# DA Boys - Relative Age Effect, Late DOBs/Developers, Bio-banding and the future of US soccer: An information clearinghouse and discussion group



## Kante (Dec 12, 2019)

Having read thru and posted to a number of threads on RAE, thought it might be good time to restart a RAE-specific thread (here's link the previous thread that petered out... - ) 

*Background: *

The primary audience for this thread is parents of boys who were born Oct 1 thru Dec 31. 
While reasonable comments are welcome from all, comments from some have not been constructive. Please be considerate.
Looking forward, because this discussion can get a little emotional, will try to be very fact-based, data-driven on the posts
*Goal:*
To raise awareness and increase the focus on helping *all* players develop to the best of their potential. 

*Assumptions:*
Without more awareness and focus, the status quo will likely continue. 

From a USSDA/USSF pov, status quo means that the YNT and USMNT teams do not have the best possible players on their roster since late DOBs are significantly under-represented. 
From a family/player pov, late DOB players don't have nearly the same opportunities as early DOB players, most importantly for college. 
Neither of these items is acceptable.

*First Post:*
The big catalyst for this thread was a comment from old podcast featuring Sebastian Abbott, author of _The Away Game_ (a great xmas present if you and yours haven't given it read btw). Abbott was asked about relative age effect in this podcast and said two things. 

First, Abbott mentioned the expansive set of research documenting the relative age affect in schools and sports. (If you don't agree with/stipulate this research, you should probably stop reading now, and go sit w/ the same folks who deny climate change) 

Second, and this is a point had heard only in bits and pieces but never heard proved as succinctly, Abbott said that looking at player DOBs, it was the later DOBs who actually are more successful and dominant at the highest, professional level. 

Abbott's proof point, that was new, was "look at the Ballon d'Or Nominees." This podcast aired last May so Abbott was talking about the 2018 Ballon D'or, but last evening looked up the dobs for the 2019 Ballon d'Or nominees. 

Key takeaways from looking this data: 

1) it's a small sample - only 30 players an only one year (will check previous year nominees next week) 

2) having said that, there are 5x more Ballon D'or nominees w/ December birthdays than January birthdays... 

(pause for a minute here and think about this... when looking at the best soccer players in the world, five times as many have December birthdays than have January birthdays... am 100% positive that this is the exact opposite distribution when looking at DA player DOB's)

If this data holds up across multiple years of Ballon D'or nominees, it seems that countries who want to become top soccer nations - like the USA for example - might really look at making support for late DOB players a core/fundamental piece of their player development efforts. 

USSDA was taking small steps towards doing this in the last couple of years, but these efforts mostly came to a full stop in the 2018-19 season. To be fair, per RedDevilDad (thx!), reportedly, there is a USSDA "biobanding" event this coming January at Silverlakes, so maybe support might be coming back... Here's RedDevilDad's info (again, thx!) on the January biobanding event:

_"In April, Lonestar, Texans, FC Dallas and some other TX clubs participated in a "bio-banding event." They played 2 or 3 games according to their bio-banded age. I don't know if it was bio-banded teams vs bio-banded teams... or a bio-banded U15 team vs an actual U15 team...The Silverlakes event is the second one and I assume it will be similar. The clubs participating are: SD Surf (Boys & Girls), Real So Cal (Boys & Girls), LAG (Girls), San Jose (Girls), LAFC (Boys), Pats (Boys). The dates are January 11-12th."_​
will see how this goes. (if anyone has more info here, it would be appreciated either via post or DM)

here's the Ballon d'Or nominees with date of birth:



Comments/thoughts/input on any/all of this?


----------



## Kante (Dec 12, 2019)

forgot to include this. here is the link to previous RAE thread (thank you Carlitos10!!!) - https://www.socalsoccer.com/threads/relative-age-effect-uefa-perspective.1582/


----------



## outside! (Dec 12, 2019)

I wonder if players with later birthdates somehow gain an advantage from having developed while being disadvantaged in size/speed/maturity? This may have forced them to develop better technique, work harder and play smarter.


----------



## jpeter (Dec 12, 2019)

outside! said:


> I wonder if players with later birthdates somehow gain an advantage from having developed while being disadvantaged in size/speed/maturity? This may have forced them to develop better technique, work harder and play smarter.


Same as playing up in my experience does/did help my Nov son.   However, seen it go the other way as well where kids can't take it,  get overwhelmed, don't enjoy or perform to their capabilities consistently.

I don't know what the age cutoffs should be ?  boys and girls are likely not the same in that regard but for boys I would say 16 and after that I don't think it makes that much of a difference.  HS has always been mixed ages up to 3 year spread on most varisty squads and even more so for college age so diminishing returns after a certain point /age.


----------



## Kante (Dec 12, 2019)

outside! said:


> I wonder if players with later birthdates somehow gain an advantage from having developed while being disadvantaged in size/speed/maturity? This may have forced them to develop better technique, work harder and play smarter.


valid point. playing up can significantly help player development, and players with late dobs can benefit by being required to effectively play a year up every year, but, looking at the data, it's only a very small minority - relative to the % of the population they make up - who make it thru, even to college.

More often, younger DOBs are winnowed out early on by coaches and clubs.

Some of this is short-sighted "win now" thinking, some of is just inherent bias (the "what's his birthday?" question), but most of it is the lack of a legitimate "late developer" development path, metrics to measure potential and meaningful initiative to drive widespread awareness/urgency of the opportunity with late DOB players with coaches and clubs at the DA level.

Will grant that more data is needed but it is an interesting correlation that, for 2019, France has three December DOB players nominated for Ballon d'Or  - vs one March DOB - and also implemented, several years back, a late developer ID/development path program.



jpeter said:


> Same as playing up in my experience does/did help my Nov son.   However, seen it go the other way as well where kids can't take it,  get overwhelmed, don't enjoy or perform to their capabilities consistently.
> 
> I don't know what the age cutoffs should be ?  boys and girls are likely not the same in that regard but for boys I would say 16 and after that I don't think it makes that much of a difference.  HS has always been mixed ages up to 3 year spread on most varsity squads and even more so for college age so diminishing returns after a certain point /age.


With all due respect (and you know I genuinely appreciate you man), "when should age cut-offs occur?" is not the right discussion.

Yes, having a u16 single year age group would help, but this is doing only the very minimum.

