If a kid is to get to a competitive level, what ages would you say are the most important in terms of development? It seems to me to be around 7 yrs old to 10 yrs old. Would you agree?
Depends on where you live. It seems like most states competitive travel starts at u10. There's a lot of stories though about early selection kids ot really panning out. https://changingthegameproject.com/...er-why-talent-selection-does-not-always-work/ Love the ball, love the game, play as much as possible. It's not a sprint....
Development isn't something you switch off and on. You also cannot separate development of soccer specific skills from player development. The first six years are important to child development and provide a base for further development. If development is "put off" until age 8, these children will forever be at a disadvantage compared to children who had good development since birth. Take dribbling for instance. I describe it as 50% athleticism and 50% ball skill. A superior athlete will dominate the field with simple techniques and feints that don't involve the ball. (A head fake with a cut) is much faster technically than a "pull back" move which requires the player to stop forward movement.) This doesn't mean that ball skills are unimportant. It means that ball skills alone may get you a Coerver star, but not a soccer star. So many children today are behind in mental and physical development that it is setting a new standard for what is normal. I am against this emphasis on teaching "moves". I don't want players thinking about how they can use "x" move in the game. I want players thinking about tactics--how to win the ball and penetrate to score a goal. I don't want players thinking about techniqes. It is just a distraction from play. I prefer "guided discovery" letting players be creative and learn what works by playing.
That is a strong statement. "Forever" But that's kinda what I was wondering. If they don't start to focus by X age, they'll never be able to play at a high level.
I don't want it to be true that after, say age 8, it gets tougher. But from what I've seen maybe it is. I know of only one case personally where a kid didn't really play until his late teens. Played pickup only no organized ball, but by the time he was in his early 20s he was pretty good—could play with good college players. Total outlier. Only semi-related is the story of Andy Najar. Played only pickup until he was discovered by DC United scouts at age 13. Born to Honduran immigrants they couldn't do the normal youth soccer thing in the DC area. Now he's still playing professionally in Belgium.
Very interesting. I was wondering about the outliers. There is always an exception to the rule somewhere. If a late-teens kid has natural athletic talent and puts in an extreme number of hours I can see this happening. Jamie Vardy is one who is mentioned a lot as a "late bloomer" but my understanding is that he did play a lot as a kid. I think it's more that he late bloomed into super stardom... later than most top stars.
Saying "focus" indicates you didn't understand my view. If a child is behind in development (mental, physical, and social) during infancy they will be behind the "elite" development path. In many cases they will catch up to the middle of the pack later, but they won't catch the front runners. I think your question was about the development path of the front runners. Having parents that were elite athletes is a big advantage, the family environment and parental knowledge of child development (I generally associate with college athletes) are huge development advantages. Speaking from experience, by the time a soccer coach sees an 8 year old they will have developed their personality, their attitudes toward authority figures, and--the most talented ones--will stand out for their superior movement skills and mental abilities. I am not talking about soccer specific skills. There is time to develop those, although if you follow Tom Byer's view, early (toddlers) playing with a ball is a key to developing elite soccer players. (My youngest child is in their late 30's, but long before Tom's view became known, I introduced playing with a ball as soon as they could sit up.)
For the lurkers who may be unfamiliar with Tom Byer's views: https://www.soccertoday.com/tom-byer-on-why-parents-are-the-key-to-player-development/
Yeah I guess I was thinking about front runners. The point about parents is something I wonder about often. It's partly why I am kind of obsessed with my kid's development. I feel he will have to compete with kids of former elite athlete parents. I mean, really, this occurs in nearly every field in life. Not just sports. And of course that doesn't mean someone can't make it alone, but it's just harder if they don't have that extra guidance. I've followed Tom Byer a little, read up on him and follow him on twitter. Haven't read his book but I get his philosophy. I don't know if I buy into it 100%. I think whether a kid starts a age 5 or age 2 doesn't matter all that much as there are so many other variables that can affect the path. I think an overemphasis on skills is not good as soccer is about more; that's why a lot of super skilled futsal and freestylers, who have more skill that top footballers, cannot play in top football leagues like Premiere. It's a physical game and having super amazing feet skills will only get you so far. Wayne Rooney said in an interview he's not a "skilled player". But Rooney is still one of the all time greats because he is efficient and fast and accurate and has great vision and is agressive.
Make sure your kid is enjoying the game and having fun. Help them improve their skills when they are receptive. Too much obsession with development may do more harm than good. Develop their love for the game and provide opportunities, and if they're really into it, the rest will take care of itself. Someone said it takes three things to become a top level player: talent, desire, and opportunity. As a parent, you only control one of those.
I would say that by 12 you're 90% sure of what potential a player has. With that being said, I'd agree that 8-11 are the golden years for development, but I think, more importantly, developing a love for the game. Unlike most American sports it's tough to pick up the game in high school and become a professional (I'm sure there are outliers)
@coachd24 If you had said at 18 instead of 14, I would have agreed that it would be difficult to "pick up" soccer. But if a superior athlete has been playing unorganized soccer, there is no handicap to picking up the game in high school.
It is a very important question actually. We have prepared a review of the research study on "How Speed and Technical skills of young players affect their chances to become a Pro". It is scientifically proved that speed and technical skills at a young age predict the player's success in the future. Hope you find it interesting. Cheers.
Thanks dude. My kid is only 6. Is there a way to know of his chances of going pro or is that too young? He can sprint fairly well and he has good ball control skills for his age. He can hang with good 7 and 8 year olds, and even ok 9 and 10 yr olds.
There are many research papers on this topic. But the one I have mentioned earlier - is the best (big sample size; duration of the study) I can recommend on to really rely on when to make an assessment. Sure thing, it is not a guarantee, every research has its limitations. That being said, if your kid is good at this age, just keep training at a reasonable pace, so as he proceeds to meet his age timestamps for sprint; and get his technical skills better. I mean no need to push harder if he is good already. Just keep the pace, find a good coach. Consult with really good coaches from time to time.