No it is not, as I have said before it is a Junior Academy team, and the teams are of mixed abilities. In the game last weak, the team was up 9 to 0, my son's team had already given up one of its best players and they were still dominating, so he was put in goal and challenged by the coach not to use his hands in an effort to help the other team. He has already "tried-out" for a USDA club and was chosen to be part of their U10 developmental school. He is one of 18 U10 boys out of nearly 1000 boys playing at U10 for the club. It is likely he will play for one of two USDA clubs at U11, not decided which one yet (see below). ETA: he plays for two clubs/teams, one is a gold level travel team the other is the junior academy. He does not play for the USDA club at U10 because it is a long (ie 1 hour plus) commute for us, he trains once a week with them though. Give me a break, it was some college kid, a nobody, but he was impressed enough for him to say it. I certainly not basing anything on it. I know he is 10, I have no illusions. He more than dominates, he has a presence on the field that we have not seen in any other U10 player. His game was watched by his class teacher yesterday, who was/is a player and he remarked on this. His trainer (ex West Ham player), feels he has the potential to be a pro. I am well aware of this. But he trains with older players who are serious about the game and are trying to get better, these are kids who go to extra practices beyond their team practices. I can assure you until next year our state has forbidden players to play up at U11. They recently changed the rule to allow three players to play up per team. If you think I haven't done my homework, you are sadly mistaken. I know what is involved, thank you very much. I don't know why you all get rubbed up the wrong way. Why do you care, one way or the other? This is what we initially thought, but it appears not to be the case. He is playing at the highest level available to U10s in our state. He was selected by a top 20 club to be in their top 18 U10 players to be especially trained (they have 78 U10 teams). We are still looking for the right club/coach for U11, five clubs want him. One club actually met with my husband for two hours in his office to persuade him to join them. I will post back in five years and let you know of his progress.
Whether a player should play up or not is a coaching decision. If the parent is not the coach, their estimate of their child's ability is not relevent. If a parent inserts him or herself into the decision, then you increase the risk that a wrong decision will be made.
You must not talk to many youth coaches. And why would you judge a coaches' ability by the league he or she is in? You don't think good coaches ever take rec teams or do voluntary community service? From the context of the post, it sounded like an appropriate restriction to me.
So are you saying that there are many excellent coaches that would tell a 10 year old to play goalie without using his hands? If so, give me names or shut up! P-L-E-A-S-E, spare me the hypocrisy. A good coach may play his star at goalie to stop the scoring, he may sit the player so that the other weaker players (poster said that there are at least 5 much weaker players on the team) get more play time, he may demand possession without scoring. He could even tell the team to play without a goalie or short-handed to make his defense really work. I have seen all of them done. What I have never seen is a good coach telling a 10 year old to play goalie without using his hands. What the beep for? How does that benefit or educate the kid or the team? First and foremost, it endangers the kid wouldn't you agree. But let's for argument's sake agree that the kid is really that good and was able to humiliate the other team's forwards, wouldn't that be just like rubbing salt to wound to the other team? In what way does that practice manifest the characteristics of a good coach? Listening or reading is a skill that you sir clearly do not possess. When did I ever say that a coach cannot be good if coaching house? What I did say was something goofy like making a field player playing goalie without using his hands does not seem to me consistent with a top flight program - hence asking whether that took place at a rec league. Argument just for the sake of argument - what a moron! But back to the kid, if he is a top 18 players out of over 1000 U10 players for a top 20 ranking USDA club, congratulations. May be we are talking about the next Adu. I'm just curious what club it might be. Does any one know of such a club with over 1000 players at one age group alone? Must be a huge club. Gallagher comes to mind but I don't think they are even that big. Maybe FCGB at MA with a rec league?
(oops I messed up and my comments on the above quote are in red...sorry) I agree over 1000 kids at one age group. My club barely has 300 kids (between in house rec and travel) My pool of kids to pull from is about 50, of which maybe 10 maybe meet some of my basic requirements. Listen I think my 8 yo is fantastic, others have told me he is fantastic, one of our team trainers ( she plays in the Womens English League) thinks he is fantastic, but he is 8 and he plays like he is 10, but he is still a 8 year old little boy. Do I want the best for him---absolutely. Do I want him to improve is skills from what he currently has---without question. Will I do it at the risk of him losing confidence because he is playing against older kids who may physically be bigger/stronger---NO. Been there Done that. Now if at 10, he has the chance to play with say a U12 side I would have no problem. As his father and coach, I know what he can do and my job is to bring his skill set along so that when he gets to U13-U14 (when it really counts) he will be technically more sound and still have the same look for the game as he does now. Physically the intimidation factor is not as great. My only issue would be is the team a good fit based on coach and team philosophy. We will go around and around on this topic for months to come, everyone will have there say and opinion, no one is wrong. Everyone will have a different take based on your own situation. So how about we just all agree to disagree and try to help one another. Frankly I have learned some things in this thread that have started me to think a little bit, hopefully everyone is taking something away from this. Either way guys I have to run, its game day and we kick off in under 3 hours.
