Serious Player Development Question

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:First, what is up with this doberman pinscher analogy? I think of dobermans as graceful, highly agile and fast, with deadly accuracy, all good things if you are talking about ball skills. If you said someone had the touch of a Clydesdale, that would make a lot more sense.

I agree with folks that burnout rarely happens with kids who love the game. Also contrary to conventional wisdom: I know a lot of kids who started out as standouts at U9 and continue to be top players throughout their youth career. Some clubs may pick only big strong kids at that age, but that's not at all true across the board. What I see most do is pick kids who are athletic and coordinated, regardless of size. If those kids love soccer and get good training, then they just keep developing and improving. Not to say others don't come to the game later and do well also.

True, but most standouts at U9 do not become standouts at U13. Often the U9 standouts have a physical size or speed advantage due to being an early developer and as others catch up physically they become frustrated because suddenly they have to work harder to develop skills as they fall behind. Other U9 standouts are highly skilled because they started playing earlier than others and don’t develop physically over the years. They end up being undersized and don’t have the genetics to compete with the athletes that eventually catch up on skills. Of course there are early standouts that do have the whole package and continue to succeed. There are so many attributes needed to become that standout at U13 that you just can’t predict it at U9. You also can’t predict which U13s become D1 college players.

I'm sure that this is true on average, but is not entirely consistent with what I've observed in our area. I'm familiar with the background of a lot of kids in the older age groups of DC United, Bethesda, and Baltimore Armour's DA, and a significant number of the kids who are starters at those programs and committed to good D1 schools were standouts when they were U9-U12 when we first encountered them. It was a lot easier back then to see a wide variety of kids over a long time span, because most ended up in NCSL gunning for D1, and then you'd play the same teams at the local tournaments, along with the Baltimore teams that would head this way for good competition.

From our experience, the key is to find a good developmental coach rather than worrying about clubs when kids are little. You can also find, if you are lucky and/or do a lot of research, coaches who are talented at figuring out which kids have potential and who are excited to help them reach it. That sort of coach is not just stacking teams with big, strong, early maturers, but evaluating whether a kid has the kind of "it factor" that suggests they may become a real player.

[Anonymous]

In my experience there is no greater myth than the classic fall from grace U9/U10 superstar.

Yes, supposed lesser talented kids at those ages do tend to develop and in many cases catch up to the young superstar. But those young superstars still keep chugging along and developing themselves. Perhaps they lose a step in speed, or they are caught up in size and that is negated but they are still developing at their own relative pace and they usually remain quality competitive players as long as they stay interested. I know of very, very few young A team kids who ended up on a C team. I have known some who were perenial A team starters and lost that role but rarely their spot on the team.

So, a B or C team player can work hard and often times catch or even exceed the young star in a couple of years but it is really rare for that young star to actually drop down to a C team level.

All of the above is stated with the caveat of A team kids at high level competitive clubs.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:In my experience there is no greater myth than the classic fall from grace U9/U10 superstar.

Yes, supposed lesser talented kids at those ages do tend to develop and in many cases catch up to the young superstar. But those young superstars still keep chugging along and developing themselves. Perhaps they lose a step in speed, or they are caught up in size and that is negated but they are still developing at their own relative pace and they usually remain quality competitive players as long as they stay interested. I know of very, very few young A team kids who ended up on a C team. I have known some who were perenial A team starters and lost that role but rarely their spot on the team.

So, a B or C team player can work hard and often times catch or even exceed the young star in a couple of years but it is really rare for that young star to actually drop down to a C team level.

All of the above is stated with the caveat of A team kids at high level competitive clubs.

People really shouldn't worry too much about the percentage.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:NP here.

< snip, snip, snip...>

What separates the best from the rest often comes down to the intangibles - the attitude and willingness to work hard every day and fight through pain and boredom of doing the same thing thousands of times. These kids do whatever it takes to both improve themselves and have the drive to win games. When that kid gets into a club that has the structure and supportive coaching environment, the sky is the limit.

We live in an era during which repetition is considered the path to boredom instead of the path to mastery.

My own experience, when I was coaching girls in my area, was that the developmental stages that happen starting around 12 years of age have it such that a girl with great aptitude who was happy to move the ball on her own when she was 10 and 11 now needs social currency to make it happen so that FOMO (fear of missing out) doesn't get in the way. So, if we repackage their one on one training to be training with their favorite (and similarly capable) teammate, they are more enthused. The girl that was happy to watch an NWSL game on TV with her dad at the age of 11 now finds that to be uninteresting; but if you make it a viewing party with her favorite teammate's family, she watches with enthusiasm in order to comment in a way that makes her socially relevant to the gathering.

