DA vs ECNL vs everything else

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Playing up is relative. It is understood that a kid who plays up may not actually be the BEST player on the at age team. But, for a number of reasons the only way that a player may achieve their best possible self is for a couple of years play with kids their size or experience level until the same age kids either catch up in physical maturity themselves or simply in experience. But that play up kid likely would not have developed much at all if they stayed at age relying their physical attributes instead of learning to play properly and being forced use technical skills.

Think of playing up like a kid learning to walk. Just because your kid started walking at 9 months does not mean that they will be a superior walker over the kid who learned to walk at 13 months.

A kid at 9 years old who is bigger and faster and has played soccer for, GASP, one more year than their other 9 year old teammates will look dramatically better. So that player plays up, the other kids stay at age, develop and over time grow and the initial year of experience disappears.

[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.

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

Also true. Playing up doesn't mean a player is better, any more than not playing up doesn't mean a player is average. It's often about size and speed. That tends to even out over time.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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

Also true. Playing up doesn't mean a player is better, any more than not playing up doesn't mean a player is average. It's often about size and speed. That tends to even out over time.

When used properly playing up is simply a development option. In a relative sense it could mean that the player is far more advanced than their peers in all areas of the game. For some kids who are at a similar level as their peers technically but are so much bigger, stronger and faster than their peers that they are not developing their technical ability at the expense of dominating kids athletically which forces their technical game to stagnate because they have little reason or opportunity to be forced to use and develop their foot skills, aka Early Bloomers.

I think the kid who everyone here is championing as not any better is generally the early bloomer.

Playing up is not for everyone and frankly is not needed for everyone but even with the early bloomer there is no sense in having a kid twice the size of their peers running over people for the sole reason because they are the same age.

[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.

Interesting observation. I have also made a similar observation. For a significant amount of them, when returned to their age group, these players showed little to no leadership skills (in fact, maybe the opposite) and no greater meaningful play than their peers. When discussing the advantages of playing up, I would expect social/emotional iq development to be a consideration too which is why leadership is mentioned, among the typical things, like physicality, speed of play, tactics, etc.

However, I have seen some that have benefitted by the exposure, but it's still too early to tell how long the accelerated development will last.

[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.

Interesting observation. I have also made a similar observation. For a significant amount of them, when returned to their age group, these players showed little to no leadership skills (in fact, maybe the opposite) and no greater meaningful play than their peers. When discussing the advantages of playing up, I would expect social/emotional iq development to be a consideration too which is why leadership is mentioned, among the typical things, like physicality, speed of play, tactics, etc.

However, I have seen some that have benefitted by the exposure, but it's still too early to tell how long the accelerated development will last.

Again, the expectations of playing up are not rooted in reality.

A kid who plays up does so in order to be appropriately challenged in a way that their at age peer group may not provide at that point in time. The player may be larger and faster or simply more technically developed.

At 9 or 10 years old these are not insurmountable gaps that the at age kids cannot make significant gains. At 9 or 10 years old realistically small gaps in size or technical ability can seem much larger at younger ages but in fact narrow after a couple of seasons.

So when a player returns to age the expectation is that they should be vastly superior misses the point. The at age kids developed to the point where there was no longer a need for the play up to continue to do so but that does not mean the play up did not in fact develop. And not only did kids on the team develop but also the opposition developed as well thus narrowing the overall gap that was more obvious at 9 or 10 years old.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Interesting observation. I have also made a similar observation. For a significant amount of them, when returned to their age group, these players showed little to no leadership skills (in fact, maybe the opposite) and no greater meaningful play than their peers. When discussing the advantages of playing up, I would expect social/emotional iq development to be a consideration too which is why leadership is mentioned, among the typical things, like physicality, speed of play, tactics, etc.

However, I have seen some that have benefitted by the exposure, but it's still too early to tell how long the accelerated development will last.

Again, the expectations of playing up are not rooted in reality.

A kid who plays up does so in order to be appropriately challenged in a way that their at age peer group may not provide at that point in time. The player may be larger and faster or simply more technically developed.

At 9 or 10 years old these are not insurmountable gaps that the at age kids cannot make significant gains. At 9 or 10 years old realistically small gaps in size or technical ability can seem much larger at younger ages but in fact narrow after a couple of seasons.

