ECNL moving to school year not calendar

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Imagine if MLSNext and ECNL have different age cutoffs… the system will be overrun with clubhopping every year as kids and parents chase their kids growth spurts for that extra advantage until it catches up to them. Less continuity for teams/clubs and less focus on development. Way to go US Soccer!

Is that better for individual player development? If a kid is hoping teams every year for a better opportunity for them and that allows them to improve because they were on the field playing and getting more opportunity over the long run that player would be better that just sitting as a bench player excepting what they are currently as what they will always be.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I have the one token Q4 on our ECNL team, second year in a row. The only kid born after June. I can’t wait to see what she looks like when she moves down an age group!

My kid's teams

G07/08 RL... 5 Q4
G10 NL... 5 Q4
B13 RL... 4 Q4

Since we're just doing anecdotes - U12G NA Pre-ECNL competitive team and 0 Q4s (but 2 late sept Q3s)

At the younger ages it's a huge issue.

People are throwing out numbers across whole teams while ignoring where, within the team pecking order, most of the two ends of the birthday spectrum sit. By U13-15, most of the top B team players are Fall birthdays while most of the bottom A team players are the early calendar birthdays. This is what I'm seeing at my daughter's ECNL club. Having watched them over the years, the younger kids were highly disproportionately placed on B teams at U8-9. As they have gotten older, those kids have risen in the ranks relative to the field. The oldest were highly disproportionately placed on A team at U8-9, and they have fallen in ranking over the years. As kids fall, they generally hang on to the A bench until there's a very clear switch in ability with the top B kids. Likewise, the top B kids get stuck at the top of B for a while until they very clearly have overtaken many on A. Because of where they started, and their natural trajectory, the middle age groups are extra ripe for moves from B to A and vice versa in a disruption of the status quo.

My Q4 daughter made the transition from B to A at U13. I've seen some messages in this thread that show a lot of animosity toward the Q1 parents. I'm sure it seems ridiculous to most, but I get where it's coming from. Along the journey with a younger kid, there are some early developer parents who are really mean about how their kid is better than yours. At U13-14, when some of those "terrible" kids have overtaken theirs, they are whining to the coaches and club about how they did a terrible job developing their kid. They still don't acknowledge that maybe their kid was just trucking down younger kids at 10 years old because they outweighed them by 10+ pounds and the littler kids had insufficient speed and skill to counter it. Of course, there were plenty of parents who could see that the hard-working younger kid was catching up every year, and they knew to be nice to a future teammate.

PP - also it's not 10lbs more like 40-50lbs at times which is ridiculous

50 pounds difference between a January and December kid?

Absolutely for girls U12 (and playing U13s a lot for 11 v11)

We have had the "best" few players sub up from 2013, a team ranked best in our state, to 2012. I've seen them play among 2013 and they are faster, stronger, and bigger than almost everyone on the field. They get out-ran and tossed around with 2012. It's very apparent they are younger. They still make good passes, but they can no longer dribble by anyone, and they lose 50/50s consistently. You can see that they have developed a good soccer IQ from dominating their own age group on a good team, but the things they're trying just aren't very effective due to the physical disadvantage. They'd still be A team players at most clubs in 2012, but if they were at one of the top clubs in our state, they would be B teamers with a birthday just 1-2 months earlier. The size and speed changes each year are massive in middle school. But some grow a lot and get worse, so it's not a rapid improvement for everyone.

In my area the number one 2012 team in their local ECNL league (undefeated) ranked top 20 nationally played up for 2011 state playoffs lost 3-1 to a GA team that’s 5th in their GA league.

People who don’t think a 4 month shift is going to matter are going to be surprised.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Imagine if MLSNext and ECNL have different age cutoffs… the system will be overrun with clubhopping every year as kids and parents chase their kids growth spurts for that extra advantage until it catches up to them. Less continuity for teams/clubs and less focus on development. Way to go US Soccer!

Is that better for individual player development? If a kid is hoping teams every year for a better opportunity for them and that allows them to improve because they were on the field playing and getting more opportunity over the long run that player would be better that just sitting as a bench player excepting what they are currently as what they will always be.

You may be assuming there are other practical club options. Plus hopping around is far from a guarantee of improvement. Lots of variables in play (so to speak), like coaching, team dynamics, growth spurts that don’t necessarily make you better but less coordinated and temporarily worse. Also chasing RAE as an external force becomes another element to battle rather than focus on the opportunity in front of you. B teams are great for development, and when RAE shakes out at u15/u16 then the meant-to-be 1st team players usually get their time.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I have the one token Q4 on our ECNL team, second year in a row. The only kid born after June. I can’t wait to see what she looks like when she moves down an age group!

