ECNL moving to school year not calendar

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

I'm actually an expert on relative age effect.
That's why its sad to see all these ignorant comments on the subject.

Coaches aren't playing your 3 left feet oversized kid over a much more skilled and effective smaller kid.

There it is from the 'expert'. No need to change anything at all. Let's keep everything the same. Nothing to see here. Thanks for weighing in expert.

[Anonymous]

Look, I get that coaches and clubs don't want to admit that they have been picking teams mostly on athletesism/age and it will be a little awkward and embarrassing as it becomes clear their scouting or stated another way, king maker skills, are questionable. But starting some misinformation campaign that birth month doesn't matter when the bulk of their top teams are currently on the older side of the year just make them seem pathetic.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Look, I get that coaches and clubs don't want to admit that they have been picking teams mostly on athletesism/age and it will be a little awkward and embarrassing as it becomes clear their scouting or stated another way, king maker skills, are questionable. But starting some misinformation campaign that birth month doesn't matter when the bulk of their top teams are currently on the older side of the year just make them seem pathetic.

I guess no one notices all the PP is saying is that the BY to SY change won't make a bad player a good player.

So parents with bad players that will become an overnight Q1 should temper their glee and excitement

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Look, I get that coaches and clubs don't want to admit that they have been picking teams mostly on athletesism/age and it will be a little awkward and embarrassing as it becomes clear their scouting or stated another way, king maker skills, are questionable. But starting some misinformation campaign that birth month doesn't matter when the bulk of their top teams are currently on the older side of the year just make them seem pathetic.

I guess no one notices all the PP is saying is that the BY to SY change won't make a bad player a good player.

So parents with bad players that will become an overnight Q1 should temper their glee and excitement

Huh? PP was pointing that that the so called expert is a self labeled so called expert and was questioning their so called expert status.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Look, I get that coaches and clubs don't want to admit that they have been picking teams mostly on athletesism/age and it will be a little awkward and embarrassing as it becomes clear their scouting or stated another way, king maker skills, are questionable. But starting some misinformation campaign that birth month doesn't matter when the bulk of their top teams are currently on the older side of the year just make them seem pathetic.

I guess no one notices all the PP is saying is that the BY to SY change won't make a bad player a good player.

So parents with bad players that will become an overnight Q1 should temper their glee and excitement

Huh? PP was pointing that that the so called expert is a self labeled so called expert and was questioning their so called expert status.

Considering most of us just heard about something called RAE recently, it's not hard to be an expert here

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Look, I get that coaches and clubs don't want to admit that they have been picking teams mostly on athletesism/age and it will be a little awkward and embarrassing as it becomes clear their scouting or stated another way, king maker skills, are questionable. But starting some misinformation campaign that birth month doesn't matter when the bulk of their top teams are currently on the older side of the year just make them seem pathetic.

I guess no one notices all the PP is saying is that the BY to SY change won't make a bad player a good player.

So parents with bad players that will become an overnight Q1 should temper their glee and excitement

Huh? PP was pointing that that the so called expert is a self labeled so called expert and was questioning their so called expert status.

You're saying bad players will become good as soon as they go from being q3 to q1?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Look, I get that coaches and clubs don't want to admit that they have been picking teams mostly on athletesism/age and it will be a little awkward and embarrassing as it becomes clear their scouting or stated another way, king maker skills, are questionable. But starting some misinformation campaign that birth month doesn't matter when the bulk of their top teams are currently on the older side of the year just make them seem pathetic.

I guess no one notices all the PP is saying is that the BY to SY change won't make a bad player a good player.

So parents with bad players that will become an overnight Q1 should temper their glee and excitement

I read back a bunch of pages, and I don't see where the "expert" is getting that characterization of the thread from. No one said anything about bad Q4 players becoming A team starters after a change. And no one said anything about *good* Q1 players actually having *bad* decision making, *poor* agility, *poor* skills etc. That's a wild exaggeration of what anyone said. People just said that many Q1 kids are currently overrated and many Q4 kids are currently underrated.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Look, I get that coaches and clubs don't want to admit that they have been picking teams mostly on athletesism/age and it will be a little awkward and embarrassing as it becomes clear their scouting or stated another way, king maker skills, are questionable. But starting some misinformation campaign that birth month doesn't matter when the bulk of their top teams are currently on the older side of the year just make them seem pathetic.

I guess no one notices all the PP is saying is that the BY to SY change won't make a bad player a good player.

So parents with bad players that will become an overnight Q1 should temper their glee and excitement

Huh? PP was pointing that that the so called expert is a self labeled so called expert and was questioning their so called expert status.

You're saying bad players will become good as soon as they go from being q3 to q1?

What is being said is that you being bitter about the change to school year isn't going to stop going to youth soccer from going to school year.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Look, I get that coaches and clubs don't want to admit that they have been picking teams mostly on athletesism/age and it will be a little awkward and embarrassing as it becomes clear their scouting or stated another way, king maker skills, are questionable. But starting some misinformation campaign that birth month doesn't matter when the bulk of their top teams are currently on the older side of the year just make them seem pathetic.

I guess no one notices all the PP is saying is that the BY to SY change won't make a bad player a good player.

So parents with bad players that will become an overnight Q1 should temper their glee and excitement

Huh? PP was pointing that that the so called expert is a self labeled so called expert and was questioning their so called expert status.

