Cross-posted from US Men's thread because I think people should be paying attention. Perhaps I've missed this but I haven't seen a single person post about US Soccer bio-banding initiative. This is by far the most promising thing I've seen to come out of US soccer's youth program. I've long felt this could and should be done, but I never expected US soccer to be in the lead. This is one of the rare instances where they are actually ahead of the curve. If James Bunce can get this pilot program expanded through-out the DA system I feel it will be trans formative. Here are some of the reasons this matters.
US Soccer going all in on junk science is something I didn't expect. Beyond the ethical concerns and hope that it does not extend to players giving samples of bodily fluids or consent for some sort of genotype mapping, I don't see parents supporting this unless this is just for the MLS/USL Academies. This is bold from US Soccer after the last coaches convention and the platform that quite a number of candidates ran on with regards to age / DA. I don't see how the program expands anywhere beyond DA. But, if we do go all in on junk science ... US Soccer needs to hire Russell Wilson and make sure Recovery Water is the official water of US Soccer because as Russ Wilson said Recovery Water heals concussions. I heard Kraft kicked out Tom Brady's health guru, we also could use him to fight dehydration.
How about just having better coaches that can evaluate when players need to be playing up a level because they're dominating at their age group and therefore stunting both their development and the development of their teamates and opponents? Not all early maturing players are better than their late maturing counterparts. And not all late maturing players are inferior to their early maturing counterparts. Evaluate skill level and place accordingly.
I wasn't familiar with the method so I had to look it up. Why is this junk science? Final height is certainly predictable (predictable in the sense that we can use current information to forecast future height, although not perfectly). Individuals do not move linearly along the path to future height so observed deviations from linearity tell you something about where you are in the growth process. It seems like the problems are practical. Are the prediction errors too high? Does sorting by physical development produce mismatches in terms of other aspects of performance or development? You see similar questions in academic settings. Intellectually it can be beneficial to move a high-performing student up in grade, but it can introduce social difficulties. Is it just too complicated to implement (ebbro's point that you could have a simpler system, although probably not without its own practical problems)
http://www.bath.ac.uk/research/news/2017/11/10/biobanding-evaluation/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28628369 http://sportforlife.ca/wp-content/uploads/2017/09/biobanding.pdf I'll just leave those there
I think you're confusing it with DNA testing. If you step on an "Ironman" brand scale it assesses your metabolic age based on weight, body fat, muscle mass, body water %, basal metabolic rate (BMR), bone mass and visceral fat. In my experience they're pretty accurate compared to similar tests in a lab, in fact some doctors use them as part of an overall health assessment. Basically that's all they are doing. I wish they'd had it when I was at school. I was 9 months younger than many boys in my grade and it showed physically. My teacher (coach) would put me at left-back tp keep me out of the way.
I don't know exactly how the USSF plans to implement this initiative but here are a couple of quotes from those studies. Both definitely indicate that it would be best to use this along side age-group activities.
I call it "junk science" because it attempts to add a metric to something that is less about science and more about something else. This is like the person without celiac disease who goes gluten free and claims that they feel much better and healthier because they are gluten free. Meanwhile it's the fact that they don't eat a double helping of lasagna for dinner and instead have a salad and grilled meat or instead of having a bagel with a ton of cream cheese for breakfast, they have eggs and fruit. It's not the gluten free diet that is making the change, it's the fact that they are eating better. In this case the problem is that a kid who is physically more dominant is not playing at a level that is appropriate for their development. This is the same for someone who physically less imposing. This is basically Freshman, JV, and Varsity sports in high school. If a freshman is physically able to cope and is talented enough, they can play varsity or jv. It's why I had the choice between US History, US History Honors, or US History AP in high school. The problem is that predicting height does not account for environmental factors which have a noticeable effect, especially among poorer and first/second generation Americans. Predicting height might work with a team from just Southeast DC, but it is less reliable with a team from Northwest DC. It will be more reliable in Iowa than it would be in Maryland or Los Angeles. The problem is that youth sports are basically becoming pro sports but we don't recognize it or choose to ignore it. We try to keep kids together at an age group so they can play with their friends. If a player doesn't move up with his friends, he sees it as a failure. The people in charge of development do not see it the same way. If a 10 year old plays for the U-14, he and everyone else sees him as talented. If the kid takes 3 years to get to the U-15 level, he may get discouraged as he remains in the age group while others advance. The papers authors suggest that "bio-banding" should be done adjacently to normal training. They seems to suggest a stage based progression model might be best. That would be similar to karate and the various colored belts. If US Soccer is doing this, so they don't have to tell parents that they don't think the kid is physically ready to be at a certain level or attempting to use it as a cover for impartiality, I don't have a problem with it. The problem will still be getting kids to a level that best allows for their development.
