Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Age question

Collapse
X
  •  
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    Age question

    At what age does AGE no longer matter??

    For example, say you have a u15 team, but half the team is playing up, so they are really u14s. Is there really a substantial difference in size, speed, strength when your team faces a team that is entirely an age approprate u15 team??

    At what age is that difference (if any) no longer a factor??

    #2
    Originally posted by Unregistered View Post
    At what age does AGE no longer matter??

    For example, say you have a u15 team, but half the team is playing up, so they are really u14s. Is there really a substantial difference in size, speed, strength when your team faces a team that is entirely an age approprate u15 team??

    At what age is that difference (if any) no longer a factor??
    Varies by gender - with girls by U15/HS it's less of a factor because most have gone through puberty; boys it's much later and more erratic on when puberty hits. With both cases even when kids have stopped growing in height they continue to build muscle mass for quite some time. Obviously each player is different as well. A team could have mostly younger players who are just physically more mature than their peers.

    Comment


      #3
      Originally posted by Unregistered View Post
      Varies by gender - with girls by U15/HS it's less of a factor because most have gone through puberty; boys it's much later and more erratic on when puberty hits. With both cases even when kids have stopped growing in height they continue to build muscle mass for quite some time. Obviously each player is different as well. A team could have mostly younger players who are just physically more mature than their peers.
      Guess you don't have a daughter in college. Age still matters. The 17 year old freshman vs. 22 year old senior is still not a level playing field.

      Comment


        #4
        Originally posted by Unregistered View Post
        At what age does AGE no longer matter??

        For example, say you have a u15 team, but half the team is playing up, so they are really u14s. Is there really a substantial difference in size, speed, strength when your team faces a team that is entirely an age approprate u15 team??

        At what age is that difference (if any) no longer a factor??
        like other poster said age and maturity always matter. But the age where it's a massive competitive imbalance is to me right before puberty vs kids just in or after puberty. For boys this would be u13/u14 vs u14 its hard for a kid that has not hit puberty to compete with kids that are in the middle of it.

        Comment


          #5
          Originally posted by Unregistered View Post
          Guess you don't have a daughter in college. Age still matters. The 17 year old freshman vs. 22 year old senior is still not a level playing field.
          But that is going to be driven by experience, skill acquisition and conditioning, not someone going through puberty

          not the poster above

          Comment


            #6
            Relative Age Effect is the issue not biological age although, of course, they are directly related in most players.

            Kids grow and mature at different times. Some kids who are tall and fast at 14 are average at 16 when their age peers have caught up. Early vs late puberty is a huge issue.

            Mental age is also a factor.

            With boys, a 11+ month difference between a January vs December birth month can result in a very significant difference in size and speed even into 16-18 years, although the biggest difference at the later teens is muscle maturity. A similarly proportioned and muscled 17 year old will likely be physically stronger and faster than a player 11 months younger, on average of course.

            Relative age effect has been well documented in Europe and it is a topic that disturbs all top national and club teams since they are statistically losing over 50% of all players (those born in the second half of the calendar year) as those players are generally overlooked at younger ages and not included in top teams. Obviously statistically "talent" is distributed equally over the entire calendar year. Moving the date range, obviously only shifts the problem.

            In short, it always depends on the individual player but on average a nearly 1 year difference in age is a big difference. DA is moving, albeit slowly, to single birth year teams as combining 2 birth years hugely inflates this problem! If 11 months age difference is a problem, imagine what 23 months is....

            Comment


              #7
              Originally posted by Unregistered View Post
              Relative Age Effect is the issue not biological age although, of course, they are directly related in most players.

              Kids grow and mature at different times. Some kids who are tall and fast at 14 are average at 16 when their age peers have caught up. Early vs late puberty is a huge issue.

              Mental age is also a factor.

              With boys, a 11+ month difference between a January vs December birth month can result in a very significant difference in size and speed even into 16-18 years, although the biggest difference at the later teens is muscle maturity. A similarly proportioned and muscled 17 year old will likely be physically stronger and faster than a player 11 months younger, on average of course.

              Relative age effect has been well documented in Europe and it is a topic that disturbs all top national and club teams since they are statistically losing over 50% of all players (those born in the second half of the calendar year) as those players are generally overlooked at younger ages and not included in top teams. Obviously statistically "talent" is distributed equally over the entire calendar year. Moving the date range, obviously only shifts the problem.

              In short, it always depends on the individual player but on average a nearly 1 year difference in age is a big difference. DA is moving, albeit slowly, to single birth year teams as combining 2 birth years hugely inflates this problem! If 11 months age difference is a problem, imagine what 23 months is....
              If boys and girls DA is the top oh wise development academy then why would it have put two birthyears together?

              Comment


                #8
                Originally posted by Unregistered View Post
                If boys and girls DA is the top oh wise development academy then why would it have put two birthyears together?
                The theory is that it pushes the younger players to develop at a faster rate in playing with and against older, bigger kids. But, sometimes smaller/younger/slower to grow players are tossed aside because it looks like they can't keep up. There is talk that sometime soon they will split those teams into single year - gives the pay to play clubs more money in their pockets and captures more of the player pool away from other teams. Win/win for the clubs and USSF.

