Anyone knows if U16/17 will split next year?

Kante said:
......Yes, everybody has to compete in the same system now, but the system can be changed. Defending the status quo as if it’s etched in stone from on high, and effectively saying “get over it”, is not exactly high work rate logic.
Click to expand...

No one is defending the existing system on the forum. Most of us see the flaw. That said, it is what it is and is a fact. Also, has nothing to do with high work rate logic. It has more to do with higher soccer IQ and intelligent plays to make it work within the system.

Kante said:
......Per the CDC boys growth data for ages 2-20, at the start of this year’s season, the older player would, on average, be 2 ½ inches taller and more than 19 pounds heavier.

That’s a significant delta to expect any player to make up when challenging for a 50/50 ball and when making/facing a challenge.

And there’s a fair amount of research available that show a direct correlation with age and the ability to pass accurately, receive the ball and anticipate. Again, all big advantages for older players
Click to expand...

That's the thing I love about people when they drag out general population data. I have the chart to plot the growth of my own kids since birth. But in reality, it may or may not be true and certainly cannot be generalized that all young 15 yrs is 19 lbs lighter and 2.5 inches shorter than older 16 yrs old kid.

I think the 50/50 ball example is in the same logic as the work rate logic you've mentioned. There is a technique to winning 50/50 ball other than using just own strength.

As for fair amount of research that shows age vs ability to pass and so on as you've noted - where? Is it for the older age group or for younger children?

Frankly when you take a year to a 10 yrs old kid, the year is 10% of his life. With each passing years, the fraction gets smaller and smaller and the impact gets smaller and smaller, especially post puberty.

Kante said:
......Full disclosure. I have a son with a birthday in the second half of the calendar year.....held his own when he’s played against 04’s............
Click to expand...

Say no more. Got it. Your a parent of younger than 04 player. Your perspective may change when your kid complete puberty or by the time he gets to U16 in 3 years or so. Just keep a open mind about it.

My kid is late November birthday and started college at 17 yrs old. He plays on a college team and he is 5-10 and 160 lbs, just an average size. He was 5-2, 100 lbs when he was a freshman in high school playing on a Varsity team then.- just had turned 14 yrs. He quit DA to play high school, then went back to DA so he played both in different years.
 
Kante said:
Couple of things. (warning: longish post,)

Yes, everybody has to compete in the same system now, but the system can be changed. Defending the status quo as if it’s etched in stone from on high, and effectively saying “get over it”, is not exactly high work rate logic.

Combining age groups, at ages where kids are still rapidly developing over time, favors early developers and older kids. Those early developers and older kids are not - on average – necessarily better, but they are bigger and faster relative to their younger or later developing peers. Not sure that anyone can argue this pair of points.

The analogy I once used with a parent who was lamenting that their kid – who was young for the age group - was smaller and slower than the other players is that everybody ends up with the same set of teeth, some kids just get their teeth in earlier than others. Point being, stick with it.

If US Soccer is looking for the best chewers, they should probably wait until everybody has all their teeth in before making decisions that will be definitive. This was US Soccer’s self-interested reasoning behind separating u12, u13, u14 and u15 into their own age groups.

To be clear, US Soccer’s decision was not about being “fair” and making sure that players got PT.

With u16/u17, then, the questions is whether or not there is still a significant developmental gap between younger players and older players in this combined age group.

Let’s go to the data.

This year, the cut-off for u16/u17 is January 1st, 2002. And with the combined age group, in theory, a player who was born on December 31, 2003 could be put on the same field as a player born on January 1, 2002 with potentially a 24 month age advantage.

Per the CDC boys growth data for ages 2-20, at the start of this year’s season, the older player would, on average, be 2 ½ inches taller and more than 19 pounds heavier.

That’s a significant delta to expect any player to make up when challenging for a 50/50 ball and when making/facing a challenge.

And there’s a fair amount of research available that show a direct correlation with age and the ability to pass accurately, receive the ball and anticipate. Again, all big advantages for older players.