I said, nearly 1000, ie a little under. But anyway, thank you for your congratulations! As I have been saying from my first post, my son is good. But at this stage we don't expect anything of him but to have fun playing soccer. Beyond that, we want him to be in a position for him to develop to his full potential, and he won't be playing up next year even though he is more than capable. Further along the line, if he wants it, then the next step would be playing on a USDA team. Whether he makes it to the pros or plays in college is up to him, we will give him every opportunity to achieve that. Off to a rinky dink tournament today, if it is not rained out.......
I have 3 kids who played or are playing soccer so this has been my experience. I haven't read any of the other responses so if this is a repeat or confirmation, forgive me. I think in order for a kid to play up he has to have all of the legs of the 4 legged chair: 1. physical (mostly speed/quickness but could be size if he is getting beaten up a lot) 2. soccer IQ (tactically sound enough to be playing up) 3. technical skill (has to have to be up to par in the age he is playing up) 4. psychologically/mental (tough enough mentally to compete against older players) If you can't check the box by all 4 of these then he should stay in his age group. If these are all covered then you should consider it. In my experience I have had a kid who was superior in 3 of these to play up (except for the height and strength) at 9 years old and played a year up in the highest level you could play. He was not superior in the psychological mental. He was a starter but became a role player instead of a star. This was to be expected but when he went to play in his own age group again he still had the mindset of being a role player and it took him half the year to get out of this. In a perfect world, if I could do it over again and I had kid that has all 4 of these attributes, I would play him up every once in a while up in age and then play him mostly in his age group so he can try different things 1 v 1. It is very difficult to try new things when you are playing up in age. From the 7 - 11 year age group this is the "golden age" to try different things because at 12 - 18 these kids are less apt to try new things. I now have an 8 year old that is superior in every area. The club wanted him to play up but I wanted to keep him in his age group so he would continue to try different things on the ball. Since we don't have club passes in South Texas (move them on any team week to week), I have decided to leave him in his age group. It is frustrating at times because he is so much superior in playing the game the right way but I don't want him to go backwards in his development. Good luck with your decision and overall make sure he is having "fun." A kid that is not having "fun" will not develop and eventually lose his passion for the game. Understand that development is a marathon and not a sprint.
Tony, read my post. I think you and I line up in our opinion and experience. I hope some parents will read our post and learn from our experience.
Yes...what you're saying is logical and makes a lot of sense....now prepare to be attacked. Because there are NO examples of kids being played on age making it to world class level... And playing on age can't possibly be a viable alternative. This may not make sense to you b/c you haven't read the full thread to understand why I'm saying this... I agree with what you have said. Not everyone here does...
truthandlife, agreed that we are in agreement. I love your "chair" checklist, my son is prob at 3.5 of the four but I like the approach I am taking. He is constantly trying new things. He is always playing trying to make himself better. He can do this because of confidence. Here inmy area is a club called NJX they are a very good club, very well coached. We encountered them last spring, when they were playing age appropraite. When I tell you watching this team play was like watching a mini Barcelona. There passing was sick, the players stayed in there shape throughout the game. They weren't smiling to much and i hated that they looked robotic, but it was beautiful to watch them play. I actually hope one day to play them again and strive to to get my kids to play that way. They could probably play against U10s and pretty well "kill" them. This past year they have been playing in the next level league, top flight, but they could easily play in our areas top league. I suspect the coaching staff has made the conscious effort to hav ethem play on age and are progressing them slowly, to perfect there game and skills. Would I want my son on this team, Yeah I would, but I dont think he would be a good fit given the style they play. My point is this is an outstanding U8 team that is playing on age when they could be playing up by as much as 2-3 years, but the club and coaches choose not in the interest of development. That I can appreciate! Shealygg, i think we dont possibly know if any world class players ever just played age approprate at a young age. I think too many on this thread lose the point that this discussion was initially about a 7 year old playing on a U10 team. Older age groups (say 12 and up) its not a big deal for kid to play up and if they are good they should. But at the younger age groups, its a bad idea imho. As a matter of fact if the team is playing small sided, you should not play up. Learn and develop, once you hit the full sided then play up if your talent so dictates. But once again, thank you everyone for the input, it really is creating some great talking points.
@tg... I'm on your side in this bud. I'm open-minded enough that sometimes a parent has to try some things to make appropriate decisions for their own personal situation. But, having done that myself, I feel it's in MY kids' best interests to play on age (AT THIS POINT IN TIME). That may change down the road. Yes, it's been a good discussion....and a discussion that could go on for years. The U11 (rising) team that I currently coach is developing well. We continue to work technical skills to improve each of them individually. Last season, we played the team up a bracket, because they could handle it as a team. This coming season, we're going to play them on age in order to work on the 'slick passing' and 'positional discipline' that you mentioned from the team you witnessed. Ever trying to improve them as individuals and as a team as the U13 11v11 quickly approaches.
