2017-2018 D1 Women's Soccer Talk!

Question for those w D-1 players currently playing, or formerly playing, or going into college next year: at U-12 & U-13, when it seems there's the greatest difference between those who are maturing early and those who are not, was your DD clearly well on her way to where she is now? Were there players who were studs on that team that never panned out? Was your kid a late bloomer? Or has she been dominating/or proficient all along? Just curious how some paths are taken over the long haul.
 
Hate to say it. All of the above. Factor in ACLs and maturity and you got anyone’s best guess. The kids that were top of the top at u12-13 typically made it to D1 but didn’t necessarily pan out. Some sleepers are now studs. Good luck
 
turftoe said:
Question for those w D-1 players currently playing, or formerly playing, or going into college next year: at U-12 & U-13, when it seems there's the greatest difference between those who are maturing early and those who are not, was your DD clearly well on her way to where she is now? Were there players who were studs on that team that never panned out? Was your kid a late bloomer? Or has she been dominating/or proficient all along? Just curious how some paths are taken over the long haul.
Click to expand...

I would reply but @surfrider doesn't like me talking about experience. I could tell you in pretty fair detail about how the class of 2016 has done so far after 2 years (some conclusions can be formed) and I am pretty dialed in along with @NoGoal on how the local class of 2017 has fared after 1 year of college (the jury is still out). If you want to hear my take PM me and I will be happy to share.
 
turftoe said:
Question for those w D-1 players currently playing, or formerly playing, or going into college next year: at U-12 & U-13, when it seems there's the greatest difference between those who are maturing early and those who are not, was your DD clearly well on her way to where she is now? Were there players who were studs on that team that never panned out? Was your kid a late bloomer? Or has she been dominating/or proficient all along? Just curious how some paths are taken over the long haul.
Click to expand...

Have to say every single thing @NoGoal and @MakeAPlay have told me has been spot on. Their mentorship has changed the trajectory of what I knew to do so I would encourage you to PM them as they are credible.
 
turftoe said:
Question for those w D-1 players currently playing, or formerly playing, or going into college next year: at U-12 & U-13, when it seems there's the greatest difference between those who are maturing early and those who are not, was your DD clearly well on her way to where she is now? Were there players who were studs on that team that never panned out? Was your kid a late bloomer? Or has she been dominating/or proficient all along? Just curious how some paths are taken over the long haul.
Click to expand...

One of many paths -- A young lady friend of our family was being recruited heavily in her HS Junior year. Then she blew out a knee near the end of HS season. She recovered enough to get back in action for the Summer club season, and was selected as MVP in the first high school tournament in her Senior year. Then she blew put the other knee, which put her out of action until she entered her chosen school, and even there sat out a red-shirt season her first year. She was a frequent starter for 3 years, and left with a year of eligibility remaining to go to graduate school elsewhere.
 
Those that were identified at U12/U13 and played ODP at a high level are now playing D1.

Kids who matured earlier and used their physique to gain advantage and are now not as big, dropped off the map.

Tad Bobak wrote a very good article on this subject.
 
eastbaysoccer said:
Those that were identified at U12/U13 and played ODP at a high level are now playing D1.

Kids who matured earlier and used their physique to gain advantage and are now not as big, dropped off the map.

Tad Bobak wrote a very good article on this subject.
Click to expand...

That's not exactly what that article says.
 
This article is from 6 years ago, so probably makes more sense to folks with kid's playing in college right now when
their kids (girls) were in the "commotional" years, 11, 12, 13.

I got these from a contributor (MaP?, can't search for it): 5 tools for soccer (similar to baseball and other sports)
Speed
Size/Strength
Athleticism
Technical skills
High Soccer IQ

My kid's coach mention about tools you need to go to the next level and this is a decent framework for discussion.
I like Bobak's 0-50 scale, where 40-50 is elite and max 5 points increase. Not here to argue this, but just as a framework of discussion.
What I infer from this article is that nature is very important, but without the nurture part, your kid can only go, so far.

