First, (
@Husky13) this is a really good post and I don't think anyone could tell you that your opinion is wrong. That said, there are multiple angles to this dilemma and I think peoples position on the topic depend on the angle they take. I'll do my best to lay out my opinion and reasoning as best I can. Apologies in advance if some of these are wordy. It's difficult to have this conversation in a forum versus speaking face to face.
The definition of 'elite' on an absolute/overall basis isn't the relevant point here
For me, it is the focal point of what we are discussing and one of the main reasons why we have failed on a world stage for so long. In the US, for the past 50 years, football has been an activity, a sport, a way to be outside and have fun while staying fit and being with friends. In the rest of the world, football is a business that is vital to both economies and cultures. In the US we used words like fun, participation, free play, scholarship, equal playing time, open subs, etc. In other parts of the world they use terms like elite, world class, transfer fees, Champions League, promotion, relegation, staying up, going down, etc. In my opinion, it is weird that a country that was built upon capitalistic views and doing anything to get ahead has such a socialistic view when it comes to youth sports. I find it equally weird that the current societal views in Europe are opposite as their football culture. Our youth development strategy needs to be designed around the really good players and everything should be aimed at getting those players to their maximum level.
I think first, we have to agree, or attempt to agree what purpose USSF and DA serves in the overall youth development in the US. I don't think it is the job of the Federation to develop players. I think that job belongs to each individual club and always should. Just so you know, I can't stand MLS and I feel it is a disaster of a league, but its what we have and we somehow have to make it work. Also, I want to make it clear that I am on record in this thread saying I have no issue with split age groups within non-MLS clubs. I think each club should have a stated goal so any parent, player and coach can make an informed decision as to join or not. If the goal is to put players in front of college coaches and have their players earn scholarships, that is perfectly fine. They should be judged on how many players receive those scholarships versus how many don't.
I feel MLS clubs should have one goal and one goal only...to produce the best professional players they can, some of which should become elite, which for me is in the XI in a perennial Champions League club. When this is the stated goal, it is a giant game of risk/reward. It is about identifying elite talent as early as possible and then providing the resources, training, competition, and many other things in order to get the most out of that talent. To your point, when this is the stated goal, it means making difficult decisions and since we are talking about youth, it means some kids get the short end of the stick. While there are absolutely examples of kids that didn't earn a spot on a combined U16/17 team that did become good players, they are not as common as people would like to believe.
(other than clubs who don't want to spend more $$ for a separate U16 age group team)
Why this may apply to MLS clubs who spend hundreds of thousands per year on each team trying to develop those few professionals, I don't think it applies to non-MLS clubs that generate revenue from dues. I would think these clubs would love to have 2 separate teams that each pay annual dues.
I understand that weeding out players is part of a competitive process for identifying elite players
I don't think weeding out players has anything to do with identifying elite players. I think elite players are pretty easily identified on their own without any noise around them. I do however, think that weeding out player is part of the further development of those elite players. These elite players need to be surrounded by as many like minded, like skilled, like bodied players as possible. They need to be pushed every minute of every training session knowing their spot can be taken at any moment. I don't think "waiting" for a player to develop physically, or get better technically is worth risking the development of a potentially elite player in a team environment. At 10-15 years of age, I think we are on the same page, after that is where I think we start to disagree.
Not to repeat earlier posts, but late physically developing players may have more upside in terms of the skill they have had to develop to survive/succeed as a player as well as their late growth upside. But, in a "win now" DA environment, many of those players will be cut in favor of kids who grew early and can help produce victories in the short term (for lazy coaches who don't know how to win any other way).
You have a very good point here and one that most will all agree with. However, I don't view this issue as one that is combined or not combined age group related. This is an issue with our current set up and structure. Most of these clubs have to win now to stay relevant and in order to continue to generate revenue by bringing in players. There are undoubtedly late bloomers that are cut in favor of early bloomers, but this has been happening in every sport for a very long time, its not something new. Where do we go wrong? I think its in multiple areas. First, our clubs do a terrible job of communicating openly and honestly with players and families. This is out of fear of that revenue walking out the door. Second, our parents in general are terrible at taking open, honest communication and making an informed decision with the information. The second a coach sits a family down and says, "Listen, I think you are going to be a very good player. However, due to your size, speed, athleticism it is difficult for you to compete at the level needed at this moment and I don't feel you will get the touches or playing time needed to develop properly. I want you to continue to train with this team but we need to find games for you somewhere else" - the player and family leave and go try somewhere else. Everyone is living in this middle ground that isn't good for anyone. A small, late blooming player that truly has the mentality, soccer IQ and technique to become elite will not be hurt by learning how to dominate games at a level below DA for less than a year. I would argue, it would probably even help them as compared to struggling to compete, getting on the ball, getting past players or defending in an environment in which they are physically inferior. I think there is also a confidence aspect to this that needs to be considered.