(Granted, the younger player would still face a challenge, even if u16 was its own age group, but it wouldn’t be a nineteen pound weight difference challenge.)

When some parents talk disparagingly of those who want to change the system, I get it. Where you stand depends on where you sit. The combined age groups, favoring older and early developing players, probably worked for them.

Full disclosure. I have a son with a birthday in the second half of the calendar year. He’s kicking butt right now on a DA team, has been called up a couple of times and has more than held his own when he’s played against 04’s. But almost every game, he’s one of the shortest kids on the field.

Our family, while not a tall people, happens to have a solid soccer background, and is very aware of the challenges our son faces, and some of the things he can do to mitigate. However, most families of promising younger players don’t have the same context or resources that we do, and I know the attrition rate for those younger players, which will make up 50% of the potential playing pool for u16, is high and gets worse every year from u12 thru u16/u17.

So the real question is whether or not US Soccer, with the outstanding results it’s been getting lately, can afford to lose up to 50% of the potential player pool at u16?

Because that’s the real potential impact of having a combined u16/u17 age group.

Maybe it makes sense for US Soccer and the Development Academy to now look at players, their families, their work ethic, their resilience and their demonstrated love of and commitment to the game, and start making decisions around who has the best chance – everything considered – to be the best soccer players at age 17 and age 18

And then put resources behind those kids to support them, and make simple changes like breaking out u16 as its own age group.

There’s good reasons that many of the world’s best professional soccer players – Hazard, Salah, Guero, Iniesta, Kante, Modric, Mbappe - are 5’6” to 5’ 10”. A lot of it has to do with the physics of soccer, and the physiological demands of playing a game where players run 8-10+ miles in a start/stop manner with lots of left/right movement over the course of 90 minutes with only one break.

Would love to see the age breakdown by month of the’03 players who are playing u16/17 this year. I have a big pot of money available to bet that the '03 players born after July 1 are significantly under-represented on the current DA u16/u17 teams.

Any takers?
Click to expand...

I get you & things have changed quite a bit, all the ages where combined ones when my player started DA and he was normally always on the smaller side until about the 3rd year when he was average.

I talked to a lot of people about those earlier years and ussda was studying what to do, first the calendar year splits and now the Bio-Banding. I was disappointed that ussda despite years of study only offered a solution for 2 players per team to basically play down, which we've seen some take liberty on the guidelines which call for later year birthday and smaller bio footprint.
https://www.ussoccer.com/~/media/files/academy/bio-banding-faq-402018.pdf?la=en

USSDA used to list birthday but switched to birth years a while ago but I do remember looking out of curiosity and you could seen the patterns where some clubs stacked the teams with earlier in the year kids, others mixed but mostly early for the majority i recall.

Used to be only about 25% or less of the players where on the younger side in the combo years but that has increased but not close to the 50% yet so yes the player pool does shrink.

Part of the bio-banding study could have resulted in a recommendation to go full calendar year for all groups which which would better align to what everybody else is doing. For some reason the half baked bio-banding initiative just seems like ussf/da is trying to check a box off for a couple players without doing much for the masses.

DA has shrunk the number of league games down by almost 33% from 30+ games, plus showcase and playoffs to around 2o+ or so plus fewer showcases. With the rise of some of the other new leagues, the reduced schedule, and the insistence on no high school play DA is not as big of a draw to some as it previous was with the exception of any MLS team. The players have been getting better over the years but hard to say the competition level has overall that much.

Speed, tactical IQ, experience, and strength goes along way in over coming size differences and sometimes you do have to go the hard way but the challenge can pay off in the long run, maybe we've been lucky by the combo age groups have actually helped my player in the long teram but at the same time we've seen a bunch of turnover and keeping teams together in DA can be pretty difficult.
 
mirage said:
I don't know if you were aware at the time or recall. That was Ben L and his dad was posting on this forum as "2000boy". Family moved to Spain and the whole story was told here by his dad.

The latter point, there are PLENTY of players in DA system with dual US/EU citizenship playing (my kid was one of them for an example). So that part is not a huge stretch.



