Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Coach here (OP)

Geez this thread took off. My response to some of the comments.

1. If you are in ECNL, of course you have a D1 chance. ECNL teams usually are the best select of the club. Usually these are the most athletic/technical/intelligent players (hopefully). I never said ECNL player to D1 is rare. My main point was by U12 if your player isn't at the appropriate technical level it's going to be difficult.

2. There are a lot of freak athletes, you'd be surprised how many there are across the nation.

3. I agree with the anecdotes about academics. However, if your player would like a career in soccer (coaching, admin, etc)in the future, playing college ball gives them a lot of connections and credible resume

No there aren't that many athletic freaks to fill 25% of D1 rosters. They are definitely above average, on the whole, but not years in advance of others. You are thinking of kids who hit their growth spurts early. Many of these at the u12 age you are thinking of (for girls) actually stop growing sooner than the delayed growth kids. Kids who enter menarche sooner (and therefore have an earlier growth spurt) end up smaller than average by the time the group is fully mature.

Coaches who size up kids at 11 with respect to their ability to make a D1 roster (or national/pro team) are part of the problem in this country, not part of the solution.

The coach is talking about technical ability at U12, not size. At U13 ECNL and DA rosters are filled with early growers who are done growing at 12/13. They are living their glory days right now because the delayed growth players that make it will end up bigger, faster and stronger and will take their spots by graduation and beyond. However, if those late growers also lack skill at this age they probably won't make it playing to their growth spurt. Or will not have the experience with the ECNL or DA level speed of play to compete at the top level in college.

Technical ability is easily gained from 12-18. Alex Morgan is an example of that; anyone can increase their technical abilities by practicing at home every day, religiously.

Again, based on experience, there is very little correlation between 9-11 yo ability and 19 yo ability. Many of the 9-11 stars burn out, and many "uncoordinated" 9-11's shine after they have fully matured.

The fact that someone is attempting to make final determinations on a 10 or 11 year old kid is the problem here.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Coach here (OP)

Geez this thread took off. My response to some of the comments.

1. If you are in ECNL, of course you have a D1 chance. ECNL teams usually are the best select of the club. Usually these are the most athletic/technical/intelligent players (hopefully). I never said ECNL player to D1 is rare. My main point was by U12 if your player isn't at the appropriate technical level it's going to be difficult.

2. There are a lot of freak athletes, you'd be surprised how many there are across the nation.

3. I agree with the anecdotes about academics. However, if your player would like a career in soccer (coaching, admin, etc)in the future, playing college ball gives them a lot of connections and credible resume

No there aren't that many athletic freaks to fill 25% of D1 rosters. They are definitely above average, on the whole, but not years in advance of others. You are thinking of kids who hit their growth spurts early. Many of these at the u12 age you are thinking of (for girls) actually stop growing sooner than the delayed growth kids. Kids who enter menarche sooner (and therefore have an earlier growth spurt) end up smaller than average by the time the group is fully mature.

Coaches who size up kids at 11 with respect to their ability to make a D1 roster (or national/pro team) are part of the problem in this country, not part of the solution.

The coach is talking about technical ability at U12, not size. At U13 ECNL and DA rosters are filled with early growers who are done growing at 12/13. They are living their glory days right now because the delayed growth players that make it will end up bigger, faster and stronger and will take their spots by graduation and beyond. However, if those late growers also lack skill at this age they probably won't make it playing to their growth spurt. Or will not have the experience with the ECNL or DA level speed of play to compete at the top level in college.

Technical ability is easily gained from 12-18. Alex Morgan is an example of that; anyone can increase their technical abilities by practicing at home every day, religiously.

Again, based on experience, there is very little correlation between 9-11 yo ability and 19 yo ability. Many of the 9-11 stars burn out, and many "uncoordinated" 9-11's shine after they have fully matured.

The fact that someone is attempting to make final determinations on a 10 or 11 year old kid is the problem here.

Technical ability is not easier to gain from 12-18. Alex Morgan does not prove that to be the case. She has never been accused of being a technical player, she is an athlete who can simply beast and that is about it. What Alex Morgan has you cannot coach. There are other players on that team far more technical than Morgan is and all of them demonstrated that technical ability at much younger ages than 12.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Coach here (OP)

Geez this thread took off. My response to some of the comments.