(Will also stipulate that after u17, the large majority of boys are much closer in physical development regardless of DOB.)

(to vent, that USSDA have a u16 single year age group on the girls side - where, according to the CDC, they don't have nearly as much age-based physical discrepancy after about u15 - is - imo - a marketing decision, not a soccer decision, that USSDA was forced into by the strength of the ECNL on the girls side.)

On no u16 age single year age group, and, to be fair, this is reading tea leaves, USSDA is continuing with only u17 (and not having a u16 age group) in 2020-21 because:

1) imo, based on club (primarily MLS club) feedback that clubs don't want to pay for another team

2) (again, imo) European-centric US Soccer staff see the USA's large population and geography as a liability rather than an asset.

On the high school point, they have three levels of competitive play. however, for this discussion, would also argue that high school is moot since most colleges don't recruit players who are not playing DA at least thru u17.

At college, while the older players still have some age-based developmental advantages, these advantages are significantly less than the developmental advantages enjoyed by older DOB players from u13 thru u17.
____

And thank you both, Jpeter and Outside! for good comments.


----------



## outside! (Dec 12, 2019)

jpeter said:


> I don't know what the age cutoffs should be ?  boys and girls are likely not the same in that regard but for boys I would say 16 and after that I don't think it makes that much of a difference.


Many boys have their last big growth spurt between 17 and 19. I grew more than 6" my senior year in HS and remember being surprised that I was looking down at former bullies who suddenly became polite.


----------



## outside! (Dec 12, 2019)

Kante said:


> More often, younger DOBs are winnowed out early on by coaches and clubs.


This definitely happens.


----------



## newwavedave (Dec 12, 2019)

I was told by a Doc of a DA that the only way the club can allow a player to play up is if the YNT coaches tell the club to do it?  Is that true? Thanks for any information out there.  Boys or Girls.


----------



## Kante (Dec 12, 2019)

outside! said:


> Many boys have their last big growth spurt between 17 and 19. I grew more than 6" my senior year in HS and remember being surprised that I was looking down at former bullies who suddenly became polite.


fair point. this year, found out that Thing 1's uncle on wife's side grew 3-4 inches in college (after wondering for two years when the Nov dob boy was going to grow... )

FYI, to keep things simple, am referencing CDC growth pattern data as benchmark.

For same CY yob boys who will be similar size when they're adults, CDC has most of the younger boys getting within 1/2 inch in height of the older boys by u17-ish (but the youngers still give up ten pounds of muscle at this point), and then starting to catching up weight/muscle wise at u18/u19-ish.

(Weight gain/Muscle, however, can be accelerated w/ workouts.)

And then am using the physical development (easier to quantify) as an analogue for the intellectual and emotional development (as or more meaningful but harder to quantify).


----------



## Kante (Dec 12, 2019)

newwavedave said:


> I was told by a Doc of a DA that the only way the club can allow a player to play up is if the YNT coaches tell the club to do it?  Is that true? Thanks for any information out there.  Boys or Girls.


have not. have always understood it to be coach discretion. but coaches, sometimes, can be bad communicators. but that's only one experience.


----------



## jpeter (Dec 12, 2019)

outside! said:


> Many boys have their last big growth spurt between 17 and 19. I grew more than 6" my senior year in HS and remember being surprised that I was looking down at former bullies who suddenly became polite.


I grew 6" after high school and was only average height during HS years but I also lettered in 3 sports and was first team league in two being a smaller player.   Hardly anybody I knew grew or got any better after they junior year around age 16 although it was a good experience for me to play with them. 

 I actually got faster in college and better in one sport but don't know many that did so I think I was the exception,   some people would be surprised to see me in my college years.

As far as college recruiting DA helps but then again our latest 2 local players that signed for UCLA recently didn't play DA so it's not the only avenue by a long stretch.


----------



## jpeter (Dec 12, 2019)

newwavedave said:


> I was told by a Doc of a DA that the only way the club can allow a player to play up is if the YNT coaches tell the club to do it?  Is that true? Thanks for any information out there.  Boys or Girls.


Nope for the boys always been 3 or more playing up on my sons teams for many years and same goes for the other orgs/ clubs.  

Think that DOC has it twisted,. YNT candidates are highly recommend to play up and some say it required to be considered but that's about it.  DA encourages playing up and you don't have to be a YNT player, candidate, or even a training invitee to do so but YMMV.


----------



## newwavedave (Dec 12, 2019)

jpeter said:


> Nope for the boys always been 3 or more playing up on my sons teams for many years and same goes for the other orgs/ clubs.
> 
> Think that DOC has it twisted,. YNT candidates are highly recommend to play up and some say it required to be considered but that's about it.  DA encourages playing up and you don't have to be a YNT player, candidate, or even a training invitee to do so but YMMV.


Interesting.  My old Doc said Club had a policy no one plays up at club unless YNT coaches request it.  I fell for that one......


----------



## watfly (Dec 12, 2019)

outside! said:


> I wonder if players with later birthdates somehow gain an advantage from having developed while being disadvantaged in size/speed/maturity? This may have forced them to develop better technique, work harder and play smarter.


I wonder the exact same thing, I suspect there is some truth to it.

While its fun to analyze, the relative age effect (or the failure to recognize it) is not the problem with US soccer.  Bio-banding (aka playing down) is akin to rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic.  Looks good but won't make a measurable difference in developing US soccer players.  Every kid is different, one kid may flourish in system where they're near the top on the team which gives them confidence, whereas another kid may be motivated to train harder because they're at the bottom end (my suspicion is most kids need a little bit of both).  This shouldn't be addressed by manipulating age boundaries (like bio banding), but should be managed through the the levels of play (DA, flight 1 etc.)

Anecdotal, but I took a look at the roster of the most recent USMNT.  5 players were born in the first three months of the year and 6 in the last three months.  11 in first half of year and 12 in last half.  Really doesn't get much more even than that.


----------



## Dargle (Dec 12, 2019)

Just to clarify, the events the USSDA put on in KC and will be putting on at Silverlakes are biobanding, which is different than just looking at early v. late birthdays.  It's basically about separating out the kids who are going through or have already gone through puberty from the ones who don't look like they've even started yet.  Although puberty is largely correlated with age and early birthdays are more likely to be farther along than later birthdays, it's only a proxy and biobanding is about actually examining each child's real age relative to puberty.  Some of those Golden Ball finalists could have been early bloomers relative to their age.  It stands to reason, for example, that Hugo Loris was a big boy for his age given where he ended up.

