DA vs ECNL vs everything else

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

The Relative Age Effect, Height and Weight Characteristics
http://www.mdpi.com/2075-4663/5/4/92/pdf

"The results from the 19 year-olds are quite different, since one out of five was born in the first three months and three out of ten were born in the last three months; this was the only age group with no significant differences among the quarters."


An Examination of the Relative Age Effect in Developmental Girls' Hockey in Ontario
"The relative age effect (RAE) suggests that athletes born earlier in a sport’s selection year are provided with greater opportunities for athletic success. While the effect has been well established in men’s sports, little work has been directed at examining the RAE in women’s sports. The purpose of the present study was to take an exploratory look at the RAE in developmental girls’ hockey in Ontario. Relative age, community location and size, player position, age division, and level of play information were provided by the O.W.H.A. for 36,555 registrants."

"The research was done with the hypothesis that females - due to earlier puberty - would not show an age effect (RAE) at the later ages. But that was not supported by the data. This hypothesis was not supported for the novice, atom, peewee, bantam, and midget divisions. These divisions reached both statistical and practical significance, providing support that the RAE is now present in developmental girls’ hockey."

Turns out age matters. Even if girls don't get bigger, the way they develop muscle changes over time. Which is why experts notice players don't peak until their mid-20s, sometimes later. Across multiple sports in fact. This isn't just a soccer thing.

So yeah, it does matter.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

You are welcome.

The older they get the more true it should be. Technical technical technical with increasing speed of thought is what it's all about in pre-teen. Once they hit teens, in an elite environment, it should be about maximum pressure to test for grit.

Training centers stop because the DA is supposed to be accumulating the talent from there, with the support of the scouts funneling non DA players to DA environments.

There are places if the young woman is dead set on being a pro and are willing to give up scholarship dollars. There is nothing stopping them from going pro just like men, but there are certainly a lot fewer options. And for now, there are only a handful of pro teams outside america that could beat UNC, Stanford, or Penn State playing by college rules. They'd play prettier, more technical soccer, they'd get overrun by american athleticism by college rules. If they played with FIFA 3 sub rules, it would make it much more likely college teams would fall. If DD has sniffs at national team, going pro as early as possible is a great idea. College soccer RUINS technical and creative players while elevating great athletes with adequate skills. To go pro, give up the college scholarship. Just go to a cheaper school online while being a pro in Europe. Going pro in America is harder because the league is also very physical and fast, but it should become more of an option if the league expands in both teams and roster sizes as I've heard it will be.

[Anonymous]

I see play ups get physically over-powered on the field again and again and again.

The muscle and build of an 18 year old is different than a 14 year old. It's visually obvious. Go look at a U19 team and compare them to a U15 team. You don't even have to leave your house. Just look at youtube. Check out the US Soccer play offs.

Saying otherwise just sounds ridiculous.

[Anonymous]

Let use common sense

The reason US soccer changed the age grouping to align with the rest of the world was because we were rewarding and developing the late birthdays (August -December) and not the early birthdays (Jan-May) like the rest of world.

US SOCCER ADMITTED that this was a HUGE disadvantage to our competiveness because we had a lot of early birthday kids on B teams not being properly developed. So they changed it. Now most of the top teams in the country are full of early birthdays kids (Jan-May).

Who got screwed in all of this? The Aug-Dec kids who skipped an entire year of developed and moved up an age. Who was rewarded? The Jan - May kids.

Anyone who witnessed this change knows that 6 months is a BIG DEAL. Let alone a 11 or 10 months.

So what are they trying to do know? Bio-banding. Which I am against because at the end of the day, you need to be competitive against older kids if you want to play HS or College.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
You are welcome.

The older they get the more true it should be. Technical technical technical with increasing speed of thought is what it's all about in pre-teen. Once they hit teens, in an elite environment, it should be about maximum pressure to test for grit.

Training centers stop because the DA is supposed to be accumulating the talent from there, with the support of the scouts funneling non DA players to DA environments.

