Realistically, what’s the latest a kid can make the move to an MLS Next/ECNL team?

[Anonymous]

😂 😂

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:is there an unwritten rule on older players being “too old” to begin playing for an elite team MlS Next/ECNL/USL or MLS Academy type team? If so, what is that age? I’ve heard very few players making that jump after u16, but have you seen or known anyone who has? Why would high level teams hold open if sessions if they didn’t plan on inviting players to join? What’s your take an experience on this?

Theoretically, a kid can join a high tier team at any time. Realistically, the problem is that those teams already have strong players. So your kid has to be significantly better to replace a player that has similar skills that the club/coach already knows. That is why playing for a lower team at a club with a top team does give you an advantage because they get to know him over time and are able to watch his development. High performing lower team players are often asked to practice with the top team or join them for a game or two if they have injuries.

In addition, although your kid may grow into a better player against lower competition, existing players have been tested and have played against that stronger competition. Therefore, over time of playing top teams, the top players get even better.

The easiest way to get into the system is to join one of these teams at U11 or U12 or join the next lower team at that age at that club. If you don't get on the top team at that time, you might get lucky at the later ages when players start playing only one position and that exact position opens up because an existing player left the team or is long term injured.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:^ certainly not. The best kids at 11 are not usually the best at 11. Rosters at our Club later on (with everyone still there) reflect this.

Ha! So true. We have had kids move up from the 4th team in middle school and dominate. A lot is coaches early on don’t know wtf they are looking at.

Indeed they don't - and I agree that that certainly happens.

But good coaches do - and they will still pick the smaller players at age 11 and win with them at that time as well as later when they grow.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:is there an unwritten rule on older players being “too old” to begin playing for an elite team MlS Next/ECNL/USL or MLS Academy type team? If so, what is that age? I’ve heard very few players making that jump after u16, but have you seen or known anyone who has? Why would high level teams hold open if sessions if they didn’t plan on inviting players to join? What’s your take an experience on this?

My kid is 15/U16 and just flares a foot over the past 8 months.

He’s a Freshmen and just coming into his own.

If it’s to be talent based, there should be no limit : up to U18/19.

* grew, not flares.

So many boys don’t start showing their true potential until U16/17/18.

Potential for what? By that age, you've long already identified whether they're a decent player. By god, in Europe the kids at 16-18 are already on their way to contracts and potential has to have popped up by 12 to have even entered any academies.

Last part not true. European academies continue to take new kids from outside the system at any age. And as many pros come from outside academies as inside - although obviously your chance of becoming a pro is much higher inside.

Slots in later years are significantly less. Plus "at any age" still means under the age of 16-17, which is well before the alleged blossoming period stated here by PP for US boys. So the point above was to the comment above saying that "So many boys don't start showing their true potential until U16/17/18". That's just not true. That's pretty late in an athletic career and you're not just getting your engines running at 18. You've been passed up at that point if you didn't have talent prior.

I agree with that. I have never seen a kid suddenly show real ability at U16/17/18 where potential was not previously apparent.

I’ve seen really good players that for whatever reason not get picked for elite teams young, come back after being away bigger and better. I think potential was always there. But mostly the early developers, early birth months have the advantage which then can become eclipsed when other kids catch up, particularly if they were smarter players w/ high IQ and great technical skill. Obtaining that testosterone/pounds and inches brings it all together. They gain the speed too.

I think this is what people mean.

I know what people mean but it's nearly all pipedreams and hopium. 19 times out of 20 the best kids are the best kids before puberty and afterwards. If you start at age 5 or 6, then yes things change because a five year old is a long way behind a 6 year old in development so birth month really matters.

But, past about seven or eight things are pretty well set. The best kids at 11 are the best kids at 18. The top 5 are still very likely the top 5. Sure - maybe #3 swapped places with #4 somewhere along that timeline - but #35 did not turn into #1 or even #10.

Now I would also agree that good players don't always get identified and selected - but that's far more often a failure in the selection process at that time than the kid improving dramatically later.

And none of this is 100% true. Of course there are exceptions. But that's what they are - rare exceptions - not the rule.

This doesn’t account for the changes in dedication to the sport. There is a kid on ds’ team who has always been a mediocre kid since u10 but never really took the sport seriously. He started on an ODSL team and then went to NCSL, but would only play during team practice and games. Around u13-u14 he became very serious about soccer and does private training, athletic training, technical training (yes he’s privileged) and basically gets 12-15 hours a week as a 13 year old. His development skyrocketed so much in 1 season that he is now being IDed by VDA.

