Reply to US soccer rumors of changing back age groups?

Forum Index » Soccer

Reply to "US soccer rumors of changing back age groups?"

Subject:

Emoticons





More smilies

Text Color: Font: Close Marks

[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]Six month age groups

There is not a single negative to a six month age group. [/quote]

:roll:

Beyond Elementary school there isn't enough advantage to maintain the complexity. [/quote]

Its not complex. Its very very simple.

Annnndddd...there absolutely are reasons to do this beyond elementary considering puberty isn't done until the middle part of HS.

Next[/quote]

When you start combining teams, first to expand for 9v9 and then to 11v11 it is unnecessary. Dual age groups is excellent early on to make sure kids are learning the fundamentals in a more developmentally focused environment. But by middle school, frankly it is silly. Kids need to be placed based more on skill than age. We have gone round and round on this and the numbers just don't support dual age groups. The predictable size variance BASED on birth month can be thrown out the window. Genetics NOT birth month plays a greater role in size variance.

If you honestly think you could walk into a middle school and predict kids birth months with any accuracy based on size I have a bridge to sell you. You might not even be able to predict their birth year accurately in many cases.

[/quote]

You didn't make a reasonable argument. Most of it is nonsense. 
[/quote]

By middle school size is more defined by individual genetics than birth month and a predictable linear growth chart through middle school.

What makes dual age groups useful in elementary school are it's obvious benefits but the predictability of implementing it properly. A kid born 10 months later than another kid will be predictably smaller at 7-8 years old.

By middle school that is all out the window because specific growth spurts as well as their intensity simply cannot be predicted in middle school based on birth month. If the intent is to have players of similar size grouped together it would fail miserably based on birth month in middle school. Do you understand this?[/quote]

It not just about size. The lazy analysis is why the debate continues to happen. This is about human development...physically, mentally and emotionally. A tall well developed 12 years, while may look like a 18 year old, but is still mentally a 12 year.  Why? Because physical and mental development do not go hand in hand. This is but one of 5,000 senerios.

I need you to understand this.....You should not filter kids out of a pipeline before they had a chance to develop as a human.

You see it is schools all the time. It is a FLAWED approach. Its proven to be wrong  [/quote]

There is a physical component to skills. I get it, you read Gladwell, and while he promotes what you are striving for he intends it more holistically in academics regarding middle school.

The biggest separator at early ages in sports is physical size and early athleticism. At grade school this can be predicted, by middle school it cannot because of the difference that genetics brings to the equation regarding actual physical growth. There are ways to account for that without needing two age groups per calendar year.

A, B and C teams should be for skill and tactical development and bio banding can help those who are physically challenged based on size.

We need to not stigmatize B, C and D team players and we should not crown young A teams players either.

I'm supporting and completely agree with the benefits through elementary school but not middle school. Middle school is different in some areas it is 7th-8th and others it is 6th through 8th. I'd go with a 6th grade cap for two age groups but beyond is just not necessary and there are other more precise solutions available.

Frankly, you're arguing with someone who basically agrees with you and you should probably take a look at the nuanced reasons of where and why we disagree. Considering I have by in to a point a specific point, perhaps it is you who is not really seeing the bigger picture. [/quote]

Options

	Disable HTML in this message
	Disable BB Code in this message
	Disable smilies in this message

Review message

Search Recent Topics Hottest Topics