Birth Date Advantage

Let me start by I have no idea when it declines but I always find the topic interesting.

It would seem to play a significant role until the kids reach maturity. I do not see how an entire year doesn't play a huge role. That doesn't mean there can't be anomalies, but in general compare your son today to where he was a year ago. Big difference in most cases.

My son has a Feb birthday, which means there are kids born in August that are up to seven months older than my him. HUGE. When I look at my roster or talk to other coaches about a specific player I am always interested in the birthday. Mentally I discount the earlier birthday's the same way I do big, physical, fast kids that lack technical ability not in the sense that they aren't good but the fact that I know they have an advantage.

To put this in more personal terms my son is a very good U8 player with a Feb birthday. If he had an August birthday I believe he would be the best U8 soccer player in the state. My middle son has a June birthday. I feel like he is a bit doomed in soccer because of the age cut off. The flip side is we plan to hold him back in a young five's class so any sport that goes by grade level (e.g. lacrosse, us football, basketball, etc.) he should excel in or be competitive because he will be the oldest. Unfortunately soccer will be a challenge. My youngest son has a September birthday and is a bulldozer. I suspect he will enjoy soccer and be good at it.

 

I feel it declines greatly after U-8. The younger kids with good ball training will be fine.

It does rear its ugly head again at U-12 in girls and U-14 in boys with that whole damn puberty thing.

 

My oldest is a mid December 98 baby. I see a HUGE difference between her and the January 98s for ODP. If she had been born 15 days later she would be one of the stronger 99s out there. No matter what the cut off someone is always going to be oldest or youngest.

 

That makes sense. I would say then on average, August/September birthday kids are going to have the advantage because birth year teams don't start until later. That said, after some thought I might agree with Notebook earlier. If your kid has a Jan/Feb birthday, is able to hang with the August kids when they did the switch to birth year they would seem to have a strong advantage.

All the good kids on their team are probably Aug - Feb birthdays. With the Aug - Dec kids getting stuck on the low end of the stick for ODP/DA.

I think the interesting thing about soccer is the flip from being a grade year sport to birth year.

 

These numbers are not statistically signficant, but since I put them in excel I thought I would share. Here are the players who have either played for our current US MNT or been called up and their birthday (59 total players)



For those that want the full list it was on wikipedia -

 

Heard first quarter of the year birthdays are better for acceptance to college teams on the big "Law of Averages" Could very well be B.S.

 

The various studies show clear age within year effects for a bunch of sports at the elite youth level. I think as you get to higher and higher levels those start to even out with the true stars coming through no matter their birthdat. But on average the increased training and attention devoted to the older kids provides a clear advantage at least until the pros.

 

I also think the birth date difference diminish as kids get older (as mentioned by the others on this thread) when comparing the relative physical/mental attributes among specific kids. When comparing aggregate groups of kids (I.e 1000 kids born June 2002 vs 1000 kids born September 2001), I don't think the differences relative to soccer skills, tactical awareness etc. don't diminish to the same extent. I tend to agree with the pop science line of thinking that this is the case because the birthday related differences have cumulative effects and biases inherent in our soccer development model tends to cater to (and therefore theoretically better develop) kids who excel during the early years. Of course there are exceptions to this on an individual level, but this is an observation on an aggregate basis. I think if kids who were discouraged early on (due to physical differences) don't drop out of soccer they may be able to catch up and perhaps surpass those kids who might had it too easy early on.

My son experience is an exception of sorts. He is an Oct 2002 that would have benefited from this effect but for the fact he plays up U12 (8/01-7/02) because that is where his school class year plays. So we inadvertently created an artificial late birthdate issue. He struggled at times against the size and speed difference. Now as a U12, we're noticing it more as players he plays against are 3/4 ft to 1 foot taller. On the positive, this experience helped with his ODP tryouts for the 2002 team even though he is a late birthday on a calendar basis because the early birthday competition don't seem that big or fast in comparison.

 

My memory on youth soccer is failing me. I think it starts in aug correct me if I am wrong. It was around that when I started coaching youth teams in the 1960's. Then much later on they changed it to Jan. Then it was changed back to aug for some reason?