That was my whole point. Why not sponsor these kids by American companies. Take the high potential youth player and if they want to pursue professional soccer, why not make that happen by opening the door and sponsoring them. That's what I meant by having a formal path.

Here's an example and what I mean. If a highly promising player in US is willing to sign with the Fenway Group (owners of RedSox, and Liverpool) and sign also with New Balance, why not pay the kid to be at Liverpool's youth academy. As a professional and 18, one can get a working visa and be there. If under 18, perhaps summer stays or equivalent of internship until 18.

Doing a lone as a privateer is almost certain to fail as you so accurately point out.
Click to expand...

Yeah Ben's a few years older but do remember talking to Danny before and after, our son is friends with a few other player who moved to Spain and we have some family & friends with business in Europe.

Really have not heard or know of many players with duality possibilities other than mexico on the da teams he's been on, normally 1-3 players each year if you count him.

Get you with the sponsorship ideas, the Gen Adidas and Homegrown initiatives have very mixed results. Would think you would have to have a deep pocket sponsor partnership or perhaps a league partnership; MX, EPL, or some sort of transfer discount possibilities to make that worth it. Bypassing the MLS through DA is something that would be a hard sell since they MLS youth academies are so expensive.

The residency programs Ala Galaxy, Phil Union, and now Barcelona out in Casa Grande are kind of in the infant stages, so wonder if those will catch on? The Barcelona USA 70k+ fee is crazy so don't see that being a good option for most.
 
@Kante you raise a few good point and like all threads on this forum we kinda took a left turn from the OP's original questions (will the DA create a U16 group for boys). The "bio-banding" discussion is probably a good one. Here in SoCal virtually every DA club faced with this challenge of holding onto their younger/smaller talent when the composite year impacts them, takes the remaining team and sends them to play in the CRL/CSL/SCDSL/NPL, etc. for a year, so its really isn't that much of an issue. I just don't see the DA changing this IF its true to its mission.

Immediate Future
As far as the changes coming, what you are going to see in the immediate future is the "bio-banding" initiative taking hold in the various regions. With the U15 and U16 groups getting to send 2 players down an age group. In the long term the continued push by the Federation for fully funded residential academies (HS aged kids) will continue.

Because most DA programs simply don't have the resources (nor the financial incentives available ... solidarity and training fees are not passed on in the US), you will soon see the DA create two leagues for the boys. League 1 - Fully Funded MLS programs with a few non-MLS clubs participating; and League 2 - Pay-to-Play DA league. You are already seeing the DA start to internally and publicly stratify and designate the club numbers.

Post Youth Development
The Federation has a major problem and its knows it. The development of youth stops at 18. From that point forward, the US lacks any true adult development programs. The MLS is not as talent rich as it needs to be, thus, the level of competition is very low. Pushing our elite youth talent into the MLS is slightly better than letting them go to college and stagnate for 4 years there. The MLS is also horrible at giving youth players 1st division playing time (I use the term 1st division very, very, very, very loosely as the MLS is at best a 3rd division league compared to Europe and Latin America).

When the average age of a National Team player is 26/27, it should become clear that our problem really isn't "youth development" but "professional development." Domestically, our youth don't get playing time as 18-20 year olds because the MLS is in survival mode. The level of competition in the USL spotty. The solution at this time is to get the hell out of Dodge and find a path to the European youth academies.
 
MWN said:
US Soccer is only interested in identifying the top players that have the potential of making the US MNT and can go pro at 17-18. The goal in creating the DA was to get the top kids in the US Soccer database, create a league for the top .01% to play with the other 1-5%ers. You can disagree and kick and scream about it, but US Soccer's mission as the NGB (USOC National Governing Body - Soccer) is to field the national team and promote the sports through its various affiliates. On the youth side, the Youth Affiliates are US Club, US Youth Soccer, AYSO, etc.

