Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Youth & HS Soccer' started by academyinfo, Apr 14, 2009.
This looks like a good thread to start! Any top 10 lists- please submit!
I think the Magic u-16 team has to be at the top of any list. Most of the starting line-up were key contributors on last year's Magic u-16 team that made it to the Home Depot playoffs. The team's defense is unbelievable, as all four starters will play high-level division-I soccer.
MY vote goes to the LA Galaxy. A high performing team that has found a nice roster balance with balance born between 1the 993 and 1992 birth years.
I just saw the Magic's in the Dallas Cup. It all depends. Jesse and Harry is listed on their U18 squad. Ty and Aaron are a handful
FC Dallas has been playing well all season, but didn't the Magic beat them at Dallas Cup. I do believe that Magic's team was actually tha U-17 team, but Magic pretty much controlled the game.
Like I said. It all depends. The Magic team at the Dallas Cup is combo of both U18 and U16 academy teams
That's true. but I think they were a true U-17 team based on 8/1 birthdays.
What would be interesting would be a 4 team tournament for U-17 Midwest teams from Carmel. Wolves, Magic ,and Javanon (the USYSA Regional Champion).
Probably see 80+ D1 players. It would would be quite a show, with Magic's vaunted defense vs the offensive fire power of Carmel and Wolves, with Javanon having a strong all around team. Having seen each of these teams, I would say that Magic's back line and keepers would probably carry the day, as defense usually wins games. But one can never predict the Harrison factor.
But who knows! Any opinions?
Yeah, you have it right, they are late '91s. At this age, 5 months doesn't make too much difference, but the fact remains that the Magic has a lot of talent at the late '91 level, and those guys can't play U16 Academy. I mean, the squad that remains is mighty good, but sure they miss the late '91s.
This month of year practice has been brought up many times, particularly by Chicago people. Is month born really a factor in evaluating a player and is this done anywhere outside of Chicago? It certainly does not appear to be a factor for the U17 MNT:
I'd bet most of the U16 Magic Academy goals will be scored by kids born in the 1st half of 1992. It seems that an early birth month is indeed a huge advantage at the earlier ages but not as meaningful after age 15 or 16.
Well if a club recruits based on month born then of course they will score more goals. OK, people in Chicago go along with this nonsens but is this done anywhere outside of Chicago?
I can see it know.....no children born for months....then an explosion......because I want my kid to score goals.....so he has to be older by 6 months......
Again (the he grew faster issue) only matters at the YOUNG ages where it SHOULD NOT matter about goals, scoring and winning. Once the team is 16 and older this does not matter.....except to those parents clinging to the excuse.....wanting their kid to be so special.....national team....residency.......it all could have been if only he was 6 months older...
How about it would have been if it were not for your gene pool? Geez, why is this so hard to accept? Why do not parents realize not everyone can be a major league pitcher? Not everyone can be a doctor? Not everyone can be a teacher?
Does there have to be an excuse for each one of these because they are your kid?
Except being 6 months older gives that player a competitive advantage that continues as he gets older, not because he is bigger, stronger, faster but has had better training, opportunities than his younger peers. It is something that was studied by Malcolm Gladwell in his book Outliers.
Of course it does. Fifa has team rosters and dates of birth for years of the U17 tournament and the differences are obvious. What is interesting about this team is that it looks like player selection was based play with club teams as well as play with ODP. Club cut-off is 8/1 - Of the 20 players you have one born on 8/2, another 8/5, another 8/11, 9/3, 9/15, 9/16. In the past, it looks like US didn't base selection on club play so you would see very few players with these birthdates. Instead of 4 players born in Jan. and 2 in Feb. you would likely see 6 and 3. So what is different about this team is that you see a 2-tail cut-off instead of a single tail cut-off.
But of course this age bias has absolutely NOTHING to do with skill level. That's the problem. As this paper argues:
"current talent detection and identification procedures are heavily biased towards a child’s physical attributes rather than his or her technical skill."
I guess you lost me on your original quote. What was your point when you wrote "This month of year practice has been brought up many times, particularly by Chicago people. Is month born really a factor in evaluating a player and is this done anywhere outside of Chicago? It certainly does not appear to be a factor for the U17 MNT."
I thought you were arguing there was no age bias in the selections. If you were arguing otherwise, then my misunderstood and support your point.
As for you most recent post, biological age impacts skills. More mature boys will also also have better strength and motor control which will help them appear to be more skilled.
