ECNL moving to school year not calendar

[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.

I agree that age is one of many factors... I just think it is a bit overblown. Kids develop at different ages. My January birthday developed very late, my December birthday very early, etc. etc. Every NL and RL team I look at at our club has anywhere from 2-6 Q4 players, I understand this is not comprehensive, but I am sure it's not uncommon. No matter when your child is born, put a ball at their feet early, train with them, put them in competitive environments with good coaches, ensure they train on thier own as they get older, foster a love for the game, if they have any talent all will be well.

That's way too naive.

Kids aren't motivated to train or train harder or keep playing when there told there are not that good compared to the older kids and stuck on the second or lower and are stuck at the less glamorous positions. So other sports find them and they quit soccer or keep it as gig work.

Team just demoted all 5 Q4s for next year. (Club is run by morons who have gone in the opposite direction to prepare for the age change.) You think that fosters love for the game?

I couldn't disagree more... many kids are motivated in these difficult circumstances... I've seen it many times. When appropriately challenged and encouraged, I've seen my own kids rise to the occasion. Don't be so dismissive.

I've also seen Q4s more developed than Q1s, and vice versa. Don't sweat this stuff...

Get your kids on the ball early, train with them when they are young, get them in competitive environments and on competitive teams, prioritize individual training as they get older, foster a love for the game... if they have any talent, all will be well.

Unfortunately we all suffer from bias and our eyes don't see enough samples to properly evaluate. That is why science and research is needed. And the science says you are incorrect.

The science does not say that... the science says that more Q1 and Q2 players make and stay on the top teams than Q3 and Q4 players. The science also says that there are SOME Q3 and Q4 that make it. So, if you want your Q3 or Q4 kid to be one of them... "Get your kids on the ball early, train with them when they are young, get them in competitive environments and on competitive teams, prioritize individual training as they get older, foster a love for the game... if they have any talent, all will be well."

The science sure as heck says that your opinion isn't fact because of your small n.

You are right, players and parents should just give up if they are Q4 (or Q3 starting next year) ... what is your point? I acknowledge it is more difficult for those players; my point is that there are things that can be done to combat the statistics.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Probably been posted a million times, but here's some of the research. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11475004/

Have you looked at this research? Most of the positions do not have a statistically significant difference, and even those that do, it is mild, even q1vs q4. All and all RAE is far from a death blow for q4 kids. Life is a fight or flight reaction to many things in life, it develops creativity, character and will. But if a parent is going to be a Debbie downer then…

Sorry, this is wrong. chi-squared is statistically significant for all age groups at the club level but 1 and same for TID but for 1 age level. The data suggests the opposite of what you say, in fact.

Look at the odds ratio (magnitude of effect), it is a mild association and not a death blow at all, but I’m guessing we should still queue the Debbie Downer theme song for you.

What are you looking at?

Looking at U9 Club, Q1 vs Q4 odds ratio is 11.6.

Meaning of odds ration: "OR > 1: The event is more likely to occur in the group with the factor. For example, an OR of 2 means the event is twice as likely to happen in the group with the factor. "

Sorry, 2009 club, U13...not U9

after u13 the magnitude goes way down, although you are still going to cry about it, so maybe have your kid quit soccer now

[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.

I agree that age is one of many factors... I just think it is a bit overblown. Kids develop at different ages. My January birthday developed very late, my December birthday very early, etc. etc. Every NL and RL team I look at at our club has anywhere from 2-6 Q4 players, I understand this is not comprehensive, but I am sure it's not uncommon. No matter when your child is born, put a ball at their feet early, train with them, put them in competitive environments with good coaches, ensure they train on thier own as they get older, foster a love for the game, if they have any talent all will be well.

That's way too naive.

Kids aren't motivated to train or train harder or keep playing when there told there are not that good compared to the older kids and stuck on the second or lower and are stuck at the less glamorous positions. So other sports find them and they quit soccer or keep it as gig work.

Team just demoted all 5 Q4s for next year. (Club is run by morons who have gone in the opposite direction to prepare for the age change.) You think that fosters love for the game?