1. If you are in ECNL, of course you have a D1 chance. ECNL teams usually are the best select of the club. Usually these are the most athletic/technical/intelligent players (hopefully). I never said ECNL player to D1 is rare. My main point was by U12 if your player isn't at the appropriate technical level it's going to be difficult.

2. There are a lot of freak athletes, you'd be surprised how many there are across the nation.

3. I agree with the anecdotes about academics. However, if your player would like a career in soccer (coaching, admin, etc)in the future, playing college ball gives them a lot of connections and credible resume

No there aren't that many athletic freaks to fill 25% of D1 rosters. They are definitely above average, on the whole, but not years in advance of others. You are thinking of kids who hit their growth spurts early. Many of these at the u12 age you are thinking of (for girls) actually stop growing sooner than the delayed growth kids. Kids who enter menarche sooner (and therefore have an earlier growth spurt) end up smaller than average by the time the group is fully mature.

Coaches who size up kids at 11 with respect to their ability to make a D1 roster (or national/pro team) are part of the problem in this country, not part of the solution.

The coach is talking about technical ability at U12, not size. At U13 ECNL and DA rosters are filled with early growers who are done growing at 12/13. They are living their glory days right now because the delayed growth players that make it will end up bigger, faster and stronger and will take their spots by graduation and beyond. However, if those late growers also lack skill at this age they probably won't make it playing to their growth spurt. Or will not have the experience with the ECNL or DA level speed of play to compete at the top level in college.

Technical ability is easily gained from 12-18. Alex Morgan is an example of that; anyone can increase their technical abilities by practicing at home every day, religiously.

Again, based on experience, there is very little correlation between 9-11 yo ability and 19 yo ability. Many of the 9-11 stars burn out, and many "uncoordinated" 9-11's shine after they have fully matured.

The fact that someone is attempting to make final determinations on a 10 or 11 year old kid is the problem here.

Technical ability is not easier to gain from 12-18. Alex Morgan does not prove that to be the case. She has never been accused of being a technical player, she is an athlete who can simply beast and that is about it. What Alex Morgan has you cannot coach. There are other players on that team far more technical than Morgan is and all of them demonstrated that technical ability at much younger ages than 12.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Coach here (OP)

Geez this thread took off. My response to some of the comments.

1. If you are in ECNL, of course you have a D1 chance. ECNL teams usually are the best select of the club. Usually these are the most athletic/technical/intelligent players (hopefully). I never said ECNL player to D1 is rare. My main point was by U12 if your player isn't at the appropriate technical level it's going to be difficult.

2. There are a lot of freak athletes, you'd be surprised how many there are across the nation.

3. I agree with the anecdotes about academics. However, if your player would like a career in soccer (coaching, admin, etc)in the future, playing college ball gives them a lot of connections and credible resume

No there aren't that many athletic freaks to fill 25% of D1 rosters. They are definitely above average, on the whole, but not years in advance of others. You are thinking of kids who hit their growth spurts early. Many of these at the u12 age you are thinking of (for girls) actually stop growing sooner than the delayed growth kids. Kids who enter menarche sooner (and therefore have an earlier growth spurt) end up smaller than average by the time the group is fully mature.

Coaches who size up kids at 11 with respect to their ability to make a D1 roster (or national/pro team) are part of the problem in this country, not part of the solution.

The coach is talking about technical ability at U12, not size. At U13 ECNL and DA rosters are filled with early growers who are done growing at 12/13. They are living their glory days right now because the delayed growth players that make it will end up bigger, faster and stronger and will take their spots by graduation and beyond. However, if those late growers also lack skill at this age they probably won't make it playing to their growth spurt. Or will not have the experience with the ECNL or DA level speed of play to compete at the top level in college.

NOVASoccerCoach wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Coach here (OP)

Geez this thread took off. My response to some of the comments.

1. If you are in ECNL, of course you have a D1 chance. ECNL teams usually are the best select of the club. Usually these are the most athletic/technical/intelligent players (hopefully). I never said ECNL player to D1 is rare. My main point was by U12 if your player isn't at the appropriate technical level it's going to be difficult.