So when a player returns to age the expectation is that they should be vastly superior misses the point. The at age kids developed to the point where there was no longer a need for the play up to continue to do so but that does not mean the play up did not in fact develop. And not only did kids on the team develop but also the opposition developed as well thus narrowing the overall gap that was more obvious at 9 or 10 years old.

We are not discussing Ulittles. We are discussing playing up at DA and ECNL age.

[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.

Interesting observation. I have also made a similar observation. For a significant amount of them, when returned to their age group, these players showed little to no leadership skills (in fact, maybe the opposite) and no greater meaningful play than their peers. When discussing the advantages of playing up, I would expect social/emotional iq development to be a consideration too which is why leadership is mentioned, among the typical things, like physicality, speed of play, tactics, etc.

However, I have seen some that have benefitted by the exposure, but it's still too early to tell how long the accelerated development will last.

You are definitely on point. In fact, it often hinders leadership because the older girls - noticing the lag in tactical understanding - are obviously not going to look to the player for leadership.

But from time to time, playing up on occasion certainly has the value of giving a little extra challenge. It's when playing up is a norm and an agenda that I think some of the above problems come into play.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Interesting observation. I have also made a similar observation. For a significant amount of them, when returned to their age group, these players showed little to no leadership skills (in fact, maybe the opposite) and no greater meaningful play than their peers. When discussing the advantages of playing up, I would expect social/emotional iq development to be a consideration too which is why leadership is mentioned, among the typical things, like physicality, speed of play, tactics, etc.

However, I have seen some that have benefitted by the exposure, but it's still too early to tell how long the accelerated development will last.

Again, the expectations of playing up are not rooted in reality.

A kid who plays up does so in order to be appropriately challenged in a way that their at age peer group may not provide at that point in time. The player may be larger and faster or simply more technically developed.

At 9 or 10 years old these are not insurmountable gaps that the at age kids cannot make significant gains. At 9 or 10 years old realistically small gaps in size or technical ability can seem much larger at younger ages but in fact narrow after a couple of seasons.

So when a player returns to age the expectation is that they should be vastly superior misses the point. The at age kids developed to the point where there was no longer a need for the play up to continue to do so but that does not mean the play up did not in fact develop. And not only did kids on the team develop but also the opposition developed as well thus narrowing the overall gap that was more obvious at 9 or 10 years old.

We are not discussing Ulittles. We are discussing playing up at DA and ECNL age.

And some of the same aspects still apply. Again, there are many reasons to play up, when those reasons are no longer necessary then the kid plays at age and therefor the kids will look similar in skill set. Why is this so hard to understand?

Do people really believe that a 16 year old soccer player is truly significantly better than a 15 year old soccer player? As kids get older the gap between age groups diminish. I used u-littles as an example to demonstrate that a year older kid when 11 to 10 years old would have a much wider gap than 16 year old players to 15 year old kids.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Interesting observation. I have also made a similar observation. For a significant amount of them, when returned to their age group, these players showed little to no leadership skills (in fact, maybe the opposite) and no greater meaningful play than their peers. When discussing the advantages of playing up, I would expect social/emotional iq development to be a consideration too which is why leadership is mentioned, among the typical things, like physicality, speed of play, tactics, etc.

However, I have seen some that have benefitted by the exposure, but it's still too early to tell how long the accelerated development will last.

Again, the expectations of playing up are not rooted in reality.

A kid who plays up does so in order to be appropriately challenged in a way that their at age peer group may not provide at that point in time. The player may be larger and faster or simply more technically developed.

At 9 or 10 years old these are not insurmountable gaps that the at age kids cannot make significant gains. At 9 or 10 years old realistically small gaps in size or technical ability can seem much larger at younger ages but in fact narrow after a couple of seasons.

So when a player returns to age the expectation is that they should be vastly superior misses the point. The at age kids developed to the point where there was no longer a need for the play up to continue to do so but that does not mean the play up did not in fact develop. And not only did kids on the team develop but also the opposition developed as well thus narrowing the overall gap that was more obvious at 9 or 10 years old.

We are not discussing Ulittles. We are discussing playing up at DA and ECNL age.

And some of the same aspects still apply. Again, there are many reasons to play up, when those reasons are no longer necessary then the kid plays at age and therefor the kids will look similar in skill set. Why is this so hard to understand?

