MLS youth league

[Patandpats]

Even then it would be pointless

Agreed. Albion 03''s lost to a team of mostly 04's from LAFC 5-0. If LAFC plays their 04's against them this year then it's just a waste of time. Similar result against Nomads.

Nobody can state that there is a goal of this league that is in the best interests of the kids from a competition and travel perspective. By u17 they should have two divisions and let very few, if any, non-MLS clubs in to the top one. The Albion and City FC's of the world can get their fill of MLS teams in pre-season friendlies. Taking these boys out of high school competition when most of the non MLS kids won't ever sniff the field in D1 is really a disservice to them in my opinion. Just like DA, this new league exists for the non-MLS clubs to benefit those in MLS.

 

[Ozzie]

The six So Cal clubs that defected to the ECNL were some of the stronger non MLS DAs. SD Surf had top ranked boys teams in several age brackets.

Another surprise is Crossfire. Crossfire was one of the strongest teams in several age brackets. There are no teams in the Pacific Northwest outside the three MLS teams (Seattle, Portland, Vancouver).

Rumor has it that Crossfire was pushed out by Sounders who wanted Seattle to themselves. Lots of bad blood between the clubs. It's too bad because Crossfire was very competitive and has a much better resume then many of the other clubs included on this list.

 

[Eagle33]

Agreed. Albion 03''s lost to a team of mostly 04's from LAFC 5-0. If LAFC plays their 04's against them this year then it's just a waste of time. Similar result against Nomads.

Nobody can state that there is a goal of this league that is in the best interests of the kids from a competition and travel perspective. By u17 they should have two divisions and let very few, if any, non-MLS clubs in to the top one. The Albion and City FC's of the world can get their fill of MLS teams in pre-season friendlies. Taking these boys out of high school competition when most of the non MLS kids won't ever sniff the field in D1 is really a disservice to them in my opinion. Just like DA, this new league exists for the non-MLS clubs to benefit those in MLS.

Well, we don't know yet whether they will not allow HS soccer.

 

[BIGD]

You start by saying "don't kill the messenger", but then you make clear that this is also your own personal view. ???

There are NUMEROUS players on the U15 YNT that thrive almost entirely because they hit puberty at age 11 or 12. A few players who are simply huge and are good at taking up space, but they are expected to be done growing while many others are just hitting growth spurts now. A few players who have thrived based on speed, but likewise they are done growing and their speed advantage is disappearing because as other kids are growing their strength and stride are increasing.

I personally grew from 5'7" to 6'3" during my age 15 year, and I don't think that is all that unusual. My son was barely over 5' last year and is now 5'8" and still has lots of room to grow. He is 9-10 mos. younger than many of the players on his team (one of the top MLS academies) - having 9-10 mos. left to grow relative to others is a pretty significant growth upside over other players at this age.

It isn't that "athleticism" magically appears. Rather, the issue is that many kids look good because they have an early size and/or speed advantage, and when that advantage disappears as other kids grow, then the rankings of players can change pretty dramatically.

I would add that there is plenty of data and stats that prove we are pretty bad at talent identification and predicting career potential at the professional level - across all sports. You don't have to do much searching to find studies that back that up. So in general I would say that our talent ID system is broken, and that in particular "bigger faster stronger" plays a huge role in soccer identification in the US. Hence our inability to compete at the international level. I saw a U16 ID training camp last year and for the first 15 minutes assumed it was the U19 team I was watching. With the exception of one player, they all looked much older physically than 16.

 

[texanincali]

Not shocked. I have no doubt that many teams are joining the MLS league after getting rejected by ECNL.

I meant it the other way. I think there are bunches of clubs turning down MLS League to join ECNL. How can you make a proper decision for your membership to join a league that hasn't announced a structure or many other pertinent pieces of information?

 

[Kante]

Yes and the age groups I've heard about so far are:
U13,U14, U15,and U16 for Non-MLS. Some clubs like Albion, City, TFA will take the option and field U17, U19 teams.

U15, U17,U19 for MLS optional U18 reserve.

Some MLS clubs may offer U13, U14 but kind of doubt U16. All this costs so intially may not take some of those options.

apologies for pedantic nature of question, but want to be clear.

in your understanding, former DA non-mls clubs that were only allowed u13 and u14 by USSDA will now be allowed to field u15 and u16 teams - but not u17 or u19 - by the new mls academy league? so for example, chula vista fc will now be able to field teams from u13 thru u16?

great opportunity for those non-mls clubs.

 

[MacDre]

I would add that there is plenty of data and stats that prove we are pretty bad at talent identification and predicting career potential at the professional level - across all sports. You don't have to do much searching to find studies that back that up. So in general I would say that our talent ID system is broken, and that in particular "bigger faster stronger" plays a huge role in soccer identification in the US. Hence our inability to compete at the international level. I saw a U16 ID training camp last year and for the first 15 minutes assumed it was the U19 team I was watching. With the exception of one player, they all looked much older physically than 16.