In countries that have used biobanding, it's only an occasional thing.  They don't use it instead of age, but rather as a way to gauge how kids are developing if you control for puberty.


----------



## dad4 (Dec 12, 2019)

Agree the problem exists.  Older half of the age group has a definite advantage.

Not sure about the solution.  ( grouping kids by current height as fraction of final height for that kid  = bio banding) 

Is a 13 year old post growth spurt really similarly developed to a 15 year old?  They may be the same height, but one has had 2 more years to practice.  Odds are the 15 year old also has more muscle mass, despite the similar height.  Seems to trade a bias that is easy to see (age) for a bias that is hard to see  ( timing of height gain versus timing of muscle mass gain. )

When you have the density for it, like LA, you're probably better of just doing 6 month age bands.


----------



## texanincali (Dec 12, 2019)

This will be controversial and I don’t expect many to agree with me, but in my experience and opinion relative age effect is a non starter with elite athletes.  

That said, I do think it plays a role in the average to good athletes.

I’ll do my best to explain.  For the elite and even very good athletes, whether it be high school sports or club sports, most will have little issue with a to older kids as competition.  Think freshmen and sophomore athletes that play varsity athletics.  It is a very similar situation to top recruits stepping right in to a college and competing with little issue.

Now, if you are an average to good athlete, I think it does play a role.  As a player that is on the edge of making a team, be it club or school - sometimes that extra 6-10 months can create a disadvantage.  If a coach chooses an older kid because of grade, size or physical development a late birthday kid can lose out on a year of top quality development.  That one year can be the difference of getting a scholarship or not.  Where the concern is for me is at the younger ages - say 10-14.  If we have kids that leave a certain sport because they are overlooked, that becomes an issue.

All in all, I don’t think it plays a role at the absolute top level, but certainly does for the everyday athlete.


----------



## Husky13 (Dec 13, 2019)

I have given this topic a great deal of thought, as my son falls in this category (Oct-Dec birthday).  He has attended YNT camps and plays on a top MLS academy team, so I am not coming at this from a sour grapes perspective.  

I gravitate towards "all of the above".  I think back to the shift from school year to calendar year.  Someone has to be the youngest, so that by itself doesn't bother me.  I think the two biggest negatives to the calendar year structure are (1) kids being forced to play with kids one grade higher (e.g. middle school 8th graders having to play with high school 9th graders makes no sense, not from a "playing with friends" standpoint, but because there are significant social and other differences that all come into play, and (2) as mentioned, the senseless 8th grade and 12th grade gaps for the younger calendar players (fortunately, my son avoided the 8th grade gap by playing DA, but there are many 8th graders each spring with no soccer because their club teammates are playing HS soccer).  "Aligning w/international standards" is a trivial benefit by comparison.  One more substantive benefit I see is that playing calendar year at the club level prepares players for the upper-level DA.  I can imagine that if my son had played in a school year system all the way until U15, it would have been a rude awakening having to compete with older kids in a calendar year structure once he entered upper-age DA.

I have often described my son as essentially "playing up half a year" by playing in the calendar year system.  It has been good for him.  

I spoke with one of the lead US Soccer coaches/scouts (I won't name him, but you would all recognize the name).  He was very insightful.  Had his finger on the pulse of younger half/quarter kids who face the challenge of the growth spurt years.  He said they have seen some of these younger and/or late bloomer kids turn out very well because they are forced to develop their skills and their minds to succeed.  

But, the downside is that very few of them get that chance.  Just look at some of the YNT rosters - some of them are skewed to the extreme towards older kids.  Certainly not within statistical variance.  Look at the rosters of some of the bigger DA clubs.  Same thing - some of these rosters would generate crazy age distribution plots.  Now, being younger doesn't always mean better, and being older doesn't always mean worse.  But, there are some kids that any sophisticated eye can look at and tell that they are receiving YNT and/or DA playing privileges because of an early growth spurt and that their mental and physical skill set isn't going to translate into elite play over the long term when their growth advantage levels off.  I am seeing this happen before my eyes, kids who were favored based on early growth who are starting to slide back to the pack.  Those privileged spots are valuable and need to be preserved for developing talent that projects over the long term to the next level, and I don't think we are doing as well in the U.S. as we could with this.  RAE is a very real factor in all of this, along with other factors such as coaches who are incentivized based on their won/loss record instead of developing players who generate transfer fees for the club, etc.


----------



## Kante (Dec 16, 2019)

jpeter said:


> I grew 6" after high school and was only average height during HS years but I also lettered in 3 sports and was first team league in two being a smaller player.   Hardly anybody I knew grew or got any better after they junior year around age 16 although it was a good experience for me to play with them.
> 
> I actually got faster in college and better in one sport but don't know many that did so I think I was the exception,   some people would be surprised to see me in my college years.
> 
> As far as college recruiting DA helps but then again our latest 2 local players that signed for UCLA recently didn't play DA so it's not the only avenue by a long stretch.


"college recruiting DA..."is a tangent to this thread but is important discussion. (pivoting to from the tangent and away from topic)

Fair point that DA is not the only avenue to college. However, for players aspiring to go to ranked soccer colleges and ranked academic colleges, playing DA for US-based players is a critical /very significant for DA players in the college recruitment process. 

Most of this is because DA makes scouting and recruitment simpler/less expensive for colleges (all of whom have limited scouting/recruitment budgets) because:

1) DA is an accepted standard. For example, if an assistant college coach pitches a DA player, the first question is where did they play DA, and if the answer is one of the known clubs then all is good. If an assistant coach pitches a non-DA player then there's more questions/discussions. 

2) DA, a couple of times a year - showcase and play-offs - aggregates all the DA players in one location for matches, which significantly reduces travel costs for scouting and recruiting

3) DA mandates game video, and certain standards for game video, and makes that video available via HUDL. This may seem inconsequential, but player videos are key to the recruitment process. 

In the UCLA example that was referenced, here's the 2019-20 roster:



Am assuming you're referencing the two players from Santa Monica United. 

