My kid is on the second team...

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My kid was on the C team until 9th grade and ended up First team All Met in high school and had offers to play in college. Better to get to play regularly than be a bench warmer. And you never know which kids are going to end up being really good. Love of game and good connection with coach are more important than A team, especially at younger ages.

Boys develop even later than girls, many boys aren’t even near full height/size at 15–some are just starting their growth spurt.

Similar story in my house. Turned out to be a Gatorade State player too with lots of offers. Years of getting overlooked, but focused on his technical game young. It paid off.

What paid off? Growing?

Think about where he’d be if he hadn’t grown.

Focusing on technical game young paid off. That’s PP’s point.

And yet if his kid didn’t actually grow the technical work wouldn’t have mattered.

This sums it up .. if you physically dont have the size and more importantly athletic ability the technical players can never catch up. I hate the my sons small but technically better BS. The best are athletes first with acquired technical skills.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Always be playing. Take the slot on the B team - development comes with more game minutes, not sitting on a bench.

Curious how common it is in this area to not make a high school team after being on travel growing up as a kid. I have young kids so that just seems unreal.

Crazy amount of talent in this area and number of travel teams from U16-U19 far exceeds number of high schools that have combined U16-U19 rosters. My kids play travel but I have no expectation they will be able to play for their HS.

Sure, but not all travel soccer is high level. ODSL and lower division NCSL players will struggle to standout in varsity soccer. But I’ve seen rec kids who are very good who didn’t have the money to pay for club make the team. I’ve coached a local high school for 7 years and we always ask the kids to wear a plain black shirt. We don’t find out who their club is or what league is until after. Interestingly enough we pick heavily from CCL and NPL. Perhaps because ECNL and former da kids were less

Sorry. I realized that later.

Think it's a great idea to have the kids wear black. Too many high schools pick the kids before tryouts happen.

I'm not sure what you were going on to say - as your post was curtailed. It almost reads as if you were going to say that you found you were picking CCL/NPL kids over ECNL/DA kids, except that this seems unlikely given that ECNL girls and DA kids of either sex were not permitted to play high school soccer. Still - if that is what you were planning to say - I wonder if that should cause you to wonder whether your own selection process was really identifying the most talented players. Because - while I am quite sure that there are plenty of CCL/NPL players who are better than some ECNL/DA players, I am equally sure that - on average - ECNL/DA players are better than CCL and NPL players - and that if you just picked a player at random from a DA team and another at random from a CCL or NPL team - more often than not the DA player would be better. And I would also suggest that there are very few high school teams in this area (maybe none) where any DA player should fail to make the roster.

Sorry I realized this later. I meant to say they were less likely to tryout and there are just fewer ECNL/ mls next players in general. I would have maybe 2-6 ECNL/ mls next kids in the program out of almost 40 kids ( JV and Varsity). The rest tended to be CCL and npl kids. We have a good mix of NCSL D1 kids and I see that the ODSL and rec kids who surprisingly make it tend to be minority kids. They are really good! But there parents don’t have the ability to pay for high level leagues.

I want to add that just because ECNL/mls next kids aren’t supposed to play high school doesn’t mean they listen to that rule. It’s not good but it happens often.

I agree it happens, but "sometimes" might be a better description than "often". Even now my DS's ex-DA team is ECNL and he is permitted, and intends, to play high school soccer, he is not enjoying much success trying to convince other kids from his club who are at the same high school to play as well. Historically only a handful - certainly less than 25% - played.

I’m not sure about the statistical breakdown. You may be right

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My kid was on the C team until 9th grade and ended up First team All Met in high school and had offers to play in college. Better to get to play regularly than be a bench warmer. And you never know which kids are going to end up being really good. Love of game and good connection with coach are more important than A team, especially at younger ages.

Boys develop even later than girls, many boys aren’t even near full height/size at 15–some are just starting their growth spurt.

Similar story in my house. Turned out to be a Gatorade State player too with lots of offers. Years of getting overlooked, but focused on his technical game young. It paid off.

What paid off? Growing?

Think about where he’d be if he hadn’t grown.

Focusing on technical game young paid off. That’s PP’s point.