Sometimes kids just don’t get serious either and then one year go all in and became very talented.

That’s cause VDA sells bench spots as well.

^100% fact-checked

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I would say you'd want to get your kid in at U14 at the latest. But your kid has to have better than average speed, foot skills and decision making. And hopefully your kid has made it through puberty which helps but not absolutely necessary. I know my DS's U13 coach favors bigger kids over smaller ones as the coach is bringing bigger kids to tryout, but it's a fine line doing this cause they might make a difference now cause of their size, but when all the boys get through puberty they might just be average players. Your kid will have to stand out at the tryouts and make an impact on the game. If that's not happening the coaching staff won't look your way.

Lol. It was U16 (late Bday) before my oldest had his first major growth spurt. Unfortunately, we grow late. It does help my kids develop their mind and footskills because of that disadvantage and to be tough. Sometimes the disadvantage ultimately will turn into a major advantage down the road if they hang in the game. The physical ones masked a lot of deficiency getting by with just size for years.

Totally agree, my kid is in that situation now, quick, great foothills, great decision making, can create on his own, ambidextrous left and right and was a big impact in U12 in 9v9 smaller field and was smallest on his team. Come U13 11v11, bigger field, kids hitting puberty early and he's the smallest on the field, new position and he's not making an impact as much. I know when gets through puberty which will probably be very late he will stand out again if he continues to play after getting through that growth spurt.

I just think U14 at the latest is where you need to tryout for ECNL/MLS Next to see where your kid really stands against the competition. And help your kid figure out what they need to do to standout and i.pact the game.

I'm the one you responded to and agree with all of this.

Btw, my younger son is a U13 and now going through exactly what you describe. Since I saw this play out with my older son, it's easier to take. You just need to protect his self-confidence and interest. IF you are in a place where the coach starts only playing the big kids and your kid is marginalized (which I will admit if I wanted to win I'd do the same), you need to move your kid. In our case, it was really just the first year on the big field. By U14, he was able to adjust his play and playing in the center---long speed/long legs was less important than it would have been in the outside positions. He was quick and agile so could move the ball quickly and was fast in smaller distance---the full field speed came after he caught up in growth.

Although our experience was with girls, we saw similar things about protecting self confidence being more important than the specific timing. Our 2nd DD hit her puberty awkward years at 11/12, and even though others who were similarly talented were moving to higher level clubs at that time, we knew her journey through puberty meant that she wouldn’t show well that year and we didn’t want to crush her belief in herself and her love of the game. So she played for the local club another year or two and moved to a higher level team later than many other of the talented girls, after she’d grown into her limbs and gotten less awkward and regained her coordination after puberty. She’s playing D1 now.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:^ certainly not. The best kids at 11 are not usually the best at 11. Rosters at our Club later on (with everyone still there) reflect this.

Looking at rosters at an individual club may give you a false view of what is happening - because the players in those clubs are not randomly selected and a middle of the road club likely had very few really good kids in the first place. Such a club typically draws a lot of kids who are fairly close on the ability spectrum - and thus they can swap places on that spectrum over the years without really going from bottom to top (or vice versa) when considering the general population. Thus a kid who moves a small way in ability when measured against the general population may move from second to first team and appear to have progressed significantly when in fact the real movement has been quite small.

For one of those kids to have truly become one of the "best" kids they need to have acquired the ability to play at DCU - or at least be a strong starter on the next tier of teams below this. That would be a significant development - and it is rare.

[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:is there an unwritten rule on older players being “too old” to begin playing for an elite team MlS Next/ECNL/USL or MLS Academy type team? If so, what is that age? I’ve heard very few players making that jump after u16, but have you seen or known anyone who has? Why would high level teams hold open if sessions if they didn’t plan on inviting players to join? What’s your take an experience on this?

My kid is 15/U16 and just flares a foot over the past 8 months.

He’s a Freshmen and just coming into his own.

If it’s to be talent based, there should be no limit : up to U18/19.

* grew, not flares.

So many boys don’t start showing their true potential until U16/17/18.

Potential for what? By that age, you've long already identified whether they're a decent player. By god, in Europe the kids at 16-18 are already on their way to contracts and potential has to have popped up by 12 to have even entered any academies.

Last part not true. European academies continue to take new kids from outside the system at any age. And as many pros come from outside academies as inside - although obviously your chance of becoming a pro is much higher inside.