Our youth league the oldest youth league in the US was always in 2 year age groups.up until under 16 yr. after that it is under 19 which means you can have 16,17and 18 yr olds. If the age break is aug. that means you can have 19 yrs old at the end of the season.

We have 2 divisions up to under 16' and three division in under 19.

Age and ability determines what Div you put your teams in.

In our clubs case every team is in on best division in every age group. Which could mean as the younger team we would have a record of 8-6-2. Then the next year we had a good chance to win it.

But some of our teams were really good. We could win under 16 at 14 year old, and win it again as the older group in under 16.

We might even put our 15 year olds in the best under 19 division.

------
If your kid is 8 months younger then the rest it is an disadvantage. But if your kid is an advanced highly skilled player then the age advantage should not be a big disadvantage for him. If he is quick in a small space and their not he has an advantage over them near the ball even as a younger player.

 

My son is 16.5 on a calendar year 1995 team, and though he is relatively immature emotionally, he is mature about soccer and doesn't want to f' around on the field. The 95s are much more serious about playing soccer and not messing around than most of the 97s he used to play with. Too many of the 97s thought they were "all that" and mouthed off to teammates. The 95s are good kids and go to play soccer to play soccer. They are supportive and don't scream at each other if a mistake is made.

Conversely, we believe that the HS coach thinks he is too small and wouldn't put him on varsity despite being the best scorer on JV, and that's funny considering he helped his club team of 18 year olds beat several top New England teams by working the right wing and they are now near the top ten in our state. This CT team had many players from their CT HS finalist team, 90% really big kids (over 6'2" and 180 lbs.), and his team including a few others near his height of 5'7" beat them 4-2.

He is early in his birth year, so was younger when on a Aug -> July team anyway. Now it is moot because he is playing up, and the oldest player is more than 18 months older.

 

Obesity, Ivy Leagues and world standings

Yea the more I think about it that 1st quarter age difference crap is all moot in soccer because all the good kids (unless they are in a "super soccer area" ) are playing up at least one if not two years. This age difference is likely a factor in other team sports where folks aren't playing up. For getting into a good college what about age difference?

Here is an eye opener....Prep schools make everyone repeat a grade, and those helpless children are forced to participate in three sports. Think of all those implications presented in that statement then consider fashioning a movement. Can you recall those recent articles about our world statistics in educational grades. Consider enlisting your local and state educational decision makers.

 

Same here. Our club prohibits playing up unless the child is considered to be in the top 1-5% of the age-up group of kids. In our large club, that happens about never. This club had too many long past examples of playing up where the kid gets overwhelmed, loses confidence, and ultimately it ruins their experience. Much safer to have the kid play at age. There is the rare exception of a kid that grows very early and is very big in addition to being talented and mature mentally; however, when puberty sets in, and/or when the other kids "catch up" to the early bloomer, even some of those rare exception kids end up moving back down again anyway.

 

We are near NYC, many many top teams in our area. My son is small, not the smallest on his 1995 team although one of two 97s, but he is very strong and fast. His club is small but has sent players to RBNY and then MLS and many other players to college soccer.

It is a great fit for him - great training, not crazy about disallowing any soccer outside the club, and a college recruiting assistance program.

Letting someone play up due to size is silly. My son has played against kids over 6' tall since U12. Doesn't matter, knocks them over like feathers, even when he was 5' tall. Obviously he has a lot of strength for his size (he's only 135 lbs.), so that obviously matters.

His problem, why he doesn't fit in on top on-age teams, is that he has a great attitude, high fives who sent him a pass when he scores, keeps his mouth shut and doesn't trash talk his teammates. That does not fit in with the #1 and #2 teams in our state, which he tried out for. Too many of their players are trash-talking "I-am-the-greatest" egotistical barely passing their courses idiots. Too many coaches worry about bringing in the former teammates of their key players and keeping parents happy.

I don't think it works for most players, but playing up works for some. You can't predict who it will work for. Perhaps the fact that he has done very well playing mid yet used to play forward and defense, means that the coach has the vision to put players where they belong and can help the team the most.

