The oldest was on the "right" team before the age matrix change. That whole team has been together for a few years and they all requested each other. It wasnt so much a conscious effort to do anything but maintain that team with her friends/classmate. The other one was a conscious effort. It was mainly because she was already playing 5 v 5. The changes would have put her back to 4v4 and a smaller field. She has a January birthday so is a few days removed from the cutoff. We just didn't intend for her to go up two levels. The youngest is in the older end and we were not having her play up at all. Hope that helps explain it.
Oh okay thanks. Are your daughters in rec or competitive soccer? My impression was competitive (travel). I am perplexed because most clubs out be me would never give - or rarely give, parents the ability to make these calls. I can see if it was a small local travel club - I know there are those exceptions by me. Sorry - just trying to un-confuse myself
Rec soccer up to this season. Our oldest just made a select/competitive team (attached to the club they play their rec games through. The rec soccer has been flexible, but it was also grade level based and apparently still is. I had a long post but may not have set the table very well.
I am starting to wonder if the 2006-2004 age groups - with this change, are screwed - particularily the younger players born in November/December. On average they will be smaller, less developed mentally as well as on the field and likely to lack as much confidence as the older players - at least that's what I have seen so far. Does this mean that many of the younger players will be locked out of DA/ECNL early on because they are just "not there" in terms of skill and overall presence on the field? If so how do we fix this?
The younger players in an age group always got screwed... regardless of what date you choose to divide the age groups. I still think the 2004 age group was hurt most by going from 6v6 to 11v11 in two seasons. Another concern I have is that the birth year change has effectively reduced the average age of the pool when they make the jump to 11v11 by 6 months.(the oldest kids used to start turning 13 as the season began...now they start turning 13 at the midpoint in January ) My ‘06 (9v9) plays up on our ‘05 team (11v11). I’ve watched a lot of the better clubs in Ohio/Indiana/Michigan play in these two age groups play over the last half decade, and the massive increase in field size has turned games that used to well played into track meets. There is simply way too much space for kids to cover. Hopefully things start tightening up next year...but the drop in quality of play has been pretty shocking from my perspective.
2004 does thus far seem the worse off. 2005 would be a close second and 2006 next. I don't mind the larger field because it benefits our style of play. What concerns me is that many younger kids in the age groups which would have easly made ECNL or DA prior to the age change - now will not. Year lost of preperation and behind mentally and physically leaves them always catching up. I am not sure if any DA/ECNL club out there is taking that into consideration becasue they generally get blasted between u12 and u14 by new comers from other clubs who want to play at that level - older newcomers will likely push the young existing kids out. I am not crying about that as much as I am stating that this is likely an across the board problem for the younger players throught club play. Just wondering how clubs intend to deal with that? More games/time on the ball for the younger ones???
The Relative Age Effect readjusting itself….it was an issue under the old age calendar; it will be an issue under the new one….the irony is those same November/December birth kids would have benefited from its effects under the old, but under the new, get the short end of the stick.. If far as fixing it, I don’t know what you can do to really fix it on the macro level…lots of ideas, but not a lot of motivation to implement them…mostly because the issue is so “relative”….if you feel your kids is getting screwed by it, you care…if your kid benefits from it, what issue? And as long as the DA/ECNL is filling its ranks, which they are, they don’t really care if there is some on paper imbalance with regard to birthday distribution…certainly not enough to change what they are doing… On the individual level, you just keep plugging away and try not to get too worked up about…maybe easier said than done, but not much else you can do…
While your concern is valid, it only is a temporary affect. The issue isn't that the younger in the age span are at a disadvantage. That's always there no matter what the cutoff date. The issue is that suddenly kids are grouped with kids who have one more year of experience and development. That is a very difficult challenge and one that will affect the 04-06s significantly. Many will not be able to outgrow/overcome this deficit in experience to become competitive at the highest levels. The USSF and clubs see this as a temporary situation and are in no way concerned about it. The younger kids coming in have no such disadvantage the youngest kids in the group are just born in different months. As with many changes there is collateral damage and these kids may suffer that. Unfortunately it is (bad) luck of the draw. Each individual family will have to address their specific child's needs to support them to achieve their goals. Whether this is extra training, a secondary roster spot or more time with dad in the park, the clubs won't pick up the responsibility.
Yes as one of my points - my question is what to do? More playing time perhaps whether that be training or games or both? Not sure how clubs plan on addressing this - or if they even know that it needs to be considered.
I believe we touched on this in this thread awhile back….I think you will see it at all age groups; I’ve seen it with my son’s 03 group… Personally, I think its temporary…kids will adjust/catch up rather quickly…if you were meant to play X before this change…whatever club, team or league “X” might be…no reason you won’t under this new calendar…. Besides, there is only an experience and development problem if you assume everyone starts at the same age and at the same level…they don’t…some kids start playing high-level club a 7, some not until 10...etc, etc....
