CSL Strong???
- Thread starter dreamz
- Start date
Again, you always miss the thread. I'm responding to various points made by soccersc. Your contribution as usual is stunning.
I look upon my contribution as fact-checking.
Not quite sure how I get credit for it. I do believe there are elite players at every level. Those elite players may or may not remain elite as they AD others proceed thru training and puberty. My definition of elite for soccer players is any soccer player that is playing much better than other players at their age group and each age group has it's own parameter. I do not compare an elite u9 with an elite adult pro or even an elite u11 since children grow significantly mentally and physically within 2 years. U9/u10 elite goalies catch more balls and kick away more balls than 95% of their peers because they are better at judging angles and more agile. Whether they stay that way is different. Some kids can train and get better to become elite at u11 and some can become elite at u18. Some train a lot and still remain average because they have physical or mental limitations.
You never know if your kid will become elite at u18 so don't stop paying those training fees
That’s funny...as I said you are on a roll
“Kick away more balls”...that’s the issue right there. If they are doing that inside the box then they may be more effective than their peers of that age but they are not more advanced (since the more advanced kids are practicing diving for the ball and missing it). Our disconnect probably centers on 2 things: a. What superior means (more effective v more knowledgeable and developed) and b. If there can be a meaningful distinction among fresh beginners.Not quite sure how I get credit for it. I do believe there are elite players at every level. Those elite players may or may not remain elite as they AD others proceed thru training and puberty. My definition of elite for soccer players is any soccer player that is playing much better than other players at their age group and each age group has it's own parameter. I do not compare an elite u9 with an elite adult pro or even an elite u11 since children grow significantly mentally and physically within 2 years. U9/u10 elite goalies catch more balls and kick away more balls than 95% of their peers because they are better at judging angles and more agile. Whether they stay that way is different. Some kids can train and get better to become elite at u11 and some can become elite at u18. Some train a lot and still remain average because they have physical or mental limitations.
You never know if your kid will become elite at u18 so don't stop paying those training fees
Diving and learning news technique is all great at u9/u10 but if it's ineffective because their bodies and mind are not ready to use it effectively then it seems too young to be focusing on such a technique. Learning those techniques early just means your parents have more money to invest in a formal trainer at a young age - it doesn't create an elite goalkeeper. Kicking balls away is an effective defensive technique for goalies at all age groups and easier/cheaper to master at u9/u10.
Thats them problem, you are trying to define elite by comparing a u10 player to a pro. Can you not see that? Superior isn't hard to define, Neuer or Matt Turner, and ECNL keeper or a F3 keeper, it is very easy top see a superior player vs an average player, even at u10. You think just because a player doesnt have a certain skill set at u10 they can't carry over that skiil set when they get older? That is irrelevant to the discussion anyway, the point is there are certain players that are better at every age group, the players that are far better than their peers at the same age are elite. I am having trouble understanding how you can't see that????
What is funny is that you think that keepers have more "stuff" to learn and exceeds that of a field player. Okay, go ask a top level coach that question and see what they say. Make sure you don't tell them you are a keeper parent before you ask the questions. You lost a lot of credibility right there!!
No I’m not. I’m comparing basics to basics. Using your own words as definition is “far better” among raw beginners a meaningful distinction. If your point is every once in a while a Mozart comes along ok, but Mozart’s are few and far between and even at the European academy level you can count them on one hand...not as pro level skills...competent in the basics.
The field players have been at it longer so there is a greater possibility for unicorns but the question there is also what does superior mean: more effective or more developed. For the keepers at least the ones who are diving but missing more are more developed than the ones going in for their feet.
lastly it’s self evident keepers need to know more. They have to do all the regular soccer practices and then do the keeper training on top of that. Keeping is almost like training an entirely different sport on top of the sport you are in (yet you get to use both skills about only 50% of the time). Not saying field players don’t have a lot to learn (but at the early ages the skills are just more natural and developmentally appropriate). Keepers just have more skills to learn since they MUST also learn all the soccer skills including shooting and their goal specific training has virtually zero overlap with the soccer skills. Again we are comparing basics to basics: running, passing, shooting, defending basic mechanics v catching, diving, 1v1 defensive play, and stance.