You have to admit, it is attractive to have parents of 18 and 19 year olds who really cannot be helicopter instead of parents of 15 and 16 year olds.

 

Your argument assumes that the best players at age 4-8 are going to remain the best players forever, which simply is not true. Some kids come hard-wired with great athleticism, coordination, field-sense and determination at age 4-8. These kids are the exception to the rule (less than 1%) and these are the kids who usually end up playing up.

The age advantage comes into play for the other 99% of kids. What generally happens for those kids is that the kids born in August-December are seen as being "advanced" compared to the kids born in April-July. Because they are seen as being advanced and having greater potential, they are given extra training opportunities, asked to guest play with other teams, placed with the best teams and coaches, etc., which accelerates the advantages that their birth date gives them over the kids born in the bottom third of the year. Then the kids born in the bottom third of the year drop out of the sport by age 10-12, before they are able to bridge the gap between themselves and the kids born in the first third of the year. This is important too because, although the kids discussed in my first paragraph (the super stars) start out with huge advantages from their innate athleticism, coordination, field-sense and determination, the super-stars generally get caught up with by around age 13, when pretty much all the rest of the players who have hung in there catch up in terms of athleticism, coordination, field-sense and determination. But, by the time they've caught up, you've eliminated one-third of the player pool by driving the kids born in April-July out of the sport altogether.

Of course, it doesn't happen to every non-super star kid born in April-July, but it happens to a lot of them.

 

Yes, they are the exception. I'm not sure how many people have coached younger ages, that is, 3, 5, 7, 9, and 11 year olds and been able to track kids throughout a program. I know not ONE player who I coached who was a superstar at 3, 5, 7, who was the superstar at age 11 or older (and there was at least one superstar on each younger team). Yes, they still played, but other kids caught up. Size was not the issue of kids being much better at younger ages, it tended to be very fast sometimes even small players.

Yes, 99% of the kids who are playing youth soccer at all, but no, not 99% of the kids who play high-level youth soccer (top ten teams in each state and academy). I would say at least 50% of kids who play high-level soccer have an age disadvantage, for example, the "A" team at one club consistently picks players who were born in August - October, and also there must be a height and preferably weight advantage as well. They do that on purpose and it is very clear. But for the other 50% of high-level players, it just doesn't matter. The few months difference has no impact, especially if you have a player who is training a lot on their own vs. another player who is coasting on size and strength.

However, my son is on a team with another 97, and most players are 95s, and the other player has much more trouble working with their teammates. I believe the reason is that he was held back a year and only a sophomore, and that being with even younger classmates has contributed more to his lack of maturity and teamwork than his actual age. The other player is essentially playing up three years, not two.

I have not seen this at anywhere the extent you imply. I know two really great players born in December, and they have gotten many outside opportunities. I also do not know any players short of BNT players who "get asked to guest play" unless there is already a relationship.

Perhaps this was not our experience because both parents played and play soccer, and it was a no-brainer that although my son didn't make a U8 travel team and did not do well at U9, he would continue on low-level travel teams at U10 and U11. Field sense made a huge difference when they switched to full-sided right before U11, and that was probably my son's main advantage and still is. Does not help that much small-sided. Tried out on a top ten team at U11 and played on both the high- and low-level teams, and all uphill from there. He's March, so has an age disadvantage you might say, but it has never hurt him. Height has hurt him, but the older the team is, the less his height hurt. It is less of a cognitive dissonance to see him play with and against players who are 5 or more inches taller than him (not all of his teammates or opponents are by any means), and they are seniors in HS, instead of the same thing at U12.

If you take ten teams that are top-ranked in their state, by age 13 that is 22 * 10 = 220 players. In a state of 10 million residents, you might have 400 teams for a particular age group/gender combination. That's 220 players out of 400 x 22 = 8800 players, about 2.5%, who play at a high-level (we hope). But that also leaves 8580 players who are still playing soccer, at whatever level they can.

It is already difficult to be in that top 2.5% in the state for your age group, and perhaps birth month does help a few players. But the *really* top players all play up, and those like my son who is a very good player but likely not top, can do very well on an older team if the combination works for his skill set and theirs.