Agreed. It shows US Soccer’s lack of soccer knowledge where the focus is all on physical ability rather than talent/skill. Imagine a younger Cartleton is part of this initiative, matures later, but shows considerable talent/skill regardless. Moving players in his age group that are physically mature earlier slows his growth. Players who aren’t yet physically superior don’t learn how to deal with those who are.
There was a really good discussion about this last night on SiriusXM FC's Counter Attack. For those with a subscription, you should check out the segment on demand.
I'll check out the Counter Attack segment. I've long thought (wrote a column about it once) that youth soccer at the youngest ages should consider something akin to our local Little League, where they don't really have age groups. They have Majors, AAA, AA, A, Rookie and T-ball. By the time you're 12, you play Majors. Some kids might make it at 10. AA may have some 11-year-olds who don't have much experience or skill alongside precocious 9-year-olds. So you move up when you're ready. Not necessarily when you're the "right" age. In a DA setting? I'm not sure why they don't just play up when ready. Of course, here's what I find funniest about it -- one of the reasons we were told we had to go to birth-year age groups was that when a DA scout was watching a game, he would know the age of the players he was watching. Which always seemed ridiculous to me unless absolutely no one played up. The scout's going to have to look up their age, anyway, so why change the age groups for that reason.
It's not a genetic test so it does take into account environmental factors (how tall your parents are is mix of genetics and environment). But it's important to distinguish between poor and first generation Americans. I would think the first generation would be a particular problem since the kids have better nutrition than the parents and so are likely to be taller than they "should" be which the system would attribute to earlier development. If, on the other hand, both parents and kids have the same nutrition (either good or bad) then you'd expect kids to grow, on average, to their parents.
Indeed .... I was just addressing the "junk science" bit. Most of the EPL activities involved bio-banded tournament teams/competitions. The players/coaches/etc have all been positive mostly. Not necessarily ... because that same kid can get continually muscled off the ball and never actually gets the chance to develop his skill. It doesn't make the physically advanced players any better by being able to NOT have to develop to beat the kids they're playing against.
I'm curious as to what you think is "junk science." The current method of grouping players by age is certainly easy but very poor from a development perspective and enjoyment by the players. Now I'm not sure of the method of for estimating the biological age but I'm sure its reasonably accurate. Certainly much more so than one where a child born pre-term by 3 months with some physical disabilities is presumed to have a significant advantage over a normal term child delivered 3 months later. while far from perfect, the fact that people within the our national program are not only thinking of well-know problems, but actively exploring solutions is a big step forward.
There is a fantasy world and a real one. In the real world in the US we have: 1) very few parents that truly understand human development, for if they did they would never tolerate current youth sports and coaching practices 2) a system that rewards coaches for winning games, so even if coaches know what is better for a kid, they will often do what is in their best interest and not the player The reason is that ODP was the joke of a program is that even though some "scouts" would joke that some young teen "drove the wife and kids home after the game" they would still select physically mature players because those would be the players selected further up the system because those would be the players that would win games in chronological grouping. But once you acknowledge chronological grouping makes little sense, there is little advantage to these types of player selections.
Its not all that complicated implement - especially if the outcomes of the games are not all that important which in terms of development youth sports, they should not be.
I was surprised US soccer would be leading, but the fact that they not close followers is good. BTW - not surprising to see Malina's name attached as he's been writing on this stuff for several decades.
Much of that language is put on so as to not scare the established order. Furthermore, since many of our systems based on chronological age, so any system must be cognizant of that as well. From my perspective the best development system would involve periodically moving players to environments where they were dominant, weak and level with their competition.
These are typical of arguments promulgated by AYSO which is why their programs have stagnated and players drop out in droves. Grouping players where they not competitive is not enjoyable, particularly for boys since they tend desire less interest in social aspects of sports than girls.
Exactly - this is why I think it is such a positive development to finally have people with a clue involved in our youth soccer programs.
We are not comparing a disabled child to normal child. I have no problem with sorting kids into groups that are not divided by age. I think it is a better way to go. I called it "junk science" because the the problem is getting the kids into the right level for their development. They are using a predictive tool that works best with a homogenous group of people with similar a environment. A kid can be 11 and struggle at the u-11, but be at their "biological age" can be 14 because a predictive tool is used based on parents height. What do you do? What happens if a kid is 13, but physically not ready for the u-13 level.
Great. Our cultures' Irish heritage kids are gonna get bio-branded as potential alcoholic footballers.