Footballero
BRONZE
I heard rumors a couple months ago that they might do it, but haven’t heard a thing since. Anyone has info on that?
Anyone knows if U16/17 will split next year?
- Thread starter Footballero
- Start date
jpeter
PREMIER
Should know for sure later fall when the apps come out but for now my guess is things will stay the same with the combined age groups for the boys.
LAFC & Galaxy are planning to field combined team that season according to the people we've talked with at the friendlies but only time will tell.
Kante
PREMIER
Splitting 16/17 would give the boys with birthdays in the last half of the year, and the late developers, a chance to catch up, and compete on a physically even playing field. At >17, all the boys are very close to whatever height they're going to be, but at 16 there's a number of boys who are still growing.
Last edited:
By that logic, why not combine year groups further? U14/15? U12/13? There is so much happening on and off of the field with 14-17 year old boys who will make up the U16/17 ranks over the years...new demands of high school academics, girls, accelerated puberty, slow growers, uneven and erratic mental development.
To suggest that the U16s aren’t worthy of selection or playing time because they “can’t play up” is short-sided. And who’s to say what kids aren’t really capable of playing up? Do you have that much faith in all of the directors and coaches that operate in the DA sphere to get this part right? How many of those coaches are really focused on true development of players vs. winning with more physically and mentally advanced, older players?
Kids need to play to get better. A lot of 2003s will watch their 2002 counterparts from the bench this year. Those 2003s will fall short of their full potential as a result. Year over year this is happening. Why? To save US Soccer and USSDA clubs from the expense of carrying an additional year group? The special players will rise to the top. We know that. But how many 14 and 15 year old kids with potentially high ceilings yet to be realized will get overlooked and underdeveloped with this type of thinking?
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.
Here is a true statement to ponder - a young player who is just good enough to play up a year or three will benefit from the experience proportional to the amount of playing time he gets with the older, bigger, better players. Meanwhile, the older-etc players are just doing public service in developing the next generation.
jpeter
PREMIER
With the shift to single calendar year age groups Ussda has basically went there own way now for two years and counting with these combo age groups. Personally I think that's a mistake from a resources point of view as clubs, coaches, players have invested years of time & money to only to see many players walk away and teams break up. Ussda is expensive enough and not open to that many players, so why throw that away to I'd the 1% when you know of them anyway? YNT rarely take on new players after this age anyway.
The real problem with Ussda is the competitive in balance, 6-0 scores at U18/19 this first week of the season, their is a big gap between say the top 3-4 teams and everybody else in most age groups.
The structure of the league needs to change: MLS teams do thing there own thing like the Galaxy u16/17 who show a incredible 32 players on their posted roster and normal club team have 16 players so everyone has a chance to play since there is only 3-5 subs going in a game anyway & 18 game day max. When one of those players standout from a normal club, the mls clubs come in a swoop them up perpetuating the in-balance in a endless cycle.
There could be qualifing or qualifications each season for teams to continque on like CRL does rather than gifting clubs teams no matter there performance. Oh but that would reward win at all cost over development is the arguments but realistic at the u16+ age groups that's what's going on in the ussda anyway.
As far as the players left out due to combined age groups lots of options from them to play in the myrid of other leagues and some will actually be better off since they will play more, the only ones that are losing out is the ussda and some of the clubs who see there investments walk away each year.
In the 12 years of the DA, how many of these kids who had the "chops" went straight on to play on an MLS team or the Sr. National team? I am willing guess less than 5%. Having the maturity, skill, and intelligence to play up an age group or two is a tremendous growth experience but I would argue it is not the only way for players to continue to grow.
YES! AND US Soccer has struggled to identify and develop the smaller savvy technical players. We’ve relied on athletes for ever and ever. So the answer to this is to “promote” the biggest, strongest kids while “demote” the kids who maybe haven’t grown yet or can’t out muscle their way thru a game? Makes so much sense.
younothat
PREMIER
Really? Like who? which players?
DeAndre Yedlin, Christian Pulisic, Kellyn Acosta, Paul Arriola, Tyler Adams, Julian Green, Marky Delgado, Sebastian LLetget, Cristian Roldan, etc are not exactly what I would consider big.
Several 2002's turned pro after the lastest ussda playoffs this past season, New York FC and Galaxy had players that went. Gio Reyna to Dortmund, LA Galaxy Sign midfielder Efrain Alvarez, etc sure they might play in the 2nd-3rd league until they mature but ussda does have a ceiling and you can reach it why still in high school.
Most of the replies read like "my kid is under aged year in the combined group"....
I get that you want your own age group so that they get more playing time. Been there and done that.
Perspective is that the age groups have been tinkered with over the years. Originally, it was U18/17, U16/15, U14 only. Always been calendar year grouping. With addition of younger ages, they split into today's grouping U19/18, U17/16, U15, 14 and so on.
The fact that there is U15 is a direct response to so called late bloomers and 2nd half of the year kids.
Now that my post DA kid is playing in college, I can look back and say that the combined age vs single year age made no difference. Neither will help identify "smaller creative technical players" or identify late bloomers any better.
The fact of the matter is those smaller or late bloomer players have to compete in the existing system - like it or not. And if they are competitive enough, then they are. If not, they are not.
Lets think about this bit more logically. Less than the top 1% of the DA players actually make it into YNT pool and actually make the team that represent the country in international events. In other words, over 99% of DA players are just a pool of players that they can take a look at over time. So one year, they are either in their own age group or the older of the two. Another year they are younger age group. Over time, these players are given sufficient exposure to be evaluated, regardless of how mature or small they are.
Post puberty, the size difference is only in thickness/bulk of players (which affect their strength). The age grouping only occurs at post puberty age for the VAST MAJORITY of the population.
I have a bigger issue with having U12~13 kids committing to play single sports year around....