Can birth month matter? Yes. Does it matter for the best players? No. So should you care if your child is not planning to play soccer as more than a hobby? I don't think so. I do think that a player who is good enough can easily overcome the age disadvantage, but there are likely some coaches and clubs who are pig-headed about it, and it is their loss.

And as for being asked to guest, my son has guested a lot and usually it was because either we saw a request in a forum or we put out a request for him to guest. He almost went on a trip to Italy last year, but we didn't have the available funds (the team could not afford to pay for the guest's travel). In several circumstances, a player was hurt and they wanted the guest to pay for their own hotel, which was fine for us.

It is the same thing with college recruiting, a college is looking or he sends out emails asking. He can't sit and wait for someone to ask *him* to join their program, colleges put out general requests, ask for recruiting info, and he emails colleges he is targeting. Some might argue he is not D1 material, but apparently the D1 coaches that are recruiting him disagree (and no, they aren't just emailing him about going to expensive week-long camps as "Dear Player").

 

I agree. I think in these discussions we sometime conflate anecdotal observations with statistical phenomena.

 

The dual "player-year" set-up, where January kids are tops or August kids are tops, makes the situation very muddied. Even 11 year olds can play ODP in most states, and they certainly can play pre-academy, both of which are birth-year. NPL is birth year as well. Most club teams are August - July birthdays, but many teams have at least a few players "playing up" because they are in the same grade but born in August or September of the later birth year.

I would put it to you that factors like:
1) parents having played soccer formally, at least club or HS level more than a few years
2) parents having the money to continue paying for club sports even if the player is having a tough time of it
3) a coach who understands kids well enough to move them to different positions and work with their strengths not weaknesses
4) age of onset of puberty, especially for boys (because girls usually have time to catch up as many more are near full height by junior year of HS, most boys are not)
5) height and build of parents (yes, coaches will look at the parents to see height potential if a player is not done puberty yet)
6) dedication to outside training (NO ONE will become a great player at any sport or activity unless they put in the hours and keep improving no matter how good they think they are)
7) and of course willingness of parents to put up with travel and time if there is no local opportunity

are much more important. If you read about US MNT and US WNT players, all of their bios include LOTS of soccer and LOTS of training outside of soccer. And LOTS of parents who sacrificed time and money so that their son or daughter could play at a high level and keep improving.

Look at midsouthsoccer's post and tell me that it is anecdotal that August and January have no real advantage over other birth months.

 

My eldest is 10 years old, born in May 2003, so he's currently a U11 (August 2002-July 2003). He's a good athlete and a good player, but he lacked focus and determination from age 4-9 relative to the players born in the first and second quartiles of his age group. At U11, my son is fully dialed in and has largely bridged the gap between himself and the older kids in his age group. But if we had been discouraged and given up (as alluded to in my prior post), then he never would have caught up. The main things that led us to stick with it were (1) we're a soccer family (I play and I was his coach) and (2) his birth date puts him in bottom quartile of his age group for all other sports (his principal other sports being lacrosse (September-August) and swimming (June 15-June 14)), so there weren't any ports in the storm even if we were looking for one. Plus, he was pretty good at soccer even before he started trying hard, so it wasn't like he was floundering.

Short answer is I think that by age 10-11, the gap is starting to close between the kids born in the first and fourth quartiles (assuming the younger kids haven't given up and quit before then, which is a real risk). There's still an advantage, but it's not nearly as dramatic as it is at age 4-9.

 

Yes. The size difference, unless it is more than a foot below average height, catches up later than the birth date issue, but I would say that around 14 or 15, most top teams will consider any male player who is 5'6" or taller and keep with that as a "minimum height" with some exceptions, whereas even at 12 and 13, a 5' tall player could be overlooked.

There will still be coaches hung up on birth month and height and weight, but they don't tend to be the best coaches for kids anyway.

 

I don't think coaches are hung up on birth date and actively seek to select the players born in the top of the range. I'm pretty sure most coaches don't even pay attention to it. Rather, the older kids naturally just stand out as being "advanced" compared to their younger counterparts. The coaches never bother to stop and think "why" a certain player seems advanced compared to his peers. Hint- If he's 10 months older, that might be why!