I have a 2006 kid, and I'm seeing a ton of kids who are never going to catch up, having lost a year of small-sided games. The elite kids aren't affected. Some of them were playing up already. Everyone else is screwed.
That seems a bit dramatic….”screwed” seems to denote a sense of hopelessness that I think is very overstated… Many of these “screwed” 10-11 year olds will find plenty of success in youth soccer in the coming years…unless of course they were terrible to begin with, which has nothing to do with a “lost” year…
I have an 03 AND an 06. The 03 "lost" a year of playing time. He went from U12 straight to U14. Because of numbers (not because she is some outstanding player), my 06 is playing with 05s this year. The time of year to split is really arbitrary. It's now Jan-Dec. So someone born December 31 2006 will be playing with someone born January 1 2006. The one born in January will be older, faster, and presumably have more experience than the one born in December. Well, guess what, It used to be Aug-July, right? So someone born July 31 2006 could/would be playing against kids who were born Aug 1 2005. Presumably the July 31 child would "never catch up" to the one born 365 days previously. I think it's being very short sighted saying kids losing a year of soccer will "never catch up". What if someone doesn't pick up a soccer ball until they're 13? That happened on my son's middle school team. Can he "never catch up" because he played 0 small sided games?
It probably depends on the state. Where I'm at, the 4Q2005 went from u10 6v6 2015/16 -> u12 9v9 2016/17-> u13 full game this fall. I've started putting the idea out to the parents that they should stick it out, as scholastic soccer still follows the academic calendar. Those 4Q200N birthdays are playing against bigger/faster/stronger players for club/community teams, could have an advantage over their 1Q-3Q200N+1 classmates when it's time to tryout in 9th grade.
Correct. I find it odd that US Soccer used the RAE as one reason to change the birth year registration. The youth national teams have been on birth year calendar for years. Looking at the US 2017 Youth WC team, it appears that precisely one of the 23 players has a birth month of September or later. The bottom line is that youth coaches are going to choose those who best give them a chance to win now, regardless of sexy words to the contrary. As a result, the older more developed kids will always have a leg up.
Does anyone happen to know what percentage of U15, U17, U20 national team players ultimately play for the full national team? It would be interesting to see the accuracy of the early identification process.
I think it more depends on what any of those kids do once out of high school. The reality is, unless they play professionally college would stall or slow their development in comparison to their international contemporaries. Our fixation with School sports and our lack of a strong, developmentally focused professional soccer league is our single biggest problem developing talent outside of unqualified/daddy youth coaches at the u-little ages when technical development is so important.
Youth national players are usually competing against a pool of players that come from 1-2 birth years, with a majority of the pool coming from a single birth year. The full national team is pulling from a pool of professional players who’s careers can last 8/10/12 years or longer. Mathematically your looking at around 10% of youth national team players really making a long term impact on the national team. I said in another thread....I’m much more interested in our hit rate for YNT players that end up being professionals that last more than a few years in MLS/Europe....that make it to their 30’s still playing at an MLS level or above. I suspect, though have never seen any data to confirm or refute, that our percentage is shockingly low...because our scouting is crap.
And before the birth year change, kids born in Q4 had an advantage. Because they were older and more developed than those born in Q3 of the following year. Nothing really changes.
I once had a slide that showed the eventual paths of a world champion Brazilian youth team. Everyone went pro, but that includes some lesser teams in Brazil and some far-flung places in Eastern Europe and so forth. Only a couple of players anywhere near, say, the level Pulisic is now.
There was kind of a double whammy to late year birthday kids with DA moving down to U12 and the birth year re-categorization happening at roughly the same time. There was limited time for the late birth year 2006-2004 kids previously playing "on age" and perhaps playing multiple sports to develop the mental and technical chops to make a DA team. It is what it is. Kids can make the DA/ECNL teams later on if their development accelerates. Probably somewhat harder than making it early on. As another poster stated, if the kid sticks with it there will be some payback at the high school level. And high school is the highest level the vast, vast majority of kids will be able to play at (assuming they can make the high school team).
I thought having ECNL/NPL on an Aug cutoff and DA/YNT on a Jan cutoff was a pretty good compromise...:shrug:
I'm dealing with plenty of kids who will have a tough time making the high school team in part because they've suddenly been accelerated through everything and have three years of small-sided soccer instead of four. No, they're not elite players. They were never going to affect the national team or MLS or even NCAA (at least not D1). But their soccer experiences have been considerably worse than they should have been, and there was absolutely no reason for that to happen.
Sorry, not buying it. Missing one year (but going the other three) of small sided soccer means they don't make a HS team? Sorry, no. That one year isn't that big a deal. What exactly are they missing out on? More experience? More touches? Play futsal, play pickup games, take a ball outside and kick around. So if someone "starts" soccer at U10, they should give up playing on their HS team? After all, they only have three years of small sided games (U10, U11, U12). I have a hard time believing adding one year would make such a difference in a player.