Slots in later years are significantly less. Plus "at any age" still means under the age of 16-17, which is well before the alleged blossoming period stated here by PP for US boys. So the point above was to the comment above saying that "So many boys don't start showing their true potential until U16/17/18". That's just not true. That's pretty late in an athletic career and you're not just getting your engines running at 18. You've been passed up at that point if you didn't have talent prior.

I agree with that. I have never seen a kid suddenly show real ability at U16/17/18 where potential was not previously apparent.

I’ve seen really good players that for whatever reason not get picked for elite teams young, come back after being away bigger and better. I think potential was always there. But mostly the early developers, early birth months have the advantage which then can become eclipsed when other kids catch up, particularly if they were smarter players w/ high IQ and great technical skill. Obtaining that testosterone/pounds and inches brings it all together. They gain the speed too.

I think this is what people mean.

I know what people mean but it's nearly all pipedreams and hopium. 19 times out of 20 the best kids are the best kids before puberty and afterwards. If you start at age 5 or 6, then yes things change because a five year old is a long way behind a 6 year old in development so birth month really matters.

But, past about seven or eight things are pretty well set. The best kids at 11 are the best kids at 18. The top 5 are still very likely the top 5. Sure - maybe #3 swapped places with #4 somewhere along that timeline - but #35 did not turn into #1 or even #10.

Now I would also agree that good players don't always get identified and selected - but that's far more often a failure in the selection process at that time than the kid improving dramatically later.

And none of this is 100% true. Of course there are exceptions. But that's what they are - rare exceptions - not the rule.

This doesn’t account for the changes in dedication to the sport. There is a kid on ds’ team who has always been a mediocre kid since u10 but never really took the sport seriously. He started on an ODSL team and then went to NCSL, but would only play during team practice and games. Around u13-u14 he became very serious about soccer and does private training, athletic training, technical training (yes he’s privileged) and basically gets 12-15 hours a week as a 13 year old. His development skyrocketed so much in 1 season that he is now being IDed by VDA.

Sometimes kids just don’t get serious either and then one year go all in and became very talented.

That’s cause VDA sells bench spots as well.

^100% fact-checked

How much to secure a spot? Tryouts are this Thursday. Might as well slip the technical director a few grand under the table.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:is there an unwritten rule on older players being “too old” to begin playing for an elite team MlS Next/ECNL/USL or MLS Academy type team? If so, what is that age? I’ve heard very few players making that jump after u16, but have you seen or known anyone who has? Why would high level teams hold open if sessions if they didn’t plan on inviting players to join? What’s your take an experience on this?

My kid is 15/U16 and just flares a foot over the past 8 months.

He’s a Freshmen and just coming into his own.

If it’s to be talent based, there should be no limit : up to U18/19.

* grew, not flares.

So many boys don’t start showing their true potential until U16/17/18.

Potential for what? By that age, you've long already identified whether they're a decent player. By god, in Europe the kids at 16-18 are already on their way to contracts and potential has to have popped up by 12 to have even entered any academies.

Last part not true. European academies continue to take new kids from outside the system at any age. And as many pros come from outside academies as inside - although obviously your chance of becoming a pro is much higher inside.

Slots in later years are significantly less. Plus "at any age" still means under the age of 16-17, which is well before the alleged blossoming period stated here by PP for US boys. So the point above was to the comment above saying that "So many boys don't start showing their true potential until U16/17/18". That's just not true. That's pretty late in an athletic career and you're not just getting your engines running at 18. You've been passed up at that point if you didn't have talent prior.

I agree with that. I have never seen a kid suddenly show real ability at U16/17/18 where potential was not previously apparent.

I’ve seen really good players that for whatever reason not get picked for elite teams young, come back after being away bigger and better. I think potential was always there. But mostly the early developers, early birth months have the advantage which then can become eclipsed when other kids catch up, particularly if they were smarter players w/ high IQ and great technical skill. Obtaining that testosterone/pounds and inches brings it all together. They gain the speed too.

I think this is what people mean.

I know what people mean but it's nearly all pipedreams and hopium. 19 times out of 20 the best kids are the best kids before puberty and afterwards. If you start at age 5 or 6, then yes things change because a five year old is a long way behind a 6 year old in development so birth month really matters.

But, past about seven or eight things are pretty well set. The best kids at 11 are the best kids at 18. The top 5 are still very likely the top 5. Sure - maybe #3 swapped places with #4 somewhere along that timeline - but #35 did not turn into #1 or even #10.

Now I would also agree that good players don't always get identified and selected - but that's far more often a failure in the selection process at that time than the kid improving dramatically later.