My kid's teams

G07/08 RL... 5 Q4
G10 NL... 5 Q4
B13 RL... 4 Q4

Since we're just doing anecdotes - U12G NA Pre-ECNL competitive team and 0 Q4s (but 2 late sept Q3s)

At the younger ages it's a huge issue.

People are throwing out numbers across whole teams while ignoring where, within the team pecking order, most of the two ends of the birthday spectrum sit. By U13-15, most of the top B team players are Fall birthdays while most of the bottom A team players are the early calendar birthdays. This is what I'm seeing at my daughter's ECNL club. Having watched them over the years, the younger kids were highly disproportionately placed on B teams at U8-9. As they have gotten older, those kids have risen in the ranks relative to the field. The oldest were highly disproportionately placed on A team at U8-9, and they have fallen in ranking over the years. As kids fall, they generally hang on to the A bench until there's a very clear switch in ability with the top B kids. Likewise, the top B kids get stuck at the top of B for a while until they very clearly have overtaken many on A. Because of where they started, and their natural trajectory, the middle age groups are extra ripe for moves from B to A and vice versa in a disruption of the status quo.

My Q4 daughter made the transition from B to A at U13. I've seen some messages in this thread that show a lot of animosity toward the Q1 parents. I'm sure it seems ridiculous to most, but I get where it's coming from. Along the journey with a younger kid, there are some early developer parents who are really mean about how their kid is better than yours. At U13-14, when some of those "terrible" kids have overtaken theirs, they are whining to the coaches and club about how they did a terrible job developing their kid. They still don't acknowledge that maybe their kid was just trucking down younger kids at 10 years old because they outweighed them by 10+ pounds and the littler kids had insufficient speed and skill to counter it. Of course, there were plenty of parents who could see that the hard-working younger kid was catching up every year, and they knew to be nice to a future teammate.

PP - also it's not 10lbs more like 40-50lbs at times which is ridiculous

50 pounds difference between a January and December kid?

My daughter (going into U14 ECNL) is August bday (youngest on the team) and is 50lbs lights than our striker who just bullies defenders right now. Once my daughter hits puberty she will grow and be on a much more even playing field. Thankfully she starts and can hang but the weight/strength disadvantage is real. I am probably opposite of a lot of parents, I am so glad cutoff will be 9/1. We have no plans to change teams as the team is settled with a really good group of girls and parents.

[Anonymous]

ECNL has no plans to announce anything regarding the age change until after this season is over. Most likely a late summer or early fall announcement.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I have the one token Q4 on our ECNL team, second year in a row. The only kid born after June. I can’t wait to see what she looks like when she moves down an age group!

My kid's teams

G07/08 RL... 5 Q4
G10 NL... 5 Q4
B13 RL... 4 Q4

Since we're just doing anecdotes - U12G NA Pre-ECNL competitive team and 0 Q4s (but 2 late sept Q3s)

At the younger ages it's a huge issue.

People are throwing out numbers across whole teams while ignoring where, within the team pecking order, most of the two ends of the birthday spectrum sit. By U13-15, most of the top B team players are Fall birthdays while most of the bottom A team players are the early calendar birthdays. This is what I'm seeing at my daughter's ECNL club. Having watched them over the years, the younger kids were highly disproportionately placed on B teams at U8-9. As they have gotten older, those kids have risen in the ranks relative to the field. The oldest were highly disproportionately placed on A team at U8-9, and they have fallen in ranking over the years. As kids fall, they generally hang on to the A bench until there's a very clear switch in ability with the top B kids. Likewise, the top B kids get stuck at the top of B for a while until they very clearly have overtaken many on A. Because of where they started, and their natural trajectory, the middle age groups are extra ripe for moves from B to A and vice versa in a disruption of the status quo.

My Q4 daughter made the transition from B to A at U13. I've seen some messages in this thread that show a lot of animosity toward the Q1 parents. I'm sure it seems ridiculous to most, but I get where it's coming from. Along the journey with a younger kid, there are some early developer parents who are really mean about how their kid is better than yours. At U13-14, when some of those "terrible" kids have overtaken theirs, they are whining to the coaches and club about how they did a terrible job developing their kid. They still don't acknowledge that maybe their kid was just trucking down younger kids at 10 years old because they outweighed them by 10+ pounds and the littler kids had insufficient speed and skill to counter it. Of course, there were plenty of parents who could see that the hard-working younger kid was catching up every year, and they knew to be nice to a future teammate.