First of all, good on them for making it to UCLA. Any player who gets to that level deserves a ton of kudos.

Second, looking at the roster and doing the math, more than 85% of the UCLA roster either played DA or played internationally. 

So, while, yes, DA is a not a requirement for US-based players to get into college soccer, again, it's fair to say that playing DA gives DA players a significant advantage in the college recruitment process. 

Unfortunately, there's a ton of college level players - like Rincon and Soria - playing outside the DA system for any number of reasons, capable of college level academics, who go unseen and unrecruited. 

(pivoting away from the tangent and back to topic)


----------



## jpeter (Dec 16, 2019)

Kante said:


> "college recruiting DA..."is a tangent to this thread but is important discussion. (pivoting to from the tangent and away from topic)
> 
> Fair point that DA is not the only avenue to college. However, for players aspiring to go to ranked soccer colleges and ranked academic colleges, playing DA for US-based players is a critical /very significant for DA players in the college recruitment process.
> 
> ...


3 local players in the fall UCLA signings going there next year: AV, GD, MG none of them from DA.

GD played for LAG one season u14 never went back:  beach & Loyola HS.  AV never played DA, Strikers & this year u18/19 ECNL. MG beach ECNL just went to LAFC DA this fall after he committed to UCLA.

Not sure about any advantage in DA as you can see all three UCLA local players didn't get recruited due to DA.   Sure it helps just like being in certain tournament, playoffs, or having a coach with connections but I won't say its significant over any of the other available options.  

College coaches come out to HS tournaments games and there was a bunch at the addidas showcase this past weekend when my son watched one of his friends teams games.


----------



## Kante (Dec 16, 2019)

Second post.

*Definitions:*

A lot of the conversation about this topic tends to blur terms, where phrases can get used interchangeably. So to help with this, here's quick definitions and some background:
*
Late Developer/Early Developer*
Late developers are typically two groups of kids 1) Kids who have late dobs relative to their scheduled year i.e. Oct thru Dec dobs for the Calendar year and May thru July dobs for School Year. 2) Kids who have not matured physically relative to their dob peers i.e. kids who hit puberty/growth spurts late. 

Early developers are then the opposite. 

Late developers are likely be shorter than their older dob yob peers but are not, by definition, just the short players. A short player may be born Jan 1 and may just be short. 

*Relative Age Effect (RAE)*
Refers to the well-documented social phenomenon where teachers and coaches systematically tend to favor older dob students and players. 

Teachers and coaches tend to do this because these older kids tend to react more positively more quickly to teaching and coaching than their younger peers, and it is a reasonable human tendency to focus effort where the most reward is available for the lowest cost.

This accumulated extra support and attention adds up over time to eventually provide these older kids a disproportionate advantage relative to their younger dob peers.

Although RAE has been documented and studied for some time, it became more well-known in the US when Malcolm Gladwell wrote about it in his 2008 book, _*Outliers. *_

Here's a wikipedia.org link to Relative Age Effect- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relative_age_effect which includes good background on the subject and goes into more detail on RAE impacts. 

Here's an additional link to a solid interview by SoccerAmerica with Tony Lepore (in charge of scouting for US Soccer ) talking about US Soccer and relative age effect - https://www.socceramerica.com/publications/article/63847/the-relative-age-effect-a-response-from-us.html

*Bio-Banding*
Bio-banding is best defined by US Soccer: "Bio-banding allows players to be grouped based on their maturity and biological age and not by their chronological age. By doing this, massive swings in maturity that can be seen within the current chronological groupings are removed. By grouping players based on maturity, the physical advantages that early maturing players have when playing against less mature players are reduced."

Basically, players can be evaluated according to physical developmental criteria, and then grouped to compete with their actual developmental peers. This enables later developing players to compete against later developing players, but, just as importantly, it also enables early developing players compete against their physical age group peers. 

Absolute height is not a criteria for this grouping but relative height - a player's current height relative to their projected adult height - is.

The impact of active bio-banding can be three fold: 

1) Later developing players will be more likely to continue in the system
2) Early developing players will be less likely to plateau and then decline (usually around u17-ish) as their CY age group peers catch up 
3) Coaches, families and players will be made more aware of the issue

Here's the link to the initial US Soccer Texas bio-banding event: https://www.ussoccer.com/stories/2018/04/us-soccer-introduces-bio-banding-initiative.

Reports from RedDevilDad say that US Soccer will be holding another bio-banding event in California on January 11-12 in Silverlakes with the following boys clubs: SD Surf, Real SoCal, LAFC and Pateadores.

From a practical point of view, DA clubs can play early developing players up an age group, but only a handful of clubs actually do this systematically, usually it's a one-off or only a handful of games. (TFA 06s playing 05 have been the exception this season). 

There is also a rule allowing late developing players who meet certain physical development criteria to play in a younger age group. The rule limits this to two players per team and currently only applies to u14 and u15. 

Again, however, only a minority of teams implement this. 

Per RedDevilDad, US Soccer is looking at expanding this late developer rule across age groups in 2020-21.
_________


----------



## Dargle (Dec 16, 2019)

Kante said:


> "college recruiting DA..."is a tangent to this thread but is important discussion. (pivoting to from the tangent and away from topic)
> 
> Fair point that DA is not the only avenue to college. However, for players aspiring to go to ranked soccer colleges and ranked academic colleges, playing DA for US-based players is a critical /very significant for DA players in the college recruitment process.
> 
> ...


One bit of context for the two players from Santa Monica United.  Great players who definitely developed outside the DA system with some great local coaches at both club and high school (they both played at Culver City HS). Soria played a ton this year with UCLA because of an injury to one of the center backs.  Nevertheless, both players played for Santa Monica College after high school.  So, they are more an advertisement for the Juco route as a second chance for non-DA players than for the proposition that you can go to high level D1 soccer programs straight from your local club.


----------



## Edouble (Dec 17, 2019)

outside! said:


> I wonder if players with later birthdates somehow gain an advantage from having developed while being disadvantaged in size/speed/maturity? This may have forced them to develop better technique, work harder and play smarter.


I agree with this, my son is a November DOB 2012 and I swear every team he's played, he's been the smallest, he works extremely hard and gets the better of the taller kids but it does frustrate him a lot when he is bullied off the ball or easily pushed off.


