DCU14

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The Bethesda MLSNext teams are filled with giants but I think it's because they have so many to choose from. They are not clumsy giants. The kids we know are really smart, have amazing technical skills, and they are big and athletic.

Blue has any kids who are just as smart and skilled as those on the top teams but the kids are smaller. It's really noticeable if you ever see the teams practicing next to each other. It looks like two different age groups.

Well, Bethesda Blue coach (who is arguably the best in region) won’t coach MLSNext - apparently doesn’t like all the travel - so is likely selecting those kids who don’t fit mould of what-works-for-American-football-will-work-for-American-soccer. (Ie big, fast, dumb) The best kept secret is Bethesda blue for development.

Biological marking - picking large kids and largely focusing on their development- is a problem in other countries but smaller countries like Israel account for it by allowing later blooming people to play down. Quelle horrible.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7739788/

What age/ year?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It is correct to say that top ECNL teams are competitive with the non-academy MLS Next teams. It is not correct to say there are "plenty of local ECNL teams in the area that not only compete, but smash, mls next teams routinely." It's not even close to correct.

My son plays on a U14 squad that lost to PP's team at Copa Rayados. (NCFC) They are an excellent team that plays well together, has skilled players, plays a good style, and seems very well coached. They are also one of the top 10 ECNL teams in the country at U14 and are from a region, North Carolina, where ECNL is stronger than MLS Next. I don't believe there are many areas in the country where that is true, and certainly not in our area. Here, Pipeline, Loudon, and VDA are all U14 teams that could beat the local MLS Next squads. The bottom half of the league, however, would not be competitive with any of the MLS Next teams and this is where ECNL falters. I'm thinking of this year's Arlington U14, Baltimore Celtic, BRAVE, VA Union, MD United, etc. MLS Next is much deeper, and good top to bottom.

The one exception to this is, I think, Achilles, who had a poor showing at Copa Rayados and is, from what I hear, in transition.

Plus it was a glorified preseason scrimmage fest. DS team was substituting heavily every game all game. New players getting tested out at different positions. New combinations of returning player/positions....some that didn't work. Established players getting subbed off early to make way for all of this. I noticed all the teams we played (ECNL, MLSN) were substituting a lot.

Yeh, Our coach was playing people at places to try them out in game situations that they will definitely not play during the season. Copa=scrimmages, which is great for starting the season. Had a lot of fun watching the games.

[Anonymous]

substituting a lot

You mean like any other non league game as in showcases that happen year round. Bottom line, regardless if they are subs or not, they are STILL part of said team. Top ECNL teams and Non-MLS academy teams are the same regarding talent level. MLS patch just means you travel more, with less games.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The Bethesda MLSNext teams are filled with giants but I think it's because they have so many to choose from. They are not clumsy giants. The kids we know are really smart, have amazing technical skills, and they are big and athletic.

Blue has any kids who are just as smart and skilled as those on the top teams but the kids are smaller. It's really noticeable if you ever see the teams practicing next to each other. It looks like two different age groups.

Well, Bethesda Blue coach (who is arguably the best in region) won’t coach MLSNext - apparently doesn’t like all the travel - so is likely selecting those kids who don’t fit mould of what-works-for-American-football-will-work-for-American-soccer. (Ie big, fast, dumb) The best kept secret is Bethesda blue for development.

Biological marking - picking large kids and largely focusing on their development- is a problem in other countries but smaller countries like Israel account for it by allowing later blooming people to play down. Quelle horrible.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7739788/

MLS Next allows biobanding as well. The UK popularized it; Oxlade-Chamberlain was biobanded when younger before going to Arsenal.

What is "bio-banding" -- just extending the birth ranges a month or two in either direction so kids at the fringes of the age range could chose to play up/down?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:substituting a lot

You mean like any other non league game as in showcases that happen year round. Bottom line, regardless if they are subs or not, they are STILL part of said team. Top ECNL teams and Non-MLS academy teams are the same regarding talent level. MLS patch just means you travel more, with less games.

What does ECNL, NAL and other patches mean? Doesn't ECNL travel as same amount?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The Bethesda MLSNext teams are filled with giants but I think it's because they have so many to choose from. They are not clumsy giants. The kids we know are really smart, have amazing technical skills, and they are big and athletic.

Blue has any kids who are just as smart and skilled as those on the top teams but the kids are smaller. It's really noticeable if you ever see the teams practicing next to each other. It looks like two different age groups.

Well, Bethesda Blue coach (who is arguably the best in region) won’t coach MLSNext - apparently doesn’t like all the travel - so is likely selecting those kids who don’t fit mould of what-works-for-American-football-will-work-for-American-soccer. (Ie big, fast, dumb) The best kept secret is Bethesda blue for development.

