DA vs ECNL vs everything else

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:"Last year was an exception. Spirit has already said they won't be doing that again"

Don't be so sure about that.

You have beaten that drum endlessly today. Can we take a break from the PR campaign? We've all chosen clubs, made deposits, maybe started practices. Give it a rest until next season's tryouts, why don't you?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

They are a negative to winning games, but they enhance player development for both the player who plays up and the team they left.

Sometimes that's true. Sometimes they are just a negative. Sometimes they enhance player development for the player who plays up but hurt development for the team they are playing up on, both by their lesser tactical understanding and also by sitting age appropriate players.

Occasional playing up is good for challenge and growth but regular playing up often leads to less confidence on the ball and play ups rushing passes to avoid losing the ball.

Or, put another way, when FCV does it then it is for developmental purposes and is better, when Spirit does it, well then it is a negative. Is that about right?

No. When it is done occasionally by either club, it is for developmental purposes. When it is done to accommodate a 24 player roster to make sure everyone gets playing time, it is a negative.

The size of the Spirit rosters last year has been hashed over coach. Again, if FCV does it, it is brilliant. If Spirit does it then it is a negative.

Not a coach, but I agree. Last year was an exception. Spirit has already said they won't be doing that again. My comment was about when playing up is a positive and when it is a negative, regardless of who does it: FCV, Spirit, McLean, BRYC (who also by the way did a ton of playing up last year for at least some of their teams), Loudoun, or even our hyper Arlington friends. I don't think FCV always gets it right, but I'm not going to pretend that Spirit didn't make some mistakes last year either.

Sometimes a kid is able to play up because they are big for their age or fast. It's not always an issue of technical skill or ability. So playing up may help because that big kid was winning balls they shouldn't have just because of size when playing in their own age group. Which is what all this talk about bio banding is about (although generally it's said in context of players who are small for their age).

None of these clubs are perfect, so take your kid where he or she will grow the most as a player (which may be different for your son vs your daughter, although it's nice when both can be in the same DA together).

Of course, parents of kids who played up a lot feel the need to defend it. It makes them feel their kid is special - and of course their kid is special. Just like everyone else.

You are citing U-Little reasons for playing up, i.e. size speed etc. By U14, with girls bio-banding is not a reason. There are very few physical freaks at U14 where needing to play-up at U15 is a necessity at a DA or ECNL level.

US Soccer disagrees with you:
https://www.ussoccer.com/stories/2018/04/05/15/45/20180405-news-us-soccer-introduces-bio-banding-initiative
"Participating clubs will form two bio-banded teams, each grouped by similar maturity status made up of players within their U-14, U-15 and U-16/17 rosters."

https://www.ussoccer.com/~/media/files/academy/bio-banding-faq-402018.pdf?la=en
"Early Maturers are often the forgotten beneficiaries of bio-banding. By being more physically dominating for most of their lives in youth soccer, many players can often neglect the need and
importance to develop other attributes (technical, tactical and psychological) which will be required when they become adult soccer players and physical advantages no longer exist. Biobanding groups players of similar physicality together reduces the ability to use physicality as an advantage. This then increases the need to develop and use other attributes. "

By U14, there are still girls who haven't hit puberty. In fact, in the U15s there are girls who haven't hit it, and even in the U17s a few stragglers.

U-littles are not what bio banding is about at all.

Yes, I'm aware of bio-banding but there is far less variance among older girls than among older boys. By age 15 most girls are at 95% of the height that they will ultimately reach. Are there late bloomers growth wise among girls? Sure but not nearly the same as boys who can continue to grow through 20 years old.

Bio-banding is not the reason FCV rostered younger kids up on older teams.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:"Last year was an exception. Spirit has already said they won't be doing that again"

Don't be so sure about that.

You have beaten that drum endlessly today. Can we take a break from the PR campaign? We've all chosen clubs, made deposits, maybe started practices. Give it a rest until next season's tryouts, why don't you?

I'm not here for your entertainment.

I'll help you

1, 2, 3..log off

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
Yes, I'm aware of bio-banding but there is far less variance among older girls than among older boys. By age 15 most girls are at 95% of the height that they will ultimately reach. Are there late bloomers growth wise among girls? Sure but not nearly the same as boys who can continue to grow through 20 years old.

Bio-banding is not the reason FCV rostered younger kids up on older teams.