PP - also it's not 10lbs more like 40-50lbs at times which is ridiculous

50 pounds difference between a January and December kid?

Absolutely for girls U12 (and playing U13s a lot for 11 v11)

We have had the "best" few players sub up from 2013, a team ranked best in our state, to 2012. I've seen them play among 2013 and they are faster, stronger, and bigger than almost everyone on the field. They get out-ran and tossed around with 2012. It's very apparent they are younger. They still make good passes, but they can no longer dribble by anyone, and they lose 50/50s consistently. You can see that they have developed a good soccer IQ from dominating their own age group on a good team, but the things they're trying just aren't very effective due to the physical disadvantage. They'd still be A team players at most clubs in 2012, but if they were at one of the top clubs in our state, they would be B teamers with a birthday just 1-2 months earlier. The size and speed changes each year are massive in middle school. But some grow a lot and get worse, so it's not a rapid improvement for everyone.

In my area the number one 2012 team in their local ECNL league (undefeated) ranked top 20 nationally played up for 2011 state playoffs lost 3-1 to a GA team that’s 5th in their GA league.

People who don’t think a 4 month shift is going to matter are going to be surprised.

The gaping hole in your argument is that 2011 team is more than the SeptQ4 players your top team will join.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I have the one token Q4 on our ECNL team, second year in a row. The only kid born after June. I can’t wait to see what she looks like when she moves down an age group!

My kid's teams

G07/08 RL... 5 Q4
G10 NL... 5 Q4
B13 RL... 4 Q4

Since we're just doing anecdotes - U12G NA Pre-ECNL competitive team and 0 Q4s (but 2 late sept Q3s)

At the younger ages it's a huge issue.

People are throwing out numbers across whole teams while ignoring where, within the team pecking order, most of the two ends of the birthday spectrum sit. By U13-15, most of the top B team players are Fall birthdays while most of the bottom A team players are the early calendar birthdays. This is what I'm seeing at my daughter's ECNL club. Having watched them over the years, the younger kids were highly disproportionately placed on B teams at U8-9. As they have gotten older, those kids have risen in the ranks relative to the field. The oldest were highly disproportionately placed on A team at U8-9, and they have fallen in ranking over the years. As kids fall, they generally hang on to the A bench until there's a very clear switch in ability with the top B kids. Likewise, the top B kids get stuck at the top of B for a while until they very clearly have overtaken many on A. Because of where they started, and their natural trajectory, the middle age groups are extra ripe for moves from B to A and vice versa in a disruption of the status quo.

My Q4 daughter made the transition from B to A at U13. I've seen some messages in this thread that show a lot of animosity toward the Q1 parents. I'm sure it seems ridiculous to most, but I get where it's coming from. Along the journey with a younger kid, there are some early developer parents who are really mean about how their kid is better than yours. At U13-14, when some of those "terrible" kids have overtaken theirs, they are whining to the coaches and club about how they did a terrible job developing their kid. They still don't acknowledge that maybe their kid was just trucking down younger kids at 10 years old because they outweighed them by 10+ pounds and the littler kids had insufficient speed and skill to counter it. Of course, there were plenty of parents who could see that the hard-working younger kid was catching up every year, and they knew to be nice to a future teammate.

PP - also it's not 10lbs more like 40-50lbs at times which is ridiculous

50 pounds difference between a January and December kid?

Absolutely for girls U12 (and playing U13s a lot for 11 v11)

We have had the "best" few players sub up from 2013, a team ranked best in our state, to 2012. I've seen them play among 2013 and they are faster, stronger, and bigger than almost everyone on the field. They get out-ran and tossed around with 2012. It's very apparent they are younger. They still make good passes, but they can no longer dribble by anyone, and they lose 50/50s consistently. You can see that they have developed a good soccer IQ from dominating their own age group on a good team, but the things they're trying just aren't very effective due to the physical disadvantage. They'd still be A team players at most clubs in 2012, but if they were at one of the top clubs in our state, they would be B teamers with a birthday just 1-2 months earlier. The size and speed changes each year are massive in middle school. But some grow a lot and get worse, so it's not a rapid improvement for everyone.