And yet if his kid didn’t actually grow the technical work wouldn’t have mattered.

This sums it up .. if you physically dont have the size and more importantly athletic ability the technical players can never catch up. I hate the my sons small but technically better BS. The best are athletes first with acquired technical skills.

I’m not pp. My kid was one of the best athletes prior to growth spurt and early puberty of others in the age group. In males, there is a huge difference in a 13/14-year old fully through puberty and growth spurt and a kid that still looks 9 at 13/14.

So yes he was very technical and athletic but dwarfed by giants...just like his older HS brother could crush him in sports and races. Once he made the physical transformation through puberty/growth spurt —he was again one of the best athletes on the field again. The playing field levels.

Does that make sense? We are a family of college and a few pro athletes (on mom
And dad’s side) so genetics was never an issue.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My kid was on the C team until 9th grade and ended up First team All Met in high school and had offers to play in college. Better to get to play regularly than be a bench warmer. And you never know which kids are going to end up being really good. Love of game and good connection with coach are more important than A team, especially at younger ages.

Boys develop even later than girls, many boys aren’t even near full height/size at 15–some are just starting their growth spurt.

Similar story in my house. Turned out to be a Gatorade State player too with lots of offers. Years of getting overlooked, but focused on his technical game young. It paid off.

What paid off? Growing?

Think about where he’d be if he hadn’t grown.

Focusing on technical game young paid off. That’s PP’s point.

And yet if his kid didn’t actually grow the technical work wouldn’t have mattered.

This sums it up .. if you physically dont have the size and more importantly athletic ability the technical players can never catch up. I hate the my sons small but technically better BS. The best are athletes first with acquired technical skills.

I’m not pp. My kid was one of the best athletes prior to growth spurt and early puberty of others in the age group. In males, there is a huge difference in a 13/14-year old fully through puberty and growth spurt and a kid that still looks 9 at 13/14.

So yes he was very technical and athletic but dwarfed by giants...just like his older HS brother could crush him in sports and races. Once he made the physical transformation through puberty/growth spurt —he was again one of the best athletes on the field again. The playing field levels.

Does that make sense? We are a family of college and a few pro athletes (on mom
And dad’s side) so genetics was never an issue.

I meant I “am that pp” that was quoted.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Always be playing. Take the slot on the B team - development comes with more game minutes, not sitting on a bench.

Curious how common it is in this area to not make a high school team after being on travel growing up as a kid. I have young kids so that just seems unreal.

Crazy amount of talent in this area and number of travel teams from U16-U19 far exceeds number of high schools that have combined U16-U19 rosters. My kids play travel but I have no expectation they will be able to play for their HS.

Sure, but not all travel soccer is high level. ODSL and lower division NCSL players will struggle to standout in varsity soccer. But I’ve seen rec kids who are very good who didn’t have the money to pay for club make the team. I’ve coached a local high school for 7 years and we always ask the kids to wear a plain black shirt. We don’t find out who their club is or what league is until after. Interestingly enough we pick heavily from CCL and NPL. Perhaps because ECNL and former da kids were less

Sorry. I realized that later.

Think it's a great idea to have the kids wear black. Too many high schools pick the kids before tryouts happen.

I'm not sure what you were going on to say - as your post was curtailed. It almost reads as if you were going to say that you found you were picking CCL/NPL kids over ECNL/DA kids, except that this seems unlikely given that ECNL girls and DA kids of either sex were not permitted to play high school soccer. Still - if that is what you were planning to say - I wonder if that should cause you to wonder whether your own selection process was really identifying the most talented players. Because - while I am quite sure that there are plenty of CCL/NPL players who are better than some ECNL/DA players, I am equally sure that - on average - ECNL/DA players are better than CCL and NPL players - and that if you just picked a player at random from a DA team and another at random from a CCL or NPL team - more often than not the DA player would be better. And I would also suggest that there are very few high school teams in this area (maybe none) where any DA player should fail to make the roster.

Sorry I realized this later. I meant to say they were less likely to tryout and there are just fewer ECNL/ mls next players in general. I would have maybe 2-6 ECNL/ mls next kids in the program out of almost 40 kids ( JV and Varsity). The rest tended to be CCL and npl kids. We have a good mix of NCSL D1 kids and I see that the ODSL and rec kids who surprisingly make it tend to be minority kids. They are really good! But there parents don’t have the ability to pay for high level leagues.

