Malcolm Gladwell on the birth month phenomenon

JohnR is right, and it's not only physically. Confidence wise, leadership wise...you name it.

More and more parents are starting their kids schooling a year late because the advantages are tremendous while the downside is almost nil.

These kids are more confident, ahead of their piers educationally and it continues throughout their lives psychologically. They get better jobs, grade and are more self assured in general. There are exceptions of course but the odds overwhelmingly favor the more phsically/mentally progressed in all aspects. Social, all aspects.

It's not just sports. It's everything.

It's become so prevalent in our schools that before our financial mess there was actual legislation in congress to implement standard cut off dates to help curb this ever growing practice of starting kids a year late on purpose. Of course it isn't a priority anymore, but it's a very big issue. The science proves it. Teachers will tell you what a huge ad it is, and most do it for their own kids because they see the difference. Very little downside and big rewards.

Keep it in mind when trying to have kids guys. It is a big issue.

 

Interestingly, while our U-17 roster right now has many more early year births, a significant number of our key players were born late in their year (August and later): Renken (December), Gyau (September), Jerome (August), McInerney (August), Gil (November), Sarle (September), Zavaleta (August). Maybe it's a sign that the USSF is taking this phenomenon into account. Perhaps those later births are more likely to be really special since they must have unique talent to make the cut. Other examples: Altidore (November), Kljestan (September), Cooper (October), Holden (August), and Subotic (December).

 

Haha, I did read the Gladwell excerpt about this in the Guardian (I currently reside in the UK), and I thought about his, but didn't post it.

It is interesting to see how the three top talents are late years.

I think this actually reinforces Gladwell's point, as it takes the very top notch players to overcome this. HOWEVER, you can't simply look at late months, but late years. For example, Koroma is a late year and a early month. This situation applies more to late month for Gladwell's prognosis, as he is still younger within this group. This applies to a few others who played in older age groups and don't benefit as much for their earlier month dates.


That being said, Gladwell's most recent book is actually my least favorite from what I've read so far (though this Genius excerpt is quite interesting). If you are buying a new book, do the world a favor and pick up a David Foster Wallace novel. Unfortunately he recently died by his own hand, but I like to think its because the rest of us weren't good enough for him.....

 

I forgot Soony Saad, he's an August. From the last group: Arreola (November), Ibrahim (August), Garza (August), MacMath (August), B. Zimmerman (October), Sesay (September), Agbossoumonde (November), Millington (August), and Lambo (November).

 

The same here can be said of rich kids vs. poor kids on developing in soccer. The kids that can pay to play on better teams get better training and eventually more opportunities as well. They aren't necessarily better athletes or soccer talents, but their parents can afford to put them onto a select/travelling team for thousands a year, while also being able to travel to tournaments, when they are only 10.

So basically we limit the best development to rich kids born in the second half of the year and/or develop early. So is there any wonder why we struggle to develop a significant number of top players considering the size of the country and the number of kids playing the sport?

 

Having this knowledge and seeing U.S. youth Soccer is extremely frustrating to deal with. Most coaches don't seem to realize this, or just simply ignore it, and parents are clueless. To most parents, extraordinary speed is the only ingredient they see as talent.
The birth month phenomenon goes on the law of averages but you can also see potential talent misses on late puberty kids for the same reasons, lack of physical prowess at 12-16 years old. I know kids who are 6 months younger than others who hit puberty about a year and half, and more, earlier.
You can tell the genetic potential of the late bloomers is there with some, but it's not about potential in U.S. youth Soccer, it's about right now; can they outrun another player. This trait is especially important when the teams style is direct, long ball out of the back for a fast forward who tries to outrun the defense. The frustration comes when those who choose obviously don't look at skill and brains, they look at speed or those that are currently the most physically aggressive even when skills are poor. The less matured may produce more by their choices and execution, it's just not as obvious as a physcially dominating 12-14 year old.
Size is not always an indicator of physical development either. You can better tell by body hair, underarms, facial, legs, lowering voice etc.
I'm hoping that with U.S. Soccers involvement in the Development academy that coaches will be educated in what to look for in potential talent. It will take a revamping of U.S. youth Soccer culture, which will be a major undertaking.