In my area the number one 2012 team in their local ECNL league (undefeated) ranked top 20 nationally played up for 2011 state playoffs lost 3-1 to a GA team that’s 5th in their GA league.

People who don’t think a 4 month shift is going to matter are going to be surprised.

The gaping hole in your argument is that 2011 team is more than the SeptQ4 players your top team will join.

On top of that this year the 2012 age group is the first playing 11v11 for the first time. This magnifies age differences because the 2011s would be in year 2 of 11v11. Much more nuance to this example, it appears.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I have the one token Q4 on our ECNL team, second year in a row. The only kid born after June. I can’t wait to see what she looks like when she moves down an age group!

My kid's teams

G07/08 RL... 5 Q4
G10 NL... 5 Q4
B13 RL... 4 Q4

Since we're just doing anecdotes - U12G NA Pre-ECNL competitive team and 0 Q4s (but 2 late sept Q3s)

At the younger ages it's a huge issue.

People are throwing out numbers across whole teams while ignoring where, within the team pecking order, most of the two ends of the birthday spectrum sit. By U13-15, most of the top B team players are Fall birthdays while most of the bottom A team players are the early calendar birthdays. This is what I'm seeing at my daughter's ECNL club. Having watched them over the years, the younger kids were highly disproportionately placed on B teams at U8-9. As they have gotten older, those kids have risen in the ranks relative to the field. The oldest were highly disproportionately placed on A team at U8-9, and they have fallen in ranking over the years. As kids fall, they generally hang on to the A bench until there's a very clear switch in ability with the top B kids. Likewise, the top B kids get stuck at the top of B for a while until they very clearly have overtaken many on A. Because of where they started, and their natural trajectory, the middle age groups are extra ripe for moves from B to A and vice versa in a disruption of the status quo.

My Q4 daughter made the transition from B to A at U13. I've seen some messages in this thread that show a lot of animosity toward the Q1 parents. I'm sure it seems ridiculous to most, but I get where it's coming from. Along the journey with a younger kid, there are some early developer parents who are really mean about how their kid is better than yours. At U13-14, when some of those "terrible" kids have overtaken theirs, they are whining to the coaches and club about how they did a terrible job developing their kid. They still don't acknowledge that maybe their kid was just trucking down younger kids at 10 years old because they outweighed them by 10+ pounds and the littler kids had insufficient speed and skill to counter it. Of course, there were plenty of parents who could see that the hard-working younger kid was catching up every year, and they knew to be nice to a future teammate.

PP - also it's not 10lbs more like 40-50lbs at times which is ridiculous

50 pounds difference between a January and December kid?

Absolutely for girls U12 (and playing U13s a lot for 11 v11)

We have had the "best" few players sub up from 2013, a team ranked best in our state, to 2012. I've seen them play among 2013 and they are faster, stronger, and bigger than almost everyone on the field. They get out-ran and tossed around with 2012. It's very apparent they are younger. They still make good passes, but they can no longer dribble by anyone, and they lose 50/50s consistently. You can see that they have developed a good soccer IQ from dominating their own age group on a good team, but the things they're trying just aren't very effective due to the physical disadvantage. They'd still be A team players at most clubs in 2012, but if they were at one of the top clubs in our state, they would be B teamers with a birthday just 1-2 months earlier. The size and speed changes each year are massive in middle school. But some grow a lot and get worse, so it's not a rapid improvement for everyone.

In my area the number one 2012 team in their local ECNL league (undefeated) ranked top 20 nationally played up for 2011 state playoffs lost 3-1 to a GA team that’s 5th in their GA league.

People who don’t think a 4 month shift is going to matter are going to be surprised.

The gaping hole in your argument is that 2011 team is more than the SeptQ4 players your top team will join.

NP. Just guessing, but I think the point is that the lower ranked GA team probably has 2-3 Q4 players who are top half of the team, and the implication is those players may be better than the entire #1 team below them. Other top 10-20 teams in the state may also have 2-3 Q4 players each who are better than this #1 team. While the #1 team could stay largely intact with moves only within the club, if all these Q4 players from all these other teams flock to the old #1 team, it's possible to displace the entire team. This is possible given the prevalence of the idea that "if you want to play college you should go to the area's best ECNL club." The best 20 players in the new age group may *all* be current Q4s split across a bunch of different clubs, and if they decide to consolidate at the same club, it's potentially an entirely new team.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I have the one token Q4 on our ECNL team, second year in a row. The only kid born after June. I can’t wait to see what she looks like when she moves down an age group!