Biological marking - picking large kids and largely focusing on their development- is a problem in other countries but smaller countries like Israel account for it by allowing later blooming people to play down. Quelle horrible.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7739788/

MLS Next allows biobanding as well. The UK popularized it; Oxlade-Chamberlain was biobanded when younger before going to Arsenal.

What is "bio-banding" -- just extending the birth ranges a month or two in either direction so kids at the fringes of the age range could chose to play up/down?

From US Soccer:

"Bio-banding is a method by which players are grouped together based on their maturity and biological age rather than their birth year. During the fall of 2019, U.S. Soccer’s Youth National Team sport scientists visited each of the participating clubs. There they measured the height and weight of each player alongside the biological height of their parents. This information was put into an algorithm that calculates the biological and maturational age of each player, allowing coaches to construct their rosters accordingly."

Some kids develop early, some are late bloomers. Birth year doesn't always correlate with this and you end up with a situation where the 'best' players, the players that get the most playing time, coaching, additional resources tend to be those born in the earlier months of the year.

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/why-athletes-birthdays-affect-who-goes-pro-and-who-becomes-a-star/

"In basketball, baseball and ice hockey, players born in the first quarter of their selection year — the cutoff for which age-group teams are picked, which is normally the school year — are overrepresented both in youth and professional sports. In soccer, players born in the first quarter of their selection year are overrepresented throughout major leagues in Europe and South America."

[Anonymous]

Bio-banding really has little to do with the month a kid is born - at least in its application in the U.S. Currently, only MLS Next utilizes the bio-banding waiver process for boys. Not aware of it being used for girls. It is designed to make sure late bloomers do not get squeezed out of the game because of their small stature compared to same aged peers. People disagree on the degree to which preference for size is a problem with development in US youth soccer, but most agree that it's a problem that often leads to the promotion of athletes and early bloomers over skilled soccer players. Bio-banding is an effort to guard against the system's fixation on size and its detriment to smaller players. Unfortunately, there are few rules for how it is applied in the U.S., and the birth year system is engrained in everyone's mind. So the concept is hard for many to grasp or properly apply.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:In terms of size (parent of a MLSNext kid for a couple of years now), it is really noticeable that they go for size on the defensive side. It is not as noticeable on the attacking side of the field, and I have seen some really small kids on DC United, Philadelphia Union and the Red Bulls. They may be playing up though, which I do not have information on. On thing the know is that MLSNext does bio banding where smaller kids can play down a year. All in all, I haven't seen a drastic difference in size between the teams. Couple of the Jersey teams had some big teams.

The biobanding is funny. Two of the kids tgat were much bigger than my short string bean were playing down. I never understood why they were when there were smaller kids that weren’t.

Yes!!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:substituting a lot

You mean like any other non league game as in showcases that happen year round. Bottom line, regardless if they are subs or not, they are STILL part of said team. Top ECNL teams and Non-MLS academy teams are the same regarding talent level. MLS patch just means you travel more, with less games.

Just stop trying to push this narrative.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Bio-banding really has little to do with the month a kid is born - at least in its application in the U.S. Currently, only MLS Next utilizes the bio-banding waiver process for boys. Not aware of it being used for girls. It is designed to make sure late bloomers do not get squeezed out of the game because of their small stature compared to same aged peers. People disagree on the degree to which preference for size is a problem with development in US youth soccer, but most agree that it's a problem that often leads to the promotion of athletes and early bloomers over skilled soccer players. Bio-banding is an effort to guard against the system's fixation on size and its detriment to smaller players. Unfortunately, there are few rules for how it is applied in the U.S., and the birth year system is engrained in everyone's mind. So the concept is hard for many to grasp or properly apply.

I like the idea of this having a small and late to mature DD, 13… there is a point where it looks kind of dangerous to be playing against much stronger competitors in these transition years. But on another thread it sounded like biobanding was being used to stack younger teams more than assure developmental comparability.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Bio-banding really has little to do with the month a kid is born - at least in its application in the U.S. Currently, only MLS Next utilizes the bio-banding waiver process for boys. Not aware of it being used for girls. It is designed to make sure late bloomers do not get squeezed out of the game because of their small stature compared to same aged peers. People disagree on the degree to which preference for size is a problem with development in US youth soccer, but most agree that it's a problem that often leads to the promotion of athletes and early bloomers over skilled soccer players. Bio-banding is an effort to guard against the system's fixation on size and its detriment to smaller players. Unfortunately, there are few rules for how it is applied in the U.S., and the birth year system is engrained in everyone's mind. So the concept is hard for many to grasp or properly apply.