Do people really believe that a 16 year old soccer player is truly significantly better than a 15 year old soccer player? As kids get older the gap between age groups diminish. I used u-littles as an example to demonstrate that a year older kid when 11 to 10 years old would have a much wider gap than 16 year old players to 15 year old kids.

It doesn't fully even out until maybe junior/senior year. And quite frankly, most experts would say they don't peak until their mid-20s. So yeah, it can be significantly better. I saw a U18 team beat a U17 team that was technically better. No question it had the better players, but those U18s were not letting their younger counter parts show them up. Of course, that was ECNL. In the DA, the age combination is different, but the rumors of an independent U16 team by next year - for boys and girls alike - are growing.

[Anonymous]

Do you know how many B team kids moves to A teams when USSF changed to birth years. I promise you, a year is a big deal. Heck, 8 months between kids is a big deal. In all sports..not just soccer.

In theory, the younger kids on the team are playing up. For example, a older 03 (9th grade) and a younger 03 (8th grade). Could be as much as 11 months difference in some cases.

As far as the U16 split rumor....doubt it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Do you know how many B team kids moves to A teams when USSF changed to birth years. I promise you, a year is a big deal. Heck, 8 months between kids is a big deal. In all sports..not just soccer.

In theory, the younger kids on the team are playing up. For example, a older 03 (9th grade) and a younger 03 (8th grade). Could be as much as 11 months difference in some cases.

As far as the U16 split rumor....doubt it.

I agree. It is definitely a big deal. And that's a solid point on the 03 example. In fact, it is also a maturity thing, because at times, there is a palpable difference in mentality for a middle schooler vs a high schooler.

Of note, some A team kids moved to B team. It changed the age effect, but it didn't eliminate it. It just moved it around. Of course, US Soccer has a history of its own age effect in place. I read an article that I would have to work to dig up again, but it said something to the effect of US national team players are 90 or 95% January to April births.

[Anonymous]

Maybe this is more about player development instead of DA / ECNL issues, but I (a coach) think all these last few pages about playing up and roster sizes are interesting but have not mentioned the root reasoning players are played up in real clubs. Unfortunately, American does't have many real clubs because the top of 99% of the clubs here is u19, and even the pro clubs have the issue with kids going to college and then dealing with the draft.

That said, the core reasoning players play up around the world and the core reason pro clubs have large rosters is because the best way to develop (develop = "prepare players for succeeding at higher levels of play in the future", not "teaching players to win tomorrow") players at every age above the single digits is to have them COMPETE FOR PLAYING TIME.

Most of this discussion is all focused on games. Win this. Lose that. How many played. How many started. Who started. bleh.

I get in America parents pay dues and travel and treat it like a service they are purchasing, so they expect their kiddos to play in games. I can't argue with that too much because most coaches of american youth teams can't be trusted to actually have any idea what they're doing. They play favorites, bend to parent pressure, and can't ever really work with individual players because they're too busy coaching 3 or 4 teams it takes to be a full time coach in a rich city.

But in a perfect world, players competing for playing time and being fairly judged in earning it is the fundamental theory in how you get the most out of players while identifying the ones who don't have what it takes to really dig deep and fight. That's is the grit players must have to succeed at the highest levels. Real clubs push players early to find out how much grit they have.

A roster of 23 is perfect for this model. It means there are essentially 2 players for every position, with a 3rd GK. Everyone is fighting every day in training to be #1 at their best position. Injuries and in-game form dictate if a #2 gets an opening, and then it's their turn to keep the #1 positions when they get the chance. Sometimes they get a chance at another position and found out their best position isn't what they thought it was!! (don't start commenting about the value of learning multiple positions, I know that is valuable, but it's still better to be the master of one instead of a jack of all trades.

How would you feel at work if you constantly outperformed a co-worker, but they were the one that kept getting bigger bonuses and public recognition? You might accept it, but it has to make you less motivated to go the extra mile. By spreading out playing time and starts without regard of performance and effort in training, your club is doing the same thing to it's players.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Maybe this is more about player development instead of DA / ECNL issues, but I (a coach) think all these last few pages about playing up and roster sizes are interesting but have not mentioned the root reasoning players are played up in real clubs. Unfortunately, American does't have many real clubs because the top of 99% of the clubs here is u19, and even the pro clubs have the issue with kids going to college and then dealing with the draft.