I agree with much of what you’re saying, I just don’t subscribe to the late bloomer theory. Can you name one world class late bloomer in any sport? To be clear, I’m not talking about talented athletes like Jordan and Brady that “peaked” late but were great athletes before they peaked.

 

[Kante]

I agree with much of what you’re saying, I just don’t subscribe to the late bloomer theory. Can you name one world class late bloomer in any sport? To be clear, I’m not talking about talented athletes like Jordan and Brady that “peaked” late but were great athletes before they peaked.

Mbappe
Kante

 

[Patandpats]

I agree with much of what you’re saying, I just don’t subscribe to the late bloomer theory. Can you name one world class late bloomer in any sport? To be clear, I’m not talking about talented athletes like Jordan and Brady that “peaked” late but were great athletes before they peaked.

Jamie Vardy, Miroslav Klose, Orbie Peralta, Luca Toni. That's four in soccer. Anthony Davis, Scottie Pippen in basketball come to mind right away, Damian Lillard might be one, Steve Nash, Chauncey Billups, Rodman. Tons in basketball. In baseball Jose Bautista didn't do shit until he was 29, plenty others like him as well as many pitchers who went to D3 or NAIA schools because they didn't develop yet. Randy Johnson sucked until he was 29. NFL has Kurt Warner, James Harrison, lots of other undrafted free agents that made it big.

Shit, Drogba only scored three goals at age 24 in France. Chris Wondolowski scored seven times in his first 5 MLS seasons.

Could go on and on.

 

[Husky13]

I agree with much of what you’re saying, I just don’t subscribe to the late bloomer theory. Can you name one world class late bloomer in any sport? To be clear, I’m not talking about talented athletes like Jordan and Brady that “peaked” late but were great athletes before they peaked.

This almost misses the point. It is partly a "late bloomer" theory, but it is also in part a "catching up" theory. Jeez, the number of kids that we watch coaches and scouts salivate over at age 14 or 15 because they are stronger or faster than kids they are playing against, but who don't have the technical skills, decision-making and other skills, is quite high. But, those deficiencies are hidden for a while because of their early growth advantage. Meanwhile, a kid who has similar athletic potential but isn't as filled out yet (but will be within a year or two), and also has those other qualities, gets glossed over.

I often wonder why a scout or coach thinks they are adding any value if all they are doing is spotting kids who filled out early. A MONKEY could do that.

 

[MacDre]

This almost misses the point. It is partly a "late bloomer" theory, but it is also in part a "catching up" theory. Jeez, the number of kids that we watch coaches and scouts salivate over at age 14 or 15 because they are stronger or faster than kids they are playing against, but who don't have the technical skills, decision-making and other skills, is quite high. But, those deficiencies are hidden for a while because of their early growth advantage. Meanwhile, a kid who has similar athletic potential but isn't as filled out yet (but will be within a year or two), and also has those other qualities, gets glossed over.

I often wonder why a scout or coach thinks they are adding any value if all they are doing is spotting kids who filled out early. A MONKEY could do that.

I agree. My kid and I would also fit your description of late bloomers. I think all the players mentioned above were all talented athletes when they were young. Maybe they hadn’t peaked but they were still in the top 10% of all players when young.
If so many late bloomers are being overlooked, why aren’t any great players coming from college programs?

 

[Husky13]

I agree. My kid and I would also fit your description of late bloomers. I think all the players mentioned above were all talented athletes when they were young. Maybe they hadn’t peaked but they were still in the top 10% of all players when young.
If so many late bloomers are being overlooked, why aren’t any great players coming from college programs?

I believe the topic was whether there is a benefit in a separate U16 age group. So, we are talking about 14 and 15 year old kids. There is a bit of a difference between that and kids who are 20+ years old in college. Surely you aren't equating the two when it comes to physical development? I would argue that physically developing at 15 isn't "late", so the term "late bloomer" isn't accurate.

And, there are all sorts of reasons why there aren't a high volume of great players coming out of college programs. Many will point to the lack of development in college because of the short season and terrible schedule (2 games/week). College soccer also reminds me a lot of high school soccer in terms of the style of play that college coaches seem to go for.

 

[texanincali]

Jeez, the number of kids that we watch coaches and scouts salivate over at age 14 or 15 because they are stronger or faster than kids they are playing against, but who don't have the technical skills, decision-making and other skills, is quite high.