More on bio banding with girls' teams:
https://www.ussoccer.com/stories/2018/04/26/21/28/20180426-news-first-ever-biologically-banded-games-bring-awareness-to-player-development-initiative

"With rosters of 16-18 players, each team was bio-banded by a five percent maturity range. For the four boys’ sides, that band was 91-96%, while the band on the girls’ side was 95-99%. Any player in the club’s pool of Academy players between U-13 (birth year 2005) to U-16 (birth year 2002), who’s current percentage to final maturity was between the five percent band, was eligible for roster selection. Of the 135 players falling in the bands and selected by their club to participate, 24 (18%) came from U-13 teams, 55 (41%) from U-14, 54 (40%) from U-15 and 2 (1%) from U-16."

I can't say why FCV did or didn't do it. Again, I was talking conceptually. And with the change from school year to calendar year, somewhat oddly I have noticed an increase in size differences. The difference between girls and boys is not 5 years wide. That's just ridiculous. Plenty of girls continue to grow as well, and I myself as a woman did not reach my full height until college.

Look, playing up is sometimes a negative; sometimes a positive. Facts. It's a case by case basis, but I also know of girls who have not hit puberty yet and are rising U17s. Also a fact. I have also seen girls who hit puberty early and at U14 are big compared to other girls on the team. Case by base, but for a big, physical U14, playing up to the U15s may require her to play more technical and not use her size as the ball winner.

Now, I'm done with this game of tennis. You can keep the discussion going with yourself.

Peace out.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Yes, I'm aware of bio-banding but there is far less variance among older girls than among older boys. By age 15 most girls are at 95% of the height that they will ultimately reach. Are there late bloomers growth wise among girls? Sure but not nearly the same as boys who can continue to grow through 20 years old.

Bio-banding is not the reason FCV rostered younger kids up on older teams.

More on bio banding with girls' teams:
https://www.ussoccer.com/stories/2018/04/26/21/28/20180426-news-first-ever-biologically-banded-games-bring-awareness-to-player-development-initiative

"With rosters of 16-18 players, each team was bio-banded by a five percent maturity range. For the four boys’ sides, that band was 91-96%, while the band on the girls’ side was 95-99%. Any player in the club’s pool of Academy players between U-13 (birth year 2005) to U-16 (birth year 2002), who’s current percentage to final maturity was between the five percent band, was eligible for roster selection. Of the 135 players falling in the bands and selected by their club to participate, 24 (18%) came from U-13 teams, 55 (41%) from U-14, 54 (40%) from U-15 and 2 (1%) from U-16."

I can't say why FCV did or didn't do it. Again, I was talking conceptually. And with the change from school year to calendar year, somewhat oddly I have noticed an increase in size differences. The difference between girls and boys is not 5 years wide. That's just ridiculous. Plenty of girls continue to grow as well, and I myself as a woman did not reach my full height until college.

Look, playing up is sometimes a negative; sometimes a positive. Facts. It's a case by case basis, but I also know of girls who have not hit puberty yet and are rising U17s. Also a fact. I have also seen girls who hit puberty early and at U14 are big compared to other girls on the team. Case by base, but for a big, physical U14, playing up to the U15s may require her to play more technical and not use her size as the ball winner.

Now, I'm done with this game of tennis. You can keep the discussion going with yourself.

Peace out.

The disconnect is that bio-banding is NOT about playing up, in fact, it is about the opposite. Playing up has always existed as a solution for the early maturing kids. Bio-banding is intended to allow the smaller kid to play at the physical maturity age, not chronological age. So, for example, a small 04 based on age averages they would be allowed to play with 05's.

[Anonymous]

Biobanding is for early maturers and for late maturers. It is for both.

Playing up isn't about biobanding, but was brought up in the context of why some kids who play up are effective because of biobanding related reasons: they are big for their age.

Other kids who have a lot of technical skill but are late bloomers may be EDP this year because they are small for their age.

[Anonymous]

Lot of kids that played up and were later brought down showed no signs of accelerated development.

My point: Playing up is over valued.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Biobanding is for early maturers and for late maturers. It is for both.

Playing up isn't about biobanding, but was brought up in the context of why some kids who play up are effective because of biobanding related reasons: they are big for their age.

Other kids who have a lot of technical skill but are late bloomers may be EDP this year because they are small for their age.

As I said, we have always had a obvious solution for early bloomers, playing up.

Playing up worked fine for those kids but MANY smaller, late maturing kids absolutely get overlooked. There was no obvious solution because there are no league rules that allow older kids to play on younger teams. Bio-banding is a intriguing and a promising initiative. And while bio-banding does serve both ends of the spectrum size wise it is mostly intended to keep those forgotten smaller kids in the game and developing because there is just no other obvious solution for those overlooked players unlike their early blooming counterparts.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Biobanding is for early maturers and for late maturers. It is for both.

