Forgot add my 2 cents on futsal. It's terrific. My 13-year-old would almost rather play that than outdoor soccer. Outdoors he's a LB, but in futsal he's much more of an attacker, scores a lot, and, as someone else mentioned above, tries things that he'd never try in an outdoor game with his team.
There are some immutable laws of the universe and one of them is “if you want to get better at ping pong, play people who are better than you”. So, while not separating players may solve some issues I would suspect the best players (and that is a loose term) might be inclined to go elsewhere. While all crazy families are competitive, not all competitive families are crazy.
In regards to the second article about pay to play many suggestions were offered. However, I read this from another poster on a different soccer forum so it is not my original idea but one I liked, none of the suggestions address pay to play. They are about developing a soccer nation not a soccer playing nation. Thus, from the article it is tough to conclude that pay to play is the biggest problem in developing players.
To add to this, the issue that I see with A, B, C teams for young players is that to a large degree it's based on competitiveness, not necessarily all on skill. So a more advanced technical player (likely tactically as well) who is not very aggressive has been playing/training for 3 years drops to the C team with players who may be newer to the game and does not get suitable training.
My daughter's (and our) first Futsal experience was two sessions this past winter. She/we loved it. I asked her just now what she liked better Futsal or outdoor -- she diplomatically said both: she liked the speed, less players, more scoring, space, etc. I really liked the practices because outside of treacherous winter conditions that made driving unsafe, there are really no weather cancellations. Also it made me think it would be great if our rec and club teams has indoor facilities just for practice during inclement weather during the outdoor season. Our rec league doesn't post standings until sometime after the last game is played. For all leagues my kids have been on teams that didn't win, lose, or were .500. I believe people in this board have told me that the wins and losses matter more to the parents than the participants. I have found that to be true and have curbed my focus on competition results. I don't know what to think of the Bio thing. Currently my 11 year old is the smallest in her class, but plays in a U13 and U14 team. More out of necessity than anything else, but I think she would balk at playing girls two years younger. I think playing with bigger kids or just being smaller in general may have helped her game some. I don't have a lot of input or experience with the other points. I do think the coaching licensing costs I have heard seemed like a detterant for the aspiring coach.
Our club does this up through U12, and sometimes beyond (we are on the border of two states that have differing seasons for HS girls soccer, so a pool is sometimes used. ) It works well for us, but requires buy-in from the parents and a good explanation by the club staff. Tournament rosters and usually released 3 weeks prior to a tournament, so you basically plan that you’re going and get an open weekend of your kid isn’t rostered. Beyond that, there’s not much difference other than the everyone in a group getting the same coaching.
The pool practice/play idea works for the first couple of years of club play, maybe until u9. Then you have to either separate the players by ability or have the better players play up an age group. Playing up one or two age groups needs to be done more. The idea of "winning" isn't a bad thing, but if you keep a player at their age group just to win it is. We don't need bio banding, just common sense. If the player is dominating an age group, move them up. Keep moving them up as long as they are a top 3-4 player at the age group.
I agree it's common sense, but I think this is why the pay to play model turned elitist. Once you give a hint to a parent that their kid should be separated from the rest of the pack, the race is on to finding/pay for the best development envirionment.
Elitist...That is a political term. In 15+ years I saw travel soccer representing all income levels. Some teams were from higher income areas, some from lower and most had a mix. The teams my kids played on selected players based on skill not what kind of car they drove. As we have discussed, it isn’t free so there is clearly money needed. But that isn’t the same as saying the whole model is elitist.
You are right, elitist is not the right word to use and I have to say that in different areas, the cost to play development and competitive soccer likely vary by a fair bit. I will also add that there are plenty of choices out there at least in my area to play rec at low cost on up to the expensive higher levels and private academies. No one is being forced to do anything here. However, if my kid make a team and they decide to play a couple of tourneys in the US (I'm in Canada), it's easy for me as a parent to say no, I dont want to spend the money because I think it adds very little to development but at a substantial cost to me. But it's hard for me to say no, I'd like my kid to miss out on sharing the experience with the teammates not to mention that my kid will probably get dropped the next season for not supporting the team. I choose not to be in that situation so my kid does not play on that team and does not get to play at the highest level. Not that it's a big deal or anything, but it does sting a little.
We skipped a European trip this summer that my son's then-u13 team made, one of a small handful who decided against doing it. Our reasons were both financial and philosophical. I haven't seen any indication so far my son will pay a price (he made a u14-15 A team at tryouts), but it's something I definitely wondered about when we made the decision, particularly after I laid out of my concerns about the trip both in a board meeting (I'm part of the board) and in response to questions about our reasoning from the primary organizer.