This is a scouting/coaching issue, not an issue with who develops when. If a scout or coach can’t see a kid is never going to be a good player when others catch up physically, or a smaller kid is going to be a good player when he catches up physically, they suck. Having a U16 age group isn’t going to solve that. Until scouts and coaches know what they are looking at it will be status quo.

 

[Husky13]

This is a scouting/coaching issue, not an issue with who develops when. If a scout or coach can’t see a kid is never going to be a good player when others catch up physically, or a smaller kid is going to be a good player when he catches up physically, they suck. Having a U16 age group isn’t going to solve that. Until scouts and coaches know what they are looking at it will be status quo.

I agree that this is primarily a scouting/coaching issue, but a separate U16 age group can help mitigate that by keeping kids who have recently grown and "caught up" physically (or are still in the process of doing so) in the mix and in sight of these scouts and coaches who cannot otherwise seem to project ahead and can only see what is right in front of them.

 

[MacDre]

I believe the topic was whether there is a benefit in a separate U16 age group. So, we are talking about 14 and 15 year old kids. There is a bit of a difference between that and kids who are 20+ years old in college. Surely you aren't equating the two when it comes to physical development? I would argue that physically developing at 15 isn't "late", so the term "late bloomer" isn't accurate.

And, there are all sorts of reasons why there aren't a high volume of great players coming out of college programs. Many will point to the lack of development in college because of the short season and terrible schedule (2 games/week). College soccer also reminds me a lot of high school soccer in terms of the style of play that college coaches seem to go for.

No, I’m saying that if so many talented undersized kids are being overlooked at 14 and 15, then it would seem likely that by time they are in college they would be physically mature and world class but it’s not happening.

I agree that college soccer isn’t good for development. But the problem with development starts before college.

 

[MacDre]

P

I agree that this is primarily a scouting/coaching issue, but a separate U16 age group can help mitigate that by keeping kids who have recently grown and "caught up" physically (or are still in the process of doing so) in the mix and in sight of these scouts and coaches who cannot otherwise seem to project ahead and can only see what is right in front of them.

Pressure makes diamonds. Nowhere else in the world are boys being coddled and given false hope. In Mexico only the top 10% of the 2008 birth year will enter academy next fall. At 12 the funnel starts to narrow and I think this is best. Others can play for fun.

 

[texanincali]

I agree that this is primarily a scouting/coaching issue, but a separate U16 age group can help mitigate that by keeping kids who have recently grown and "caught up" physically (or are still in the process of doing so) in the mix and in sight of these scouts and coaches who cannot otherwise seem to project ahead and can only see what is right in front of them.

I get what you are saying, but it really should be a non issue. My biggest issue with a stand alone U16 team is I think it would allow clubs to play U16 players in their own age group when they should be playing in the U17 age group. You are taking a pool of 25 players and creating one that’s 50 players. That waters it down.

If a U16 kid can’t make a U17 team, I doubt he is going to end up being a superstar. That said, there are examples of kids that drastically improved after U15. I would rather a coach be able to identify a kid or a couple of kids that have potential, let them train with the U17 team and play in a local league at the weekend. I would much rather have that than create another age group for the 2/3 late developers per team that could exist.

 

[vegasguy]

I agree with much of what you’re saying, I just don’t subscribe to the late bloomer theory. Can you name one world class late bloomer in any sport? To be clear, I’m not talking about talented athletes like Jordan and Brady that “peaked” late but were great athletes before they peaked.

Scottie Pippen and the Worm

 

[vegasguy]

P

Pressure makes diamonds. Nowhere else in the world are boys being coddled and given false hope. In Mexico only the top 10% of the 2008 birth year will enter academy next fall. At 12 the funnel starts to narrow and I think this is best. Others can play for fun.

But they come here and lose to our MLS teams and non-MLS teams. By the numbering on their jerseys they are not sending c teams. Mx academies are not any better than MLS academies.

 

[MacDre]

But they come here and lose to our MLS teams and non-MLS teams. By the numbering on their jerseys they are not sending c teams. Mx academies are not any better than MLS academies.

Coach, sometimes the teams lose because the priority is development and not just winning another trophy. How often does a MLS team beat a Liga MX team?

Garber: Liga MX better than MLS for now

Commissioner Don Garber said that Major League Soccer can be one of the best leagues in the world, but still lags behind Liga MX.

www.espn.com

 

[WuTang]

P

Pressure makes diamonds. Nowhere else in the world are boys being coddled and given false hope. In Mexico only the top 10% of the 2008 birth year will enter academy next fall. At 12 the funnel starts to narrow and I think this is best. Others can play for fun.

I am assuming you are saying 10% is a good number of kids who should be academy.
Well, if all 95 clubs have an 08 team next year, that would be a little over 1600 08’s in academy. I know that is way less then 10% of all American 08 soccer players. So, if anything the US even narrows fewer kids down.