GA 2020-2021 Season

[youthsportsugghhh]

Yesterday, I watched the Anelka documentary on Netflix. It was interesting when Anelka was explaining to his kids that he went to Clairefontaine at 13 and I believe Henry commented that by 14, 15, 16 it’s clear who has what it takes. This morning, I also watched CoCo Gauf (16 y/o) get defeated in the Australian Open. I wonder what data or research USSF has to justify their position or is the development timeline being adversely influenced by the club soccer lobbyists?

I am not motivated enough to look back over years, but in the '04 age group it seems like the same girls get consistently called back - it was similar in ODP and PDP from what I saw. There are definitely girls that stood out before and are still very talented, but there are also girls who have put in the work and grew in last year and held their own against those "identified" players. I do think there is a lot of change between the U14 age and the U17 ages in girls/teams I have seen. I think part of that is the ability to think the game as well as the physical aspect of the game, at some point running fast will only get you so far.

 

[sdb]

After watching the long video, I am confident Rasmus Ankersen would agree with my position. His position seems to be consistent with the education department at Cal and their Academic Talent Development Program. If you reference Howard Gardner’s theory of multiple intelligences you’ll see that sports/athleticism is an area of intelligence that can be developed. I think we agree on the theories but differ on the application. I maintain that it’s obvious by 16 who has the genetics and drive to succeed. My takeaway from Ankersen’s presentation was:
1). The best athletes probably have a genetic advantage;
2) The best athletes have a supportive environment (ex: Ethiopian distance runners);
3.) Talent that shouts is easy to identify (ex: Usain Bolt). but can be expensive and arrogant;
4.). There’s also talent that whispers.

A coach can spot talent that whispers by identifying the critical factors for success. According to Ankersen the critical factor for success is an athletes willingness to do extra work outside of structured practice. He gives the example of Simon Kjaer that was lazy and arrogant but improved by doing extra work after receiving psychological treatment. He also talks about Osafa Powell who wasn’t performing well but had a lot of potential because he never had professional coaching.

I think Ankersen’s presentation is consistent with my position. So, I would love to hear how/why you think this research is applicable to high achieving club soccer players that have benefited from professional and motivational coaching for the entirety of their sports career?

If we were talking about folks being identified from AYSO or Latino leagues, the analysis would be similar to Powell in that they are average performers who’s potential could be maximized with professional coaching but I don’t see how this applicable to club soccer and letter leagues.

I think the problem with club soccer and the letter leagues is that there are several players with the drive and environment but many lack the genetics.

What I find interesting is the part of the video where the coaches pick the winners at 15, put the names in an envelope, open it 5 years later, and not one of them picked Simon Kjaer. Ankersen says that they coaches have a combined 100 years of expertise and they can't pick who actually won. In the case of Simon Kjaer, who was 15-16 by the way, they couldn't see that he had the genetics and drive to succeed. In fact at this point they thought that he didn't. It was a fluke that they signed him and kept him on. My belief is that we write off kids too early, pick the winners too early and then keep the early picked winners in the winner's pool regardless of the development going on outside of that winner's pool.

 

[happy9]

The first GA showcase starts day after tomorrow for us. Some say Scouts will be there. Others say no. My kid ready to focus on the game at hand and ignore who is or isn’t watching.
Appreciate the input on YNT call ups etc. yeah my kid checks some boxes but agree that the funnel is so tiny.

i know someone who’s kid is a top so cal swimmer- top of the US swimming pyramid - except that the pyramid has a flat top with thousands of swimmers with times that are 1/10ths of seconds apart. At the top of that flat topped pyramid, there’s a greased flagpole. That’s where the Olympic hopefuls are trying to scramble up!

Guess making USNT in soccer might be similar.

