Reply to Why D1 if the school is only so so?

Forum Index » Soccer

Reply to "Why D1 if the school is only so so?"

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]How old is your kid that you are currently gunning for a pro career and s/he isn’t in high school yet? Is this typical? Not snarky - just curious.[/quote]

I think it is typical.

Soccer is a young man's game.  Many kids get signed by the time they're 16 or 17.  If you're 19 or 20 and you haven't been signed to a contract you are facing very long odds against success.

And it's pretty obvious by 13 or 14 which kids have any sort of chance of making it, and - more to the point - if the kid hasn't set himself the goal by this point, he's not going to put in the work necessary to make it.

We could have a separate discussion about whether chasing such a dream is sensible or realistic - but if that is the dream then it starts before high school or probably not at all.[/quote]

I am the poster that the question was directed at and what the above says seems to make sense because I have also been curious too, when other parents knew their kid had procareer potential.  I have a few kids and I can only say that about one kid who is currently pre-ECNL age.  He has the skills, athleticism, motivation (playing soccer is what makes him happiest at the moment), and discipline (perfectionist, practices on his own, always eager to do and learn more).  He could dribble and control the ball very well before he was 2, almost like an instinct.  He also has soccer IQ which he uses effectively as part of a team.  And yes, he's very good according to coaches, teammates, other soccer parents, etc.  We assess every year whether he has the same interest and motivation because I can't imagine going through travel soccer and all this stuff unless my kid was already talented and had the motivation and discipline to keep on going. As to my point in a previous post, it definitely isn't worth it just for a college scholarship.   [/quote]

So in the major European leagues they sign kids to their YDS at 16. That is the first make or break year. The kids signed minimally have to be extremely good athletes- speed and quickness. I have seen two pro athletes at the high school level. It was as like men playing with boys. They were so athletically better vs everyone else they could play at 50-75% and still be the dominant player. They did not work at it or have a a high skill level in high school. If you do not have the athleticism all the work, skill, drive, soccer iq, etc does not matter. [/quote]

Different sports require different attributes.  Obviously soccer players cannot be unathletic, but you do not need NFL speed or strength to play soccer for example so the kids stand out in different ways.  But the ones with pro potential still stand out, at least to an educated observer.  And they don't have to play 100% to stand out either.  Tennis might be a better comparison than basketball or football.  You cannot be fat, uncoordinated, slow or weak and be a pro tennis player.  But nor do you need freakish speed or strength.[/quote]

+1[/quote]

Well, the players in both sports are getting bigger and stronger over time.  The Premier league, always physical, is now more physical than ever and you do need lightning speed at the International level.[/quote]

No you do not need lightning speed.  Sure, all other things being equal, lightning speed helps. Look at Liverpool for example.  Joel Matip does not have lightning speed, nor even anythjng close to it.  Nor do Fabinho, Alexander-Arnold, Milner, and Henderson amongst others.

[quote]Tennis: Serena Williams.  The women are becoming more powerful  Look at gymnasts: Nadia Comaneci --tiny and light and lean used to do it.  Look at gymnasts today starting back when Mary Lou Retton came on the scene: look at the sheer muscle and athleticism in Simone Biles.  [/quote]

This doesn't change anything about my argument.  All physical attributes help, but the balance remains different for different sports.  So sure - any sportsman or woman takes advantage of modern training methods and drugs to be faster and stronger than the equivalent athlete of yesteryear.  But that doesn't change much of anything about the inherent attributes kids require to make it.

[quote]People will continue to optimize performance to break boundaries, records and that comes with optimizing physical traits.[/quote]
Indeed.  But again the availability of superior training and performance enhancing drugs does not mean that kids must have those qualities prior to undertaking such training or courses of drugs, just that they can be attained through such efforts for those kids with the potential to turn pro in the first place.  And that potential is not predicated solely on speed or strength any more than it ever was.

Here's an interesting link http://www.thebesteleven.com/2010/07/world-cup-2010-speed-and-distance-stats.html.  It shows the top speeds of the fastest and slowest players in the 2010 world cup.  The fastest players attained speeds of around 32 kph, the slowest around 20kph.  By comparison Usain Bolt's top speed is 45 kph.  Perhaps the comparison is not entirely fair since Usain Bolt doesn't hit his top speed until 65-70m into his sprint - but nevertheless it's very clear that the slower players do not have elite speed, or anything close to it.

44.72 kp[/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