Any kid that that hits U16 and can't play up a year or two is very unlikely to be of the quality that should skip college and go pro by 18 or better yet 17. I know it sounds horribly cruel to say this but US Soccer's only interest in the DA is to identify those players. This is the MLS's interest as well and why the MLS is willing to subsidize the DA teams, so it kinda works out. The 2nd tier DA clubs (those without an MLS bankroll) are only in it for the marketing spin the DA gives them.

Disagree all you want, very little is gained by adding a U16 bracket on the boys side. Let the kids that can't make it go play with the Youth affiliates for a year and then see if they have the chops to make the older team. Culling was built into the model because that is how the Europeans do it.
Click to expand...
US Soccer and most everyone associated with DA's are interested in maintaining livelihoods, often in complete spite of whatever original goals existed in the past. All parents considering USSDA should be aware of this fact.
Years ago I had a friend who worked for the DEA. Made a good living. Traveled the world. Never once did he mention what kept him in the chips would lead to fulfillment of the agency's original goal.

By the way, Xavi Simons (Barca academy) played Cadete B last year (03's mostly). Maybe one of the top prospects in soccer(?) He'd have been crushed by the 02's in his league.
 
ray8 said:
US Soccer and most everyone associated with DA's are interested in maintaining livelihoods, often in complete spite of whatever original goals existed in the past. All parents considering USSDA should be aware of this fact.
Years ago I had a friend who worked for the DEA. Made a good living. Traveled the world. Never once did he mention what kept him in the chips would lead to fulfillment of the agency's original goal.

By the way, Xavi Simons (Barca academy) played Cadete B last year (03's mostly). Maybe one of the top prospects in soccer(?) He'd have been crushed by the 02's in his league.
Click to expand...

Yeah Simons is Dutch and he's fun to watch, reminds me of the orginal Xavi & Andres Iniesta as youth players. He world get crushed over here playing u16/17 also as he would be the smallest player on the field by far.

As far as Lederman he left Barcelona this summer to play for Gent in the Belgian league. As a prospect looking for playing time likely a good move since breaking into the the 1st team at Barca was likely years aways.
 
MWN said:
@Kante you raise a few good point and like all threads on this forum we kinda took a left turn from the OP's original questions (will the DA create a U16 group for boys). The "bio-banding" discussion is probably a good one. Here in SoCal virtually every DA club faced with this challenge of holding onto their younger/smaller talent when the composite year impacts them, takes the remaining team and sends them to play in the CRL/CSL/SCDSL/NPL, etc. for a year, so its really isn't that much of an issue. I just don't see the DA changing this IF its true to its mission.

Immediate Future
As far as the changes coming, what you are going to see in the immediate future is the "bio-banding" initiative taking hold in the various regions. With the U15 and U16 groups getting to send 2 players down an age group. In the long term the continued push by the Federation for fully funded residential academies (HS aged kids) will continue.
Click to expand...
I think bio-banding is an interesting idea as it supports those slower growing and younger players in an age group. There is definitely some value. Let me ask you MWN, based on your previous responses here...

Doesn’t this initiative run counter to US Soccer’s push that “the best will play up”? It seems that if US Soccer is fine with keeping the U16/17s combined as a measure to weed out the 99+% not destined for YNT and beyond, then why expend any energy bio-banding at U14/15? If these smaller U15 players are superior and destined for higher levels, there should be no need for them to play with the U14s. It should “make zero sense” to do so. Right?
 
SBFDad said:
I think bio-banding is an interesting idea as it supports those slower growing and younger players in an age group. There is definitely some value. Let me ask you MWN, based on your previous responses here...

Doesn’t this initiative run counter to US Soccer’s push that “the best will play up”? It seems that if US Soccer is fine with keeping the U16/17s combined as a measure to weed out the 99+% not destined for YNT and beyond, then why expend any energy bio-banding at U14/15? If these smaller U15 players are superior and destined for higher levels, there should be no need for them to play with the U14s. It should “make zero sense” to do so. Right?
Click to expand...

You make a few assumption in your questions that are not accurate.