And none of this is 100% true. Of course there are exceptions. But that's what they are - rare exceptions - not the rule.

This doesn’t account for the changes in dedication to the sport.

PP. Yes I agree with this. A kid who puts in significantly more work can indeed move himself on the spectrum. My point is that such changes do not "just happen" as kids grow. I still think such moves are, to some extent, limited by innate ability and athleticism - but kids can certainly go a long way by practising hard.

There is a kid on ds’ team who has always been a mediocre kid since u10 but never really took the sport seriously. He started on an ODSL team and then went to NCSL, but would only play during team practice and games. Around u13-u14 he became very serious about soccer and does private training, athletic training, technical training (yes he’s privileged) and basically gets 12-15 hours a week as a 13 year old. His development skyrocketed so much in 1 season that he is now being IDed by VDA.

Sounds like this kid is a good example of practising hard although "being IDed by VDA" is quite a bit different to "starting for VDA" and VDA, while clearly a good club, is not amongst the top clubs in the region.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:is there an unwritten rule on older players being “too old” to begin playing for an elite team MlS Next/ECNL/USL or MLS Academy type team? If so, what is that age? I’ve heard very few players making that jump after u16, but have you seen or known anyone who has? Why would high level teams hold open if sessions if they didn’t plan on inviting players to join? What’s your take an experience on this?

My kid is 15/U16 and just flares a foot over the past 8 months.

He’s a Freshmen and just coming into his own.

If it’s to be talent based, there should be no limit : up to U18/19.

* grew, not flares.

So many boys don’t start showing their true potential until U16/17/18.

Potential for what? By that age, you've long already identified whether they're a decent player. By god, in Europe the kids at 16-18 are already on their way to contracts and potential has to have popped up by 12 to have even entered any academies.

Last part not true. European academies continue to take new kids from outside the system at any age. And as many pros come from outside academies as inside - although obviously your chance of becoming a pro is much higher inside.

Slots in later years are significantly less. Plus "at any age" still means under the age of 16-17, which is well before the alleged blossoming period stated here by PP for US boys. So the point above was to the comment above saying that "So many boys don't start showing their true potential until U16/17/18". That's just not true. That's pretty late in an athletic career and you're not just getting your engines running at 18. You've been passed up at that point if you didn't have talent prior.

I agree with that. I have never seen a kid suddenly show real ability at U16/17/18 where potential was not previously apparent.

I’ve seen really good players that for whatever reason not get picked for elite teams young, come back after being away bigger and better. I think potential was always there. But mostly the early developers, early birth months have the advantage which then can become eclipsed when other kids catch up, particularly if they were smarter players w/ high IQ and great technical skill. Obtaining that testosterone/pounds and inches brings it all together. They gain the speed too.

I think this is what people mean.

I know what people mean but it's nearly all pipedreams and hopium. 19 times out of 20 the best kids are the best kids before puberty and afterwards. If you start at age 5 or 6, then yes things change because a five year old is a long way behind a 6 year old in development so birth month really matters.

But, past about seven or eight things are pretty well set. The best kids at 11 are the best kids at 18. The top 5 are still very likely the top 5. Sure - maybe #3 swapped places with #4 somewhere along that timeline - but #35 did not turn into #1 or even #10.

Now I would also agree that good players don't always get identified and selected - but that's far more often a failure in the selection process at that time than the kid improving dramatically later.

And none of this is 100% true. Of course there are exceptions. But that's what they are - rare exceptions - not the rule.

This doesn’t account for the changes in dedication to the sport.

PP. Yes I agree with this. A kid who puts in significantly more work can indeed move himself on the spectrum. My point is that such changes do not "just happen" as kids grow. I still think such moves are, to some extent, limited by innate ability and athleticism - but kids can certainly go a long way by practising hard.

There is a kid on ds’ team who has always been a mediocre kid since u10 but never really took the sport seriously. He started on an ODSL team and then went to NCSL, but would only play during team practice and games. Around u13-u14 he became very serious about soccer and does private training, athletic training, technical training (yes he’s privileged) and basically gets 12-15 hours a week as a 13 year old. His development skyrocketed so much in 1 season that he is now being IDed by VDA.

Sounds like this kid is a good example of practising hard although "being IDed by VDA" is quite a bit different to "starting for VDA" and VDA, while clearly a good club, is not amongst the top clubs in the region.