I would really like to hear parents who went through these commotional years and see what happened to their kids or what they saw.
Come on, folks. Sign a peace treaty and have a few beers/puffs, until next season starts, then game on. :)
 
Justafan said:
All of them?




None of them fell into this group?
Click to expand...

Plenty that fell into several of those groups. Most of the players who matriculated to top D1 programs were in the ODP program by 12/13. The ones who were tops then aren't necessarily the top players now. As an example the consensus top 3 players in the 2016 graduating class from SoCal played a total combined zero minutes for their college teams last year. 2 played in the U20 WWC and one was redshirted. This season one of those players started 19 of her teams 20 games, played almost 1400 minutes and made the all-conference team as a freshman (a successful season). One of the players played in 10 of 20 games with 1 start for a total of 260 minutes. One player played in 12 of her teams 25 games with one start and 267 minutes played. All three were ranked in the top 15 of the graduating class with 2 in the top 5. I can think of a couple of players that weren't called into YNT camps at 13/14 from SoCal that were on those ODP teams with those same players that played more minutes this year than all of those previous players combined.

US Soccer does a poor job of predicting success. Thank goodness the US has college soccer to filter the best players. You want to figure out who the best players are. Just watch who is playing the most on the best, deepest teams. The lineup for the CONCACAAF qualifiers will reflect it...
 
Gokicksomegrass said:
This article is from 6 years ago, so probably makes more sense to folks with kid's playing in college right now when
their kids (girls) were in the "commotional" years, 11, 12, 13.

I got these from a contributor (MaP?, can't search for it): 5 tools for soccer (similar to baseball and other sports)
Speed
Size/Strength
Athleticism
Technical skills
High Soccer IQ

My kid's coach mention about tools you need to go to the next level and this is a decent framework for discussion.
I like Bobak's 0-50 scale, where 40-50 is elite and max 5 points increase. Not here to argue this, but just as a framework of discussion.
What I infer from this article is that nature is very important, but without the nurture part, your kid can only go, so far.

I would really like to hear parents who went through these commotional years and see what happened to their kids or what they saw.
Come on, folks. Sign a peace treaty and have a few beers/puffs, until next season starts, then game on. :)
Click to expand...


My player was fortunate in that she was always in the top group of players coming up but early on was top 25-30 (in the ODP coaches eyes) but not in the top 11 or so. This lead to lots of disappointment but also lots of motivation. She always felt that she was better than the players chosen over her but felt like she wasn't getting the chance. We decided to keep her training with good coaches, not necessarily on the best team but they always played the best competition. She was average height up until about U14 and although she was always one of if not the fastest player, she played lots of positions so it was easy to miss the impact that she had on a game. Honestly I think that it was the best thing for her to have to work hard and not have anything handed to her. By the time U16 hit she was pretty dominant because her size caught up with her speed and skills and at the same time she was still hungry to prove herself. Fast forward to her freshman year of college and she had never taken her foot of the pedal and was a starter from her very first summer practice. Now it's to the point were she doesn't even know how not to work hard on the field or in the classroom and she makes decisions that are best for HER long term goals. Not a lot of players that decline YNT invites because of class/fatigue. She is very mature and all of her experiences of disappointment helped get her there. ULittles was a tough and challenging time but with a gameplan, some confidence and a village supporting them players can come out the other end better. It's all about the player and their support group.

That's my 2 cents.
 