Short Answer: No. Its free and the ROI makes sense. Yes. Just to be clear, we are talking about 14 and 15 year old boys. Puberty started around 13 and won't finish until 16/17.

Long Answer:
First Question: US Soccer is concerned with the top 1% (actually, the top .54399231%, rounding up). Its not just the kids playing up ... but the top .5%. Now, kids that play up are an excellent indicator of talent, but that is not the Federation's litmus test ... although a 15 year old that can play with the 20 year olds and excel is the unicorn the USSF is looking for. A 15 year old that can't compete with 16 year olds is not on the radar now ... but a few may be later.

Second Question: BioBanding could impact about 424 players (or potentially 2/18 per team x 212 impacted team) and costs absolutely nothing to the teams and the Federation. Of those 400ish potential players, there are about 2 that have potential (assuming the .54399231 number is good). From a cost perspective. Adding a U16 bracket would mean there are another 18 players x 102 teams (1,836 additional players) in the system that are nothing more than pool players without a realistic chance of breaking into the next level. Undertaking the additional costs of 1,836 players to I.D. roughly 2 makes little to no sense ... especially if we can get there with BioBanding to keep those late bloomers in the system.

Third Question: Yes and no. Smaller U15 players that can play up are not destined for greatness ... but they are worth keeping an eye on and the upside is definitely better than the same group that can't play up. It makes sense to keep the smaller kids in the system if we don't add to the overall cost. So from a pure business perspective, it would be correct to cut the smaller/older players loose because the ROI is not there if we added a U16 group. However, if we change the rules via "bio banding" then we allow the older/smaller kids to stay in and eliminate spots for the truly weaker players. The ROI is not impacted through bio-banding; but is destroyed with a U16 bracket. So yes and no because the assumption you make is not accurate.
 
MWN said:
You make a few assumption in your questions that are not accurate.

Short Answer: No. Its free and the ROI makes sense. Yes. Just to be clear, we are talking about 14 and 15 year old boys. Puberty started around 13 and won't finish until 16/17.

Long Answer:
First Question: US Soccer is concerned with the top 1% (actually, the top .54399231%, rounding up). Its not just the kids playing up ... but the top .5%. Now, kids that play up are an excellent indicator of talent, but that is not the Federation's litmus test ... although a 15 year old that can play with the 20 year olds and excel is the unicorn the USSF is looking for. A 15 year old that can't compete with 16 year olds is not on the radar now ... but a few may be later.

Second Question: BioBanding could impact about 424 players (or potentially 2/18 per team x 212 impacted team) and costs absolutely nothing to the teams and the Federation. Of those 400ish potential players, there are about 2 that have potential (assuming the .54399231 number is good). From a cost perspective. Adding a U16 bracket would mean there are another 18 players x 102 teams (1,836 additional players) in the system that are nothing more than pool players without a realistic chance of breaking into the next level. Undertaking the additional costs of 1,836 players to I.D. roughly 2 makes little to no sense ... especially if we can get there with BioBanding to keep those late bloomers in the system.

Third Question: Yes and no. Smaller U15 players that can play up are not destined for greatness ... but they are worth keeping an eye on and the upside is definitely better than the same group that can't play up. It makes sense to keep the smaller kids in the system if we don't add to the overall cost. So from a pure business perspective, it would be correct to cut the smaller/older players loose because the ROI is not there if we added a U16 group. However, if we change the rules via "bio banding" then we allow the older/smaller kids to stay in and eliminate spots for the truly weaker players. The ROI is not impacted through bio-banding; but is destroyed with a U16 bracket. So yes and no because the assumption you make is not accurate.
Click to expand...

"Biobanding" at least partially defeats the purpose of playing up.
 
espola said:
"Biobanding" at least partially defeats the purpose of playing up.
Click to expand...

Playing up is a form of Biobanding. In pop warner they have a concept of "older but lighter." Here we have the same concept. It really costs nothing to bioband some lighter skillful players to see if they can dominate. Soccer is still a contact sport (despite the protests of the U9/U10/U11 parents). While its true that it defeats the purpose of playing up, it nonetheless may allow the Federation to ID 1 or 2 kids that would otherwise be sent packing.
 