I think you just read part of my post then respond and ignore the rest. If you are comparing basics to basics, then compare one player at u10 to another. compare the age group and position, that is when you will see an elite player. I'm not even saying every once in a while, I'm saying the elite players are the ones that are above their peers, they are superior to their peer group. Now I see, what you are describing is a generational talent, if you are talking about a player who only comes along every X amount of years, than that is different, that isn't what we are talking about though. Superior was the term used, as comparing them to someone in their own age group. The elite players are the ones that stand out above their peers. Generational player is someone who comes along once in a lifetime or a few and far between and they aren't necessarily at every age group or position.
It doesn't matter if keepers have to learn those skills, they are nowhere near the same level of skill as a field player.
Think about this and it might help you understand. How many top level keepers at u15 come out of goal and end up being an effective field player on a top level team? Compared to...How many u15 top level field players end up going into goal and are effective keepers on a top level team? That was rhetorical, I already know the answer, WAY more field players go into goal, never have I seen it go the other way.
I can throw an ELITE tall striker who played little league all growing up in the net and tell him to stop the ball and he would do a better job than a keeper in the field. Wonder Why?
It’s not just the occasional Mozart. At the beginner level, about one player in 300 is good enough to make it impossible to balance AYSO teams. Maybe one in 10,000 is good enough to play up a year in club and lift the team a flight by doing so.
That isn’t few and far between. It’s a normal part of life in sports.
You assumption here is that all (or almost all) field player playing at the highest level are elite. They aren't, at least not at U9 and U10. As I said, the roster of "elite" players (far better than their peers, as you've defined) is smaller than the roster of the top level teams. The other question we have to ask ourselves is why: is it because they are more developed, or is it because they are taller and closer to the age line. But surely you would concede there are no elite field players at U6?
You didn't say superior. You said far better. Can one player be better than another at age 8 or 9? Yes. Can one goalkeeper be better than the other at age 8 or 9? Yes. Can one goalkeeper be far better than the average at age 8 or 9? No, because they are all rank beginners at that age, except for a handful of prodigies, far less than there are high ranking teams in SoCal.
Part of the explanation for this effect is that the goalkeeper has to split their time so doesn't have the full amount to get proficient on the field. You see the same effect between strikers and defenders that shift position but it's not as much since the skills overlap. But then I hear the rejoinder: what about the tall striker that goes into goal. Well, here's a little secret. Again, you have to use the principle of like to like but most keepers really suck. They have some major deficiency so few players are ever able to achieve perfection in goalkeeping which is not the case for strikers (where world class strikers exceed the number of world class goalkeepers). Exhibit A: David De Gea, who even in his heyday was not all around excellent, yet receives the enormous pay day he does. Part of the reason (and why Americans filled the position for so long) is because the Europeans didn't know how to train goalkeepers. Exhibit B: David Bingham of the Galaxy...could execute the basics, mildly effective on cross defense but couldn't save a 1 v 1 to save his life ...yet a premier goalkeeper on the MLS. That's changing. Training goalkeepers has become more of a science and both here and in Europe kids are beginning to specialize earlier (now at about age 9/10 whereas before it was 12/13). Hence the United Soccer guidance to not specialize in goalkeeping until age 13, and to not seriously train keeper skills until age 10. How much they can push that, though, is a question mark since the body simply isn't prepared to execute most of the required skills at that age, while it can execute running, passing, shooting, defending.
Fair as to field players. The GK doesn't have that influence because the GK can't score (and one solution in AYSO to the too good player that's scored 12 goals or so is to put them in goal). It also then beg's espola's question of whether a player can be "elite" if they aren't playing on an elite team (I think he's right, the answer is yes, but it gets difficult)
The other question is why? Is it because of developmental skill, or is it because of size and closeness to the age line. It's a mix of the 2 in most cases, but I haven't seen a lot of data over how heavily it leans towards one or the other.
I think this is turning into a discussion on semantics. Superior and far better, mean the same to me. Elite means the player is superior, far better, or distinctly stand out above those in age group they are playing. So, yes, I have seen a u6 player stand out and were clearly far better than those that they were playing against. Does that mean they will be elite at u10, not necessarily, because there are a crazy amount of factors that come into play, but at u6 they can be elite because they are better than their peers at that age.
I just don't agree that all keepers at 8 or 9 are all at the same level, I'm not sure why you think that, but maybe you haven't seen a rec keeper, or you are only exposed to keepers that go to keeper training or play club????
No I've seen keepers at all levels play at the 8 or 9 year old. I think that we just have different standards for what "elite' means (which I regard as different than either "better" or "superior" and it's relative to average, not the worst) and what goes into making that player elite (skill v. size/age). I also don't think there are 5 year old elite field players.
p.s. there has to be some line....4 year old elite field players, 3 year olds, 2, babies???