----------



## 66 GTO (Dec 20, 2019)

What about the June,July dob
Those never have advantage either way...


----------



## Kante (Dec 20, 2019)

w/ the DA CY year, June/July and Nov/Dec have it the toughest. 

u13 thru u19 Aug thru Oct tend to still be benefitting from RAE when the cut-off was still the school year.


----------



## Kante (Dec 20, 2019)

Edouble said:


> I agree with this, my son is a November DOB 2012 and I swear every team he's played, he's been the smallest, he works extremely hard and gets the better of the taller kids but it does frustrate him a lot when he is bullied off the ball or easily pushed off.


a key is the coaches forcing the players to talk. man on, time, turn left, turn right, back, etc.

player communication, or lack of it, is straight out on the coaches. 

if the teammates don't talk, the younger players take the hit disproportionately. 

sort of shocking at DA, but lots of players don't communicate they way they should, particularly u15 and below. The lesser teams are usually the biggest culprits.


----------



## 66 GTO (Dec 20, 2019)

Kante said:


> w/ the DA CY year, June/July and Nov/Dec have it the toughest.
> 
> u13 thru u19 Aug thru Oct tend to still be benefitting from RAE when the cut-off was still the school year.


And June and July were getting shafted 
And current CY still no advantage


----------



## focomoso (Dec 23, 2019)

outside! said:


> I wonder if players with later birthdates somehow gain an advantage from having developed while being disadvantaged in size/speed/maturity? This may have forced them to develop better technique, work harder and play smarter.


I remember reading about this re. hockey and the conclusions were that the NHL as a whole had more early-in-the-age-group (ie, older relative to their piers) players, but the all-star team (or maybe it was Team Canada) had more late-in-the-age-group players which would support your theory.


----------



## messy (Dec 24, 2019)

Edouble said:


> I agree with this, my son is a November DOB 2012 and I swear every team he's played, he's been the smallest, he works extremely hard and gets the better of the taller kids but it does frustrate him a lot when he is bullied off the ball or easily pushed off.


Well now that he's  turned 7, maybe he'll get stronger.


----------



## Kante (Jan 10, 2020)

Here's a link to the upcoming USSDA bio-banding event which will be happening this weekend in Norco. On the boys' side, Real SoCal, SD Surf, LAFC and the Pateadores were selected to participate.






						U.S. Soccer Hosting Second Bio-Banding Event as High Performance Department Expands Initiative to Further Support Player Development
					

Event Will Feature Four Boys’ and Four Girls’ Development Academy Clubs in Biologically-Banded Games; Clubs Will Each Field Two Teams Arranged by Biological Maturity




					www.ussoccer.com
				






Here's a link to solid FAQ document from USSDA on bio-banding: 









						Bio-Banding - FAQ.docx | Powered by Box
					






					ussoccer.app.box.com
				




Short version on bio-banding is that it's an effort to match up younger players - for boys u13 thru u16-ish - with other players who are at a similar stage in physical development i.e. late developing players are matched w/ late developing players and, just as importantly, early developing players are matched w/ early developing players. 

Late developing can mean either players who are later entering puberty than average for their age and/or players born later in the year. Early developing can mean either players who entered puberty earlier than average for their age and/or players born early in the year. 

Here's USSDA's description:

_"Bio-banding allows players to be grouped based on their individual maturity and biological age rather than chronological age alone. This process removes the massive swings in maturity that can be seen with normal chronological age-groupings in youth sports. By putting players together based on maturity, the physical advantages that early-maturing players have in comparison to less-mature players are reduced and allow for optimal development for both early- and later-developing players...

All coaches and parents recognize that young soccer players develop their physical attributes at different rates. However, the significant effect that this can have on athletes’ ability to reach their full potential has always been difficult to understand and account for,” Hicks said. “With bio-banding, there is a scientifically accurate, applicable and assessable way to support all clubs, coaches and players in creating an optimal environment to thrive and develop regardless of maturity level.”_


----------



## Kante (Jan 26, 2020)

so credit where credit is due. 

LAFC, in a first team friendly on 1/25 at the Banc of California stadium in front of almost 20,000 fans against top Uruguayan side - Penarol, gave five u17 academy players a decent number of minutes playing w/ the first team. 

First into the match were Eric Duenas and Christian Torres both entered in the 1st half and played 31 minutes. 

Duenas is particularly notable because he is an 04 biobanded player with a mid-October dob who started less than 1/3 of the matches in 2017-18 w/ LAFC's u14 team. 

The next year, in 2018-19, he played down an age group w/ the u14s in five matches as a biobanded player. 

In 2019-20, he then emerged as an every match starter for the u17 academy, and, obviously, LAFC considers hime one of their top prospects. 

Here's 2016 vs 2020 (in pink i.e. not Vela) Duenas pics that LAFC tweeted out this morning. As they say, Dream Big. Work hard. And don't tell anyone tell you can't do it.


----------



## Kante (Mar 6, 2020)

Posted a slightly different version of this in the 03/04 thread but it's pretty applicable to this thread so will post here as well.

*Recap/Background:*
LAFC had a good 3-2 win over a tough RSL team the weekend of 3/1.

Todd Saldana, the LAFC TD, tweeted out congrats (fair) but then went on to write "I’ve given them (ed note: LAFC u17) the task of being the youngest team (by a large margin) in every game & always up for the challenge..never used as an excuse."

*The Issue:*
LAFC seems to have recruited a disproportionate number of Jan/Feb DOB players for while now across all their teams.

For example, almost 60%of LAFC's u15 team was born in Jan/Feb (fyi, most of this data is from old rosters when USSDA used to list DOBs on the team roster which they stopped doing in November-ish 2018-19).

For context, the next oldest u15 SoCal team is RSL with 34% of the team roster being born in Jan/Feb. LAG is 22% Jan/Febn DOBs.

One of the impacts of LAFC doing this is that, in SoCal, in order to compete w/ LAFC, other clubs, anecdotally, seem to be more actively recruiting older/early developer DOB players to a greater degree than before LAFC emerged as a force in 2017-18. (This is possible to check but haven't checked yet.)

So, for late in the year SoCal DOB/late developers, who already had it pretty tough breaking into DA teams, LAFC made it tougher.

Ok, life is not fair. Fine.