I get that you want your own age group so that they get more playing time. Been there and done that.
Perspective is that the age groups have been tinkered with over the years. Originally, it was U18/17, U16/15, U14 only. Always been calendar year grouping. With addition of younger ages, they split into today's grouping U19/18, U17/16, U15, 14 and so on.
The fact that there is U15 is a direct response to so called late bloomers and 2nd half of the year kids.
Now that my post DA kid is playing in college, I can look back and say that the combined age vs single year age made no difference. Neither will help identify "smaller creative technical players" or identify late bloomers any better.
The fact of the matter is those smaller or late bloomer players have to compete in the existing system - like it or not. And if they are competitive enough, then they are. If not, they are not.
Lets think about this bit more logically. Less than the top 1% of the DA players actually make it into YNT pool and actually make the team that represent the country in international events. In other words, over 99% of DA players are just a pool of players that they can take a look at over time. So one year, they are either in their own age group or the older of the two. Another year they are younger age group. Over time, these players are given sufficient exposure to be evaluated, regardless of how mature or small they are.
Post puberty, the size difference is only in thickness/bulk of players (which affect their strength). The age grouping only occurs at post puberty age for the VAST MAJORITY of the population.
I have a bigger issue with having U12~13 kids committing to play single sports year around....
Ultimately, this was the point and why the Federation doesn't really care all that much about adding another age group at this level. By the time we get to U15 (14) the kids that have the skill and ability are already on the radar and are likely already playing up a year or two. These kids get invited to the YNT camps and these are the kids US Soccer has its eye on.
If your kid isn't the star of his team and the highest caliber of player at 12-15, he probably won't make the U16/U17 composite team and his future as a professional is very unlikely. Sure, there are always exceptions to every rule, the occasional kid blossoms late, which is why opportunities exist to play through U18/U19.
For US Soccer to excel in international play two things must occur: (1) exceptional talent is identified early and paths to professional play are paved (skipping college and/or getting a Generation Adidas deal); and, (2) that exceptional talent is shipped off to Europe at age 18 (or earlier if the athlete can get around Title 19). These athletes are the future of US Soccer and have no trouble making a composite team and the Federation knows it, which is why its highly unlikely the Federation would muddy the waters and keep the pool players in the pool.
It puzzles me that we (US companies and individuals) own many top tier soccer teams in the world, including AS Roma, Liverpool, Man U and so on.
Why won't USSF talk to the owners of these clubs and workout coaches apprenticeships and youth academy exposure with those players without FIFA and Visa issues that are playing in this country as well as a formal pathway for players to be developed once they are 16 yrs of age.
The answer is that there is no interest because we want to use MSL as the primary source for American talent.
Why won't USSF talk to the owners of these clubs and workout coaches apprenticeships and youth academy exposure with those players without FIFA and Visa issues that are playing in this country as well as a formal pathway for players to be developed once they are 16 yrs of age.
The answer is that there is no interest because we want to use MSL as the primary source for American talent.
younothat
PREMIER
FIFA is the one calling the shots & making the rules: FIFA Article 19 was been around since 2001 but they didn't really strictly enforce that that until around 2015 when FIFA penalized Barcelona and started to look at other clubs as well like Real Madrid.
The Article 19 was enacted largely as a way to stop agents and clubs from bringing children from less-developed for mass tryouts. The rule says that youth players are not allowed to register with a team in a country other than their own until they are 18. Of course there are some exceptions: such as the 50 kilometer rule, player is moving from one European country to the other and is at least 16; or if a player’s family is moved to a different country for reasons “not linked to football.” All the other loopholes have pretty much been closed unless you players has EU passport and age 16, otherwise have to wait unitl 18. By 18 academies are less interested in new players so only gets more difficult as the years go by.
Americans playing in Eupore at age 16 is a long process and you will need some luck, duality, lots of resources, connections. $$$, and a good agent just to get consideration. There are thousands of home grown kids and the "dreamers" coming form commonwealth nations, just look at the France for example: 14 French players at the 2018 World Cup with African roots or connections.
These is massive competition to get into these European academies and unless you have been spending time over there in the summer prior to age 16 and have a agent USSDA is not going to help you much. The cost of living in Eupore is much higher vs the USA and there are few families that can afford that but many can't. Its easy to say lets send kids to Eupore at 16 or 18 to play in there academics but very difficult to do because of a number of reasons even if you have the talent that's just one part of the puzzle. This solution is not viable for most players so we need to find or create other pathways. USL is one of those ways like what LA Galaxy Sign midfielder Efrain Alvarez has done. MX league is another possiblity that has its own set of barriers but easier to break in there vs Europe IMO.
younothat
PREMIER
$$$ is a big factor, MLS keeps the transfer fees so not much incentives there. Those top tier soccer teams have a huge pool to choice from so the 1-3 mls players that may move over a season is not worth the effort in most cases.
MLS takes on more new international player each year and fewer domestic players even make it. 4 out of the 5 forwards on the MLS all star team came from international backgrounds, as did 10 out of the 12 mids, USA is represented at the keeper postion, and a 2-3 defenders but all the others are internationals. Tyler Adams was one of the 3 total on the all-stars with any USSF/DA connections.
Out of College, nope can think of any this past season or past 3 besides Jordan Morris that had any impact in the MLS. If you ask the causal fan to name a US MLS star most would be hard press to come up with names.
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.
Probably I wasn't clear. I'm saying don't bother with MLS. Just don't even go there. They have no right to the player if the player never engaged with them.
As for college soccer, the only reason my kid is playing is because he's going to college. Not for soccer sake. The game is essentially $hit quality. Its not much more than bigger and faster version of HS soccer. Its no wonder that college players make little to no impact in the professional ranks.
Kante
PREMIER
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?