 

A lot of the problem, as mentioned over and over again here, is that the focus is not on how many top professionals a program produces, but on the team's record. The belief that if you can win now, then you must be a good coach/teacher.

This is a problem with select/travelling/academy clubs across the nation and of course feeds up to the youth NT programs. Find the bigger/faster players and you will likely win. As the kids grow up, these differences become less of a factor as skill and tactics take over.

At these younger ages, playing the game the right way (as Wenger would say) means much more than winning. That will help teach/develop the players who do have the athletical ability, and desire to become professionals, the skills they need to be great. Until the source of money for clubs goes from rich parents to developing/selling players, we will continue to have these problems.

 

But if everyone starts doing this with their kids, doesn't it negate the advantage because it basically just moves the starting line?

May and July, here. Pretty much right in the middle. Too late to have a big advantage and too early to not be set back.

I blame my wife. I tried to knock her up earlier, but noooooo, she just didn't wanna cooperate in April so we'd have January babies.

 

below is something I put together this past summer. It is birth months for players in 2007 and 2008 player pools for U15 USMNT. Not surprising but disappointing. Birth month was a much bigger factor than height. U23MNT shows a similar distribution although not quite as drastic.

 

I've watched a couple of ODP regional camps in the past. To me, it looked like they were just going through the motions. There was no way they were looking at the individuals levels of skills closely. It was purely on either phone calls and obvious physical domination. The regional coaches were mostly college coaches from relatively smaller colleges. To a certain extent, I can understand. It would be a time consuming task to try and closely look at each individual player. My feeling was, this is no way to identify players.
Hitting puberty earlier than your competition is the key to being identified.
Then, from what I hear, you are pretty much in. It would take a serious drop off to get knocked out of the system. That's the major problem.

 

This so called phenomenon exists because we think in this country is to make definitive talent descisions for players before they physically, emotionally, and mentally develop.
For arguments sake I say we reallys shouldn't have a U15 or U17 National Teams. This deemphasizes hundreds of other potential talents. They need organic development that challenges them daily for a period of 6-7 yrs. There needs to be a very connected heirarchy of interrelated entities. The DA is suppose to solve this but is many yrs away.
In a perfect world this late developing teen will still be at FC Delco or LAFC on in a challenging environment over the yrs but when he does get better quickly in late teens he can easily be recognized and work up to higher echelons of the DA team or MLS Academy Teams.

 

Ever heard of the Prisoners' Dilemma?

 

No.

 

BigKeeper - I agree with some of what you have written.

Maybe there are differences in the ODP selection process from state to state and region to region. The boys on the last regional team that I saw ranged from a skinny 5' 3" to a big 6' 2". By no means were they all huge.

In my state there has been significant ODP turnover. I looked at a few birth years and found only about 1/3 of the State ODP teams are comprised of kids who have been picked every year. At one age only a couple of kids were picked every year. After a few years the turnover ranged from about 50% to 90+%.

My Region has seen similar turnover as my state. At the younger ages about 50% of the kids named to the Reg Pool last year were named again this year. At the older ages the Reg Pool turnover was about 80%. On average, GK turnover on the Regional pool was even higher.

Of course, the Academy system has dramatically changed ODP at the older ages and looking at just 4 birth years over the past few years is not particularly scientific.

I think that kids now have more avenues than ever before to be seen and to be recognized. Camps, clubs, tournaments, school, ODP, DAP etc. Some kids will be discouraged if they are not chosen while others will work harder. Of course, the system will always be flawed and those who hit puberty early will always have an advantage.

As I see it, 50% turnover in a Regional Pool from one year to the next is a good thing.

 

I agree, someone can only have a strong opinion from what they see first hand. I have however talked to people from other regions and there are often similar flaws. Like I think I stated somewhere, it's probably an inherent flaw of the system. I am not sure if we have the talent of the major Soccer powers identifying youth players.
Regarding the size issue, again, it's often not size but muscle maturity. I have seen many "small" young players that have the advantage of a pop in their stride over their peers that makes them appear skillful, when to me, these are kids who may be overtaken in the high school years and beyond. That's where I feel U.S. Soccer/ Natl team is making a mistake. The younger years should be solely a concentration on well rounded superior skills. As they get older, 16 plus yrs, more factors should be added to the focus, ie. coordination, brains(pretty hard to ID and often subjective), athleticism. Possibly, U.S. Soccer shouldn't be investing so much time and money into younger players. They may be holding onto players too long because of the time and money they have invested in them.
I don't claim to have the answers or fixes, and hopefully I'm not coming across that way, I just feel like this is the area we are making a big mistake when watching ODP and club soccer at the younger ages and seeing our flaws at the full Nats Level. I think we can be doing a more thorough job
with a longer distance view.