I want to add that just because ECNL/mls next kids aren’t supposed to play high school doesn’t mean they listen to that rule. It’s not good but it happens often.

I agree it happens, but "sometimes" might be a better description than "often". Even now my DS's ex-DA team is ECNL and he is permitted, and intends, to play high school soccer, he is not enjoying much success trying to convince other kids from his club who are at the same high school to play as well. Historically only a handful - certainly less than 25% - played.

You're telling the actual hs coach of 7 years comparing to the poll from your kids team. LOL.

Yes. Because we have different perspectives. He sees some number of players try out for his high school team and doesn't really know what percentage that represents of ECNL/DA kids. I - on the other hand have no idea how many ECNL/DA kids play on an average high school team but have many years and multiple DA clubs experience of what percentage of those kids elect to play high school soccer.

So - for that specific piece of information - what percentage of kids on a DA team play HS soccer - my experience is superior to his. For the other question - how mant DA/ECNL kids does he see on a typical HS team - his is superior to mine.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Always be playing. Take the slot on the B team - development comes with more game minutes, not sitting on a bench.

Curious how common it is in this area to not make a high school team after being on travel growing up as a kid. I have young kids so that just seems unreal.

Crazy amount of talent in this area and number of travel teams from U16-U19 far exceeds number of high schools that have combined U16-U19 rosters. My kids play travel but I have no expectation they will be able to play for their HS.

Sure, but not all travel soccer is high level. ODSL and lower division NCSL players will struggle to standout in varsity soccer. But I’ve seen rec kids who are very good who didn’t have the money to pay for club make the team. I’ve coached a local high school for 7 years and we always ask the kids to wear a plain black shirt. We don’t find out who their club is or what league is until after. Interestingly enough we pick heavily from CCL and NPL. Perhaps because ECNL and former da kids were less

Sorry. I realized that later.

Think it's a great idea to have the kids wear black. Too many high schools pick the kids before tryouts happen.

I'm not sure what you were going on to say - as your post was curtailed. It almost reads as if you were going to say that you found you were picking CCL/NPL kids over ECNL/DA kids, except that this seems unlikely given that ECNL girls and DA kids of either sex were not permitted to play high school soccer. Still - if that is what you were planning to say - I wonder if that should cause you to wonder whether your own selection process was really identifying the most talented players. Because - while I am quite sure that there are plenty of CCL/NPL players who are better than some ECNL/DA players, I am equally sure that - on average - ECNL/DA players are better than CCL and NPL players - and that if you just picked a player at random from a DA team and another at random from a CCL or NPL team - more often than not the DA player would be better. And I would also suggest that there are very few high school teams in this area (maybe none) where any DA player should fail to make the roster.

Sorry I realized this later. I meant to say they were less likely to tryout and there are just fewer ECNL/ mls next players in general. I would have maybe 2-6 ECNL/ mls next kids in the program out of almost 40 kids ( JV and Varsity). The rest tended to be CCL and npl kids. We have a good mix of NCSL D1 kids and I see that the ODSL and rec kids who surprisingly make it tend to be minority kids. They are really good! But there parents don’t have the ability to pay for high level leagues.

I want to add that just because ECNL/mls next kids aren’t supposed to play high school doesn’t mean they listen to that rule. It’s not good but it happens often.

I agree it happens, but "sometimes" might be a better description than "often". Even now my DS's ex-DA team is ECNL and he is permitted, and intends, to play high school soccer, he is not enjoying much success trying to convince other kids from his club who are at the same high school to play as well. Historically only a handful - certainly less than 25% - played.

You're telling the actual hs coach of 7 years comparing to the poll from your kids team. LOL.

Yes. Because we have different perspectives. He sees some number of players try out for his high school team and doesn't really know what percentage that represents of ECNL/DA kids. I - on the other hand have no idea how many ECNL/DA kids play on an average high school team but have many years and multiple DA clubs experience of what percentage of those kids elect to play high school soccer.