But to then have LAFC's TD - who is very aware of the relative DOBs for his teams vs other teams and the benefit of having older players in the u12 thru u17 DA age groups - go into passive/aggressive "Don't Cry for Me Argentina"-esque mode to say, rephrased, "no excuses but ... our team is the youngest 'by a large margin' in every game.." Yeah, no.

*The RSL - LAFC Match*
Doing a weighted average of player DOB x % minutes of played, LAFC's average player age on the field for the match against RSL was March 24, 2004.

Running the same numbers for RSl, their weighted average age on the field for the match was August 14, 2003.

So LAFC was about, on average, about eight months younger than RSL.

So, absolutely good for the LAFC players for the win.

*What's the Impact/Context of Younger vs Older Players in u17?*
There was great example back in November when LAG played the Pats two weeks in a row.

In the first match, LAG played a youngers line-up (LAG has 33 players listed by USSDA on their team roster and it's split almost 50/50 03s and 04s) with average age of Feb 3, 2004.

The Pats, who's team roster is mostly 03s, had an average age of Sept 7, 2003 (which is relatively young for DA). Netted out, LAG was five months younger than the Pats and the score was 4-0 Pats.

The next weekend LAG and Pats played again. This time the LAG average age was October 29, 2003 (still pretty young for u17), and the Pats average age was Sept 16, 2003. So pretty even age wise. Result was a 1-1 tie.

Obviously, only one example, but a pretty striking example with widely different results, with an average player age difference of just four months being a significant variable btw the two matches.
_______

So, again, give credit to the LAFC players for their result against a very good RSL team.

But Mr. Saldana, please simmer down w/ this "youngest team by a wide margin" stuff. Have heard this repeatedly from the LAFC DA talking about their u17 team this year. It actually is an excuse, and pretty hypocritical given the age advantage LAFC teams have had/do have when competing against single year age group teams i.e. u13 thru u15.

Hopefully, LAFC will start looking longer term than just building their academy brand by getting wins this year in DA to actual player production, which would mean bringing in and developing players who are going to the best players at age 17, 18 and 19, and these players are not necessarily the player who matches at u13, u14 and u15.

Older should not confused with better. And way too often, right now, in the US, particularly, it is and it's negatively affecting the whole development pyramid.

But maybe, just maybe, things will start changing. Here's a quote on this subject from a Soccer America interview w/ the new u15 US Soccer Head Coach:

*"*_They might be the same age, but physically one can seem two years older than another. Some are over-developed physically and some under-developed. A player might not be physically ready right now, but one in two or three years when the physical aspect evens, he might be one of the top players. At FC United, a lot of our teams at the younger ages are under-sized. Because we're judging them as soccer players, knowing that at some point they're going to grow. My staff and I and our scouts recognize that there's so much physical change to come..."_​
Here's the link to the full interview: https://www.socceramerica.com/publications/article/85139/new-us-u-15-boss-gonzalo-segares-on-his-path-fro.html

Many high potential players will be Jan/Feb DOBs, but odds are that there's a lot other players out there - up to 25% of the potential player pool - not getting a shot.

And it's not just the right thing to do, it's also good business.

Running the numbers, effectively mining the full set of Q4 DOBs for high potential players is a huge arbitrage oppty right now that's being missed across the US. But, like all arbitrage opportunities, it won't last forever, because someone at some point will figure it out. And whoever figures it out first, will receive the most benefit.(The guys in Carson seem to be on this track btw ...)

In a short time, LAFC has built up a significant influence on the SoCal - and the national - youth soccer environment.

If LAFC leads, others will follow. Mr. Saldana, your thoughts?


----------



## SoCal23 (Mar 6, 2020)

Kante said:


> Posted a slightly different version of this in the 03/04 thread but it's pretty applicable to this thread so will post here as well.
> 
> *Recap/Background:*
> LAFC had a good 3-2 win over a tough RSL team the weekend of 3/1.
> ...


Excellent analysis!! I have 2 boys, one born in February and the other in October. You can clearly see the difference with my October son. He plays for a top team, however it seems like he is always battling against himself and his body which are trying to catch up with others born in the 1st part of the year.


----------



## Kante (Mar 6, 2020)

SoCal23 said:


> Excellent analysis!! I have 2 boys, one born in February and the other in October. You can clearly see the difference with my October son. He plays for a top team, however it seems like he is always battling against himself and his body which are trying to catch up with others born in the 1st part of the year.


have a similar situation. and see exactly the same thing.


----------



## SoCal23 (Mar 6, 2020)

Kante said:


> have a similar situation. and see exactly the same thing.





Kante said:


> have a similar situation. and see exactly the same thing.


My February son was offered at LAFC and my October son was asked to come train for further analysis. The one from October constantly says, "If I was only born 2 months later, everyone would want me!" It's very true, and to your point, that is a HUGE problem.


----------



## Soccer1Bball5 (Mar 6, 2020)

Here's a great article that addresses many of the items. Interesting how a comparison of MLS players and age at when they started DA. I still prefer school year over Calendar year. In USA Baseball, there are 3 age brackets. USSSA uses May 1st, Recreational Leagues use August 31st, USA National Team uses calendar year. The revolution will not hold tryouts


----------



## watfly (Mar 6, 2020)

Soccer1Bball5 said:


> Here's a great article that addresses many of the items. Interesting how a comparison of MLS players and age at when they started DA. I still prefer school year over Calendar year. In USA Baseball, there are 3 age brackets. USSSA uses May 1st, Recreational Leagues use August 31st, USA National Team uses calendar year. The revolution will not hold tryouts


Brilliant article.  This should be mandatory reading for all coaches, DOC's and administrators.  Unfortunately, it's not likely to get past their egos of they know best.  This is why we need to eliminate our bias towards RAE (at the end of the day the month you were born in has zero impact on your ability as a mature soccer player)

A couple quotes struck me as so spot on:

"Coaches in evaluating players tend to look at the wrong things. Coaches are looking at the physical execution of a task and assuming it is the most important thing. But, as Denis Berkamp so elegantly said, "before every action is a thought." The decision is more important than the execution, and perhaps the perception is more important than both."   

"Talent is not technical, or fast players, but super communicators, social geniuses, kids who think, see and move and make plays. (BTW--"Communication" is not a bunch of shouting, it is non verbal, quiet and fast)."