Real Deal said:
Is this all working? This id-ing at 12 here in the USA? Whether bio-banded or not? Is it working? That's all I'd like to know.
Click to expand...

I believe the proper measuring stick is what success are the DA youth graduates having at the next level. Are we seeing more of our talent skip college and go pro? One of the biggest problems we have in the US is the pro path is still immature, unless you consider making $55k playing soccer good enough. The European pro path is for the best talent, with the US pro path being for the 2nd tier.

It also important to consider that the DA has yet to reach the level of the European market with players in residential academies. Here very few of our players are in residential academies, which means the DA is just another league with team practicing a bit more than the lower leagues. We still have a ways to go before the promise and goals of the DA are met.
 
MWN said:
It also important to consider that the DA has yet to reach the level of the European market with players in residential academies. Here very few of our players are in residential academies, which means the DA is just another league with team practicing a bit more than the lower leagues. We still have a ways to go before the promise and goals of the DA are met.
Click to expand...

This may have been addressed before, but the US cannot mirror the European academy model until the academies get the rights to the players. In Europe, you find a young kid, sign him for nothing, develop him and if he's good, can either feed him to your club or sell him for real money. The amount of money involved is so much that getting one hit out of 100 covers the all the costs of the 99 who don't make it.

In the US, the academies can't secure the rights to their kids. (Most academies aren't even associated with for-profit entities anyway.) So if they develop a super star, they just watch the kid get gobbled up by the Galaxy or LAFC and have nothing to show for it. There's no way for them to recover their costs. And while the MLS clubs do have rights to their homegrown players, they actually sign the kids much later in the process than in Europe so the kid's value is already inflated.

Until this changes - until there's the potential for financial gain for an academy to develop players - we aren't going to see development in the academies.
 
Real Deal said:
Is this all working? This id-ing at 12 here in the USA? Whether bio-banded or not? Is it working? That's all I'd like to know.
Click to expand...

Time will tell but it was already being abused last year: players born in the 1st half of a calendar year and some really tall forward & keepers managed to play down so I don't if anybody is actually auditing or looking at who is really bio-banding?
 
Here’s a study that speaks to the developmental advantages of older players when it comes to passing accuracy, passing speed and response time. The study looked players ages 11 to 16 and saw pretty direct correlations for age vs the “y” factors mentioned above.

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0185460#sec023

There’s a number of similar studies looking at this type of info online. A search for the terms “soccer relative age effect study” should get you there.
__________

On bio banding, the USSDA performance guy says that bio banding is as much or more about having older/developmentally advanced players play up so they don’t stall out technically.

Sure, playing up is an indicator that a player exceeds his age cohort in terms positive impact on the field at a particular point in time.

However, this positive field impact may be an indicator of talent, but, I would argue (applying the .5% rule), more likely is an indicator of temporary size and speed advantages.

If these kids don’t play up, sure, they’ll be stars at 12, 13,14, and 15 but they risk stalling out and then dropping out when they hit 16, 17 and 18, which is what the English clubs are seeing.

(There’s a couple of nationally ranked top 05 teams in LA and SD with really big back lines and front lines respectively. Will be really interesting to see where some of the players on these teams are in four to five years. Maintaining this top ranking is great for the club, but maybe not so great for the players.)

________

On younger players developing more by playing with older kids, I completely agree.

Our older would have been a beast if USSDA had kept the age grouping at school year, rather than birth year. But he also would not be as good technically as he is now. Practicing and playing against older players has definitely made him a better player.

Having said that, our older also benefited from RAE until the year before last. Not sure that he would have made it this far if he had been in the youngest quartile since day one.

And that’s a key point.

Our younger has been one of the youngest since day one, and it was really tough playing against the kids who were almost a year older, despite a lot of support most kids don’t get (we’re a soccer family with a number of close friends in the soccer community who have helped both our boys develop).