My kid's teams

G07/08 RL... 5 Q4
G10 NL... 5 Q4
B13 RL... 4 Q4

Since we're just doing anecdotes - U12G NA Pre-ECNL competitive team and 0 Q4s (but 2 late sept Q3s)

At the younger ages it's a huge issue.

People are throwing out numbers across whole teams while ignoring where, within the team pecking order, most of the two ends of the birthday spectrum sit. By U13-15, most of the top B team players are Fall birthdays while most of the bottom A team players are the early calendar birthdays. This is what I'm seeing at my daughter's ECNL club. Having watched them over the years, the younger kids were highly disproportionately placed on B teams at U8-9. As they have gotten older, those kids have risen in the ranks relative to the field. The oldest were highly disproportionately placed on A team at U8-9, and they have fallen in ranking over the years. As kids fall, they generally hang on to the A bench until there's a very clear switch in ability with the top B kids. Likewise, the top B kids get stuck at the top of B for a while until they very clearly have overtaken many on A. Because of where they started, and their natural trajectory, the middle age groups are extra ripe for moves from B to A and vice versa in a disruption of the status quo.

My Q4 daughter made the transition from B to A at U13. I've seen some messages in this thread that show a lot of animosity toward the Q1 parents. I'm sure it seems ridiculous to most, but I get where it's coming from. Along the journey with a younger kid, there are some early developer parents who are really mean about how their kid is better than yours. At U13-14, when some of those "terrible" kids have overtaken theirs, they are whining to the coaches and club about how they did a terrible job developing their kid. They still don't acknowledge that maybe their kid was just trucking down younger kids at 10 years old because they outweighed them by 10+ pounds and the littler kids had insufficient speed and skill to counter it. Of course, there were plenty of parents who could see that the hard-working younger kid was catching up every year, and they knew to be nice to a future teammate.

PP - also it's not 10lbs more like 40-50lbs at times which is ridiculous

50 pounds difference between a January and December kid?

Absolutely for girls U12 (and playing U13s a lot for 11 v11)

We have had the "best" few players sub up from 2013, a team ranked best in our state, to 2012. I've seen them play among 2013 and they are faster, stronger, and bigger than almost everyone on the field. They get out-ran and tossed around with 2012. It's very apparent they are younger. They still make good passes, but they can no longer dribble by anyone, and they lose 50/50s consistently. You can see that they have developed a good soccer IQ from dominating their own age group on a good team, but the things they're trying just aren't very effective due to the physical disadvantage. They'd still be A team players at most clubs in 2012, but if they were at one of the top clubs in our state, they would be B teamers with a birthday just 1-2 months earlier. The size and speed changes each year are massive in middle school. But some grow a lot and get worse, so it's not a rapid improvement for everyone.

In my area the number one 2012 team in their local ECNL league (undefeated) ranked top 20 nationally played up for 2011 state playoffs lost 3-1 to a GA team that’s 5th in their GA league.

People who don’t think a 4 month shift is going to matter are going to be surprised.

The gaping hole in your argument is that 2011 team is more than the SeptQ4 players your top team will join.

NP. Just guessing, but I think the point is that the lower ranked GA team probably has 2-3 Q4 players who are top half of the team, and the implication is those players may be better than the entire #1 team below them. Other top 10-20 teams in the state may also have 2-3 Q4 players each who are better than this #1 team. While the #1 team could stay largely intact with moves only within the club, if all these Q4 players from all these other teams flock to the old #1 team, it's possible to displace the entire team. This is possible given the prevalence of the idea that "if you want to play college you should go to the area's best ECNL club." The best 20 players in the new age group may *all* be current Q4s split across a bunch of different clubs, and if they decide to consolidate at the same club, it's potentially an entirely new team.

There's a whole lot of assumptions here.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I have the one token Q4 on our ECNL team, second year in a row. The only kid born after June. I can’t wait to see what she looks like when she moves down an age group!

My kid's teams

G07/08 RL... 5 Q4
G10 NL... 5 Q4
B13 RL... 4 Q4

Since we're just doing anecdotes - U12G NA Pre-ECNL competitive team and 0 Q4s (but 2 late sept Q3s)

At the younger ages it's a huge issue.