Anecdotal but last week my son played an U13 DA team (i.e. 12 year olds) that had an average height of probably 5'6''-5'7" with smallest kid about 5'2".  The average height of our players is maybe 5'0" (on average they're probably the smallest in our league). Average height for a 12 year old boy is 4'11.  I have a hard time believing that kids only 5'2" and larger showed up to their tryouts, and that there weren't shorter kids that were more skilled and smarter than the players they chose.    One kid weighed over 200 pounds, which is nearly the same weight of 3 of our players put together.  This team was the poster child for RAE bias.  Not saying these kids weren't skilled, they were, but holy cow.  Our kids surprisingly hung with them and were either tied or ahead until the 34th minute until getting smoked the 2nd half, in part due to wearing our kids down with their size.


----------



## jayjay (Mar 6, 2020)

My 03 is born in December and is a late bloomer (3 years per bone age test)... it's been rough.  Finally back in the average height, muscle mass (testosterone) range of the team.


----------



## foreveryoung (Mar 6, 2020)

Kante said:


> Hopefully, LAFC will start looking longer term than just building their academy brand by getting wins this year in DA to actual player production, which would mean bringing in and developing players who are going to the best players at age 17, 18 and 19, and these players are not necessarily the player who matches at u13, u14 and u15.


Totally agree with your points.  And yet you compile and post the weekly results and standings, with detailed analysis, for all the DA age groups.  Do you not think that is perpetuating a focus on getting wins?  If building a winning team at the youth level is not the goal, why would you care to even know the standings?  By your comments, the teams that are not doing well in the league this season may actually be developing the better players as they are looking long term and not just about current performance abilities.  Sincere question by the way.  Not trying to be an a-hole.


----------



## Kante (Mar 6, 2020)

foreveryoung said:


> Totally agree with your points.  And yet you compile and post the weekly results and standings, with detailed analysis, for all the DA age groups.  Do you not think that is perpetuating a focus on getting wins?  If building a winning team at the youth level is not the goal, why would you care to even know the standings?  By your comments, the teams that are not doing well in the league this season may actually be developing the better players as they are looking long term and not just about current performance abilities.  Sincere question by the way.  Not trying to be an a-hole.


Fair question. The u13 and u14 standings are easy to do, are interesting to folks and someone will do them anyway. But, agreed, not terribly meaningful, except for Sept/Oct when DA is making decisions about who will play who in the showcases. 

The items that are posted weekly are 1) the predicts for the weekend's upcoming matches, and then 2) the actual results vs the predicts. 

The predicts are intended to help folks have context for the match their boys are about to play, and, hopefully, help folks focus less on "did we win or lose?" and more on "did we do better than expected?" i.e. "are we improving or not?" Point being here to encourage/enable folks to focus on the team's progress/development, not just the win/loss record, and to help in a way that is engaging for the parents (i.e. will be used). 

Second, The Algo that produces the predicts also give families a fact-based way (These are the GS%, GD% and GD% tables that published every now and again) to independently evaluate the clubs' ability to develop the boys ie to ask and answer the question "Are the trend lines over time going in the right direction or not? Is what we're doing working or not? Are our boys getting better relative to their peers or not? Given the resources going in - $, time, energy - put into DA, some way to evaluate some ROI for all that seems appropriate. 

The actuals vs predicts are to hold the predicts accountable in a public way. 

Obviously, if the predicts are not accurate, they are not valuable. So every week, the predicts are evaluated against the actual results, and folks can decide for themselves if the predicts are meaningful/helpful or not.

Occasionally, notes are also added both to the predicts and to the actuals vs predicts. This is done to make the predicts a bit more interesting/engaging, recognize forward progress, point out when things have one a little sideways, ask questions of forum members and generally prompt discussion.

Hope that helps!


----------



## Kante (Mar 6, 2020)

jayjay said:


> My 03 is born in December and is a late bloomer (3 years per bone age test)... it's been rough.  Finally back in the average height, muscle mass (testosterone) range of the team.


December and late bloomer is two-fer. But feel your pain...Good on him. Hopefully the skills he picked up along the way just to get by will now serve serve him well. bets of luck!


----------



## Kante (Mar 6, 2020)

Soccer1Bball5 said:


> Here's a great article that addresses many of the items. Interesting how a comparison of MLS players and age at when they started DA. I still prefer school year over Calendar year. In USA Baseball, there are 3 age brackets. USSSA uses May 1st, Recreational Leagues use August 31st, USA National Team uses calendar year. The revolution will not hold tryouts


Solid! and thank you!

A new item in the article was the concept of Placeholder Theory, where many early developers at u13-u15 are effectively keeping the "seat warm" for new, better players who come along at u17+. This is a piece - where early developers are also being ill-served by the current system - that USSDA talked when they first announced their bio-banding initiative a couple years back. Can think of a number of u15 SoCal players who are starting to hit this ceiling and it's too bad.

Anecdotally, looking at a handful u17 rosters vs the u13/u14/u15 rosters for the same birth year, this churn completely shows up w/ SoCal teams. Some clubs seemingly more so than others, but haven't looked at all teams yet so won't name names.

Completely sold that every elementary school in the US should have at least one outdoor futsal court. The ability get opptys for free play soccer is definitely limited in some areas, and this is a clear disadvantage we have vs ROW. The Latino leagues help but futsal everywhere would be awesome.


----------



## focomoso (Mar 6, 2020)

Soccer1Bball5 said:


> Here's a great article that addresses many of the items. Interesting how a comparison of MLS players and age at when they started DA. I still prefer school year over Calendar year. In USA Baseball, there are 3 age brackets. USSSA uses May 1st, Recreational Leagues use August 31st, USA National Team uses calendar year. The revolution will not hold tryouts


It's a great article pointing out the flaws in the system, but, as with most of these, a little light on the solutions side. (I'm not sure it's our "need to develop" that's responsible for the front-loading of teams / academies, it's the placeholder, need to win part.) 

As far as I can tell, the only way we get competitive at the highest level internationally is if we find a way to get our best athletes into soccer. Currently, more of the best choose basketball or football.


