CSL Strong???

[soccersc]

Kids train soccer as young as 3 and 4. It is possible that by 8/9 you have some kids that are better at it than others. You might even have some unicorns that are really good at it. They don’t start to train goalkeeping until age 8, most good coaches won’t take em before 9. As one of my sons trainers once told a parent of a little one: happy to take your money if you insist but at this age it would be a waste of time....teach them to play soccer first. He wouldn’t take my kid until age 9. Unlike field work you can execute the basics of field play at age 8. You cannot do the same with goalkeeping work. Assume they start age 8...gotten really good at the basics in 1 year with classes once a week? Even if their dad is a college level or pro gk that takes them out every day it’s hard because the physical skills are just really different. And at 10 the kid who is learning to dive but is still letting goals fly past them is more advanced than the athletic kid running around playing like a defender and foot stopping everything even though the later will save more goals and be told he’s a natural in the position.

As for ayso yes I’m sure that played into it. I was involved in our regions discussions when they removed the goalkeepers. The parents complained the loudest...the scores would be too high if the team had a unicorn shooter. But the rational was why sacrifice a kid in the position since unless the ball is shot straight at them the kids can never do anything to stop the ball. The Spanish dont play with goalkeepers either until u9.

I don’t get why you associate the skill of the player with what makes them elite. You are making it way too difficult, an elite player is one that is clearly above the peers, simple. Every player has different strengths and weaknesses, it’s those that have more strengths that are better. If you took the top u10 keepers in the world and put them up against a bunch of rec players in keeper wars, who would win. Those players are at an Elite level compared to some Rec kid. Why is that hard to understand?

The funny thing is, by your own premise, it must be easy then to become an elite keeper. If you don’t start training until u10/u11 and by u17 be considered elite, wow, maybe more kids should try and become an elite keeper???? Compare that to a kid whose been playing since they were 3 and u10 they can’t even start to sniff the elite level, they’ve already been at it 6 or 7 years.

If it were that hard to be an elite GK they be demanding the highest salary? Nope, look at what players get paid the most...Very few want to play keeper, that’s why there aren’t many of them, and it’s evident by salary and how long it takes to develop that it is easier than being a field player.

Keeper parents

 

[espola]

he was playing for an elite team as a gk age 9?

I see your point. H's not an elite player because he is not playing on an elite team, and the reason it is not an elite team is that there are no elite players on it.

 

[Giesbock]

I’ll drop this non seqitor into your going’s on about 9 yo keepers...

i lived in Germany as a teen back when soccer balls worn down to kinda suede leather, absorbed wet so were heavy. I didn’t know anything about soccer and ran my ass off for two weeks of tryouts. Coach stuck me in goal - I was tall, fast, agile couldcover ground. I’d come home pummeled and covered in mud and scrapes from the dirt / gravel field we were on. Never forget trying to stop balls in the chest and catch them with bare hands.

Anyway after enduring that for the last week of tryouts I got cut.

 

[Grace T.]

I see your point. H's not an elite player because he is not playing on an elite team, and the reason it is not an elite team is that there are no elite players on it.

I didn't set that parameter, Emma did.

 

[Grace T.]

I have nothing new to offer. You're just repeating your empty positions.

Yet you still offered. ^\_ _/^

 

[Grace T.]

I don’t get why you associate the skill of the player with what makes them elite. You are making it way too difficult, an elite player is one that is clearly above the peers, simple. Every player has different strengths and weaknesses, it’s those that have more strengths that are better. If you took the top u10 keepers in the world and put them up against a bunch of rec players in keeper wars, who would win. Those players are at an Elite level compared to some Rec kid. Why is that hard to understand?

The funny thing is, by your own premise, it must be easy then to become an elite keeper. If you don’t start training until u10/u11 and by u17 be considered elite, wow, maybe more kids should try and become an elite keeper???? Compare that to a kid whose been playing since they were 3 and u10 they can’t even start to sniff the elite level, they’ve already been at it 6 or 7 years.

If it were that hard to be an elite GK they be demanding the highest salary? Nope, look at what players get paid the most...Very few want to play keeper, that’s why there aren’t many of them, and it’s evident by salary and how long it takes to develop that it is easier than being a field player.