People are throwing out numbers across whole teams while ignoring where, within the team pecking order, most of the two ends of the birthday spectrum sit. By U13-15, most of the top B team players are Fall birthdays while most of the bottom A team players are the early calendar birthdays. This is what I'm seeing at my daughter's ECNL club. Having watched them over the years, the younger kids were highly disproportionately placed on B teams at U8-9. As they have gotten older, those kids have risen in the ranks relative to the field. The oldest were highly disproportionately placed on A team at U8-9, and they have fallen in ranking over the years. As kids fall, they generally hang on to the A bench until there's a very clear switch in ability with the top B kids. Likewise, the top B kids get stuck at the top of B for a while until they very clearly have overtaken many on A. Because of where they started, and their natural trajectory, the middle age groups are extra ripe for moves from B to A and vice versa in a disruption of the status quo.

My Q4 daughter made the transition from B to A at U13. I've seen some messages in this thread that show a lot of animosity toward the Q1 parents. I'm sure it seems ridiculous to most, but I get where it's coming from. Along the journey with a younger kid, there are some early developer parents who are really mean about how their kid is better than yours. At U13-14, when some of those "terrible" kids have overtaken theirs, they are whining to the coaches and club about how they did a terrible job developing their kid. They still don't acknowledge that maybe their kid was just trucking down younger kids at 10 years old because they outweighed them by 10+ pounds and the littler kids had insufficient speed and skill to counter it. Of course, there were plenty of parents who could see that the hard-working younger kid was catching up every year, and they knew to be nice to a future teammate.

PP - also it's not 10lbs more like 40-50lbs at times which is ridiculous

50 pounds difference between a January and December kid?

Absolutely for girls U12 (and playing U13s a lot for 11 v11)

We have had the "best" few players sub up from 2013, a team ranked best in our state, to 2012. I've seen them play among 2013 and they are faster, stronger, and bigger than almost everyone on the field. They get out-ran and tossed around with 2012. It's very apparent they are younger. They still make good passes, but they can no longer dribble by anyone, and they lose 50/50s consistently. You can see that they have developed a good soccer IQ from dominating their own age group on a good team, but the things they're trying just aren't very effective due to the physical disadvantage. They'd still be A team players at most clubs in 2012, but if they were at one of the top clubs in our state, they would be B teamers with a birthday just 1-2 months earlier. The size and speed changes each year are massive in middle school. But some grow a lot and get worse, so it's not a rapid improvement for everyone.

In my area the number one 2012 team in their local ECNL league (undefeated) ranked top 20 nationally played up for 2011 state playoffs lost 3-1 to a GA team that’s 5th in their GA league.

People who don’t think a 4 month shift is going to matter are going to be surprised.

The gaping hole in your argument is that 2011 team is more than the SeptQ4 players your top team will join.

NP. Just guessing, but I think the point is that the lower ranked GA team probably has 2-3 Q4 players who are top half of the team, and the implication is those players may be better than the entire #1 team below them. Other top 10-20 teams in the state may also have 2-3 Q4 players each who are better than this #1 team. While the #1 team could stay largely intact with moves only within the club, if all these Q4 players from all these other teams flock to the old #1 team, it's possible to displace the entire team. This is possible given the prevalence of the idea that "if you want to play college you should go to the area's best ECNL club." The best 20 players in the new age group may *all* be current Q4s split across a bunch of different clubs, and if they decide to consolidate at the same club, it's potentially an entirely new team.

There's a whole lot of assumptions here.

Of course. I don't have any inside information about the teams referenced. But we know that generally, relative age effects are more extreme as teams are (1) more elite and (2) younger. If you're wondering how your bottom tier U17 team will be affected, don't worry. If you are thinking your U8 #1 in the nation team will keep the same players and still be good, you're a fool.

[Anonymous]

We go to 11v11 to soon in the US which is another problem. Too easy for physicality and speed to overpower technique and soccer IQ. Younger kids in the age group need to focus on those things whether A or B team and their time will come post puberty. Even Messi played on B teams. Parents are obsessed with A teams too, and don’t educate their kids on the benefits. Even Messi played B teams growing up.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I have the one token Q4 on our ECNL team, second year in a row. The only kid born after June. I can’t wait to see what she looks like when she moves down an age group!

My kid's teams

G07/08 RL... 5 Q4
G10 NL... 5 Q4
B13 RL... 4 Q4

Since we're just doing anecdotes - U12G NA Pre-ECNL competitive team and 0 Q4s (but 2 late sept Q3s)

At the younger ages it's a huge issue.

