Bio-banding rule to plays kids down

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Admittedly haven't looked into this issue specifically for soccer, so yes, yes, I am totally uninformed about this issue, but I am struggling, from a practical standpoint, to understand why soccer, and specifically the professional pathway, is special and requires biobanding, where other sports that are based on DOB rather than grade do not bioband. I get that this seems to be something that is done in Europe for their soccer Academies, but what is the point in cases where the late developer is just small due to genetics and is never going to be as big as their peers? Like, you can look at some parents and tell that their kid is never going to be big/tall. Isn't the average height of pro soccer players still somewhere close to 5'11"? Just trying to understand the point (without reading up on it, lol).

sigh...
But reading one study on Relative Age Effect (which impacts all youth sports, proven and documented) will answer all your questions.

Many top level players in soccer, basketball, baseball, ice hockey were late developers.
They only made it to the top professionally because their parents and they didn't quit when bigger kids were always getting chosen for the 'A' team.

btw... the look at the parents method has proven flawed in many instances.

But the not quitting bc you don't make A team is NOT the same playing down because you're tiny. To me, sticking with it is playing on your age group on "B" team until you "grow" strong enough to compete with the "bigger kids." It's no different than being developmentally the average size for your age, but developing soccer skills at a different speed than others your age. Kids who aren't as strong from a technical standpoint at, say, age 11, but who bust their asses and put in the work so that they are better don't get to play down while they work on their technical skills. But if you just are small for your age, you do. I just don't get it. But, I guess I don't really have to!

If you chose to read any of the many published research, you would understand the multiple facets.
When a kid is placed on a lower team because of size, it usually means they are condemned to lesser coaching and training while the 'A' team kids continue to receive the best of everything the club has to offer.
This has a cumulative effect.

It is not as Neanderthal as "tiny" kids.
The research data shows majority of academy kids are born in the first half of the year. The least represented academy age group is from the 4th quarter of the year.
These are indisputable facts.

My kid is on a top team and she was born in September.

And that is an indisputable fact.

LOL 😆..
Yes, your singular child is representative of the entire group set data.

Well then, let's just rip-up all the research and previously collected and verified data on Relative Age Effect.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Admittedly haven't looked into this issue specifically for soccer, so yes, yes, I am totally uninformed about this issue, but I am struggling, from a practical standpoint, to understand why soccer, and specifically the professional pathway, is special and requires biobanding, where other sports that are based on DOB rather than grade do not bioband. I get that this seems to be something that is done in Europe for their soccer Academies, but what is the point in cases where the late developer is just small due to genetics and is never going to be as big as their peers? Like, you can look at some parents and tell that their kid is never going to be big/tall. Isn't the average height of pro soccer players still somewhere close to 5'11"? Just trying to understand the point (without reading up on it, lol).

sigh...
But reading one study on Relative Age Effect (which impacts all youth sports, proven and documented) will answer all your questions.

Many top level players in soccer, basketball, baseball, ice hockey were late developers.
They only made it to the top professionally because their parents and they didn't quit when bigger kids were always getting chosen for the 'A' team.

btw... the look at the parents method has proven flawed in many instances.

But the not quitting bc you don't make A team is NOT the same playing down because you're tiny. To me, sticking with it is playing on your age group on "B" team until you "grow" strong enough to compete with the "bigger kids." It's no different than being developmentally the average size for your age, but developing soccer skills at a different speed than others your age. Kids who aren't as strong from a technical standpoint at, say, age 11, but who bust their asses and put in the work so that they are better don't get to play down while they work on their technical skills. But if you just are small for your age, you do. I just don't get it. But, I guess I don't really have to!

Kevin De Bruyne is a classic case of why Bio-banding works.