I couldn't disagree more... many kids are motivated in these difficult circumstances... I've seen it many times. When appropriately challenged and encouraged, I've seen my own kids rise to the occasion. Don't be so dismissive.

I've also seen Q4s more developed than Q1s, and vice versa. Don't sweat this stuff...

Get your kids on the ball early, train with them when they are young, get them in competitive environments and on competitive teams, prioritize individual training as they get older, foster a love for the game... if they have any talent, all will be well.

Unfortunately we all suffer from bias and our eyes don't see enough samples to properly evaluate. That is why science and research is needed. And the science says you are incorrect.

The science does not say that... the science says that more Q1 and Q2 players make and stay on the top teams than Q3 and Q4 players. The science also says that there are SOME Q3 and Q4 that make it. So, if you want your Q3 or Q4 kid to be one of them... "Get your kids on the ball early, train with them when they are young, get them in competitive environments and on competitive teams, prioritize individual training as they get older, foster a love for the game... if they have any talent, all will be well."

The science sure as heck says that your opinion isn't fact because of your small n.

You are right, players and parents should just give up if they are Q4 (or Q3 starting next year) ... what is your point? I acknowledge it is more difficult for those players; my point is that there are things that can be done to combat the statistics.

It will be interesting to see how different this will look for Q3s after the switch to school year. My suspicion is that there will be much less attrition than there are in q4s with birth year. The Q3s would still be hit with the development issues, but most of the other headwinds that Q4s currently face should not be there.

As for your questions about what's the point. This thread is about birth year vs school year for age cutoffs...not about development differences of kids 9-12 months older. So, I think that's the point. Is the birth year cutoff leading to greater attrition of Q4 kids than it will for Q3 kids in a school year cutoff.

In the study result provided, the odds ratio for club ages compared to Q1 is 1.3 for Q2 and 1.7 for Q3. Then jumps to 2.8 for Q4, which seems to jump significantly from the other 2 quarters.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Probably been posted a million times, but here's some of the research. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11475004/

Have you looked at this research? Most of the positions do not have a statistically significant difference, and even those that do, it is mild, even q1vs q4. All and all RAE is far from a death blow for q4 kids. Life is a fight or flight reaction to many things in life, it develops creativity, character and will. But if a parent is going to be a Debbie downer then…

Sorry, this is wrong. chi-squared is statistically significant for all age groups at the club level but 1 and same for TID but for 1 age level. The data suggests the opposite of what you say, in fact.

Look at the odds ratio (magnitude of effect), it is a mild association and not a death blow at all, but I’m guessing we should still queue the Debbie Downer theme song for you.

What are you looking at?

Looking at U9 Club, Q1 vs Q4 odds ratio is 11.6.

Meaning of odds ration: "OR > 1: The event is more likely to occur in the group with the factor. For example, an OR of 2 means the event is twice as likely to happen in the group with the factor. "

Sorry, 2009 club, U13...not U9

after u13 the magnitude goes way down, although you are still going to cry about it, so maybe have your kid quit soccer now

Again, wrong. You should quit pretending to understand statistics. You clearly would have failed my classes

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Probably been posted a million times, but here's some of the research. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11475004/

Have you looked at this research? Most of the positions do not have a statistically significant difference, and even those that do, it is mild, even q1vs q4. All and all RAE is far from a death blow for q4 kids. Life is a fight or flight reaction to many things in life, it develops creativity, character and will. But if a parent is going to be a Debbie downer then…

Sorry, this is wrong. chi-squared is statistically significant for all age groups at the club level but 1 and same for TID but for 1 age level. The data suggests the opposite of what you say, in fact.

Look at the odds ratio (magnitude of effect), it is a mild association and not a death blow at all, but I’m guessing we should still queue the Debbie Downer theme song for you.

What are you looking at?

Looking at U9 Club, Q1 vs Q4 odds ratio is 11.6.