Now that things are more evened out age wise for him with the switch to birth year , he’s catching up and playing Academy.

He’ll be bigger than our older, and may actually turn out, because of his vision and some other intangibles, in a couple of years, to be a better player. But if he had to go to the back of the line again age wise, his development would likely stall.


If US Soccer split u16, u17 and u18 into single year age groups instead of having u16/17 and u18/u19, they would increase the player pool – and the opportunity to find national team quality players - by about 50%.

All it would take from a national team POV to get to justify this change is to find one or two additional quality players – who happened to be younger - per year. And applying the .5% odds to the additional 1,500 player who could get a shot, there’s at least a couple of quality players who would will be culled by the u16/u17 filter.

And then there’s a side benefit (from US Soccer’s pov), that a large number of kids may also then have a much better chance to keep playing a high enough level to get into colleges that they might not otherwise get into with maybe even scholarships.

And USSDA should eliminate the whole u19 age grouping because it's ridiculous. Topic for another day…
 
Kante said:
Here’s a study that speaks to the developmental advantages of older players when it comes to passing accuracy, passing speed and response time. The study looked players ages 11 to 16 and saw pretty direct correlations for age vs the “y” factors mentioned above.

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0185460#sec023

There’s a number of similar studies looking at this type of info online. A search for the terms “soccer relative age effect study” should get you there.
__________

On bio banding, the USSDA performance guy says that bio banding is as much or more about having older/developmentally advanced players play up so they don’t stall out technically.

Sure, playing up is an indicator that a player exceeds his age cohort in terms positive impact on the field at a particular point in time.

However, this positive field impact may be an indicator of talent, but, I would argue (applying the .5% rule), more likely is an indicator of temporary size and speed advantages.

If these kids don’t play up, sure, they’ll be stars at 12, 13,14, and 15 but they risk stalling out and then dropping out when they hit 16, 17 and 18, which is what the English clubs are seeing.

(There’s a couple of nationally ranked top 05 teams in LA and SD with really big back lines and front lines respectively. Will be really interesting to see where some of the players on these teams are in four to five years. Maintaining this top ranking is great for the club, but maybe not so great for the players.)

________

On younger players developing more by playing with older kids, I completely agree.

Our older would have been a beast if USSDA had kept the age grouping at school year, rather than birth year. But he also would not be as good technically as he is now. Practicing and playing against older players has definitely made him a better player.

Having said that, our older also benefited from RAE until the year before last. Not sure that he would have made it this far if he had been in the youngest quartile since day one.

And that’s a key point.

Our younger has been one of the youngest since day one, and it was really tough playing against the kids who were almost a year older, despite a lot of support most kids don’t get (we’re a soccer family with a number of close friends in the soccer community who have helped both our boys develop).

Now that things are more evened out age wise for him with the switch to birth year , he’s catching up and playing Academy.

He’ll be bigger than our older, and may actually turn out, because of his vision and some other intangibles, in a couple of years, to be a better player. But if he had to go to the back of the line again age wise, his development would likely stall.


If US Soccer split u16, u17 and u18 into single year age groups instead of having u16/17 and u18/u19, they would increase the player pool – and the opportunity to find national team quality players - by about 50%.

All it would take from a national team POV to get to justify this change is to find one or two additional quality players – who happened to be younger - per year. And applying the .5% odds to the additional 1,500 player who could get a shot, there’s at least a couple of quality players who would will be culled by the u16/u17 filter.

And then there’s a side benefit (from US Soccer’s pov), that a large number of kids may also then have a much better chance to keep playing a high enough level to get into colleges that they might not otherwise get into with maybe even scholarships.

And USSDA should eliminate the whole u19 age grouping because it's ridiculous. Topic for another day…
Click to expand...