That is one player that everyone seems to throw out. Look, I am not a scientist by any stretch, but I have yet to see a long-term study regrading the benefits. I could have missed, of course, without a large sample and a long-term study, I think it's just not as persuasive as people say it is. And, like every study, there are studies that find that this isn't a cure-all and may not benefit all players. But, I suppose just helping one kids stick with the sport is worth it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Admittedly haven't looked into this issue specifically for soccer, so yes, yes, I am totally uninformed about this issue, but I am struggling, from a practical standpoint, to understand why soccer, and specifically the professional pathway, is special and requires biobanding, where other sports that are based on DOB rather than grade do not bioband. I get that this seems to be something that is done in Europe for their soccer Academies, but what is the point in cases where the late developer is just small due to genetics and is never going to be as big as their peers? Like, you can look at some parents and tell that their kid is never going to be big/tall. Isn't the average height of pro soccer players still somewhere close to 5'11"? Just trying to understand the point (without reading up on it, lol).

sigh...
But reading one study on Relative Age Effect (which impacts all youth sports, proven and documented) will answer all your questions.

Many top level players in soccer, basketball, baseball, ice hockey were late developers.
They only made it to the top professionally because their parents and they didn't quit when bigger kids were always getting chosen for the 'A' team.

btw... the look at the parents method has proven flawed in many instances.

But the not quitting bc you don't make A team is NOT the same playing down because you're tiny. To me, sticking with it is playing on your age group on "B" team until you "grow" strong enough to compete with the "bigger kids." It's no different than being developmentally the average size for your age, but developing soccer skills at a different speed than others your age. Kids who aren't as strong from a technical standpoint at, say, age 11, but who bust their asses and put in the work so that they are better don't get to play down while they work on their technical skills. But if you just are small for your age, you do. I just don't get it. But, I guess I don't really have to!

Kevin De Bruyne is a classic case of why Bio-banding works.

That is one player that everyone seems to throw out. Look, I am not a scientist by any stretch, but I have yet to see a long-term study regrading the benefits. I could have missed, of course, without a large sample and a long-term study, I think it's just not as persuasive as people say it is. And, like every study, there are studies that find that this isn't a cure-all and may not benefit all players. But, I suppose just helping one kids stick with the sport is worth it.

Because his name is easily recognizable.
David Beckham was also too small along with many more professionals who were late physical developers.

In Europe they are advanced in knowledge and reasoning enough that they have entire Bio-banded leagues.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Admittedly haven't looked into this issue specifically for soccer, so yes, yes, I am totally uninformed about this issue, but I am struggling, from a practical standpoint, to understand why soccer, and specifically the professional pathway, is special and requires biobanding, where other sports that are based on DOB rather than grade do not bioband. I get that this seems to be something that is done in Europe for their soccer Academies, but what is the point in cases where the late developer is just small due to genetics and is never going to be as big as their peers? Like, you can look at some parents and tell that their kid is never going to be big/tall. Isn't the average height of pro soccer players still somewhere close to 5'11"? Just trying to understand the point (without reading up on it, lol).

sigh...
But reading one study on Relative Age Effect (which impacts all youth sports, proven and documented) will answer all your questions.

Many top level players in soccer, basketball, baseball, ice hockey were late developers.
They only made it to the top professionally because their parents and they didn't quit when bigger kids were always getting chosen for the 'A' team.



btw... the look at the parents method has proven flawed in many instances.

But the not quitting bc you don't make A team is NOT the same playing down because you're tiny. To me, sticking with it is playing on your age group on "B" team until you "grow" strong enough to compete with the "bigger kids." It's no different than being developmentally the average size for your age, but developing soccer skills at a different speed than others your age. Kids who aren't as strong from a technical standpoint at, say, age 11, but who bust their asses and put in the work so that they are better don't get to play down while they work on their technical skills. But if you just are small for your age, you do. I just don't get it. But, I guess I don't really have to!

Kevin De Bruyne is a classic case of why Bio-banding works.

That is one player that everyone seems to throw out. Look, I am not a scientist by any stretch, but I have yet to see a long-term study regrading the benefits. I could have missed, of course, without a large sample and a long-term study, I think it's just not as persuasive as people say it is. And, like every study, there are studies that find that this isn't a cure-all and may not benefit all players. But, I suppose just helping one kids stick with the sport is worth it.

You amazingly continue to doubt the existence and impact of something academics have proven years ago and multiple times with multiple studies and research papers.