People are throwing out numbers across whole teams while ignoring where, within the team pecking order, most of the two ends of the birthday spectrum sit. By U13-15, most of the top B team players are Fall birthdays while most of the bottom A team players are the early calendar birthdays. This is what I'm seeing at my daughter's ECNL club. Having watched them over the years, the younger kids were highly disproportionately placed on B teams at U8-9. As they have gotten older, those kids have risen in the ranks relative to the field. The oldest were highly disproportionately placed on A team at U8-9, and they have fallen in ranking over the years. As kids fall, they generally hang on to the A bench until there's a very clear switch in ability with the top B kids. Likewise, the top B kids get stuck at the top of B for a while until they very clearly have overtaken many on A. Because of where they started, and their natural trajectory, the middle age groups are extra ripe for moves from B to A and vice versa in a disruption of the status quo.

My Q4 daughter made the transition from B to A at U13. I've seen some messages in this thread that show a lot of animosity toward the Q1 parents. I'm sure it seems ridiculous to most, but I get where it's coming from. Along the journey with a younger kid, there are some early developer parents who are really mean about how their kid is better than yours. At U13-14, when some of those "terrible" kids have overtaken theirs, they are whining to the coaches and club about how they did a terrible job developing their kid. They still don't acknowledge that maybe their kid was just trucking down younger kids at 10 years old because they outweighed them by 10+ pounds and the littler kids had insufficient speed and skill to counter it. Of course, there were plenty of parents who could see that the hard-working younger kid was catching up every year, and they knew to be nice to a future teammate.

PP - also it's not 10lbs more like 40-50lbs at times which is ridiculous

50 pounds difference between a January and December kid?

Absolutely for girls U12 (and playing U13s a lot for 11 v11)

We have had the "best" few players sub up from 2013, a team ranked best in our state, to 2012. I've seen them play among 2013 and they are faster, stronger, and bigger than almost everyone on the field. They get out-ran and tossed around with 2012. It's very apparent they are younger. They still make good passes, but they can no longer dribble by anyone, and they lose 50/50s consistently. You can see that they have developed a good soccer IQ from dominating their own age group on a good team, but the things they're trying just aren't very effective due to the physical disadvantage. They'd still be A team players at most clubs in 2012, but if they were at one of the top clubs in our state, they would be B teamers with a birthday just 1-2 months earlier. The size and speed changes each year are massive in middle school. But some grow a lot and get worse, so it's not a rapid improvement for everyone.

In my area the number one 2012 team in their local ECNL league (undefeated) ranked top 20 nationally played up for 2011 state playoffs lost 3-1 to a GA team that’s 5th in their GA league.

People who don’t think a 4 month shift is going to matter are going to be surprised.

The gaping hole in your argument is that 2011 team is more than the SeptQ4 players your top team will join.

NP. Just guessing, but I think the point is that the lower ranked GA team probably has 2-3 Q4 players who are top half of the team, and the implication is those players may be better than the entire #1 team below them. Other top 10-20 teams in the state may also have 2-3 Q4 players each who are better than this #1 team. While the #1 team could stay largely intact with moves only within the club, if all these Q4 players from all these other teams flock to the old #1 team, it's possible to displace the entire team. This is possible given the prevalence of the idea that "if you want to play college you should go to the area's best ECNL club." The best 20 players in the new age group may *all* be current Q4s split across a bunch of different clubs, and if they decide to consolidate at the same club, it's potentially an entirely new team.

There's a whole lot of assumptions here.

Of course. I don't have any inside information about the teams referenced. But we know that generally, relative age effects are more extreme as teams are (1) more elite and (2) younger. If you're wondering how your bottom tier U17 team will be affected, don't worry. If you are thinking your U8 #1 in the nation team will keep the same players and still be good, you're a fool.

U8 is also a lot different from U12 and U13 -- although pretty much all the clubs play USYS at U8 and the U8 squad on that top ECNL club is hardly ever the same by the time it gets to ECNL (from recruiting top players year-after-year) -- age change or otherwise.

[Anonymous]

RAE effects are real but get weaker as players reach maturity. And at U12 the players on the younger side of the age-group may be better off playing and developing on the second team with more playing time. For a committed player these would level up by U15/U16. And there no real “#1 in the nation team” at U8. There’s only teams that do a good job developing their kids and teams that don’t. W/L doesn’t matter at that age. The clubs focusing on winning at U9/U10 likely aren’t doing as well developing their pool of players as those focusing on development. By the time teams are truly “more elite” they aren’t “younger” any more, and RAE is less extreme by the ages where there is a meaningful distinction for “elite” teams.