Why? Occasionally, it’s just talent. I’ve watched a 7 year old girl dribble a field of 4th, 5th, and 6th grade boy defenders. That had nothing to do with age, height, weight, hard work, or training. That’s just undeveloped genetic luck.
Agree, occasionally, it's just talent. Sometimes, it's just age or height. Other than the hockey player study though that started that entire debate, is there much data on how often it's one v the other? Both BTW are genetically or circumstantially based, though you can do more with training and hard work for skill than age/height. One is finesse, the other is a blunt instrument.
notintheface
GOLD
Respectfully disagree -- your club should have a good working relationship with your local AYSO chapter to bring in those flight 3 players. If anything we see a better pipeline for youngers of AYSO select/extra players than we do of kids looking to move from one club to another.
Put it this way -- established flight 2 and flight 1 teams have about a 20% churn rate no matter what. Families move, kids decide it isn't for them, life happens. Those 2-3 kids either get replaced by lower flight kids or by external recruiting. It is rare in my experience to catch a large group of flight 1 kids all wanting to move at the same time and so your hypothetical ECRL tryout will tend to get a small amount of kids new-to-the-club regardless.
But that's all a moot point. The number one question that gets asked at large tryouts is, and will continue to be, "when and where does the team train?" because parents generally don't want to drive two hours round trip two or three times per week. It is only the most rabid parents who come up and ask "is this team prepared to be first place in flight 1 with an eye towards moving to discovery" and the moment some father (here's where I'm being a little sexist, because it's almost always fathers) asks that question it's a giant red flag as to that family's commitment and behavior.
notintheface
GOLD
These kids have, on average, six years of playing this sport before they're done. That's 70-85 league games in total. If you spend more than one year in bronze, you will have wasted time that they simply do not have. Here's the scenario: a team plays its first year in bronze, U9, and out of a bracket of 6 teams let's say they come in 4th. Second year, U10 bronze, two top teams have moved up, brackets get shuffled a little bit, new team joins, this team comes in third because any myriad of reasons. Third year, U11 bronze, two top teams have moved up, brackets get shuffled a little bit, this team loses some kids but maintains a good core and manages to come in first. Fourth year, U12 silver, team has not been challenged and it's time to switch to 11v11, and they subsequently find themselves near the bottom of the table. Fifth year, U13 silver, you lose a few kids because the pro/rel process has failed them, team struggles again, near the bottom of the table. Sixth year, U14 you lose most of the rest of your original team, again because they're burned out and the whole process failed them top to bottom.
I have seen this happen time and time and time again in Coast. This does not happen in SCDSL. That U9 team plays flight 3 their first year and then flight 2 their second year and they have their second and third years to really develop, and by their fourth year and the switch to 11v11 they are ready to completely eat up other teams and so their fifth and sixth years you retain most of your players and you're rolling in flight 1. This is *reality*. This is why you tend to hear from coaches why they prefer the SCDSL format because they are not under pressure at that U9 U10 group.
I have no doubt that there are exceptions to this-- of course there are. Are there too many letter leagues? Of course there are and the fragmentation is absolutely a money grab. But pro/rel is 100% not the solution that parents (and Coast admins apparently!) think it is because you cannot tell me how it serves these youngers acting as some arbitrary gatekeeping.
notintheface
GOLD
Your link is to 2009s. Take a look again.
Your reality isn't true bc the flight 1 you think your team is in...is actually flight 5 or 6 at SCDSL but they labeled it flight 1 for parents to think their kids are moving up. Your kids haven't moved up in that scenario, your kid is in the same flight but with a different name. CSL doesn't lie to you. If your at bronze, you're at bronze level until you improve enough to move forward. It's ok to do so.
ECNL=flight 1
ECRL=flight 2
DISCOVERY=flight 3
CHAMPIONS=flight 4
Europa = flight 5
Flight 1= Flight 6
I've seen teams break up and I've seen teams stay together that do not move up. When teams break up, it's all for the same reasons, (1) bad coach, (2)the kids aren't a good combination of skills or personality together or (3) the parents are too toxic. Teams should break up if 6 kids are very good and 6 kids are very bad. You can't keep them together at 11 v 11 because those 6 good kids can't cover for the 6 bad kids at 11 v 11. If the six good kids want to play more challenging teams, they have to change their teammates at 11 v 11.