There are places if the young woman is dead set on being a pro and are willing to give up scholarship dollars. There is nothing stopping them from going pro just like men, but there are certainly a lot fewer options. And for now, there are only a handful of pro teams outside america that could beat UNC, Stanford, or Penn State playing by college rules. They'd play prettier, more technical soccer, they'd get overrun by american athleticism by college rules. If they played with FIFA 3 sub rules, it would make it much more likely college teams would fall. If DD has sniffs at national team, going pro as early as possible is a great idea. College soccer RUINS technical and creative players while elevating great athletes with adequate skills. To go pro, give up the college scholarship. Just go to a cheaper school online while being a pro in Europe. Going pro in America is harder because the league is also very physical and fast, but it should become more of an option if the league expands in both teams and roster sizes as I've heard it will be.

Politics still controls the scouts, and powerful coaches and clubs still set the agenda and the funnel. But enough of that.

College will always be there, and there are academic dollars to be had anyways later on if it comes to that. If you have any information to share of where to go pro outside of the US, please do share. There is hardly any information here that I know of. I know conceptually Europe has a pathway, but I have failed to find out how. Yes, UNC could win based on college soccer rules and brutish American physicality (and yes, I was a brute myself back in the day), but my DD is a technical player. I would hate to see her have to give up on it just because neither of us knew how to go about it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

The Relative Age Effect, Height and Weight Characteristics
http://www.mdpi.com/2075-4663/5/4/92/pdf

"The results from the 19 year-olds are quite different, since one out of five was born in the first three months and three out of ten were born in the last three months; this was the only age group with no significant differences among the quarters."


An Examination of the Relative Age Effect in Developmental Girls' Hockey in Ontario
"The relative age effect (RAE) suggests that athletes born earlier in a sport’s selection year are provided with greater opportunities for athletic success. While the effect has been well established in men’s sports, little work has been directed at examining the RAE in women’s sports. The purpose of the present study was to take an exploratory look at the RAE in developmental girls’ hockey in Ontario. Relative age, community location and size, player position, age division, and level of play information were provided by the O.W.H.A. for 36,555 registrants."

"The research was done with the hypothesis that females - due to earlier puberty - would not show an age effect (RAE) at the later ages. But that was not supported by the data. This hypothesis was not supported for the novice, atom, peewee, bantam, and midget divisions. These divisions reached both statistical and practical significance, providing support that the RAE is now present in developmental girls’ hockey."

Turns out age matters. Even if girls don't get bigger, the way they develop muscle changes over time. Which is why experts notice players don't peak until their mid-20s, sometimes later. Across multiple sports in fact. This isn't just a soccer thing.

So yeah, it does matter.

RAE is nothing more than selection bias based on SIZE which at younger ages that correlates birth months. But that is just one part of the RAE. The early selection bias has a cumulative affect in regards to self filling prophecy in that those early ID'd kids based on size and speed due to little more than having 8 months more to grow at the age of 9 than their peers. Those kids get put on "better" teams, with the best coaches and the opportunity to play against the best. They are given every developmental advantage that their younger kids did not get.

Yes, women will continue to grow until they are 20 but not significantly as a course of natural growth patterns. Training to build muscle or sport specific functional fitness above 17 years old is more a matter of nurture not nature. One could stop playing all together and due to poor nutrition continue to "grow" as well.

But we aren't talking about girls in their mid 20's, we are talking about the real difference between a 15 year old girl and a 17 year old girl. And for all intents and purposes the actual significant differences are set. A 90th percentile in height 17 year old is not getting shorter and 15 year old 50th percentile in height is not jumping to 90th percentile in a year either. If that 17 year old is 3 inches taller than a 50th percentile 15 kid by 3 inches in two years that 15 year old will have barely added half an inch.