And so on.

My view is that the club provides a stage to perform on. A more successful club (i.e. stage that matters to more people and is watched with more frequency) is better than a rinky dinky one. But just lke the actor who doesn't work on memorizing and putting expression into "his lines" finds the big stage to be a source of potential embarrassment, so does the player who thinks it suffices to just go to practice and play in games. Thus, if a child responds well to going beyond the bare minimum by our helping them feel less isolated and more synchronized with like-minded players who want to stand out, I think it's worth our effort as parents to look into doing that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:In my experience there is no greater myth than the classic fall from grace U9/U10 superstar.

Yes, supposed lesser talented kids at those ages do tend to develop and in many cases catch up to the young superstar. But those young superstars still keep chugging along and developing themselves. Perhaps they lose a step in speed, or they are caught up in size and that is negated but they are still developing at their own relative pace and they usually remain quality competitive players as long as they stay interested. I know of very, very few young A team kids who ended up on a C team. I have known some who were perenial A team starters and lost that role but rarely their spot on the team.

So, a B or C team player can work hard and often times catch or even exceed the young star in a couple of years but it is really rare for that young star to actually drop down to a C team level.

All of the above is stated with the caveat of A team kids at high level competitive clubs.

Many clubs don't demote A team players for other factors like team and club stability, psychology, etc. It does not mean that those kids are not falling behind to other clubs that do promote / demote. For these teams they may dominate the competition at U9 but no longer win games 10-0 against teams they used to. They no longer win tournaments but make the finals, etc.

It's hard to see when your kid is on the club A team.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:NP here.

< snip, snip, snip...>

What separates the best from the rest often comes down to the intangibles - the attitude and willingness to work hard every day and fight through pain and boredom of doing the same thing thousands of times. These kids do whatever it takes to both improve themselves and have the drive to win games. When that kid gets into a club that has the structure and supportive coaching environment, the sky is the limit.

We live in an era during which repetition is considered the path to boredom instead of the path to mastery.

My own experience, when I was coaching girls in my area, was that the developmental stages that happen starting around 12 years of age have it such that a girl with great aptitude who was happy to move the ball on her own when she was 10 and 11 now needs social currency to make it happen so that FOMO (fear of missing out) doesn't get in the way. So, if we repackage their one on one training to be training with their favorite (and similarly capable) teammate, they are more enthused. The girl that was happy to watch an NWSL game on TV with her dad at the age of 11 now finds that to be uninteresting; but if you make it a viewing party with her favorite teammate's family, she watches with enthusiasm in order to comment in a way that makes her socially relevant to the gathering.

And so on.

My view is that the club provides a stage to perform on. A more successful club (i.e. stage that matters to more people and is watched with more frequency) is better than a rinky dinky one. But just lke the actor who doesn't work on memorizing and putting expression into "his lines" finds the big stage to be a source of potential embarrassment, so does the player who thinks it suffices to just go to practice and play in games. Thus, if a child responds well to going beyond the bare minimum by our helping them feel less isolated and more synchronized with like-minded players who want to stand out, I think it's worth our effort as parents to look into doing that.

That was a really good post. My daughter just turned 11, is already small, and wil be a late developer, so I know she's in for a tough few years. Right now she is that kid - loves watching games with us, happy to put in extra technical work on her own, etc.... - but your post has me thinking that I need to start finding ways to help her make those activities more social for her moving forward. Thank you.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:NP here.



That was a really good post. My daughter just turned 11, is already small, and wil be a late developer, so I know she's in for a tough few years. Right now she is that kid - loves watching games with us, happy to put in extra technical work on her own, etc.... - but your post has me thinking that I need to start finding ways to help her make those activities more social for her moving forward. Thank you.

You're welcome! I can't remember where I saw or heard this interview, but I remember Tobin Heath saying that during her formative years, she encountered a good number of players who were better than her. More talented, and had more aptitude. She went on to say that none of those people are playing any longer.

Her observation, along with some of the attrition that I see in my area (of good players who have burned out or quietly stepped away from the game) helped me form these ideas.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Each year you get a few new kids joining the top team. These kids are usually really good(naturals). This is not because the big club did not develop thier own kids. It’s just these kids were given the same training as other kids but for some reason developed to a high level. They had a natural affinity for the sport.

So very few of the original u9/u10 players make the top team at u16. Therefore many say the club does not develop kids. When in reality very few u9/u10 will develop into a DA u16/u17 player. After u12 it’s about speed of play and passing. At u9/u10 clubs are not looking for speed of play.

Theat is true. Not every kid is genetically or mentally destined for a high level of soccer. There's nothing wrong with that either. It's kind of like not every kid will do AP classes.