Yea, I agree with that. I think it is naive that parents think practicing 2-3 times a week is going to be enough to get their child on an elite level club. This kid did that for 1 year and is still fighting to get on a roster. Hope he makes it

[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:is there an unwritten rule on older players being “too old” to begin playing for an elite team MlS Next/ECNL/USL or MLS Academy type team? If so, what is that age? I’ve heard very few players making that jump after u16, but have you seen or known anyone who has? Why would high level teams hold open if sessions if they didn’t plan on inviting players to join? What’s your take an experience on this?

My kid is 15/U16 and just flares a foot over the past 8 months.

He’s a Freshmen and just coming into his own.

If it’s to be talent based, there should be no limit : up to U18/19.

* grew, not flares.

So many boys don’t start showing their true potential until U16/17/18.

Potential for what? By that age, you've long already identified whether they're a decent player. By god, in Europe the kids at 16-18 are already on their way to contracts and potential has to have popped up by 12 to have even entered any academies.

Last part not true. European academies continue to take new kids from outside the system at any age. And as many pros come from outside academies as inside - although obviously your chance of becoming a pro is much higher inside.

Slots in later years are significantly less. Plus "at any age" still means under the age of 16-17, which is well before the alleged blossoming period stated here by PP for US boys. So the point above was to the comment above saying that "So many boys don't start showing their true potential until U16/17/18". That's just not true. That's pretty late in an athletic career and you're not just getting your engines running at 18. You've been passed up at that point if you didn't have talent prior.

I agree with that. I have never seen a kid suddenly show real ability at U16/17/18 where potential was not previously apparent.

I’ve seen really good players that for whatever reason not get picked for elite teams young, come back after being away bigger and better. I think potential was always there. But mostly the early developers, early birth months have the advantage which then can become eclipsed when other kids catch up, particularly if they were smarter players w/ high IQ and great technical skill. Obtaining that testosterone/pounds and inches brings it all together. They gain the speed too.

I think this is what people mean.

I know what people mean but it's nearly all pipedreams and hopium. 19 times out of 20 the best kids are the best kids before puberty and afterwards. If you start at age 5 or 6, then yes things change because a five year old is a long way behind a 6 year old in development so birth month really matters.

But, past about seven or eight things are pretty well set. The best kids at 11 are the best kids at 18. The top 5 are still very likely the top 5. Sure - maybe #3 swapped places with #4 somewhere along that timeline - but #35 did not turn into #1 or even #10.

Now I would also agree that good players don't always get identified and selected - but that's far more often a failure in the selection process at that time than the kid improving dramatically later.

And none of this is 100% true. Of course there are exceptions. But that's what they are - rare exceptions - not the rule.

This doesn’t account for the changes in dedication to the sport.

PP. Yes I agree with this. A kid who puts in significantly more work can indeed move himself on the spectrum. My point is that such changes do not "just happen" as kids grow. I still think such moves are, to some extent, limited by innate ability and athleticism - but kids can certainly go a long way by practising hard.

There is a kid on ds’ team who has always been a mediocre kid since u10 but never really took the sport seriously. He started on an ODSL team and then went to NCSL, but would only play during team practice and games. Around u13-u14 he became very serious about soccer and does private training, athletic training, technical training (yes he’s privileged) and basically gets 12-15 hours a week as a 13 year old. His development skyrocketed so much in 1 season that he is now being IDed by VDA.

Sounds like this kid is a good example of practising hard although "being IDed by VDA" is quite a bit different to "starting for VDA" and VDA, while clearly a good club, is not amongst the top clubs in the region.

Yea, I agree with that. I think it is naive that parents think practicing 2-3 times a week is going to be enough to get their child on an elite level club. This kid did that for 1 year and is still fighting to get on a roster. Hope he makes it

“Did that” as in what was previously mentioned. He trained 12-15 hours a week for one year.

[Anonymous]

Fear. I hear a lot of fear and wishes of what current parents of these teams believe .

A kid can be dropped or added at any age. Rosters change frequently.

[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:is there an unwritten rule on older players being “too old” to begin playing for an elite team MlS Next/ECNL/USL or MLS Academy type team? If so, what is that age? I’ve heard very few players making that jump after u16, but have you seen or known anyone who has? Why would high level teams hold open if sessions if they didn’t plan on inviting players to join? What’s your take an experience on this?

My kid is 15/U16 and just flares a foot over the past 8 months.

He’s a Freshmen and just coming into his own.

If it’s to be talent based, there should be no limit : up to U18/19.

* grew, not flares.

So many boys don’t start showing their true potential until U16/17/18.