That said, the core reasoning players play up around the world and the core reason pro clubs have large rosters is because the best way to develop (develop = "prepare players for succeeding at higher levels of play in the future", not "teaching players to win tomorrow") players at every age above the single digits is to have them COMPETE FOR PLAYING TIME.

Most of this discussion is all focused on games. Win this. Lose that. How many played. How many started. Who started. bleh.

I get in America parents pay dues and travel and treat it like a service they are purchasing, so they expect their kiddos to play in games. I can't argue with that too much because most coaches of american youth teams can't be trusted to actually have any idea what they're doing. They play favorites, bend to parent pressure, and can't ever really work with individual players because they're too busy coaching 3 or 4 teams it takes to be a full time coach in a rich city.

But in a perfect world, players competing for playing time and being fairly judged in earning it is the fundamental theory in how you get the most out of players while identifying the ones who don't have what it takes to really dig deep and fight. That's is the grit players must have to succeed at the highest levels. Real clubs push players early to find out how much grit they have.

A roster of 23 is perfect for this model. It means there are essentially 2 players for every position, with a 3rd GK. Everyone is fighting every day in training to be #1 at their best position. Injuries and in-game form dictate if a #2 gets an opening, and then it's their turn to keep the #1 positions when they get the chance. Sometimes they get a chance at another position and found out their best position isn't what they thought it was!! (don't start commenting about the value of learning multiple positions, I know that is valuable, but it's still better to be the master of one instead of a jack of all trades.

How would you feel at work if you constantly outperformed a co-worker, but they were the one that kept getting bigger bonuses and public recognition? You might accept it, but it has to make you less motivated to go the extra mile. By spreading out playing time and starts without regard of performance and effort in training, your club is doing the same thing to it's players.

Thank you for your input. While some posters joke about a post coming from a coach, I always took it as just a joke. Not that we actually had coaches reading this nonsense (which most of it is). I will certainly think on what you said about competing for game time.

And is that true of all ages? There is a lot of truth in it, and parents having too much of a controlling say on rosters is a cancer in American soccer. I would even argue the politics is destroying our national teams. Plus, why in the world do training centers stop happening at such young ages? Does US Soccer really think it has already identified all the available talent that early on? Maybe too many questions.

For girls, it is almost impossible to go pro directly in the US. It is practically built into the system that a girl has to go to college. Since you understand the system better than us, can you give advice on how to break out of this sort of environment? Like are there places for young women players you can recommend?

I think for boys, it is simpler, and I certainly know of boys who went to Europe to go pro, but it just seems harder to access for girls - or at least the information is harder to access.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Do you know how many B team kids moves to A teams when USSF changed to birth years. I promise you, a year is a big deal. Heck, 8 months between kids is a big deal. In all sports..not just soccer.

In theory, the younger kids on the team are playing up. For example, a older 03 (9th grade) and a younger 03 (8th grade). Could be as much as 11 months difference in some cases.

As far as the U16 split rumor....doubt it.

The size differences due to age past 15 years old are not a "big deal".

https://www.cdc.gov/growthcharts/data/set1clinical/cj41c022.pdf

For a kid in the 50th percentile the difference in weight from 14 to 15 is just 5lbs and up to 2 inches. Between 16 and 17 girls stop getting taller but will add weight and the difference will be a couple of pounds per year. People tend to gravitate to the extremes by comparing players or kids who are in the 90th and 30th percentile as typical when they are not. So when you see the size difference between kids that make you believe it is a "big deal" you are simply seeing two ends of the spectrum with a gap that by 16 is never going to be closed regardless.

So a 95th percentile 16 year old kid shoving around a 30th percentile 15 year old kid looks bad but give that 15 year old 30th percentile kid one or two years more years to grow and the gap will still be the same. 30th percentile kids just don't all of a sudden become 90th percentile kids in a year or two from 15 to 17 years old.

[Anonymous]

Having a roster of 20 plus kids and giving 11 kids 80 to 90 percent of the playing time is stupid in terms of development. If they are not good enough to play, cut them. Carry the ones that are and let them play.

The cut players can go find another team and PLAY.

Carrying a 20 plus roster and giving equal playing time to kids who are not as good as the starters is dumb as well. Again, only hurting the top half.

Carrying a 20 man roster where there is no real drop off in talent is fine. Just be sure to spread the playing time.

Big rosters are good for coaches...not players.