                Comment


                  #9
                  Originally posted by Unregistered View Post
                  The theory is that it pushes the younger players to develop at a faster rate in playing with and against older, bigger kids. But, sometimes smaller/younger/slower to grow players are tossed aside because it looks like they can't keep up. There is talk that sometime soon they will split those teams into single year - gives the pay to play clubs more money in their pockets and captures more of the player pool away from other teams. Win/win for the clubs and USSF.
                  That was/is the theory although in practice on most DA teams very few of the younger birth year players are selected to play. In fact at several "top" DA programs they treat it as a single birth year team and have the younger age play a "gap" year in a non-DA team. The move to single birth year teams is underway and as of this season there are single birth year teams for every age EXCEPT u16/17 and u18/19. BUT that doesn't change the relative age effect within each birth year.

                  Comment


                    #10
                    It's only a matter of time until the world wide trend is to switch from an age based system to a relative age based system - there is already a discussion regarding this among the soccer community that gets it. It is best for all involved. The kids that mature earlier are not developing properly when they are able to dominate their age group through shear size and strength. At the same time (but less of an issue) is the smaller, less developed kids. It can go either way with that group. To the extent that their mental make-up can handle it, being undersized may result in them being developed into the next great player who is forced to have a higher level of skill and anticipation as a result of being smaller and less powerful in those developmental years. On the other hand, it may drive some kids out of the sport who may have been great because they can't complete and become frustrated. Kid don't play soccer if its not fun - that is the #1 reason for the 70% that quit the sport by U14 - it's no longer fun (which is a combination of frustration on the field and overbearing parents that apply too much pressure). It's far more important to make sure that the kids who develop earlier play up in age with other kids who are at the same relative age - otherwise those kids won't develop. I've seen DAs taking this approach with kids that are early developers which is the right thing to do for their development, because they won't get any better playing against kids that they can easily dominate based solely on size and strength.

                    Comment


                      #11
                      Originally posted by Unregistered View Post
                      It's only a matter of time until the world wide trend is to switch from an age based system to a relative age based system - there is already a discussion regarding this among the soccer community that gets it. It is best for all involved. The kids that mature earlier are not developing properly when they are able to dominate their age group through shear size and strength. At the same time (but less of an issue) is the smaller, less developed kids. It can go either way with that group. To the extent that their mental make-up can handle it, being undersized may result in them being developed into the next great player who is forced to have a higher level of skill and anticipation as a result of being smaller and less powerful in those developmental years. On the other hand, it may drive some kids out of the sport who may have been great because they can't complete and become frustrated. Kid don't play soccer if its not fun - that is the #1 reason for the 70% that quit the sport by U14 - it's no longer fun (which is a combination of frustration on the field and overbearing parents that apply too much pressure). It's far more important to make sure that the kids who develop earlier play up in age with other kids who are at the same relative age - otherwise those kids won't develop. I've seen DAs taking this approach with kids that are early developers which is the right thing to do for their development, because they won't get any better playing against kids that they can easily dominate based solely on size and strength.
                      I think it makes sense that a lot of kids move on from club soccer when they start high school. Club soccer eats up a lot of time and kids that know they aren't going to be involved in soccer as a career would naturally gravitate away during high school as they begin to focus on their futures and spend more time on other things. Not sure why moving on is seen as a negative thing. I think more would stick with it if it could be more local but still a fun level of play.

                      Comment


                        #12
                        Originally posted by Unregistered View Post
                        It's only a matter of time until the world wide trend is to switch from an age based system to a relative age based system - there is already a discussion regarding this among the soccer community that gets it. It is best for all involved. The kids that mature earlier are not developing properly when they are able to dominate their age group through shear size and strength. At the same time (but less of an issue) is the smaller, less developed kids. It can go either way with that group. To the extent that their mental make-up can handle it, being undersized may result in them being developed into the next great player who is forced to have a higher level of skill and anticipation as a result of being smaller and less powerful in those developmental years. On the other hand, it may drive some kids out of the sport who may have been great because they can't complete and become frustrated. Kid don't play soccer if its not fun - that is the #1 reason for the 70% that quit the sport by U14 - it's no longer fun (which is a combination of frustration on the field and overbearing parents that apply too much pressure). It's far more important to make sure that the kids who develop earlier play up in age with other kids who are at the same relative age - otherwise those kids won't develop. I've seen DAs taking this approach with kids that are early developers which is the right thing to do for their development, because they won't get any better playing against kids that they can easily dominate based solely on size and strength.
                        Much easier solution. My son tried out for DA. Didn't make it. So change of plan. He now identifies as a girl. Made the GDA on the first night. We're all set.

                        I also changed his name to Laquisha Rosenberg Whitehorse. An African-American, Native-American Jewish transgender. I'm having trouble keeping track of all the college offers.

                        Shalom and hanhepi wašté.

                        Comment


                          #13
                          Originally posted by Unregistered View Post
                          Much easier solution. My son tried out for DA. Didn't make it. So change of plan. He now identifies as a girl. Made the GDA on the first night. We're all set.

                          I also changed his name to Laquisha Rosenberg Whitehorse. An African-American, Native-American Jewish transgender. I'm having trouble keeping track of all the college offers.

                          Shalom and hanhepi wašté.
                          This is only half funny because this could and will start happening much more with the olympics not doing gender testing anymore. All a male needs to do is say they identify as female and they can play on girls teams and compete as a woman in the olympics.

                          Comment


                            #14
                            Does FIFA have any gender specific rules?

                            Comment


                              #15
                              Originally posted by Unregistered View Post
                              Does FIFA have any gender specific rules?
                              Yes, pay women 70% or less than the males.

                              Comment

                              Previously entered content was automatically saved. Restore or Discard.
                              Auto-Saved
                              x
                              Insert: Thumbnail Small Medium Large Fullsize Remove  
                              x
                              Working...
                              X