----------



## foreveryoung (Mar 7, 2020)

Kante said:


> Fair question. The u13 and u14 standings are easy to do, are interesting to folks and someone will do them anyway. But, agreed, not terribly meaningful, except for Sept/Oct when DA is making decisions about who will play who in the showcases.
> 
> The items that are posted weekly are 1) the predicts for the weekend's upcoming matches, and then 2) the actual results vs the predicts.
> 
> ...


Although the data certainly doesn’t tell the whole story and can be very misleading.  One of many examples:  If a coach gets tired of losing and just starts playing the bigger faster stronger players the team might appear to be getting better.

I have found in life that where you focus your attention and time tends to be what is or what becomes most important.  I relish the day when we can collectively refocus our attention on how our kids performed and the level of passion, joy and creativity that they play with versus the outcome.


----------



## Dargle (Nov 16, 2020)

Reviving this thread since I think @Kante asked whether relative age effect or late developers would be incorporated into the new MLS Next league.  I noticed that in the Nomads MLS Next bracket rules, they mention allow three late bloomers to be rostered with a team and mention completing an "MLS Late Bloomer application form."  Not sure if this is only for this tournament since they are classified as friendlies, but if there really is an MLS form prepared for this, perhaps late bloomers are allowed to play down during league play too.

https://www.nomadssoccer.org/rules



> Late Bloomer Rule
> You will be allowed Max. of 3 players per roster.  You must designate clearly the 3 players on your roster.  Players can only be on 1 roster for the duration of the tournament.  i.e. they cannot play with the B14 (true age B15) and then play in a subsequent game with the B15 team. Please provide a copy of your MLS late bloomer application form to tournament staff on or before first game.


----------



## watfly (Nov 24, 2020)

Apparently MLS Next is implementing a late developer's program.  We were contacted today about participating and had to provide some numbers and a picture to our Coach.  3 kids from our club were chosen.  I don't have any other details at this point.


----------



## Husky13 (Feb 23, 2021)

At every turn, school sports are effectively rigged for children born soon after the school start cutoff date — which varies by state in the U.S. but is most commonly around Sept. 1 — and against later-born children. Yet in the NBA, James Harden1 and Kobe Bryant2 are among the former MVPs born in August, putting them among the youngest in their school year group. In baseball, Mike Trout and Cody Bellinger were each just 17 years old when they were drafted; Tom Brady and Barry Sanders are among the NFL MVPs who were young for their cohorts.

These athletes embody a notable paradox: Once they reach professional levels, younger-born players tend to be more successful and are overrepresented among “super-elite” athletes.This phenomenon, found across a range of sports and explored in “The Best: How Elite Athletes Are Made,” a book I co-authored, is known as the underdog effect. Essentially, it is harder for later-born children to become professional athletes — but if they do become professional, they have a higher chance of becoming among the very best players in their sport.

A study of the most valuable male players in professional soccer, ice hockey, baseball and Australian rules football analyzed their birth dates relative to the selection year for the sport in their country. The finding was the opposite of the relative age effect: Players born later for their year were overrepresented among the very elite, accounting for a combined 55 percent of players.

“Award-winning athletes were more likely to be born late in the selection year than early in the year,” wrote Paul Ford and Mark Williams, the authors of the study. “The relatively younger athletes in our sample were able to stay in a developmental system that discriminated against them.” The authors suggested that “to survive in the system, relatively younger athletes must develop some other performance advantage, which is likely to be skill and its attributes, such as speed, technique and decision making. During their development, these younger athletes may benefit further in skill acquisition by playing the sport with relatively older athletes.”

In other words, the very same factor that worked against athletes young for their selection year became an advantage if they could hold on in the system. Among super-elite athletes, the relative age effect not only fades but reverses.

The difficulties faced by later-born children on the sports field can help them develop in advantageous ways. A study of Premier League soccer academies found that players who were later maturing for their year — sometimes because they are young for their selection group, but also because they are physically late maturers — are more adept at self-analyzing their games and improving their weaknesses. German youth soccer players born in the last quarter of the selection year were found to perform worse than others in their age group — but, when taking relative age into account, the players born in the last quarter were, on average, better performers. “The superior abilities of late-maturing or quarter-four players is due to the greater challenges experienced and superior skills that are required to overcome these,” said Sean Cumming, a co-author of the Premier League paper.

Failing to recognize the talents of later-born children can be costly. At the age of 8, a young Harry Kane was released from the academy of the soccer team he supported, Arsenal. “He was a bit chubby, he wasn’t very athletic,” Liam Brady, Arsenal’s former academy director, told The Telegraph in 2018. Kane was both young for his school year — born on July 28, one month before the end of the English school year — and was also a late developer biologically for his age. After being released by Arsenal, Kane was signed by the academy of Tottenham Hotspur. He has now scored more than 200 goals for Tottenham and is valued at well over $100 million.


----------



## watfly (Feb 25, 2021)

Husky13 said:


> At every turn, school sports are effectively rigged for children born soon after the school start cutoff date — which varies by state in the U.S. but is most commonly around Sept. 1 — and against later-born children. Yet in the NBA, James Harden1 and Kobe Bryant2 are among the former MVPs born in August, putting them among the youngest in their school year group. In baseball, Mike Trout and Cody Bellinger were each just 17 years old when they were drafted; Tom Brady and Barry Sanders are among the NFL MVPs who were young for their cohorts.
> 
> These athletes embody a notable paradox: Once they reach professional levels, younger-born players tend to be more successful and are overrepresented among “super-elite” athletes.This phenomenon, found across a range of sports and explored in “The Best: How Elite Athletes Are Made,” a book I co-authored, is known as the underdog effect. Essentially, it is harder for later-born children to become professional athletes — but if they do become professional, they have a higher chance of becoming among the very best players in their sport.
> 
> ...


Thanks for the article, I think its spot on.  The problem is not RAE, its player identification and I don't think that can be solved by bio-banding tournaments, etc.  Let's be honest player size and not skill or IQ is a often the determining factor in choosing kids for the "first" team.  This is particularly noticeable in U-13 to U-15 where the range of sizes differs primarily as a result of puberty.  You can have a 4'8" and a 6'2" that are the same age.  We need a change in philosophy, but I have no clue how that happens.  

Part of the problem is lack of development within clubs.  Instead of developing a kid from a lower team to play on the top team, clubs typically choose a shiny new object from another club as opposed to promoting from within.  Typically that shiny new object is gone after a year or two because they are club chasers.


----------