I understand why Q4 parents think that BY disadvantages their kids. I don’t understand why they think that SY is somehow more fair or more just. It just advantages Q4 kids and disadvantages Q3 kids. I have no dog in this fight with a Q1 DD but RAE doesn’t justify the shift because there will always be an RAE effect from any range of date cutoffs. The justification to go SY over BY has to be something other than RAE.

No doubt a shift in pools from BY to SY will shuffle teams bc a different player pool will be available. But I suspect at the younger ages this will just move Q4 kids that were developing on second teams and would have made first teams by U14/U15 into first team players and move comparable Q3 players to the second team, where they’ll get more playing time and develop instead.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:RAE effects are real but get weaker as players reach maturity. And at U12 the players on the younger side of the age-group may be better off playing and developing on the second team with more playing time. For a committed player these would level up by U15/U16. And there no real “#1 in the nation team” at U8. There’s only teams that do a good job developing their kids and teams that don’t. W/L doesn’t matter at that age. The clubs focusing on winning at U9/U10 likely aren’t doing as well developing their pool of players as those focusing on development. By the time teams are truly “more elite” they aren’t “younger” any more, and RAE is less extreme by the ages where there is a meaningful distinction for “elite” teams.

I understand why Q4 parents think that BY disadvantages their kids. I don’t understand why they think that SY is somehow more fair or more just. It just advantages Q4 kids and disadvantages Q3 kids. I have no dog in this fight with a Q1 DD but RAE doesn’t justify the shift because there will always be an RAE effect from any range of date cutoffs. The justification to go SY over BY has to be something other than RAE.

No doubt a shift in pools from BY to SY will shuffle teams bc a different player pool will be available. But I suspect at the younger ages this will just move Q4 kids that were developing on second teams and would have made first teams by U14/U15 into first team players and move comparable Q3 players to the second team, where they’ll get more playing time and develop instead.

Parent of a q4. I don’t think SY is more fair compared to BY, it just shifts the RAE to benefit sept-dec birthdays. Maybe slightly more fair as maturity is more similar within the same grade than between grades, but I’m sure that can be argued otherwise.

The previous change to BY was to give the benefit of the RAE to the oldest kids possible for ynt. That created real issues for trapped players. Yes, the change back will benefit my kid to some extent depending on which leagues switch, but I am happier that I won’t have a trapped 8th grader, I won’t be dealing with recruiting on the wrong cycle (if this is applicable to him at that time), and I won’t be dealing with finding him a new team senior year. SY isn’t “more fair” but it solves these problems for most kids.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:RAE effects are real but get weaker as players reach maturity. And at U12 the players on the younger side of the age-group may be better off playing and developing on the second team with more playing time. For a committed player these would level up by U15/U16. And there no real “#1 in the nation team” at U8. There’s only teams that do a good job developing their kids and teams that don’t. W/L doesn’t matter at that age. The clubs focusing on winning at U9/U10 likely aren’t doing as well developing their pool of players as those focusing on development. By the time teams are truly “more elite” they aren’t “younger” any more, and RAE is less extreme by the ages where there is a meaningful distinction for “elite” teams.

I understand why Q4 parents think that BY disadvantages their kids. I don’t understand why they think that SY is somehow more fair or more just. It just advantages Q4 kids and disadvantages Q3 kids. I have no dog in this fight with a Q1 DD but RAE doesn’t justify the shift because there will always be an RAE effect from any range of date cutoffs. The justification to go SY over BY has to be something other than RAE.

No doubt a shift in pools from BY to SY will shuffle teams bc a different player pool will be available. But I suspect at the younger ages this will just move Q4 kids that were developing on second teams and would have made first teams by U14/U15 into first team players and move comparable Q3 players to the second team, where they’ll get more playing time and develop instead.

Parent of a q4. I don’t think SY is more fair compared to BY, it just shifts the RAE to benefit sept-dec birthdays. Maybe slightly more fair as maturity is more similar within the same grade than between grades, but I’m sure that can be argued otherwise.

The previous change to BY was to give the benefit of the RAE to the oldest kids possible for ynt. That created real issues for trapped players. Yes, the change back will benefit my kid to some extent depending on which leagues switch, but I am happier that I won’t have a trapped 8th grader, I won’t be dealing with recruiting on the wrong cycle (if this is applicable to him at that time), and I won’t be dealing with finding him a new team senior year. SY isn’t “more fair” but it solves these problems for most kids.

This ^