This is much different than the difference between two 50th percentile kids just one year apart at 10-11 years old which can be 3 inches based on nothing more than 11 months and nearly 6 inches worth of growth from 10-12 years old. This is why RAE is so damaging to younger kids.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

The Relative Age Effect, Height and Weight Characteristics
http://www.mdpi.com/2075-4663/5/4/92/pdf

"The results from the 19 year-olds are quite different, since one out of five was born in the first three months and three out of ten were born in the last three months; this was the only age group with no significant differences among the quarters."


An Examination of the Relative Age Effect in Developmental Girls' Hockey in Ontario
"The relative age effect (RAE) suggests that athletes born earlier in a sport’s selection year are provided with greater opportunities for athletic success. While the effect has been well established in men’s sports, little work has been directed at examining the RAE in women’s sports. The purpose of the present study was to take an exploratory look at the RAE in developmental girls’ hockey in Ontario. Relative age, community location and size, player position, age division, and level of play information were provided by the O.W.H.A. for 36,555 registrants."

"The research was done with the hypothesis that females - due to earlier puberty - would not show an age effect (RAE) at the later ages. But that was not supported by the data. This hypothesis was not supported for the novice, atom, peewee, bantam, and midget divisions. These divisions reached both statistical and practical significance, providing support that the RAE is now present in developmental girls’ hockey."

Turns out age matters. Even if girls don't get bigger, the way they develop muscle changes over time. Which is why experts notice players don't peak until their mid-20s, sometimes later. Across multiple sports in fact. This isn't just a soccer thing.

So yeah, it does matter.

RAE is nothing more than selection bias based on SIZE which at younger ages that correlates birth months. But that is just one part of the RAE. The early selection bias has a cumulative affect in regards to self filling prophecy in that those early ID'd kids based on size and speed due to little more than having 8 months more to grow at the age of 9 than their peers. Those kids get put on "better" teams, with the best coaches and the opportunity to play against the best. They are given every developmental advantage that their younger kids did not get.

Yes, women will continue to grow until they are 20 but not significantly as a course of natural growth patterns. Training to build muscle or sport specific functional fitness above 17 years old is more a matter of nurture not nature. One could stop playing all together and due to poor nutrition continue to "grow" as well.

But we aren't talking about girls in their mid 20's, we are talking about the real difference between a 15 year old girl and a 17 year old girl. And for all intents and purposes the actual significant differences are set. A 90th percentile in height 17 year old is not getting shorter and 15 year old 50th percentile in height is not jumping to 90th percentile in a year either. If that 17 year old is 3 inches taller than a 50th percentile 15 kid by 3 inches in two years that 15 year old will have barely added half an inch.

This is much different than the difference between two 50th percentile kids just one year apart at 10-11 years old which can be 3 inches based on nothing more than 11 months and nearly 6 inches worth of growth from 10-12 years old. This is why RAE is so damaging to younger kids.

Women may not get significantly taller, but their muscle mass changes, even between 15 years old and 17 years old. I can look at a U17 and U15 group mixed together and easily identify who is who without knowing or being told.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Let use common sense

The reason US soccer changed the age grouping to align with the rest of the world was because we were rewarding and developing the late birthdays (August -December) and not the early birthdays (Jan-May) like the rest of world.

US SOCCER ADMITTED that this was a HUGE disadvantage to our competiveness because we had a lot of early birthday kids on B teams not being properly developed. So they changed it. Now most of the top teams in the country are full of early birthdays kids (Jan-May).

Who got screwed in all of this? The Aug-Dec kids who skipped an entire year of developed and moved up an age. Who was rewarded? The Jan - May kids.

Anyone who witnessed this change knows that 6 months is a BIG DEAL. Let alone a 11 or 10 months.

So what are they trying to do know? Bio-banding.

+1. It is a HUGE deal, and anyone who pretends otherwise either has a girl who hasn't reached that age or underestimates the impact of her youth.

[Anonymous]

Pre-puberty, the differences between kids are actually not nearly as significant as during the middle school and high school years when some kids have hit puberty while others haven't.