I believe the term that applies here is Deliberately Obtuse.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Admittedly haven't looked into this issue specifically for soccer, so yes, yes, I am totally uninformed about this issue, but I am struggling, from a practical standpoint, to understand why soccer, and specifically the professional pathway, is special and requires biobanding, where other sports that are based on DOB rather than grade do not bioband. I get that this seems to be something that is done in Europe for their soccer Academies, but what is the point in cases where the late developer is just small due to genetics and is never going to be as big as their peers? Like, you can look at some parents and tell that their kid is never going to be big/tall. Isn't the average height of pro soccer players still somewhere close to 5'11"? Just trying to understand the point (without reading up on it, lol).

sigh...
But reading one study on Relative Age Effect (which impacts all youth sports, proven and documented) will answer all your questions.

Many top level players in soccer, basketball, baseball, ice hockey were late developers.
They only made it to the top professionally because their parents and they didn't quit when bigger kids were always getting chosen for the 'A' team.



btw... the look at the parents method has proven flawed in many instances.

But the not quitting bc you don't make A team is NOT the same playing down because you're tiny. To me, sticking with it is playing on your age group on "B" team until you "grow" strong enough to compete with the "bigger kids." It's no different than being developmentally the average size for your age, but developing soccer skills at a different speed than others your age. Kids who aren't as strong from a technical standpoint at, say, age 11, but who bust their asses and put in the work so that they are better don't get to play down while they work on their technical skills. But if you just are small for your age, you do. I just don't get it. But, I guess I don't really have to!

Kevin De Bruyne is a classic case of why Bio-banding works.

That is one player that everyone seems to throw out. Look, I am not a scientist by any stretch, but I have yet to see a long-term study regrading the benefits. I could have missed, of course, without a large sample and a long-term study, I think it's just not as persuasive as people say it is. And, like every study, there are studies that find that this isn't a cure-all and may not benefit all players. But, I suppose just helping one kids stick with the sport is worth it.

You amazingly continue to doubt the existence and impact of something academics have proven years ago and multiple times with multiple studies and research papers.

I believe the term that applies here is Deliberately Obtuse.

Such fancy terminology. It's too bad you resort to insults and name calling instead of engaging in constructive dialogue when someone is simply asing questions and perhaps challenging something that doesn't make sense to them. You're a true gem.

[Anonymous]

A PP mentioned that playing down an age group (biobanding) is not the same as playing on age (or even up) but on the B team. At least with two clubs in the DMV area, this is very true. That is, a 2013 top team has arguably more skilled players than the same club’s 2012 B team.

The intensity and the skills and the speed of play is just higher on the top teams than the B teams. This is why parents would rather move to a different club than have their kid move down on the B team

I know this is just anecdotal but DS has played with two clubs in the area and the difference between the A and B team is vast. At one club that he practiced with, the A and B scrimmaged and it was very uncompetitive with no B team player standing out all. For another club, the age group practiced at the same time but separately but the difference in intensity, speed of play and discipline was pretty obvious.

Of the small, late age players we knew from those top teams that could/would be cut, if I were their parent, I’d just move to them to a completely different club bc I knew they were just much better than anyone on the B team (despite their size).

We’ve had at least two coaches tell us that they would rather pull a kid up from the younger age group than promote a kid from the B team.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Admittedly haven't looked into this issue specifically for soccer, so yes, yes, I am totally uninformed about this issue, but I am struggling, from a practical standpoint, to understand why soccer, and specifically the professional pathway, is special and requires biobanding, where other sports that are based on DOB rather than grade do not bioband. I get that this seems to be something that is done in Europe for their soccer Academies, but what is the point in cases where the late developer is just small due to genetics and is never going to be as big as their peers? Like, you can look at some parents and tell that their kid is never going to be big/tall. Isn't the average height of pro soccer players still somewhere close to 5'11"? Just trying to understand the point (without reading up on it, lol).

sigh...
But reading one study on Relative Age Effect (which impacts all youth sports, proven and documented) will answer all your questions.

Many top level players in soccer, basketball, baseball, ice hockey were late developers.
They only made it to the top professionally because their parents and they didn't quit when bigger kids were always getting chosen for the 'A' team.



btw... the look at the parents method has proven flawed in many instances.