 

A couple of observations:

1. In the US club soccer/national team system, the January birth month players are doubly advantaged. First, as has already been discussed, they are the most physically developed when competing in calendar year player identification (e.g. national team/ODP). Second, they have an extra year of club soccer over those born in the late months (i.e. after the 8/1 cutoff for most club soccer). Thus, the kid born in December is really behind the 8-ball. He's effectively 1 year younger than the January player, and he has 1 year less experience. No wonder it's so hard for a talented player in this group to get noticed, and no wonder so many January players get noticed.

2. Given the effect of "win now" incentives that cement the early birth year advantage, shouldn't US Soccer think of structural changes that increase the odds of identifying talented late birth month players?

For example, what about tinkering with the age groups for the Development Academy? Right now, a January 1992 player (probably a high school junior) competes against a December 1993 player (probably a freshman). That two year difference probably overwhelms most Dec. 1993s. If the DAP cutoff for U16 were changed from 1/1 to 8/1 (existing club soccer cutoff), while keeping the U18 as 1/1, kids born in the late part of the year would have an opportunity to be evaluated while being the oldest/most mature, and clubs would probably pick more late year kids to join the Academy. This would give those Dec. birth kids a fighting chance to get noticed . Obviously, in the following year they'd have to compete against the U18s, but as kids get older, the physical advantages of early birth should get smaller.

I know US Soccer wants calendar year cutoffs to conform with FIFA practice, but does it really matter for U16 if the payoff is really finding the talent in the later birth months? It seems to me that changing to the FIFA calendar for U18 should be good enough.

 

No matter what cutoff date you choose, someone gets the short end of the stick.

Kids born in Sept & Oct are old for club and HS but are young for ODP and Academy.

Kids born in Mar and April are old for ODP and Academy but are young on their HS and Club teams.

Kids born on July probably have the toughest time. They are the youngest on their club and HS teams but are not particularly old for ODP and Academy.

Offering an Academy team at every age group: U13, U14, U15, U16, U17, U18 and U19 would help. However, that would take an awful lot of money.

Undoubtedly the single best solution would be to change all the cutoff dates for HS, Club, Academy and ODP so that they all at my kids birthday. That way my son will always be the oldest boy at every tryout.

 

I agree that no matter what cutoff is chosen, someone gets the short end. However, by choosing only Jan. 1 cutoff dates, the same people are advantaged at every selection point. This is what leads to the birth year effect. By changing at one (or possibly more) points to mid-year cutoffs, we change the group of people advantaged, giving others a better chance.

 

This is why we really shouldn't have strict age cut-offs but rather general age related teams geared toward ability and not only age. This is why the continuum of DA Teams are very important. You can have a small 14 yr old player playing with the U13 Team only until his overall skill (physical, mental, tactical) warrants it does he quickly get promoted to the next logical higher team, working his way up the ladder.

 

I am certain you will find that there has been an age selection bias for club teams that, for many years, have been using a July 31st cutoff. Ditto High School teams.

Parents with kids born in Sept, Nov & Dec were happy. Becasue DAP uses Jan 1st the same parents will now be unhappy.

You could draw a birth month out of a hat every year and some would still not be happy.

 

You're right-it's virtually impossible to avoid age bias, as no matter what cutoff dates you use someone will be disadvantaged. I see no reason to move away from the Jan.-Dec. grouping for ODP, USSDA & nat'l teams, as they are in line with FIFA. I would also move club to the same guidelines. At least there would be consistency at all levels. The next step, of course would then be finding ways to mitigate the effects of the bias. Such a discussion is probably worth doing in a separate thread.

 

I think quotas are the solution when it comes to picking kids for state, regional, and national team camps. The selectors should be required to pick at least 20% from each quarter. That would still leave 20% at their discretion if they felt a particular quarter had more talent.