Thank you so much. This is a very rational rationale and fits with what I have seen. You said it better than I could have and better than I've seen. For the vast majority of DA clubs kids going on to play in college is and will be there siren call to attract talent. "We sent a player who is now with LA Galaxy 2" is less compelling to the vast majority of parents than "We've sent 70% of our DA players to play in college." To this end DA Clubs should be demanding single age groups as this feeds into this bottom line of getting kids to college. I KNOW DA is the "path to pro" and it goes against the inherent reason for the DA BUT reality isn't matching that so DA clubs should demand something different...much like the girls side did. But they've already invested so much in these kids...promote the u16's who need it to u17 team but keep a u16 pure team to keep kids in the system and pipeline.

I also agree on the u19 age group. From the clubs I know that age band is a mess.

Thanks again for your post.
 
Kante said:
Here’s a study ....
https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0185460#sec023
Click to expand...
Thanks for the link. Reads bit like a white paper for COGNIFOOT, product utilization, especially when comparing what would coaches do vs COGNIFOOT results.

I'd like to add bit of interpretation though....
46 players evaluated from age 11~14 yrs (U12~U15) but 31 of 46 are pre-puberty players (11 to 13 yrs old). Obviously, when comparing results of youngers with olders, clearly would show bigger differences. Additionally, two U16 players were added to the 14 yrs old pool and and two females at the two older age groups.

The report concludes that:
"These observations confirmed that the pre- adolescence–mid-adolescence period is of critical developmental stage for the acquisition of superior perceptual-cognitive skills in soccer"

Everyone would agree.

All that said, the topic is to separate older ages and not the youngers - they are already in individual years.

Kante said:
.....Our older would have been a beast if USSDA had kept the age grouping at school year, rather than birth year......

If US Soccer split u16, u17 and u18 into single year age groups instead of having u16/17 and u18/u19, they would increase the player pool – and the opportunity to find national team quality players - by about 50%....
Click to expand...

As far as I can recall, it has always been calendar year for DA since inception in 2008 to match the international rules. There was never a switch in DA from August start date.

In terms of player pool, there is a reason why there are less older player DA clubs than younger. USSF doesn't want more players in the pool. They want the right players in the pool. They are seeking quality over quantity. They know the attrition and are only interested in those that make the fewer number of teams at these age groups.

One can argue what they are getting is of quality or not but by having more players only makes "pay to play" DA clubs richer and USSF's job harder to identify the players of interest. Sort of like having too many menu items in a restaurant....

Kante said:
..........And USSDA should eliminate the whole u19 age grouping because it's ridiculous. Topic for another day…
Click to expand...

As for U19/18 group, a significant number of those U19 players are college "unofficial red shirt" or sometimes called "gray shirt" players. In other words, those players are recruited but not ready to play (e.g., red shirt) but have a year of eligibility left due to birth year. Many college coaches have a working relationship with their local DA club and send those players. The coach would rather have the players play than just train and sit out the year. Since these players are intentionally not rostered or have played in any college games, they are eligible to DA.

To conclude, I personally, wished that USSF had a different method to identify MNT/YNT players than how they do it now. Also, I wished they had a different mentality coaches where they place higher values on movement, creativity and technical skills with and without the ball. The problem is that we have been successful just enough historically (current situation not withstanding) in the past that a whole sale change is not favored. Besides, many in the USSF would have to make themselves redundant and turn the control over to someone else completely.
 
On the U19 age group debate...I think of the U18/19 age group as the high school seniors. Most seniors will by U18 when they graduate high school but the later birth month players in a calendar year group will be U19s when seniors. This combined age group is the only one that makes sense on paper. This of course assumes that those kids that graduate high school in June move on from DA the following Fall to play college ball. Sounds as if this isn’t happening though in some cases. Grow up. Move on.
 
Real Deal said:
Is this all working? This id-ing at 12 here in the USA? Whether bio-banded or not? Is it working? That's all I'd like to know.
Click to expand...
Anyone paying the slightest attention knows the answer. Ask yourselves: What's in it for anyone involved if it worked? A pat on the back?
Much more profitable to maintain the illusion that it could work. Endless supply of parents willing to pay for their child to be seen, if you can keep that illusion going.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top