It isn't the ulittles where age differences are as pronounced. It is definitely during adolescence and the transition from a kid to an adult.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Let use common sense

The reason US soccer changed the age grouping to align with the rest of the world was because we were rewarding and developing the late birthdays (August -December) and not the early birthdays (Jan-May) like the rest of world.

US SOCCER ADMITTED that this was a HUGE disadvantage to our competiveness because we had a lot of early birthday kids on B teams not being properly developed. So they changed it. Now most of the top teams in the country are full of early birthdays kids (Jan-May).

Who got screwed in all of this? The Aug-Dec kids who skipped an entire year of developed and moved up an age. Who was rewarded? The Jan - May kids.

Anyone who witnessed this change knows that 6 months is a BIG DEAL. Let alone a 11 or 10 months.

So what are they trying to do know? Bio-banding.

+1. It is a HUGE deal, and anyone who pretends otherwise either has a girl who hasn't reached that age or underestimates the impact of her youth.

And bio-banding is useful during the puberty years, NOT beyond 16 year old girls.

[Anonymous]

Sure, by junior year/senior year, body size evens out and bio-banding isn't a factor, nor is it done.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I see play ups get physically over-powered on the field again and again and again.

The muscle and build of an 18 year old is different than a 14 year old. It's visually obvious. Go look at a U19 team and compare them to a U15 team. You don't even have to leave your house. Just look at youtube. Check out the US Soccer play offs.

Saying otherwise just sounds ridiculous.

Nobody said otherwise, but the difference between a 18 year old girl in the 70th percentile and a 16 year old girl in the 70th percentile is not significant. Height growth levels off and the weight difference is around 5lbs.

By 17 Girls have hit over 90% of their maturity. There just isn’t much left I. The tank naturally after that. Everything else is training and nutrition.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I see play ups get physically over-powered on the field again and again and again.

The muscle and build of an 18 year old is different than a 14 year old. It's visually obvious. Go look at a U19 team and compare them to a U15 team. You don't even have to leave your house. Just look at youtube. Check out the US Soccer play offs.

Saying otherwise just sounds ridiculous.

Comparing a US Soccer DA U-19 team to a U15 team doesn’t prove that 18 year olds are bigger than 16 year olds, it only proves selection bias that after 18 can be more reliably predicted.

It is well known that colleges like to scout 15-16 year old girls because it is the earliest look at a player with the most predictable projections for college age.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I see play ups get physically over-powered on the field again and again and again.

The muscle and build of an 18 year old is different than a 14 year old. It's visually obvious. Go look at a U19 team and compare them to a U15 team. You don't even have to leave your house. Just look at youtube. Check out the US Soccer play offs.

Saying otherwise just sounds ridiculous.

Nobody said otherwise, but the difference between a 18 year old girl in the 70th percentile and a 16 year old girl in the 70th percentile is not significant. Height growth levels off and the weight difference is around 5lbs.

By 17 Girls have hit over 90% of their maturity. There just isn’t much left I. The tank naturally after that. Everything else is training and nutrition.

The early developer always benefits. Yes, that gap closes as they get older...but until then...

USSF decided who benefited and who didn't (with the age change).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I see play ups get physically over-powered on the field again and again and again.

The muscle and build of an 18 year old is different than a 14 year old. It's visually obvious. Go look at a U19 team and compare them to a U15 team. You don't even have to leave your house. Just look at youtube. Check out the US Soccer play offs.

Saying otherwise just sounds ridiculous.

Nobody said otherwise, but the difference between a 18 year old girl in the 70th percentile and a 16 year old girl in the 70th percentile is not significant. Height growth levels off and the weight difference is around 5lbs.

By 17 Girls have hit over 90% of their maturity. There just isn’t much left I. The tank naturally after that. Everything else is training and nutrition.

The early developer always benefits. Yes, that gap closes as they get older...but until then...

USSF decided who benefited and who didn't (with the age change).

Agree, but RAE is universal and not limited to the US. All US Soccer did with the age change was align our RAE with the rest of the world. Before the age change our RAE selected “best” for club soccer were 9 months younger than their European counterparts.