I say enjoy the journey. If your player has been called to an identification center, enjoy that. Making it beyond an ID center is an accomplishment. Getting camp call up is really cool. As you mention, the funnel is tiny. If your player gets the opportunity, tell them to enjoy it. Hopefully we get back to having real ID centers and camps. Regardless of what one thinks about US Soccer, the staff running the YNTs puts on a great show, doing their best to provide the same environment that the senior team is given. Even if they never get called back up, the experience will stick with them for a while and they will be part of a small group.

 

[Kicker4Life]

What I find interesting is the part of the video where the coaches pick the winners at 15, put the names in an envelope, open it 5 years later, and not one of them picked Simon Kjaer. Ankersen says that they coaches have a combined 100 years of expertise and they can't pick who actually won. In the case of Simon Kjaer, who was 15-16 by the way, they couldn't see that he had the genetics and drive to succeed. In fact at this point they thought that he didn't. It was a fluke that they signed him and kept him on. My belief is that we write off kids too early, pick the winners too early and then keep the early picked winners in the winner's pool regardless of the development going on outside of that winner's pool.

Harry Kane is a good example

 

[Giesbock]

After watching the long video, I am confident Rasmus Ankersen would agree with my position. His position seems to be consistent with the education department at Cal and their Academic Talent Development Program. If you reference Howard Gardner’s theory of multiple intelligences you’ll see that sports/athleticism is an area of intelligence that can be developed. I think we agree on the theories but differ on the application. I maintain that it’s obvious by 16 who has the genetics and drive to succeed. My takeaway from Ankersen’s presentation was:
1). The best athletes probably have a genetic advantage;
2) The best athletes have a supportive environment (ex: Ethiopian distance runners);
3.) Talent that shouts is easy to identify (ex: Usain Bolt). but can be expensive and arrogant;
4.). There’s also talent that whispers.

A coach can spot talent that whispers by identifying the critical factors for success. According to Ankersen the critical factor for success is an athletes willingness to do extra work outside of structured practice. He gives the example of Simon Kjaer that was lazy and arrogant but improved by doing extra work after receiving psychological treatment. He also talks about Osafa Powell who wasn’t performing well but had a lot of potential because he never had professional coaching.

I think Ankersen’s presentation is consistent with my position. So, I would love to hear how/why you think this research is applicable to high achieving club soccer players that have benefited from professional and motivational coaching for the entirety of their sports career?

If we were talking about folks being identified from AYSO or Latino leagues, the analysis would be similar to Powell in that they are average performers who’s potential could be maximized with professional coaching but I don’t see how this applicable to club soccer and letter leagues.

I think the problem with club soccer and the letter leagues is that there are several players with the drive and environment but many lack the genetics.

Great summary. Last paragraph gets to the heart of it in the US and abroad: academies / letter leagues do not jettison players even when it’s clear that they’re too slow because they’re paying customers.

I’d bet there are very few sponsored players that don’t have the genetic chops.

 

[happy9]

Great summary. Last paragraph gets to the heart of it in the US and abroad: academies / letter leagues do not jettison players even when it’s clear that they’re too slow because they’re paying customers.

I’d bet there are very few sponsored players that don’t have the genetic chops.

Goes to the heart of the pay to play business model. There are just enough players that make it to the next level that it provides hope for the parent with the lesser talented players. They will keep paying, the team will keep rostering them. It's just the way it goes. It's something that you have to live with. The reality is that many players on teams are training cones for some of their team mates. This is especially true of the teams that carry 18-20 rosters. 15-20 likely don't get much playing time. Their development is not a priority and game touches are likely scarce. S

I always find it interesting when I happen to watch a state league game, DPL, or ECRL game. Those players always seem to have more fun, their parents are less involved in the game, or involved in a les serious way, and generally look like they are having more fun. Sure, there are crazy parents at all levels of youth sport but you get my drift.

True fully funded academies can be more selective, take a look at some of the MLS academies, especially some of the ones that have been around longer.