But the not quitting bc you don't make A team is NOT the same playing down because you're tiny. To me, sticking with it is playing on your age group on "B" team until you "grow" strong enough to compete with the "bigger kids." It's no different than being developmentally the average size for your age, but developing soccer skills at a different speed than others your age. Kids who aren't as strong from a technical standpoint at, say, age 11, but who bust their asses and put in the work so that they are better don't get to play down while they work on their technical skills. But if you just are small for your age, you do. I just don't get it. But, I guess I don't really have to!

Kevin De Bruyne is a classic case of why Bio-banding works.

That is one player that everyone seems to throw out. Look, I am not a scientist by any stretch, but I have yet to see a long-term study regrading the benefits. I could have missed, of course, without a large sample and a long-term study, I think it's just not as persuasive as people say it is. And, like every study, there are studies that find that this isn't a cure-all and may not benefit all players. But, I suppose just helping one kids stick with the sport is worth it.

You amazingly continue to doubt the existence and impact of something academics have proven years ago and multiple times with multiple studies and research papers.

I believe the term that applies here is Deliberately Obtuse.

Such fancy terminology. It's too bad you resort to insults and name calling instead of engaging in constructive dialogue when someone is simply asing questions and perhaps challenging something that doesn't make sense to them. You're a true gem.

I thought your questions and doubts were being addressed.

Forget my statements.
Google 'Relative Age Effect Research'

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:A PP mentioned that playing down an age group (biobanding) is not the same as playing on age (or even up) but on the B team. At least with two clubs in the DMV area, this is very true. That is, a 2013 top team has arguably more skilled players than the same club’s 2012 B team.

The intensity and the skills and the speed of play is just higher on the top teams than the B teams. This is why parents would rather move to a different club than have their kid move down on the B team

I know this is just anecdotal but DS has played with two clubs in the area and the difference between the A and B team is vast. At one club that he practiced with, the A and B scrimmaged and it was very uncompetitive with no B team player standing out all. For another club, the age group practiced at the same time but separately but the difference in intensity, speed of play and discipline was pretty obvious.

Of the small, late age players we knew from those top teams that could/would be cut, if I were their parent, I’d just move to them to a completely different club bc I knew they were just much better than anyone on the B team (despite their size).

We’ve had at least two coaches tell us that they would rather pull a kid up from the younger age group than promote a kid from the B team.

It's too bad, though, that coaches essentially disregard second team players in favor of younger players. But, I guess that is youth soccer, here.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Admittedly haven't looked into this issue specifically for soccer, so yes, yes, I am totally uninformed about this issue, but I am struggling, from a practical standpoint, to understand why soccer, and specifically the professional pathway, is special and requires biobanding, where other sports that are based on DOB rather than grade do not bioband. I get that this seems to be something that is done in Europe for their soccer Academies, but what is the point in cases where the late developer is just small due to genetics and is never going to be as big as their peers? Like, you can look at some parents and tell that their kid is never going to be big/tall. Isn't the average height of pro soccer players still somewhere close to 5'11"? Just trying to understand the point (without reading up on it, lol).

sigh...
But reading one study on Relative Age Effect (which impacts all youth sports, proven and documented) will answer all your questions.

Many top level players in soccer, basketball, baseball, ice hockey were late developers.
They only made it to the top professionally because their parents and they didn't quit when bigger kids were always getting chosen for the 'A' team.



btw... the look at the parents method has proven flawed in many instances.

But the not quitting bc you don't make A team is NOT the same playing down because you're tiny. To me, sticking with it is playing on your age group on "B" team until you "grow" strong enough to compete with the "bigger kids." It's no different than being developmentally the average size for your age, but developing soccer skills at a different speed than others your age. Kids who aren't as strong from a technical standpoint at, say, age 11, but who bust their asses and put in the work so that they are better don't get to play down while they work on their technical skills. But if you just are small for your age, you do. I just don't get it. But, I guess I don't really have to!

Kevin De Bruyne is a classic case of why Bio-banding works.

That is one player that everyone seems to throw out. Look, I am not a scientist by any stretch, but I have yet to see a long-term study regrading the benefits. I could have missed, of course, without a large sample and a long-term study, I think it's just not as persuasive as people say it is. And, like every study, there are studies that find that this isn't a cure-all and may not benefit all players. But, I suppose just helping one kids stick with the sport is worth it.