I like the idea of this having a small and late to mature DD, 13… there is a point where it looks kind of dangerous to be playing against much stronger competitors in these transition years. But on another thread it sounded like biobanding was being used to stack younger teams more than assure developmental comparability.

You mean that some teams are taking a perfectly good idea and taking advantage of it?
Shocking!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Bio-banding really has little to do with the month a kid is born - at least in its application in the U.S. Currently, only MLS Next utilizes the bio-banding waiver process for boys. Not aware of it being used for girls. It is designed to make sure late bloomers do not get squeezed out of the game because of their small stature compared to same aged peers. People disagree on the degree to which preference for size is a problem with development in US youth soccer, but most agree that it's a problem that often leads to the promotion of athletes and early bloomers over skilled soccer players. Bio-banding is an effort to guard against the system's fixation on size and its detriment to smaller players. Unfortunately, there are few rules for how it is applied in the U.S., and the birth year system is engrained in everyone's mind. So the concept is hard for many to grasp or properly apply.

I like the idea of this having a small and late to mature DD, 13… there is a point where it looks kind of dangerous to be playing against much stronger competitors in these transition years. But on another thread it sounded like biobanding was being used to stack younger teams more than assure developmental comparability.

You mean that some teams are taking a perfectly good idea and taking advantage of it?
Shocking!

MLS Next has strict requirements to permit players to bioband, and they enforce them. And most players at that age are highly reluctant to play down an age. Though it may be physically less challenging, the speed of play is slower, and when they go back to normal age group, they know they will be at a disadvantage for some time until readjusting. Don't get carried away unless you know how this actually works and applies.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The Bethesda MLSNext teams are filled with giants but I think it's because they have so many to choose from. They are not clumsy giants. The kids we know are really smart, have amazing technical skills, and they are big and athletic.

Blue has any kids who are just as smart and skilled as those on the top teams but the kids are smaller. It's really noticeable if you ever see the teams practicing next to each other. It looks like two different age groups.

Well, Bethesda Blue coach (who is arguably the best in region) won’t coach MLSNext - apparently doesn’t like all the travel - so is likely selecting those kids who don’t fit mould of what-works-for-American-football-will-work-for-American-soccer. (Ie big, fast, dumb) The best kept secret is Bethesda blue for development.

Biological marking - picking large kids and largely focusing on their development- is a problem in other countries but smaller countries like Israel account for it by allowing later blooming people to play down. Quelle horrible.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7739788/

MLS Next allows biobanding as well. The UK popularized it; Oxlade-Chamberlain was biobanded when younger before going to Arsenal.

What is "bio-banding" -- just extending the birth ranges a month or two in either direction so kids at the fringes of the age range could chose to play up/down?

From US Soccer:

"Bio-banding is a method by which players are grouped together based on their maturity and biological age rather than their birth year. During the fall of 2019, U.S. Soccer’s Youth National Team sport scientists visited each of the participating clubs. There they measured the height and weight of each player alongside the biological height of their parents. This information was put into an algorithm that calculates the biological and maturational age of each player, allowing coaches to construct their rosters accordingly."

Some kids develop early, some are late bloomers. Birth year doesn't always correlate with this and you end up with a situation where the 'best' players, the players that get the most playing time, coaching, additional resources tend to be those born in the earlier months of the year.

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/why-athletes-birthdays-affect-who-goes-pro-and-who-becomes-a-star/

"In basketball, baseball and ice hockey, players born in the first quarter of their selection year — the cutoff for which age-group teams are picked, which is normally the school year — are overrepresented both in youth and professional sports. In soccer, players born in the first quarter of their selection year are overrepresented throughout major leagues in Europe and South America."

Interesting - thanks! Happy to know that more thought and effort are put into it behind just adding some wiggle room around the fringes based on birthday. It’s quite possible that a kid who wasn’t born late in the year is still late at maturing, and it sound like they’ve taken that into account.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Mediocrity is what happens when you pick huge, seemingly athletic kids with little consideration given to soccer skills, IQ, attitude, or desire. You'd think American academies would have learned after a few decades. They haven't.

What does this generic statement have to do with the current DC United U14's squad?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Mediocrity is what happens when you pick huge, seemingly athletic kids with little consideration given to soccer skills, IQ, attitude, or desire. You'd think American academies would have learned after a few decades. They haven't.

THIS. The overwhelming emphasis on boys who are huge for their age can really hurt the overall team if they don't have the skills or aren't given extra training. DCU isn't unique in this, it seems pretty widespread that teams are quick to take a U14 kid who looks like he drove himself to practice because he's gigantic.

I might be crazy, but, aren't there different skill levels in small size and average size players? Wouldn't the same apply to physically bigger players? Why is the assumption automatic that 'Big' can't play well?