You're saying bad players will become good as soon as they go from being q3 to q1?

Sadly, that is how coaches have operated and will probably continue to operate in picking players for teams and starters, generally picking the older players. Gonna be real awkward for them when they demote a bunch of older players they have been blowing smoke at.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Look, I get that coaches and clubs don't want to admit that they have been picking teams mostly on athletesism/age and it will be a little awkward and embarrassing as it becomes clear their scouting or stated another way, king maker skills, are questionable. But starting some misinformation campaign that birth month doesn't matter when the bulk of their top teams are currently on the older side of the year just make them seem pathetic.

I guess no one notices all the PP is saying is that the BY to SY change won't make a bad player a good player.

So parents with bad players that will become an overnight Q1 should temper their glee and excitement

Huh? PP was pointing that that the so called expert is a self labeled so called expert and was questioning their so called expert status.

You're saying bad players will become good as soon as they go from being q3 to q1?

If this were true, in the way I think you're asking, we'd see an A team quarter split like Q1 95% Q2 3% Q3 2% Q4 0%. No one said that's the case, and if they believe it is the case, of course they're an idiot. It sounds like you're taking issue with some people saying it makes a "big" difference when you believe it makes a "small" difference. Without numbers, this is going to be in the eye-of-the-beholder to describe players as "good" or "bad," and differences as "big" or "small." Sounds like you're picking an unwinnable fight because your personal opinion of the weight associated with the words people are using is different than theirs. You're potentially right. They're also potentially right.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Look, I get that coaches and clubs don't want to admit that they have been picking teams mostly on athletesism/age and it will be a little awkward and embarrassing as it becomes clear their scouting or stated another way, king maker skills, are questionable. But starting some misinformation campaign that birth month doesn't matter when the bulk of their top teams are currently on the older side of the year just make them seem pathetic.

I guess no one notices all the PP is saying is that the BY to SY change won't make a bad player a good player.

So parents with bad players that will become an overnight Q1 should temper their glee and excitement

Huh? PP was pointing that that the so called expert is a self labeled so called expert and was questioning their so called expert status.

You're saying bad players will become good as soon as they go from being q3 to q1?

If this were true, in the way I think you're asking, we'd see an A team quarter split like Q1 95% Q2 3% Q3 2% Q4 0%. No one said that's the case, and if they believe it is the case, of course they're an idiot. It sounds like you're taking issue with some people saying it makes a "big" difference when you believe it makes a "small" difference. Without numbers, this is going to be in the eye-of-the-beholder to describe players as "good" or "bad," and differences as "big" or "small." Sounds like you're picking an unwinnable fight because your personal opinion of the weight associated with the words people are using is different than theirs. You're potentially right. They're also potentially right.

Who doesn't know what a bad player is especially at ecnl level?
Other than parents judging their own kid.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Look, I get that coaches and clubs don't want to admit that they have been picking teams mostly on athletesism/age and it will be a little awkward and embarrassing as it becomes clear their scouting or stated another way, king maker skills, are questionable. But starting some misinformation campaign that birth month doesn't matter when the bulk of their top teams are currently on the older side of the year just make them seem pathetic.

I guess no one notices all the PP is saying is that the BY to SY change won't make a bad player a good player.

So parents with bad players that will become an overnight Q1 should temper their glee and excitement

I read back a bunch of pages, and I don't see where the "expert" is getting that characterization of the thread from. No one said anything about bad Q4 players becoming A team starters after a change. And no one said anything about *good* Q1 players actually having *bad* decision making, *poor* agility, *poor* skills etc. That's a wild exaggeration of what anyone said. People just said that many Q1 kids are currently overrated and many Q4 kids are currently underrated.

Your recap is also exaggerated 😄

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Look, I get that coaches and clubs don't want to admit that they have been picking teams mostly on athletesism/age and it will be a little awkward and embarrassing as it becomes clear their scouting or stated another way, king maker skills, are questionable. But starting some misinformation campaign that birth month doesn't matter when the bulk of their top teams are currently on the older side of the year just make them seem pathetic.

I guess no one notices all the PP is saying is that the BY to SY change won't make a bad player a good player.

So parents with bad players that will become an overnight Q1 should temper their glee and excitement

I read back a bunch of pages, and I don't see where the "expert" is getting that characterization of the thread from. No one said anything about bad Q4 players becoming A team starters after a change. And no one said anything about *good* Q1 players actually having *bad* decision making, *poor* agility, *poor* skills etc. That's a wild exaggeration of what anyone said. People just said that many Q1 kids are currently overrated and many Q4 kids are currently underrated.

Your recap is also exaggerated 😄

Really? This was the exact line:

I have no idea why this narrative has taken over this thread that all these Q1 and Q2 kids with low technical skills, bad decision making, poor iq and the agility of a newborn giraff have an automatic advantage over a Q4 who is actually a good soccer player.

[Anonymous]

One thing is clear, based on these 258 pages, the E in ECNL is definitely an exaggeration

Elite players and parents of truly elite players aren't neurotic about this little distraction

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:One thing is clear, based on these 258 pages, the E in ECNL is definitely an exaggeration

Elite players and parents of truly elite players aren't neurotic about this little distraction

I'm sorry for your loss.