Meaning of odds ration: "OR > 1: The event is more likely to occur in the group with the factor. For example, an OR of 2 means the event is twice as likely to happen in the group with the factor. "

Sorry, 2009 club, U13...not U9

after u13 the magnitude goes way down, although you are still going to cry about it, so maybe have your kid quit soccer now

Average across all age groups for club, the odds are 2.8 for Q4. Almost 3 times less likely. Are you saying that's not significant?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Probably been posted a million times, but here's some of the research. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11475004/

Have you looked at this research? Most of the positions do not have a statistically significant difference, and even those that do, it is mild, even q1vs q4. All and all RAE is far from a death blow for q4 kids. Life is a fight or flight reaction to many things in life, it develops creativity, character and will. But if a parent is going to be a Debbie downer then…

Sorry, this is wrong. chi-squared is statistically significant for all age groups at the club level but 1 and same for TID but for 1 age level. The data suggests the opposite of what you say, in fact.

Look at the odds ratio (magnitude of effect), it is a mild association and not a death blow at all, but I’m guessing we should still queue the Debbie Downer theme song for you.

What are you looking at?

Looking at U9 Club, Q1 vs Q4 odds ratio is 11.6.

Meaning of odds ration: "OR > 1: The event is more likely to occur in the group with the factor. For example, an OR of 2 means the event is twice as likely to happen in the group with the factor. "

Sorry, 2009 club, U13...not U9

after u13 the magnitude goes way down, although you are still going to cry about it, so maybe have your kid quit soccer now

Average across all age groups for club, the odds are 2.8 for Q4. Almost 3 times less likely. Are you saying that's not significant?

06/07 RL team, typical flight 2 level. We have 2 Q4 06 and 1 Q4 07 out of 15 players.

[Anonymous]

social scientists in years to come should really study this whole thread. The way topics shift around but always come back to the same point. The not at all surprising but still somewhat disturbing lack of statistical understanding. The straight up denial of obvious truths. This thread really has it all!

[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.

I agree that age is one of many factors... I just think it is a bit overblown. Kids develop at different ages. My January birthday developed very late, my December birthday very early, etc. etc. Every NL and RL team I look at at our club has anywhere from 2-6 Q4 players, I understand this is not comprehensive, but I am sure it's not uncommon. No matter when your child is born, put a ball at their feet early, train with them, put them in competitive environments with good coaches, ensure they train on thier own as they get older, foster a love for the game, if they have any talent all will be well.

That's way too naive.

Kids aren't motivated to train or train harder or keep playing when there told there are not that good compared to the older kids and stuck on the second or lower and are stuck at the less glamorous positions. So other sports find them and they quit soccer or keep it as gig work.

Team just demoted all 5 Q4s for next year. (Club is run by morons who have gone in the opposite direction to prepare for the age change.) You think that fosters love for the game?

I couldn't disagree more... many kids are motivated in these difficult circumstances... I've seen it many times. When appropriately challenged and encouraged, I've seen my own kids rise to the occasion. Don't be so dismissive.

I've also seen Q4s more developed than Q1s, and vice versa. Don't sweat this stuff...

Get your kids on the ball early, train with them when they are young, get them in competitive environments and on competitive teams, prioritize individual training as they get older, foster a love for the game... if they have any talent, all will be well.

Unfortunately we all suffer from bias and our eyes don't see enough samples to properly evaluate. That is why science and research is needed. And the science says you are incorrect.

The science does not say that... the science says that more Q1 and Q2 players make and stay on the top teams than Q3 and Q4 players. The science also says that there are SOME Q3 and Q4 that make it. So, if you want your Q3 or Q4 kid to be one of them... "Get your kids on the ball early, train with them when they are young, get them in competitive environments and on competitive teams, prioritize individual training as they get older, foster a love for the game... if they have any talent, all will be well."

The science sure as heck says that your opinion isn't fact because of your small n.

You are right, players and parents should just give up if they are Q4 (or Q3 starting next year) ... what is your point? I acknowledge it is more difficult for those players; my point is that there are things that can be done to combat the statistics.

It will be interesting to see how different this will look for Q3s after the switch to school year. My suspicion is that there will be much less attrition than there are in q4s with birth year. The Q3s would still be hit with the development issues, but most of the other headwinds that Q4s currently face should not be there.