 

[MacDre]

What I find interesting is the part of the video where the coaches pick the winners at 15, put the names in an envelope, open it 5 years later, and not one of them picked Simon Kjaer. Ankersen says that they coaches have a combined 100 years of expertise and they can't pick who actually won. In the case of Simon Kjaer, who was 15-16 by the way, they couldn't see that he had the genetics and drive to succeed. In fact at this point they thought that he didn't. It was a fluke that they signed him and kept him on. My belief is that we write off kids too early, pick the winners too early and then keep the early picked winners in the winner's pool regardless of the development going on outside of that winner's pool.

Interesting hypothesis that is NOT supported by the data. The example of the coaches with over 100 years experience not picking winners was NOT about the coaches picking players too early. Rather, it was an example of experienced coaches using the wrong criteria to select elite players. Ankersen also gave the example of the NFL using an IQ test for quarterbacks that didn’t work and he also cited the Oakland A’s use of analytics to determine on base average was the correct criteria as opposed to speed and power to select players.

The criteria that should be used according to Ankersen is: which players are consistently willing to put in extra work and/or which players have potential to improve with professional coaching.

To me, it makes no sense to delay identifying talent. I think the elite 14 y/o runs the risk of becoming a gifted underachiever because the environment is not challenging. I also think kids w/o the genetics are exploited and given false hope.

 

[happy9]

Interesting hypothesis that is NOT supported by the data. The example of the coaches with over 100 years experience not picking winners was NOT about the coaches picking players too early. Rather, it was an example of experienced coaches using the wrong criteria to select elite players. Ankersen also gave the example of the NFL using an IQ test for quarterbacks that didn’t work and he also cited the Oakland A’s use of analytics to determine on base average was the correct criteria as opposed to speed and power to select players.

The criteria that should be used according to Ankersen is: which players are consistently willing to put in extra work and/or which players have potential to improve with professional coaching.

To me, it makes no sense to delay identifying talent. I think the elite 14 y/o runs the risk of becoming a gifted underachiever because the environment is not challenging. I also think the PARENTS of kids w/o the genetics are exploited and given false hope.
View attachment 10084

Added a noun to your statement. Parents spend a ton of money on off site training. I coached youth baseball for some years. I witnessed plenty of kids who were mechanically sound in every aspect of their game but: couldn't hit the ball, couldn't field a fly ball in stride, couldn't throw the ball in stride, etc....Plenty of money was being spent on after hours batting and fielding coaches. Excellent slow speed footwork, excellent batting mechanics...many time the mechanics never translated to game speed application.

But hey, the counterargument is that these things help kids grow and become better adults. And if they do, then good.

 

[MacDre]

But hey, the counterargument is that these things help kids grow and become better adults. And if they do, then good.

I reject this counter argument. I actually think this mentality is why today’s youth are so self-entitled. Putting in work on their own should be a pre-requisite for parents before spending additional money on outside training. I loved baseball as a kid. My friends and I played lots of pickle and then we had batting practice by playing with bottle caps and broomsticks. We developed our footwork by playing hide and go seek, freeze tag, climbing trees etc. Going to a batting cage was an extreme luxury/reward for staying on the grind. Nowadays kids get the reward but don’t develop the grit that comes from constantly being on the grind.

 

[Dubs]

I reject this counter argument. I actually think this mentality is why today’s youth are so self-entitled. Putting in work on their own should be a pre-requisite for parents before spending additional money on outside training. I loved baseball as a kid. My friends and I played lots of pickle and then we had batting practice by playing with bottle caps and broomsticks. We developed our footwork by playing hide and go seek, freeze tag, climbing trees etc. Going to a batting cage was an extreme luxury/reward for staying on the grind. Nowadays kids get the reward but don’t develop the grit that comes from constantly being on the grind.

I tend to agree. As most great players say in whatever sport is being played... you must be comfortable with being uncomfortable and that goes for all aspects of the game.