You amazingly continue to doubt the existence and impact of something academics have proven years ago and multiple times with multiple studies and research papers.

I believe the term that applies here is Deliberately Obtuse.

Such fancy terminology. It's too bad you resort to insults and name calling instead of engaging in constructive dialogue when someone is simply asing questions and perhaps challenging something that doesn't make sense to them. You're a true gem.

I thought your questions and doubts were being addressed.

Forget my statements.
Google 'Relative Age Effect Research'

Addressed with the added "flair." LOL. It's all good. I'll read up on the issue - both sides - as there no doubt are arguments for/against. Have a good evening.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:A PP mentioned that playing down an age group (biobanding) is not the same as playing on age (or even up) but on the B team. At least with two clubs in the DMV area, this is very true. That is, a 2013 top team has arguably more skilled players than the same club’s 2012 B team.

The intensity and the skills and the speed of play is just higher on the top teams than the B teams. This is why parents would rather move to a different club than have their kid move down on the B team

I know this is just anecdotal but DS has played with two clubs in the area and the difference between the A and B team is vast. At one club that he practiced with, the A and B scrimmaged and it was very uncompetitive with no B team player standing out all. For another club, the age group practiced at the same time but separately but the difference in intensity, speed of play and discipline was pretty obvious.

Of the small, late age players we knew from those top teams that could/would be cut, if I were their parent, I’d just move to them to a completely different club bc I knew they were just much better than anyone on the B team (despite their size).

We’ve had at least two coaches tell us that they would rather pull a kid up from the younger age group than promote a kid from the B team.

How about if the A team (of the new club) is not as good as the B team (of the current club), would you still move to the A team?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:A PP mentioned that playing down an age group (biobanding) is not the same as playing on age (or even up) but on the B team. At least with two clubs in the DMV area, this is very true. That is, a 2013 top team has arguably more skilled players than the same club’s 2012 B team.

The intensity and the skills and the speed of play is just higher on the top teams than the B teams. This is why parents would rather move to a different club than have their kid move down on the B team

I know this is just anecdotal but DS has played with two clubs in the area and the difference between the A and B team is vast. At one club that he practiced with, the A and B scrimmaged and it was very uncompetitive with no B team player standing out all. For another club, the age group practiced at the same time but separately but the difference in intensity, speed of play and discipline was pretty obvious.

Of the small, late age players we knew from those top teams that could/would be cut, if I were their parent, I’d just move to them to a completely different club bc I knew they were just much better than anyone on the B team (despite their size).

We’ve had at least two coaches tell us that they would rather pull a kid up from the younger age group than promote a kid from the B team.

How about if the A team (of the new club) is not as good as the B team (of the current club), would you still move to the A team?

Personally I would "move" my kid to whichever club has the best coaching / team that practices closest to my house.

If my kid had some crazy talent it will make itself known. If this happens we'll make a decision at that time.

I'm also a firm believer in trying out at different clubs no matter what each year. You never know when one team might be a better fit than the one your kid is playing for now.

For 99.999% it doesn't matter where your kid plays.

On the other hand if you want to make your kid a superstar go all in. Literally start flying out to the best teams in the nation. Reach out to their coach and ask if your kid can jump in on a session or two. If the coach thinks your kid has a future get on the next plane and move. This means moving to CA or TX so your kid can play year round. Also look into home schooling because they need to be kicking a ball 3-4 hours a day. Also Also keep $100 bills (maybe even $1000 in cash) in your pocket to grease the skids with coaches whenever nessasary.

Again, if you're going to go all in go all in. Because if you're not someone else will and it won't matter anymore.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:A PP mentioned that playing down an age group (biobanding) is not the same as playing on age (or even up) but on the B team. At least with two clubs in the DMV area, this is very true. That is, a 2013 top team has arguably more skilled players than the same club’s 2012 B team.