Potential for what? By that age, you've long already identified whether they're a decent player. By god, in Europe the kids at 16-18 are already on their way to contracts and potential has to have popped up by 12 to have even entered any academies.

Last part not true. European academies continue to take new kids from outside the system at any age. And as many pros come from outside academies as inside - although obviously your chance of becoming a pro is much higher inside.

Slots in later years are significantly less. Plus "at any age" still means under the age of 16-17, which is well before the alleged blossoming period stated here by PP for US boys. So the point above was to the comment above saying that "So many boys don't start showing their true potential until U16/17/18". That's just not true. That's pretty late in an athletic career and you're not just getting your engines running at 18. You've been passed up at that point if you didn't have talent prior.

I agree with that. I have never seen a kid suddenly show real ability at U16/17/18 where potential was not previously apparent.

I’ve seen really good players that for whatever reason not get picked for elite teams young, come back after being away bigger and better. I think potential was always there. But mostly the early developers, early birth months have the advantage which then can become eclipsed when other kids catch up, particularly if they were smarter players w/ high IQ and great technical skill. Obtaining that testosterone/pounds and inches brings it all together. They gain the speed too.

I think this is what people mean.

I know what people mean but it's nearly all pipedreams and hopium. 19 times out of 20 the best kids are the best kids before puberty and afterwards. If you start at age 5 or 6, then yes things change because a five year old is a long way behind a 6 year old in development so birth month really matters.

But, past about seven or eight things are pretty well set. The best kids at 11 are the best kids at 18. The top 5 are still very likely the top 5. Sure - maybe #3 swapped places with #4 somewhere along that timeline - but #35 did not turn into #1 or even #10.

Now I would also agree that good players don't always get identified and selected - but that's far more often a failure in the selection process at that time than the kid improving dramatically later.

And none of this is 100% true. Of course there are exceptions. But that's what they are - rare exceptions - not the rule.

This doesn’t account for the changes in dedication to the sport.

PP. Yes I agree with this. A kid who puts in significantly more work can indeed move himself on the spectrum. My point is that such changes do not "just happen" as kids grow. I still think such moves are, to some extent, limited by innate ability and athleticism - but kids can certainly go a long way by practising hard.

There is a kid on ds’ team who has always been a mediocre kid since u10 but never really took the sport seriously. He started on an ODSL team and then went to NCSL, but would only play during team practice and games. Around u13-u14 he became very serious about soccer and does private training, athletic training, technical training (yes he’s privileged) and basically gets 12-15 hours a week as a 13 year old. His development skyrocketed so much in 1 season that he is now being IDed by VDA.

Sounds like this kid is a good example of practising hard although "being IDed by VDA" is quite a bit different to "starting for VDA" and VDA, while clearly a good club, is not amongst the top clubs in the region.

Yea, I agree with that. I think it is naive that parents think practicing 2-3 times a week is going to be enough to get their child on an elite level club. This kid did that for 1 year and is still fighting to get on a roster. Hope he makes it

“Did that” as in what was previously mentioned. He trained 12-15 hours a week for one year.

Indeed. And even this may not be enough to catch up - some of the kids on the top teams train more than this (although to be fair not all do) and they are almost certainly playing more as most of them play futsal/pickup/other leagues as well as their club.

[Anonymous]

In addition, although your kid may grow into a better player against lower competition, existing players have been tested and have played against that stronger competition. Therefore, over time of playing top teams, the top players get even better.

Yes this is tough to overcome. It's certainly not impossible - but a kid who wants to break into one of these teams later has to be motivated enough to work a lot harder than everyone around him in order to not only catch up with, but overtake, kids who have a more favorable environment. It's unlikely to happen without a lot of effort.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

In addition, although your kid may grow into a better player against lower competition, existing players have been tested and have played against that stronger competition. Therefore, over time of playing top teams, the top players get even better.

Yes this is tough to overcome. It's certainly not impossible - but a kid who wants to break into one of these teams later has to be motivated enough to work a lot harder than everyone around him in order to not only catch up with, but overtake, kids who have a more favorable environment. It's unlikely to happen without a lot of effort.

LOL Dude, many of these kids are not catching up. They are coming from other places with better development and are able to start. Kids come from all over the DMV and other States (new to the area).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Fear. I hear a lot of fear and wishes of what current parents of these teams believe .

A kid can be dropped or added at any age. Rosters change frequently.

This is definitely true. I have observed everything from 50% of the kids getting replaced mid-season at one DA club to zero roster additions at the same club in a different age group. In general something like 3-5 kids getting added each year is probably "normal" for a team.