So - for that specific piece of information - what percentage of kids on a DA team play HS soccer - my experience is superior to his. For the other question - how many DA/ECNL kids does he see on a typical HS team - his is superior to mine.

Oh - and reading a little further down the thread - the coach himself basically acknowledges exactly this. But thanks for your comment.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Always be playing. Take the slot on the B team - development comes with more game minutes, not sitting on a bench.

Curious how common it is in this area to not make a high school team after being on travel growing up as a kid. I have young kids so that just seems unreal.

Crazy amount of talent in this area and number of travel teams from U16-U19 far exceeds number of high schools that have combined U16-U19 rosters. My kids play travel but I have no expectation they will be able to play for their HS.

Sure, but not all travel soccer is high level. ODSL and lower division NCSL players will struggle to standout in varsity soccer. But I’ve seen rec kids who are very good who didn’t have the money to pay for club make the team. I’ve coached a local high school for 7 years and we always ask the kids to wear a plain black shirt. We don’t find out who their club is or what league is until after. Interestingly enough we pick heavily from CCL and NPL. Perhaps because ECNL and former da kids were less

Sorry. I realized that later.

Think it's a great idea to have the kids wear black. Too many high schools pick the kids before tryouts happen.

I'm not sure what you were going on to say - as your post was curtailed. It almost reads as if you were going to say that you found you were picking CCL/NPL kids over ECNL/DA kids, except that this seems unlikely given that ECNL girls and DA kids of either sex were not permitted to play high school soccer. Still - if that is what you were planning to say - I wonder if that should cause you to wonder whether your own selection process was really identifying the most talented players. Because - while I am quite sure that there are plenty of CCL/NPL players who are better than some ECNL/DA players, I am equally sure that - on average - ECNL/DA players are better than CCL and NPL players - and that if you just picked a player at random from a DA team and another at random from a CCL or NPL team - more often than not the DA player would be better. And I would also suggest that there are very few high school teams in this area (maybe none) where any DA player should fail to make the roster.

Sorry I realized this later. I meant to say they were less likely to tryout and there are just fewer ECNL/ mls next players in general. I would have maybe 2-6 ECNL/ mls next kids in the program out of almost 40 kids ( JV and Varsity). The rest tended to be CCL and npl kids. We have a good mix of NCSL D1 kids and I see that the ODSL and rec kids who surprisingly make it tend to be minority kids. They are really good! But there parents don’t have the ability to pay for high level leagues.

I want to add that just because ECNL/mls next kids aren’t supposed to play high school doesn’t mean they listen to that rule. It’s not good but it happens often.

I agree it happens, but "sometimes" might be a better description than "often". Even now my DS's ex-DA team is ECNL and he is permitted, and intends, to play high school soccer, he is not enjoying much success trying to convince other kids from his club who are at the same high school to play as well. Historically only a handful - certainly less than 25% - played.

You're telling the actual hs coach of 7 years comparing to the poll from your kids team. LOL.

Yes. Because we have different perspectives. He sees some number of players try out for his high school team and doesn't really know what percentage that represents of ECNL/DA kids. I - on the other hand have no idea how many ECNL/DA kids play on an average high school team but have many years and multiple DA clubs experience of what percentage of those kids elect to play high school soccer.

So - for that specific piece of information - what percentage of kids on a DA team play HS soccer - my experience is superior to his. For the other question - how mant DA/ECNL kids does he see on a typical HS team - his is superior to mine.

Oh gawd leave it alone already.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My kid was on the C team until 9th grade and ended up First team All Met in high school and had offers to play in college. Better to get to play regularly than be a bench warmer. And you never know which kids are going to end up being really good. Love of game and good connection with coach are more important than A team, especially at younger ages.

Boys develop even later than girls, many boys aren’t even near full height/size at 15–some are just starting their growth spurt.

Similar story in my house. Turned out to be a Gatorade State player too with lots of offers. Years of getting overlooked, but focused on his technical game young. It paid off.

What paid off? Growing?

Think about where he’d be if he hadn’t grown.

Focusing on technical game young paid off. That’s PP’s point.

And yet if his kid didn’t actually grow the technical work wouldn’t have mattered.