Both the mean and average are May for the USNT U17, i.e. there does not appear to be an age bias in the selection process, unlike the Euro clubs in article. Strength is hardly a skill. Why not also call height a skill? Better motor control for more mature boys is dubious, more likely *less* motor control during quick growth spurts.
It is actually more interesting and complicated than the posters are letting on. (And I know I have posted on this before but I think it is worth elaborating). As the book outliers makes clear, when it comes to hockey, age is king. Pro hockey players virtually all come from the oldest group. Look at any pro hockey roster. Outliers also notes, though, that basketball players show no age bias. Look at the NBA rosters. So, what is about hockey that makes age bias important and for basketball unimportant and, of course, for this board, what does that say about soccer and us soccer in particular. Hockey requires lots of equipment, lots of ice time, and hockey specific skills, such as skating. Hockey is also controlled by a centralized organization. Basketball can be played virtually anywhere, with minimal equipment, and it is not centralized and its skills are not that specific to basketball. many many organizations offer opportunities to play basketball. So, if you are overlooked because you are short and born at the end of the year, you can go out and play on the local court without a coach and some other organization will pick you up if you are good. And, the US is the best in the world.
So, with soccer, are we more like hockey with centralized controlled organizations and specialized skills or more like basketball, with kids able to just go out and kick the ball and if they are good are discovered. I don't know the answer. I suspect that if we saw an age bias it would suggest that soccer may inherently be more like hockey and/or also that we are excluding talented players that should be picked up.
What does Brazil do? My understanding is that soccer in Brazil is similar to basketball here, everybody plays and the best kids always get a shot. True?
Anyway, I think those who say no age bias are almost certainly wrong. Soccer is overly organized with clubs and teams and competitions and we are not Brazil with anybody able to go out and have a pick up game.
I have seen coaches/clubs that will emphasize picking up the early birth year kids at U8, U9 and U10. Does that mean all of those kids will become the better players as they get older? No. And it does not mean that the younger ones will not make it through. But it is likely that the ratio will be skewed in favor of the older ones as they will get on the better teams at an early age, have better training, better playing opportunities and have reputations for playing on top division sides. And this is where lies the problem as these coaches/clubs look to establish themselves as the top side at the early age so that they can then recruit the better players as they get older and stay in the higher divisions/leagues.
Good point. Even if USS does not accept this absurd bias (and I do not believe they do) their is a residual impact because of the above. Note that there is a boomerang effect for this nonsense for DAP clubs. A team that recruits fall players for a slight advantage at younger ages, those players are accustomed to being the older players, then they are thrust in U15 or u16 as the youngest because of Fifa calender year. Instead of being 7 or 8 months older, they are 7 or 8 months younger.
So you think it is just chance that 7 of the 20 kids where born in the month after the two age cut-off and none were born in the month preceding it? Citing the median and mean as "proof" against what I had been arguing shows either a lack of understanding of how to apply statistics to this situation or a failure to communicate that the selection was impacted by a combination of two cut-off dates. Don't get me wrong, I think using two dates is an improvement over one. But to claim there was no bias is statistically improbable given the birthdates of the players selected.
As for your assertion that maturity status and motor control are not related, I suggest you get a basic understanding of child development as I think this is pretty well understood. You are right that large growth spurts will typically negatively impact motor control, but growth spurts are related to tempo and not timing of maturation. As such, they are largely unrelated. Raw strength would likely be classified as an ability rather than skill. A skill would be how to best apply the strength. However, I'm still missing the point as to how it relates to the arguments I presented.
Perhaps you can expand your post and explain how this is related to anything I was writing about.
I don't know about Brazil, but I think basketball in the US is different different for two reasons. The primary reason is that height is such a huge factor in the sport. I believe it was one of the few sports where the 10 years of dedicated practice did not apply to being "world class." As I recall one article said a very tall person could become "world class" in as little as 6 years.
Related to height is that taller players tend to mature later. So while the big kids won't the speed and coordination of early maturing 5'8" adult, coaches will work with the big kids anyway because they know in HS those big gawky kids will eventually come in very handy. Because height is not as great an advantage, soccer coaches in this country have been much slower to catch than basketball coaches. Plus soccer coaches are under more pressure to win at U12 than in basketball.
The other minor factor is that unlike soccer or hockey, until recently basketball was more based on school year (which is a fuzzy cut-off) than chronological age. Both factors are related to the organizational reason you suggested.