 

[happy9]

I reject this counter argument. I actually think this mentality is why today’s youth are so self-entitled. Putting in work on their own should be a pre-requisite for parents before spending additional money on outside training. I loved baseball as a kid. My friends and I played lots of pickle and then we had batting practice by playing with bottle caps and broomsticks. We developed our footwork by playing hide and go seek, freeze tag, climbing trees etc. Going to a batting cage was an extreme luxury/reward for staying on the grind. Nowadays kids get the reward but don’t develop the grit that comes from constantly being on the grind.

ha, yes, grit and determination mean everything. I don't know if you've been to the DR, but not too many batting cages and pitching machines.

parents who force their kids into additional training to MAKE them better generally don't have the best interest of the kid in mind. They think they do, but they don't.

Pretty cool if you could hit an 85MPH bottle cap with a broomstick. Walt Hriniak would be impressed.

 

[Desert Hound]

I don't know if you've been to the DR

Been there more than a few times. And not to hang out at the all inclusive resorts.

 

[Giesbock]

I tend to agree. As most great players say in whatever sport is being played... you must be comfortable with being uncomfortable and that goes for all aspects of the game.

Speaking of uncomfortable... the GA tournament day 1 was awesome! Tough, gritty games. Most within 1-3 goal differential. No blowouts. Girls stepped up and played their butts off in 30 degree weather.

 

[Sandypk]

Speaking of uncomfortable... the GA tournament day 1 was awesome! Tough, gritty games. Most within 1-3 goal differential. No blowouts. Girls stepped up and played their butts off in 30 degree weather.

Have fun and stay safe!
For those who might be interested in watching or checking scores.

Girls Academy Event Preview: GA Texas | Club Soccer | Youth Soccer

The first Girls Academy event kicks off on Friday from Texas with the U17 and U19 age groups in action. TopDrawerSoccer previews the event along with the teams and players to watch.

www.topdrawersoccer.com

GotSport

 

[happy9]

Been there more than a few times. And not to hang out at the all inclusive resorts.

Yep..

 

[Desert Hound]

So GA added a few clubs. 2 in NM. At the time they added them, they indicated they would be part of a new Mountain West conference.

Anyone notice that? Who might be in the Mountain West? AZ?

 

[happy9]

So GA added a few clubs. 2 in NM. At the time they added them, they indicated they would be part of a new Mountain West conference.

Anyone notice that? Who might be in the Mountain West? AZ?

I didn't take notice. Who are the clubs? I would assume Rio Rapids? Who's the other? I don't see AZ leaving the SW but who knows these days.

 

[Desert Hound]

I didn't take notice. Who are the clubs? I would assume Rio Rapids? Who's the other? I don't see AZ leaving the SW but who knows these days.

Like I said I noticed the new conference announcement along with the new clubs. I would be a little worried if I were del Sol. Are they pulling Texas teams out of the TX conference? If not, that leaves basically CO to the north and AZ to the west.

Look at the current map below. And yes I am sure they are adding more...but still.

I couldn't see anywhere on the website where they discuss who is going where outside of the 2 new additions.

 

[timbuck]

Beach and Legends are moving to ECNL, right? Does that mean they are pulling out of GA-L?

 

[happy9]

Like I said I noticed the new conference announcement along with the new clubs. I would be a little worried if I were del Sol. Are they pulling Texas teams out of the TX conference? If not, that leaves basically CO to the north and AZ to the west.

Look at the current map below. And yes I am sure they are adding more...but still.

I couldn't see anywhere on the website where they discuss who is going where outside of the 2 new additions.

View attachment 10120

View attachment 10121

View attachment 10122

My guess is their is expansion happening in Utah as well. Maybe building up UT, CO, NM. Don't really know to be honest. I'm sure they are rethinking their SW strategy. There are good teams in Utah that are not under any umbrella, maybe they are making a play for the Celtics and Avalanche.

In other news, the GA just cancelled the second half of their Austin Showcase scheduled for next weekend. They probably should have cancelled this past weekend's games and focused on the April Showcase in Florida.

Texas has declared a state of emergency and Austin is getting another round of bad weather on WED. The entire state needs a few days to recover from bad weather - green energy needs to recover, with the aid of good ol dirty fossil fuel...