to be a good travel player on a competitive year round travel team in order to play on the varsity. If you are talking about smaller high schools, then sure -- you don't necessarily need to be playing on a travel team from U9 onward to make those varsity teams.

Put another way -- a lot of travel soccer players do NOT make their high school soccer teams.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

We should urge kids to avoid hyperspecialization and instead sample a variety of sports through at least age 12.

Nearly a third of youth athletes in a three-year longitudinal study led by Neeru Jayanthi, director of primary care sports medicine at Loyola University in Chicago, were highly specialized — they had quit multiple sports in order to focus on one for more than eight months a year — and another third weren’t far behind. Even controlling for age and the total number of weekly hours in sports, kids in the study who were highly specialized had a 36 percent increased risk of suffering a serious overuse injury. Dr. Jayanthi saw kids with stress fractures in their backs, arms or legs; damage to elbow ligaments; and cracks in the cartilage in their joints.....
....In the Loyola study, sport diversification had a protective effect. But in case health risks alone aren’t reason enough for parents to ignore the siren call of specialization, diversification also provides performance benefits.

Kids who play multiple “attacking” sports, like basketball or field hockey, transfer learned motor and anticipatory skills — the unconscious ability to read bodies and game situations — to other sports. They take less time to master the sport they ultimately choose.

Several studies on skill acquisition now show that elite athletes generally practiced their sport less through their early teenage years and specialized only in the mid-to-late teenage years, while so-called sub-elites — those who never quite cracked the highest ranks — homed in on a single sport much sooner.

Data presented at the April meeting of the American Medical Society for Sports Medicine showed that varsity athletes at U.C.L.A. — many with full scholarships — specialized on average at age 15.4, whereas U.C.L.A. undergrads who played sports in high school, but did not make the intercollegiate level, specialized at 14.2.

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/06/11/opinion/sports-should-be-childs-play.html?emc=eta1&_r=1

I generally agree with the thesis of the article, but I question the causation implied by the UCLA study results.

The article implies that early specialization is a negative and offers as proof the fact that kids who top out in HS sports specialized in one sport earlier than kids who go on to play college level sports. But surely the varsity college athletes in the study (many with full athletic scholarships) were ON AVERAGE bigger, stronger, and faster than the kids who topped out in HS level sports. For that reason alone, the kids who ultimately play in college don't NEED to specialize in one sport early/earlier -- they have the physical attributes needed to play at the next level, so they don't feel the same pressure to focus on a single sport early/earlier.

It is also logical to assume that the more athletic the student, the more success he/she will have in a second or third sport, and therefore may want tol play the second or third sport longer into the HS years, than a less athletic student who plays a second or third sport.

[Anonymous]

I have been thinking about this topic a lot lately and there are some good points in this thread. Have a 9 year old son who plays travel soccer year round and have been thinking about switching to a "better" club. This would mean traveling further for practices and games, having more practices and more commitment. My son has been asking to play other sports though so I think the right balance is staying with the closer soccer club that is not as competitive but gives us more flexibility and free time to explore other sports. Everything I have read suggests playing several sports is what is best for kids anyway, even if there is a primary sport you don't have to make that sport all or nothing for the kid.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I have been thinking about this topic a lot lately and there are some good points in this thread. Have a 9 year old son who plays travel soccer year round and have been thinking about switching to a "better" club. This would mean traveling further for practices and games, having more practices and more commitment. My son has been asking to play other sports though so I think the right balance is staying with the closer soccer club that is not as competitive but gives us more flexibility and free time to explore other sports. Everything I have read suggests playing several sports is what is best for kids anyway, even if there is a primary sport you don't have to make that sport all or nothing for the kid.

You sound entirely too rational for this message board. What are you doing here?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I have been thinking about this topic a lot lately and there are some good points in this thread. Have a 9 year old son who plays travel soccer year round and have been thinking about switching to a "better" club. This would mean traveling further for practices and games, having more practices and more commitment. My son has been asking to play other sports though so I think the right balance is staying with the closer soccer club that is not as competitive but gives us more flexibility and free time to explore other sports. Everything I have read suggests playing several sports is what is best for kids anyway, even if there is a primary sport you don't have to make that sport all or nothing for the kid.

You sound entirely too rational for this message board. What are you doing here?

lol. That wasn't always the case. I was at an event where a speaker from the positive coaching alliance was talking and I almost didn't go because I didn't think I needed to hear what they were saying. Turns out I actually did need to hear what they were saying and I'm glad I went. If anyone has a chance to attend one of their workshops I would highly recommend it.