As for your questions about what's the point. This thread is about birth year vs school year for age cutoffs...not about development differences of kids 9-12 months older. So, I think that's the point. Is the birth year cutoff leading to greater attrition of Q4 kids than it will for Q3 kids in a school year cutoff.

In the study result provided, the odds ratio for club ages compared to Q1 is 1.3 for Q2 and 1.7 for Q3. Then jumps to 2.8 for Q4, which seems to jump significantly from the other 2 quarters.

It's hard to track who talking in these threads because everyone is anonymous. However, I have never said RAE doesn't exist or that the statistics don't bear out the difficulty for Q4 players. My only point has been that there are steps parents and players can take that will mitigate the impact of RAE. Then I outlined some of the steps that I have seen work. That's it.

I think that is a much better approach that complaining... someone has to lose out in a 12-month system, be proactive with you children and do something about it.

As far as what the thread is about, we meander in, around, and away from the topic all the time, it's an internet forum.

[Anonymous]

With the top clubs on the girls side moving to GA, will they too follow the school year vs calendar?

[Anonymous]

Cannot think of a compelling reason for GA/MLSN to stay BY and too much risk from a business perspective (i.e letting ECNL back in the game with the boys side in particular).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Cannot think of a compelling reason for GA/MLSN to stay BY and too much risk from a business perspective (i.e letting ECNL back in the game with the boys side in particular).

There's really only one way it makes sense - if FIFA starts a FIFA Youth Club World Cup. Other than that, MLSN resistance to SY is most likely due to ego, as they think they should get to tell USYS/USCS/AYSO what to do rather than the other way around.

[Anonymous]

According to the commissioner, GA is announcing SY this week. Conference announcement today. SY announcement tomorrow?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:With the top clubs on the girls side moving to GA, will they too follow the school year vs calendar?

Top clubs? What a loaded statement.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:According to the commissioner, GA is announcing SY this week. Conference announcement today. SY announcement tomorrow?

Source?

[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.

I agree that age is one of many factors... I just think it is a bit overblown. Kids develop at different ages. My January birthday developed very late, my December birthday very early, etc. etc. Every NL and RL team I look at at our club has anywhere from 2-6 Q4 players, I understand this is not comprehensive, but I am sure it's not uncommon. No matter when your child is born, put a ball at their feet early, train with them, put them in competitive environments with good coaches, ensure they train on thier own as they get older, foster a love for the game, if they have any talent all will be well.

That's way too naive.

Kids aren't motivated to train or train harder or keep playing when there told there are not that good compared to the older kids and stuck on the second or lower and are stuck at the less glamorous positions. So other sports find them and they quit soccer or keep it as gig work.

Team just demoted all 5 Q4s for next year. (Club is run by morons who have gone in the opposite direction to prepare for the age change.) You think that fosters love for the game?

I couldn't disagree more... many kids are motivated in these difficult circumstances... I've seen it many times. When appropriately challenged and encouraged, I've seen my own kids rise to the occasion. Don't be so dismissive.

I've also seen Q4s more developed than Q1s, and vice versa. Don't sweat this stuff...

Get your kids on the ball early, train with them when they are young, get them in competitive environments and on competitive teams, prioritize individual training as they get older, foster a love for the game... if they have any talent, all will be well.

Unfortunately we all suffer from bias and our eyes don't see enough samples to properly evaluate. That is why science and research is needed. And the science says you are incorrect.

The science does not say that... the science says that more Q1 and Q2 players make and stay on the top teams than Q3 and Q4 players. The science also says that there are SOME Q3 and Q4 that make it. So, if you want your Q3 or Q4 kid to be one of them... "Get your kids on the ball early, train with them when they are young, get them in competitive environments and on competitive teams, prioritize individual training as they get older, foster a love for the game... if they have any talent, all will be well."

The science sure as heck says that your opinion isn't fact because of your small n.

You are right, players and parents should just give up if they are Q4 (or Q3 starting next year) ... what is your point? I acknowledge it is more difficult for those players; my point is that there are things that can be done to combat the statistics.

"Your right [then I will add things that you didn't say]" Well done.