Ah, the never-ending argument about playing up is back again. And this time is more heated I see. Well, let me throw a few of my thoughts as well. For me, no matter how dominant a young player is, it's important to split his/her playing time between own age group and playing up. Which means roster the player at own age group but allow opportunities to play and practice with older age group. About 90% of the time, playing up just one year is enough. But there might be some isolated cases when a kid is able to play two years up. It's beneficial to play own age because consistent individually successful plays are a great confidence builder. The player also learns to play more positions, more roles different styles, use weaker foot, etc. But at the same time, it's beneficial also to challenge the player into more difficult environment, such as playing up with and against bigger, faster, more mature players. This mixture of own age group and playing up could also include practice time. It could also vary depending on the kid's personality and mental toughness. But I don't believe it should be ever one or the other - play own age or play up. It's good if it can be both. I'll leave you with a few questions: 1) What do you all think about double age groups - U8, U10, U12, etc.? 2) What do you think about single age groups based on calendar year? 3) Which one would be better for development long-term? 4) What's the purpose/benefits of August-July age groups anyway?
I think most here agree that it is better fro most young players to play age appropriate in order to build confidence. As for as your questions: 1) What do you all think about double age groups - U8, U10, U12, etc.? We us the double age format for our in house program and at younger ages it can be a mixed bag. I really do think that small sided games should have single age groups. just easier when you consider most young kids mental maturity level. I think once you large sided games, double age groups may not be too much of an issue. 2) What do you think about single age groups based on calendar year? See above, in our development league we play this format and even in here there is a large discrepancy based upon the birthday (I think we played one team earlier last fall season, where my squad was 6-7 and the other squad was 8 already, physically bigger already as well.) 3) Which one would be better for development long-term? Once again see my 1st answer 4) What's the purpose/benefits of August-July age groups anyway? August/July is the FIFA calender year. Consider it the International Date Line for football. Its just a way of standardizing the sport across many countries and continents.
Sorry but you are dead wrong, FIFA uses January 1 instead of August 1. From the Official Rules of U17 WC 2009: "...each Participating Member Association shall ensure that all players of its representative team were born on or after 1 January 1992." From the Official Rules of U20 WC 2009: "...each Participating Member Association shall ensure that all players of its representative team were born on or after 1 January 1989." BTW, your International Date Line analogy is faulty. The IDL was a de facto invention, meaning NO international governing body legally fixed its location. As compared to FIFA age rule which was indeed set by an international governing organization. Thought you may want to know.
That's why I asked the question. The way it is right now, August-July age cut off is not in line with Fifa nor with school year cut off. I just don't see the purpose of it in that case. I think we should switch to calendar year for all age groups.
Pure speculation but, I'm thinking the July/August calendar was an attempt to be in line with the school ages. Either way, you end up with kids 12 months apart in age which is the main issue. Not sure there is really a fix for it though. Maybe breaking it up into 6 month sections (i.e. U10A and U10B)?
If it were based on the calendar year, someone would think it should be based on the school year...just sayin'...
Not saying it should be...I'm just saying that however it's based, someone will always think of a reason it should be based on some other set of parameters. It is what it is...
Thank you all for the correction. I was making an educated guess. It never ceases to amaze me how the replies are. FYI in NJ the school cutoff is end of September, but I still go by my answer as if you ever look at it, most leagues across the world (most not all there are exceptions like the Russian, MLS, South America and Scandinavian countries) all run from August to end of May. The major tourneys (like Euros and WC) usually come mid June- mid July, and most seasons then kick off mid August (so those returning from International duty have a month to rest). I have actually just emailed the NJYS to see if someone could explain the rational behind August to July for me. I will update when I get an answer. I am almost 100% sure that there will be a huge debate over the idea behind it. That was my rational. Now I was aware that Greenwich time was established as an international treaty, but was not aware that the IDL was not (although after looking up on Wikipedia, it turns out there is also a nautical date line that was established by a treaty) I thank you all for educating me today.
Well, I got an answer: Tony, Not a dumb question. The age group cutoff is a National definition. That is, all 50 states use the same age group cutoff. When it was established about 15 years ago it more closely matched up with school cut offs for many of the states. In the south, and far west, schools start alot earlier than they do here. In New Jersey, there is no consistent school cutoff, it can range from September 15 to December 31. So to make it convenient for the majority of the states, August 1 was chosen. Al Sinclair So thus the reasoning.
Tony, my apology if I came across as a smart ass about the IDL. I only knew that because I was helping my 5th grader in his social studies. If it was an 50-states agreement to use Aug 1, then why all ODP programs and DA use Jan 1 now?
Who knows, but I will put it out there to Al. That's the problem with a virtual world, depending on how you read into it, it can sound many different ways.. Plus I just assumed the IDL had been established by some sort of treaty, like GMT. Things like this are good to know..