This sums it up .. if you physically dont have the size and more importantly athletic ability the technical players can never catch up. I hate the my sons small but technically better BS. The best are athletes first with acquired technical skills.

I hate the "my son's small but technically better BS too". If you're playing on the second team it's because you are neither fast and strong, nor exceptionally technical. The best teams in the area will find spots for technically gifted players no matter their size and, within reason, not worry too much about speed either although you can't be a complete snail.

And kids can no more "acquire" a level of technical skill than they can "acquire" a level of speed or strength. In all cases practise helps - but coordination and agility and balance are just as much inherent to a kid as his speed and strength.

[Anonymous]

Not true. Many clubs have no spot on the first team for such a player.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:And I can't help but root against the first team.

Mine was on the "B" team. Did not make her high school team. Other coaches from other high schools recruited her she didn't want to change schools. Fine by us. Stayed on her travel team. Walk on Divison 1 college. LOL

Since she did not make her HS team she decided to run Cross Country in HS went to States as a 9th grader, then every year after that. Placed every year. Loved running, still does to this day. Done with Grad school now. The best thing ever happened to her not making her HS team. LOL.

Thanks for sharing. I hope you shared that with the high school coach.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Always be playing. Take the slot on the B team - development comes with more game minutes, not sitting on a bench.

Curious how common it is in this area to not make a high school team after being on travel growing up as a kid. I have young kids so that just seems unreal.

Crazy amount of talent in this area and number of travel teams from U16-U19 far exceeds number of high schools that have combined U16-U19 rosters. My kids play travel but I have no expectation they will be able to play for their HS.

Sure, but not all travel soccer is high level. ODSL and lower division NCSL players will struggle to standout in varsity soccer. But I’ve seen rec kids who are very good who didn’t have the money to pay for club make the team. I’ve coached a local high school for 7 years and we always ask the kids to wear a plain black shirt. We don’t find out who their club is or what league is until after. Interestingly enough we pick heavily from CCL and NPL. Perhaps because ECNL and former da kids were less

Sorry. I realized that later.

Think it's a great idea to have the kids wear black. Too many high schools pick the kids before tryouts happen.

I'm not sure what you were going on to say - as your post was curtailed. It almost reads as if you were going to say that you found you were picking CCL/NPL kids over ECNL/DA kids, except that this seems unlikely given that ECNL girls and DA kids of either sex were not permitted to play high school soccer. Still - if that is what you were planning to say - I wonder if that should cause you to wonder whether your own selection process was really identifying the most talented players. Because - while I am quite sure that there are plenty of CCL/NPL players who are better than some ECNL/DA players, I am equally sure that - on average - ECNL/DA players are better than CCL and NPL players - and that if you just picked a player at random from a DA team and another at random from a CCL or NPL team - more often than not the DA player would be better. And I would also suggest that there are very few high school teams in this area (maybe none) where any DA player should fail to make the roster.

Sorry I realized this later. I meant to say they were less likely to tryout and there are just fewer ECNL/ mls next players in general. I would have maybe 2-6 ECNL/ mls next kids in the program out of almost 40 kids ( JV and Varsity). The rest tended to be CCL and npl kids. We have a good mix of NCSL D1 kids and I see that the ODSL and rec kids who surprisingly make it tend to be minority kids. They are really good! But there parents don’t have the ability to pay for high level leagues.

I want to add that just because ECNL/mls next kids aren’t supposed to play high school doesn’t mean they listen to that rule. It’s not good but it happens often.

I agree it happens, but "sometimes" might be a better description than "often". Even now my DS's ex-DA team is ECNL and he is permitted, and intends, to play high school soccer, he is not enjoying much success trying to convince other kids from his club who are at the same high school to play as well. Historically only a handful - certainly less than 25% - played.

You're telling the actual hs coach of 7 years comparing to the poll from your kids team. LOL.

Yes. Because we have different perspectives. He sees some number of players try out for his high school team and doesn't really know what percentage that represents of ECNL/DA kids. I - on the other hand have no idea how many ECNL/DA kids play on an average high school team but have many years and multiple DA clubs experience of what percentage of those kids elect to play high school soccer.