Keeper parents

Whereto start?

1. Make it simple then. You can't have an elite keeper because at age 8 and 9 all keepers are beginners and they should be part timers. That's not true of the field players since some kids have been training since age 3 or 4.
2. Are there kids that are better? Sure, but the criteria at that age for goalkeepers is different. Why? Because the more advanced kid at that age will actually be giving up more goals. We are sort of constrained here by the parameters originally set by Emma which was there is a distinction between the "superior" players playing on higher level teams than on the lower level teams. Espola's point that there could be superior players playing on lower level teams is actually equally valid, but that's not where this long winded side debate began with Emma's post.
3. Soccer development is not linear. Much like physical growth in kids, it comes it spurts and stops. One of the biggest spurts for the goalkeepers comes with puberty. For the boys, being able to touch the cross bar is actually very useful in ability to stop goals.
4. There isn't a shortage of keepers on the boys side...that's mostly true of the non-elite levels for girls. There are a shortage of trained keepers on the boys side but there are keepers a plenty.
5. The amount of stuff a GK needs to learn just simply exceeds that of a field player. They need to learn soccer + the goalkeeping skills. So yes, it is very hard to be an elite GK at the highest levels. They also have a shorter time period to learn it all, particularly if they start late, which makes it all the more impressive.
6. The salary stuff is an irrelevancy. You assume that soccer is actually a meritocracy (it isn't). If you read soccernomics, you'll see that the goalkeeper actually ads only mediocre value to a team because they can only stop (some) of the shots and so are only reducing a hole the team is in. To win, the team needs to score. That's why those up front pull in the highest salary. It's basic market economics.

Typical field player parent.

 

[espola]

Whereto start?

1. Make it simple then. You can't have an elite keeper because at age 8 and 9 all keepers are beginners and they should be part timers. That's not true of the field players since some kids have been training since age 3 or 4.
2. Are there kids that are better? Sure, but the criteria at that age for goalkeepers is different. Why? Because the more advanced kid at that age will actually be giving up more goals. We are sort of constrained here by the parameters originally set by Emma which was there is a distinction between the "superior" players playing on higher level teams than on the lower level teams. Espola's point that there could be superior players playing on lower level teams is actually equally valid, but that's not where this long winded side debate began with Emma's post.
3. Soccer development is not linear. Much like physical growth in kids, it comes it spurts and stops. One of the biggest spurts for the goalkeepers comes with puberty. For the boys, being able to touch the cross bar is actually very useful in ability to stop goals.
4. There isn't a shortage of keepers on the boys side...that's mostly true of the non-elite levels for girls. There are a shortage of trained keepers on the boys side but there are keepers a plenty.
5. The amount of stuff a GK needs to learn just simply exceeds that of a field player. They need to learn soccer + the goalkeeping skills. So yes, it is very hard to be an elite GK at the highest levels. They also have a shorter time period to learn it all, particularly if they start late, which makes it all the more impressive.
6. The salary stuff is an irrelevancy. You assume that soccer is actually a meritocracy (it isn't). If you read soccernomics, you'll see that the goalkeeper actually ads only mediocre value to a team because they can only stop (some) of the shots and so are only reducing a hole the team is in. To win, the team needs to score. That's why those up front pull in the highest salary. It's basic market economics.

Typical field player parent.

1, 2 -- not true.
3, 6 -- irrelevant.
4, 5 -- what's your point?

 

[Grace T.]

1, 2 -- not true.
3, 6 -- irrelevant.
4, 5 -- what's your point?

Again, you always miss the thread. I'm responding to various points made by soccersc. Your contribution as usual is stunning.

 

[espola]

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.

 

[Emma]

I didn't set that parameter, Emma did.

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

 

[Grace T.]

I look upon my contribution as fact-checking.

That’s funny...as I said you are on a roll

 

[Grace T.]

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

“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.

 

[Emma]

“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.

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.

 

[soccersc]

“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.

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!!

 

[Grace T.]

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.

 

[soccersc]

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?

 

[dad4]

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.

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.

 

[Grace T.]

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.

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?

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.

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.

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?

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.

 

[Grace T.]

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.

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.

 

[soccersc]

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.

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????