The intensity and the skills and the speed of play is just higher on the top teams than the B teams. This is why parents would rather move to a different club than have their kid move down on the B team

I know this is just anecdotal but DS has played with two clubs in the area and the difference between the A and B team is vast. At one club that he practiced with, the A and B scrimmaged and it was very uncompetitive with no B team player standing out all. For another club, the age group practiced at the same time but separately but the difference in intensity, speed of play and discipline was pretty obvious.

Of the small, late age players we knew from those top teams that could/would be cut, if I were their parent, I’d just move to them to a completely different club bc I knew they were just much better than anyone on the B team (despite their size).

We’ve had at least two coaches tell us that they would rather pull a kid up from the younger age group than promote a kid from the B team.

How about if the A team (of the new club) is not as good as the B team (of the current club), would you still move to the A team?

Personally I would "move" my kid to whichever club has the best coaching / team that practices closest to my house.

If my kid had some crazy talent it will make itself known. If this happens we'll make a decision at that time.

I'm also a firm believer in trying out at different clubs no matter what each year. You never know when one team might be a better fit than the one your kid is playing for now.

For 99.999% it doesn't matter where your kid plays.

On the other hand if you want to make your kid a superstar go all in. Literally start flying out to the best teams in the nation. Reach out to their coach and ask if your kid can jump in on a session or two. If the coach thinks your kid has a future get on the next plane and move. This means moving to CA or TX so your kid can play year round. Also look into home schooling because they need to be kicking a ball 3-4 hours a day. Also Also keep $100 bills (maybe even $1000 in cash) in your pocket to grease the skids with coaches whenever nessasary.

Again, if you're going to go all in go all in. Because if you're not someone else will and it won't matter anymore.

So your dreams of your kid playing for Real Madrid isn't materializing huh?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:A PP mentioned that playing down an age group (biobanding) is not the same as playing on age (or even up) but on the B team. At least with two clubs in the DMV area, this is very true. That is, a 2013 top team has arguably more skilled players than the same club’s 2012 B team.

The intensity and the skills and the speed of play is just higher on the top teams than the B teams. This is why parents would rather move to a different club than have their kid move down on the B team

I know this is just anecdotal but DS has played with two clubs in the area and the difference between the A and B team is vast. At one club that he practiced with, the A and B scrimmaged and it was very uncompetitive with no B team player standing out all. For another club, the age group practiced at the same time but separately but the difference in intensity, speed of play and discipline was pretty obvious.

Of the small, late age players we knew from those top teams that could/would be cut, if I were their parent, I’d just move to them to a completely different club bc I knew they were just much better than anyone on the B team (despite their size).

We’ve had at least two coaches tell us that they would rather pull a kid up from the younger age group than promote a kid from the B team.

How about if the A team (of the new club) is not as good as the B team (of the current club), would you still move to the A team?

Personally I would "move" my kid to whichever club has the best coaching / team that practices closest to my house.

If my kid had some crazy talent it will make itself known. If this happens we'll make a decision at that time.

I'm also a firm believer in trying out at different clubs no matter what each year. You never know when one team might be a better fit than the one your kid is playing for now.

For 99.999% it doesn't matter where your kid plays.

On the other hand if you want to make your kid a superstar go all in. Literally start flying out to the best teams in the nation. Reach out to their coach and ask if your kid can jump in on a session or two. If the coach thinks your kid has a future get on the next plane and move. This means moving to CA or TX so your kid can play year round. Also look into home schooling because they need to be kicking a ball 3-4 hours a day. Also Also keep $100 bills (maybe even $1000 in cash) in your pocket to grease the skids with coaches whenever nessasary.

Again, if you're going to go all in go all in. Because if you're not someone else will and it won't matter anymore.

So your dreams of your kid playing for Real Madrid isn't materializing huh?

lol

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:A PP mentioned that playing down an age group (biobanding) is not the same as playing on age (or even up) but on the B team. At least with two clubs in the DMV area, this is very true. That is, a 2013 top team has arguably more skilled players than the same club’s 2012 B team.

The intensity and the skills and the speed of play is just higher on the top teams than the B teams. This is why parents would rather move to a different club than have their kid move down on the B team

I know this is just anecdotal but DS has played with two clubs in the area and the difference between the A and B team is vast. At one club that he practiced with, the A and B scrimmaged and it was very uncompetitive with no B team player standing out all. For another club, the age group practiced at the same time but separately but the difference in intensity, speed of play and discipline was pretty obvious.