Playing up isn't about biobanding, but was brought up in the context of why some kids who play up are effective because of biobanding related reasons: they are big for their age.

Other kids who have a lot of technical skill but are late bloomers may be EDP this year because they are small for their age.

As I said, we have always had a obvious solution for early bloomers, playing up.

Playing up worked fine for those kids but MANY smaller, late maturing kids absolutely get overlooked. There was no obvious solution because there are no league rules that allow older kids to play on younger teams. Bio-banding is a intriguing and a promising initiative. And while bio-banding does serve both ends of the spectrum size wise it is mostly intended to keep those forgotten smaller kids in the game and developing because there is just no other obvious solution for those overlooked players unlike their early blooming counterparts.

Yes there is. Stop awarding physical play and award technical play.

Easy. Done. Now take your bio banding and shove it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Lot of kids that played up and were later brought down showed no signs of accelerated development.

My point: Playing up is over valued.

+1. I couldn't agree more.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Lot of kids that played up and were later brought down showed no signs of accelerated development.

My point: Playing up is over valued.

All that really means is the at age kids simply developed to the same level but that does not mean the playup did not develop. In most instances kids play-up for as long as there is a developmental gap between the player and their true at age cohort to make playing up worthwhile. When that gap naturally closes the kid returns to at age and everyone ideally is developmentally on the same page which may not have been the same two years earlier.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Biobanding is for early maturers and for late maturers. It is for both.

Playing up isn't about biobanding, but was brought up in the context of why some kids who play up are effective because of biobanding related reasons: they are big for their age.

Other kids who have a lot of technical skill but are late bloomers may be EDP this year because they are small for their age.

As I said, we have always had a obvious solution for early bloomers, playing up.

Playing up worked fine for those kids but MANY smaller, late maturing kids absolutely get overlooked. There was no obvious solution because there are no league rules that allow older kids to play on younger teams. Bio-banding is a intriguing and a promising initiative. And while bio-banding does serve both ends of the spectrum size wise it is mostly intended to keep those forgotten smaller kids in the game and developing because there is just no other obvious solution for those overlooked players unlike their early blooming counterparts.

Yes there is. Stop awarding physical play and award technical play.

Easy. Done. Now take your bio banding and shove it.

Bio-banding does award technical play because it is intended to minimize the affect that physical size. If a kid is the biggest and fastest kid on the team then they are not learning how to play in a technical fashion because they can simply outrun or outmuscle other kids.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Lot of kids that played up and were later brought down showed no signs of accelerated development.

My point: Playing up is over valued.

All that really means is the at age kids simply developed to the same level but that does not mean the playup did not develop. In most instances kids play-up for as long as there is a developmental gap between the player and their true at age cohort to make playing up worthwhile. When that gap naturally closes the kid returns to at age and everyone ideally is developmentally on the same page which may not have been the same two years earlier.

And then gets surpassed by the kid that never played up. See that a few times as well.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Biobanding is for early maturers and for late maturers. It is for both.

Playing up isn't about biobanding, but was brought up in the context of why some kids who play up are effective because of biobanding related reasons: they are big for their age.

Other kids who have a lot of technical skill but are late bloomers may be EDP this year because they are small for their age.

As I said, we have always had a obvious solution for early bloomers, playing up.

Playing up worked fine for those kids but MANY smaller, late maturing kids absolutely get overlooked. There was no obvious solution because there are no league rules that allow older kids to play on younger teams. Bio-banding is a intriguing and a promising initiative. And while bio-banding does serve both ends of the spectrum size wise it is mostly intended to keep those forgotten smaller kids in the game and developing because there is just no other obvious solution for those overlooked players unlike their early blooming counterparts.

Yes there is. Stop awarding physical play and award technical play.

Easy. Done. Now take your bio banding and shove it.

Bio-banding does award technical play because it is intended to minimize the affect that physical size. If a kid is the biggest and fastest kid on the team then they are not learning how to play in a technical fashion because they can simply outrun or outmuscle other kids.

Then put the biggest fastest player up an age and make them the center back. Done.

[Anonymous]

Anyone know of a player that was the next big thing at 10 because he/she was so advanced for their age but ended up being average because everyone caught up?

How about the kid that was nobody and became a somebody.

Take it all with a grain of salt.