2. There are a lot of freak athletes, you'd be surprised how many there are across the nation.

3. I agree with the anecdotes about academics. However, if your player would like a career in soccer (coaching, admin, etc)in the future, playing college ball gives them a lot of connections and credible resume

No there aren't that many athletic freaks to fill 25% of D1 rosters. They are definitely above average, on the whole, but not years in advance of others. You are thinking of kids who hit their growth spurts early. Many of these at the u12 age you are thinking of (for girls) actually stop growing sooner than the delayed growth kids. Kids who enter menarche sooner (and therefore have an earlier growth spurt) end up smaller than average by the time the group is fully mature.

Coaches who size up kids at 11 with respect to their ability to make a D1 roster (or national/pro team) are part of the problem in this country, not part of the solution.

The coach is talking about technical ability at U12, not size. At U13 ECNL and DA rosters are filled with early growers who are done growing at 12/13. They are living their glory days right now because the delayed growth players that make it will end up bigger, faster and stronger and will take their spots by graduation and beyond. However, if those late growers also lack skill at this age they probably won't make it playing to their growth spurt. Or will not have the experience with the ECNL or DA level speed of play to compete at the top level in college.

Technical ability is easily gained from 12-18. Alex Morgan is an example of that; anyone can increase their technical abilities by practicing at home every day, religiously.

Again, based on experience, there is very little correlation between 9-11 yo ability and 19 yo ability. Many of the 9-11 stars burn out, and many "uncoordinated" 9-11's shine after they have fully matured.

The fact that someone is attempting to make final determinations on a 10 or 11 year old kid is the problem here.

Technical ability is not easier to gain from 12-18. Alex Morgan does not prove that to be the case. She has never been accused of being a technical player, she is an athlete who can simply beast and that is about it. What Alex Morgan has you cannot coach. There are other players on that team far more technical than Morgan is and all of them demonstrated that technical ability at much younger ages than 12.

Ok, come on. Alex Morgan is extremely technical and extremely athletic. To play at that level you've got to be extremely technical. Being technical doesn't mean you're just good at dribbling (Btw Alex is an excellent dribbler). Come on now....

Anonymous wrote:

NOVASoccerCoach wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Coach here (OP)

Geez this thread took off. My response to some of the comments.

1. If you are in ECNL, of course you have a D1 chance. ECNL teams usually are the best select of the club. Usually these are the most athletic/technical/intelligent players (hopefully). I never said ECNL player to D1 is rare. My main point was by U12 if your player isn't at the appropriate technical level it's going to be difficult.

2. There are a lot of freak athletes, you'd be surprised how many there are across the nation.

3. I agree with the anecdotes about academics. However, if your player would like a career in soccer (coaching, admin, etc)in the future, playing college ball gives them a lot of connections and credible resume

No there aren't that many athletic freaks to fill 25% of D1 rosters. They are definitely above average, on the whole, but not years in advance of others. You are thinking of kids who hit their growth spurts early. Many of these at the u12 age you are thinking of (for girls) actually stop growing sooner than the delayed growth kids. Kids who enter menarche sooner (and therefore have an earlier growth spurt) end up smaller than average by the time the group is fully mature.

Coaches who size up kids at 11 with respect to their ability to make a D1 roster (or national/pro team) are part of the problem in this country, not part of the solution.

The coach is talking about technical ability at U12, not size. At U13 ECNL and DA rosters are filled with early growers who are done growing at 12/13. They are living their glory days right now because the delayed growth players that make it will end up bigger, faster and stronger and will take their spots by graduation and beyond. However, if those late growers also lack skill at this age they probably won't make it playing to their growth spurt. Or will not have the experience with the ECNL or DA level speed of play to compete at the top level in college.

Technical ability is easily gained from 12-18. Alex Morgan is an example of that; anyone can increase their technical abilities by practicing at home every day, religiously.

Again, based on experience, there is very little correlation between 9-11 yo ability and 19 yo ability. Many of the 9-11 stars burn out, and many "uncoordinated" 9-11's shine after they have fully matured.

The fact that someone is attempting to make final determinations on a 10 or 11 year old kid is the problem here.

Technical ability is not easier to gain from 12-18. Alex Morgan does not prove that to be the case. She has never been accused of being a technical player, she is an athlete who can simply beast and that is about it. What Alex Morgan has you cannot coach. There are other players on that team far more technical than Morgan is and all of them demonstrated that technical ability at much younger ages than 12.