MakeAPlay said:
My player was fortunate in that she was always in the top group of players coming up but early on was top 25-30 (in the ODP coaches eyes) but not in the top 11 or so. This lead to lots of disappointment but also lots of motivation. She always felt that she was better than the players chosen over her but felt like she wasn't getting the chance. We decided to keep her training with good coaches, not necessarily on the best team but they always played the best competition. She was average height up until about U14 and although she was always one of if not the fastest player, she played lots of positions so it was easy to miss the impact that she had on a game. Honestly I think that it was the best thing for her to have to work hard and not have anything handed to her. By the time U16 hit she was pretty dominant because her size caught up with her speed and skills and at the same time she was still hungry to prove herself. Fast forward to her freshman year of college and she had never taken her foot of the pedal and was a starter from her very first summer practice. Now it's to the point were she doesn't even know how not to work hard on the field or in the classroom and she makes decisions that are best for HER long term goals. Not a lot of players that decline YNT invites because of class/fatigue. She is very mature and all of her experiences of disappointment helped get her there. ULittles was a tough and challenging time but with a gameplan, some confidence and a village supporting them players can come out the other end better. It's all about the player and their support group.

That's my 2 cents.
Click to expand...

If you read the Bobak article, review MAP's posts, and have some experience in the process, there are a lot of common themes that stick out. For me, what Bobak highlights, and MAP's five skills should be modified for, is a need to replace athleticism with something akin to confidence/agressiveness. If you have Speed, Size and Strength, you have basically outlined the components of athleticism. What is missing is the confidence to use your tools, trust your IQ, and the aggressiveness to challenge players, take a risk, and get to the next level. That was what Bobak was referring to, in my opinion, that cannot be taught. You can be a late bloomer and get the size and the strength when you are 14-16, and I would argue you can even add speed to move into elite territory in those years (assuming you are not slow to begin with). Many of these later bloomers end up like it seems MAP's did at 12-14 (as did my youngest) -- in the pool, making the cut, sometimes alternates or even at the end of the bench, but not in the starting eleven. Those who control the early process are not all knowing, and one should not get discouraged by setbacks. But to expect a mid-level player on a decent team to become elite at D1, in the Bobak world to jump 10-15 points, is pretty rare indeed.
 
Dos Equis said:
If you read the Bobak article, review MAP's posts, and have some experience in the process, there are a lot of common themes that stick out. For me, what Bobak highlights, and MAP's five skills should be modified for, is a need to replace athleticism with something akin to confidence/agressiveness. If you have Speed, Size and Strength, you have basically outlined the components of athleticism. What is missing is the confidence to use your tools, trust your IQ, and the aggressiveness to challenge players, take a risk, and get to the next level. That was what Bobak was referring to, in my opinion, that cannot be taught. You can be a late bloomer and get the size and the strength when you are 14-16, and I would argue you can even add speed to move into elite territory in those years (assuming you are not slow to begin with). Many of these later bloomers end up like it seems MAP's did at 12-14 (as did my youngest) -- in the pool, making the cut, sometimes alternates or even at the end of the bench, but not in the starting eleven. Those who control the early process are not all knowing, and one should not get discouraged by setbacks. But to expect a mid-level player on a decent team to become elite at D1, in the Bobak world to jump 10-15 points, is pretty rare indeed.
Click to expand...

Well said.

I can't think of any players who weren't at least "pretty good" at age 13 who became "elite" later on.
Using your Bobak scale to rank a girl's overall game (and I hope this broad generalization makes sense...let's say a 50 is a unicorn, a 45 is an ODP first team starter, and a 30 is at the end of the bench on a good team at age 12 and at age 18 a 50 is a YNT player, a 45 is a starter at a top 25 program, and a 30 is a fringe college depth player at a non power 5 school), I've seen 30s become 40s and I've seen 40s become 50s, but I've never seen a 25 become a 45 or somesuch. Not that it doesn't happen, but I don't remember seeing it. A 10 point jump isn't rare, but anything beyond that is pretty uncommon in my experience.

I've also seen 13 year old 50s become 18 year old 40s (or whatever 10 point dropoff you want to point to on the scale), but unless a girl just gave up the game altogether for another sport, 15 point decreases are also pretty uncommon.

How good a girl is at age 13 doesn't necessarily equate to how good she'll be at age 18, but it's a pretty darn good predictor within a 10 point band or so.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top