Related to the discussion here on athleticism and so forth -- I forget which game I was watching this weekend, but the commentators mentioned a player on the field had been cast aside by Barcelona because he was too small. Huh?
Regarding size: some coaches have a bias towards taller players, some run a system that ‘requires’ height in certain positions and most would take a 5’11” player over a 5’7” player if all else is equal. The game does call for getting to headers etc and opponents will identify short CBs and target them during corners etc. We all can point to a shorter player who has succeeded but they have to be above average in speed, skill or fight if they are going to beat out a skilled, taller player.
Another thought on the height thing..... My child was involved in the ODP process and made the State Team. At a practice before a regional showcase/competition the coach (he was filling in for the head coach that had picked the team and and had actually seen the players play - thats another issue altogether) asked the kids "who plays defense" - the defenders all raised their hands. He then grouped them, had then line up by height and picked the four tallest for defense stating "I like my defenders tall". Now remember he had never seen these kids play. Was a total train wreck for all involved. Can just say I am glad my son wasn't a defender This is how we select kids for starting roles in the US....
Knew a youth coach of an "A" team at a fairly large travel club in this area who once told a friend of mine--who asked him how he recruited--"I look at the Dads." He liked tall, athletic players, so he looked for taller-than-average Dads who looked like they might have played sports, and took their kids. End. Of.
Which would make it tough for me. I was always average, but I swear on most of my kids' teams I am one of the shorter parents.
I feel a little bad for my son, he didn't really hook up with futsal until recently (he turned 20). He did a bit of training with a semi-pro team this summer, absolutely loved it, and the coach seemed to really like him as well. Gave him the impression that had he showed up earlier he could've had a shot at the youth national team level. But he's 20 now and trying to make it on the senior level at this point is probably a jump too far. Now that his college career looks to be over, it would be nice for him to be able to pursue futsal in some capacity. He may have been a better futsal than soccer player all along, and I feel a little bad for him if that's true and he learned it a bit too late.
I'm a mere fraction of an inch below 6 feet tall, but I'm also slender and have a small-ish head. I look even less impressive than I actually am.
I had a coach (highly respected in my area), off the record and after a few drinks, told me the answer he wished he could give to all the soccer moms who continually ask what their son needs to do to improve or get better…usually giving the typical answers of work on foot skills, first touch or work on weaker foot, etc, while not necessary wrong, the real answer he’d like to give many is, you should’ve screwed an athlete…and I am paraphrasing…
I was involved with ODP process in the 90s and I see nothing has changed. I am 5'6 myself and I wish I was a bit taller . Oh well
To a degree, that ain't wrong--neither my wife nor I were particularly athletic, and the poor kid seems to have taken after her side of the family on height (he's several inches shorter than I). He also didn't inherit the one trait I could have passed on that might have been useful--I'm left footed, but he's isn't. Of course, at the youth level this shouldn't matter as much as a lot of these coaches think. Unless your job is explicitly to train future pros--or hell, even future college players--I really think youth coaching should be focused on helping each young player achieve their own potential.
No, that's how THAT COACH selects kids for starting roles. I think the point about athleticism/size vs soccer skills is an interesting one. But, looking at it from the reverse side, how do you suggest picking kids at the early ages (U8, U9, U10)? With some exception, the soccer skills aren't going to be very developed. However, it's relatively easy to pick out the athletes. So would you rather have an athlete you can teach soccer skills to, or someone with soccer skills, to teach athleticism (how do you teach that anyway)? Sure, it would be great if you could take both kids, but the problem is a lack of coaches/fields/games. The more coaches you have, the more players you can take. But then you get into two issues... one is a difference in skill level between coaches, the other is more coaches = more $$. So where does the money come from? Maybe we could get to the point where a professional team pays the club they get a player from. But how far back should they pay? Do you pay the club that had the kid at U18/19 (or wherever they joined pros from)? If he learned a lot of skills at younger ages at a different club, that's not really fair to that club. Many parents want to see their child (and therefore the team) be successful. Is that wrong? If the team isn't successful at younger ages, the parents will take their kids elsewhere. Heck, DS's U10/U11 team WAS successful (by our small community standards), but many parents didn't like the coach and decided to take their kids elsewhere. Therefore we were forced to go elsewhere. I'm still waiting for someone to suggest some solutions that will work in the real world.