So - for that specific piece of information - what percentage of kids on a DA team play HS soccer - my experience is superior to his. For the other question - how mant DA/ECNL kids does he see on a typical HS team - his is superior to mine.

Oh gawd leave it alone already.

Surely the person who should have left it alone is the individual (you?) who chose to thoughtlessly intervene.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My kid was on the C team until 9th grade and ended up First team All Met in high school and had offers to play in college. Better to get to play regularly than be a bench warmer. And you never know which kids are going to end up being really good. Love of game and good connection with coach are more important than A team, especially at younger ages.

Boys develop even later than girls, many boys aren’t even near full height/size at 15–some are just starting their growth spurt.

Similar story in my house. Turned out to be a Gatorade State player too with lots of offers. Years of getting overlooked, but focused on his technical game young. It paid off.

What paid off? Growing?

Think about where he’d be if he hadn’t grown.

Focusing on technical game young paid off. That’s PP’s point.

And yet if his kid didn’t actually grow the technical work wouldn’t have mattered.

This sums it up .. if you physically dont have the size and more importantly athletic ability the technical players can never catch up. I hate the my sons small but technically better BS. The best are athletes first with acquired technical skills.

I’m not pp. My kid was one of the best athletes prior to growth spurt and early puberty of others in the age group. In males, there is a huge difference in a 13/14-year old fully through puberty and growth spurt and a kid that still looks 9 at 13/14.

So yes he was very technical and athletic but dwarfed by giants...just like his older HS brother could crush him in sports and races. Once he made the physical transformation through puberty/growth spurt —he was again one of the best athletes on the field again. The playing field levels.

Does that make sense? We are a family of college and a few pro athletes (on mom
And dad’s side) so genetics was never an issue.

Yes. This.

Pps are poo-pooing the small thing. But it’s equivalent to matching a 16-year old against an 11-year old in some cases of kids born the same year. There can be that big a discrepancy. Testosterone levels build mass and speed.

A kid that is genetically a gifted athlete like scenario above but a late grower/late puberty can be a beast down the road.

We don’t care about these kids though because most stop playing before 16/17/18. In other countries, that’s when they just are really beginning.

My son went through a phase when he was just starting his major growth spurt where he looked slower and he had a lot of injuries—after being a top player until dwarfed (he’s a late bday). 2 years later he was a foot taller and easily one of the fastest kids on the field. He’s taller now than many of the players that dwarfed him U13-U15. His ball skill way higher now.

This is documented in the history of many top players—like Paul Schoales (at one time called an angry dwarf), Gareth Bale, Griezmann who was overlooked by everyone.

Nobody is disputing that there needs to be underlying genetic potential, btw.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My kid was on the C team until 9th grade and ended up First team All Met in high school and had offers to play in college. Better to get to play regularly than be a bench warmer. And you never know which kids are going to end up being really good. Love of game and good connection with coach are more important than A team, especially at younger ages.

Boys develop even later than girls, many boys aren’t even near full height/size at 15–some are just starting their growth spurt.

Similar story in my house. Turned out to be a Gatorade State player too with lots of offers. Years of getting overlooked, but focused on his technical game young. It paid off.

What paid off? Growing?

Think about where he’d be if he hadn’t grown.

Focusing on technical game young paid off. That’s PP’s point.

And yet if his kid didn’t actually grow the technical work wouldn’t have mattered.

This sums it up .. if you physically dont have the size and more importantly athletic ability the technical players can never catch up. I hate the my sons small but technically better BS. The best are athletes first with acquired technical skills.

I’m not pp. My kid was one of the best athletes prior to growth spurt and early puberty of others in the age group. In males, there is a huge difference in a 13/14-year old fully through puberty and growth spurt and a kid that still looks 9 at 13/14.

So yes he was very technical and athletic but dwarfed by giants...just like his older HS brother could crush him in sports and races. Once he made the physical transformation through puberty/growth spurt —he was again one of the best athletes on the field again. The playing field levels.

Does that make sense? We are a family of college and a few pro athletes (on mom
And dad’s side) so genetics was never an issue.

I meant I “am that pp” that was quoted.