Ok, come on. Alex Morgan is extremely technical and extremely athletic. To play at that level you've got to be extremely technical. Being technical doesn't mean you're just good at dribbling (Btw Alex is an excellent dribbler). Come on now....

She is technical enough but she is not know for it. Heath for example is on another level. Here are the FIFA skills ratings between Morgan and Heath:
https://www.fifaindex.com/player/226301/alex-morgan/fifa19/

https://www.fifaindex.com/player/226330/tobin-heath/

Lets stop the fantasy that a kid can pick up soccer at 12 and become Alex Morgan. She is an outlier and even with her athleticism she has several short comings.

Anonymous wrote:
She is technical enough but she is not know for it. Heath for example is on another level. Here are the FIFA skills ratings between Morgan and Heath:
[url]https://www.fifaindex.com/player/226301/alex-morgan/fifa19/[/url]

https://www.fifaindex.com/player/226330/tobin-heath/

Lets stop the fantasy that a kid can pick up soccer at 12 and become Alex Morgan. She is an outlier and even with her athleticism she has several short comings.

NOVASoccerCoach wrote:Ok, OP here. This has quickly gotten out of hand.

1. USWNT players are EXTREMELY TECHNICAL and freakishly athletic.
2. This thread was made because I hate seeing parents push their kids for their own vicarious aspirations. If your kid wants to play D1, ask them or even better, let them tell you. Let your kid enjoy soccer and see how far they want to go with it. Too many parents have these ECNL and D1 aspirations for their kid and their kid just wants to play!

That's pretty much it. It doesn't need to be anymore complicated than that. If you have any questions about development and your player, ask in the AMA thread I have.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
I have two kids playing soccer in college right now with scholarships, one in D1, and I can tell you no local coaches thought anything of either of them at U12--they were still playing on their club's B team with the better coach at that age. They didn't even get selected for district ODP at U12. I noticed a difference, and sure, maybe a different coach could have picked them out, but none of the ones who saw them thought they were anything special so I have my reservations about your theory. Maybe you are the one coach who would have seen their potential at that age.

As a parent with a couple kids playing soccer in college whose been through the whole youth soccer cycle--if your kid is playing soccer for a scholarship and not for the love of the game you're wasting their time and yours. If your reasons are financial put the thousands you spend on elite soccer each season into a college fund and you'll be much better off. I know multiple players who chose to play club soccer in college or dropped off the team after the first year because when they got there they realized they just didn't love it that much.

College soccer here is miserable. Terrible coaching with too many games crammed into too short of a season. At the end of the season half the team is nursing overuse injuries if they're lucky enough to escape actual injuries. If they got good coaching as a youth player and really understand the game and how to play it--college soccer will probably make them dumber not smarter. With a handful of exceptions it's pretty much high school soccer at a faster pace. They ones that realized they didn't want it that bad and chose to play club or do something else are the lucky ones. Please don't push your kids into that unless they are so passionate they can survive four years of that without losing their passion. The vast majority of seniors I have talked to don't want to ever touch a ball again after they graduate. Hopefully after some time away from the game they'll come back around to it, but if you're pushing your kid to play college soccer that's the reality of what you're pushing them into.

I believe you are referencing my theory, which I think you and the Andi Sullivan poster misunderstand. In no way am I claiming that the average coach can predict which U12 or U13 player will make it to college or the pros--even generously compensated pro scouts at the world's top clubs have a poor track record with this, which is in no way surprising given how many things have to line up for a kid to make it to and at those levels. What most coaches can do is assess which kids do not have the baseline athletic ability to play at a high level. Puberty does of course make a big difference in kids' athletic abilities, but it almost never will make a massive difference for a kid who has terrible balance and no coordination. Some kids are just not athletes no matter how much they may enjoy the game. This is very different from a coach saying your kid, or mine, or young Andi Sullivan is "nothing special". By that they could mean that they don't like the way the kid plays for any number of reasons, including that they prefer big fast players to small technical ones (or vice versa), that the kid doesn't fit the coach's system, or that other, flashier players catch their eye more for whatever reason. Every kid who has played in college or beyond has had a coach tell him or her that they think the kid is overrated (at least all the ones I know have had this happen to them).

I too have a kid playing D1, and while I wouldn't say all of college soccer is uniformly miserable, there are huge structural problems with the way it is set up. I absolutely support the idea of a 10 month season, and hope that the NCAA someday changes the rules to permit it.