Of the small, late age players we knew from those top teams that could/would be cut, if I were their parent, I’d just move to them to a completely different club bc I knew they were just much better than anyone on the B team (despite their size).

We’ve had at least two coaches tell us that they would rather pull a kid up from the younger age group than promote a kid from the B team.

How about if the A team (of the new club) is not as good as the B team (of the current club), would you still move to the A team?

Personally I would "move" my kid to whichever club has the best coaching / team that practices closest to my house.

If my kid had some crazy talent it will make itself known. If this happens we'll make a decision at that time.

I'm also a firm believer in trying out at different clubs no matter what each year. You never know when one team might be a better fit than the one your kid is playing for now.

For 99.999% it doesn't matter where your kid plays.

On the other hand if you want to make your kid a superstar go all in. Literally start flying out to the best teams in the nation. Reach out to their coach and ask if your kid can jump in on a session or two. If the coach thinks your kid has a future get on the next plane and move. This means moving to CA or TX so your kid can play year round. Also look into home schooling because they need to be kicking a ball 3-4 hours a day. Also Also keep $100 bills (maybe even $1000 in cash) in your pocket to grease the skids with coaches whenever nessasary.

Again, if you're going to go all in go all in. Because if you're not someone else will and it won't matter anymore.

So your dreams of your kid playing for Real Madrid isn't materializing huh?

No, just pointing out the hypocrisy of throwing a big temper tantrum about not getting picked to play on whatever local team.

If you want you your kid be a superstar especially in girls soccer you can do it. It's just going to take a lot of everything to get there.

If you're not willing to go all in then just relax and let your kid have fun. Because it doesn't matter.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:A PP mentioned that playing down an age group (biobanding) is not the same as playing on age (or even up) but on the B team. At least with two clubs in the DMV area, this is very true. That is, a 2013 top team has arguably more skilled players than the same club’s 2012 B team.

The intensity and the skills and the speed of play is just higher on the top teams than the B teams. This is why parents would rather move to a different club than have their kid move down on the B team

I know this is just anecdotal but DS has played with two clubs in the area and the difference between the A and B team is vast. At one club that he practiced with, the A and B scrimmaged and it was very uncompetitive with no B team player standing out all. For another club, the age group practiced at the same time but separately but the difference in intensity, speed of play and discipline was pretty obvious.

Of the small, late age players we knew from those top teams that could/would be cut, if I were their parent, I’d just move to them to a completely different club bc I knew they were just much better than anyone on the B team (despite their size).

We’ve had at least two coaches tell us that they would rather pull a kid up from the younger age group than promote a kid from the B team.

How about if the A team (of the new club) is not as good as the B team (of the current club), would you still move to the A team?

Personally I would "move" my kid to whichever club has the best coaching / team that practices closest to my house.

If my kid had some crazy talent it will make itself known. If this happens we'll make a decision at that time.

I'm also a firm believer in trying out at different clubs no matter what each year. You never know when one team might be a better fit than the one your kid is playing for now.

For 99.999% it doesn't matter where your kid plays.

On the other hand if you want to make your kid a superstar go all in. Literally start flying out to the best teams in the nation. Reach out to their coach and ask if your kid can jump in on a session or two. If the coach thinks your kid has a future get on the next plane and move. This means moving to CA or TX so your kid can play year round. Also look into home schooling because they need to be kicking a ball 3-4 hours a day. Also Also keep $100 bills (maybe even $1000 in cash) in your pocket to grease the skids with coaches whenever nessasary.

Again, if you're going to go all in go all in. Because if you're not someone else will and it won't matter anymore.

So your dreams of your kid playing for Real Madrid isn't materializing huh?

No, just pointing out the hypocrisy of throwing a big temper tantrum about not getting picked to play on whatever local team.

If you want you your kid be a superstar especially in girls soccer you can do it. It's just going to take a lot of everything to get there.

If you're not willing to go all in then just relax and let your kid have fun. Because it doesn't matter.

Gotcha

Commendable save