I’m not pp, I mean I am the pp. I mean I have a pp. I mean am I still allowed to post on DCUM?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My kid was on the C team until 9th grade and ended up First team All Met in high school and had offers to play in college. Better to get to play regularly than be a bench warmer. And you never know which kids are going to end up being really good. Love of game and good connection with coach are more important than A team, especially at younger ages.

Boys develop even later than girls, many boys aren’t even near full height/size at 15–some are just starting their growth spurt.

Similar story in my house. Turned out to be a Gatorade State player too with lots of offers. Years of getting overlooked, but focused on his technical game young. It paid off.

What paid off? Growing?

Think about where he’d be if he hadn’t grown.

Focusing on technical game young paid off. That’s PP’s point.

And yet if his kid didn’t actually grow the technical work wouldn’t have mattered.

This sums it up .. if you physically dont have the size and more importantly athletic ability the technical players can never catch up. I hate the my sons small but technically better BS. The best are athletes first with acquired technical skills.

I’m not pp. My kid was one of the best athletes prior to growth spurt and early puberty of others in the age group. In males, there is a huge difference in a 13/14-year old fully through puberty and growth spurt and a kid that still looks 9 at 13/14.

So yes he was very technical and athletic but dwarfed by giants...just like his older HS brother could crush him in sports and races. Once he made the physical transformation through puberty/growth spurt —he was again one of the best athletes on the field again. The playing field levels.

Does that make sense? We are a family of college and a few pro athletes (on mom
And dad’s side) so genetics was never an issue.

Yes. This.

Pps are poo-pooing the small thing. But it’s equivalent to matching a 16-year old against an 11-year old in some cases of kids born the same year. There can be that big a discrepancy. Testosterone levels build mass and speed.

A kid that is genetically a gifted athlete like scenario above but a late grower/late puberty can be a beast down the road.

We don’t care about these kids though because most stop playing before 16/17/18. In other countries, that’s when they just are really beginning.

My son went through a phase when he was just starting his major growth spurt where he looked slower and he had a lot of injuries—after being a top player until dwarfed (he’s a late bday). 2 years later he was a foot taller and easily one of the fastest kids on the field. He’s taller now than many of the players that dwarfed him U13-U15. His ball skill way higher now.

This is documented in the history of many top players—like Paul Schoales (at one time called an angry dwarf), Gareth Bale, Griezmann who was overlooked by everyone.

Nobody is disputing that there needs to be underlying genetic potential, btw.

Ah. You’re a Eugenics person, huh? Good for you, but that cult belief died back in 1945.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My kid was on the C team until 9th grade and ended up First team All Met in high school and had offers to play in college. Better to get to play regularly than be a bench warmer. And you never know which kids are going to end up being really good. Love of game and good connection with coach are more important than A team, especially at younger ages.

Boys develop even later than girls, many boys aren’t even near full height/size at 15–some are just starting their growth spurt.

Similar story in my house. Turned out to be a Gatorade State player too with lots of offers. Years of getting overlooked, but focused on his technical game young. It paid off.

What paid off? Growing?

Think about where he’d be if he hadn’t grown.

Focusing on technical game young paid off. That’s PP’s point.

And yet if his kid didn’t actually grow the technical work wouldn’t have mattered.

This sums it up .. if you physically dont have the size and more importantly athletic ability the technical players can never catch up. I hate the my sons small but technically better BS. The best are athletes first with acquired technical skills.

I’m not pp. My kid was one of the best athletes prior to growth spurt and early puberty of others in the age group. In males, there is a huge difference in a 13/14-year old fully through puberty and growth spurt and a kid that still looks 9 at 13/14.

So yes he was very technical and athletic but dwarfed by giants...just like his older HS brother could crush him in sports and races. Once he made the physical transformation through puberty/growth spurt —he was again one of the best athletes on the field again. The playing field levels.

Does that make sense? We are a family of college and a few pro athletes (on mom
And dad’s side) so genetics was never an issue.

I meant I “am that pp” that was quoted.

I’m not pp, I mean I am the pp. I mean I have a pp. I mean am I still allowed to post on DCUM?

Not if you have a pp. There's another board for folks like you - DCUPP.