N E F C offered E C N L

[Unregistered]

Good idea. That would be a very interesting experiment.

Thinking about my own kid's team, the majority of the "impact" players on that team at U11 are still key players 5 years later. What complicates the analysis is that several of the current impact players that have joined since then were not necessarily late bloomers, but simply not willing to do the longer commute to be on the team at the younger ages. I can only think of a couple of kids who have displaced others in the team's lineup due to the early/late maturation dynamic.

In our case, the coach has been doing this long enough where he seems to be pretty good at projecting what the U-11's might look/play like in HS. Maybe he just got lucky with this particular group, but there were definitely some trying periods of time along the way where kids going through awkward growth stages had to be given some slack, and it's paying off.

Sounded fun so I just did it with one of my kid's teams. Couldn't do U11 to U17 but close. Looking at a team photo (and trying to abstract from how things turned out in the end) I can say that the top 5 on the team(as a group) did not pan out well.

The clear best, a phenom with a dutch parent, flamed out by U14 in soccer but continued to be a super athlete in other sports. Killed the parents to have her leave soccer. Thinking about it now, it's clear that her amazing early career was mostly a function of having been totally focused on soccer from the time she was 3 years old. She was probably a little burned out, the pack caught up to her and size also hurt her in the end (despite very tall dad). The second best player was biggest on the team by far. Not "early bloomer" big, pituitary big. She's a 6 footer today. Fell quickly as the game got technical. Couldn't keep up with it even though she remained effective for a couple years. Track & Field only now. I think she throws something. Number 3 was a crafty fast ball hog with vision only for the goal. Much more coordinated than other U11 and U12. An acrobat. Could dribble through crowds of defenders. Didn't make varsity as a freshman. Still plays but at a lower club. Losing the ball 100% of the time as opponents got better didn't sit well. She never grew beyond about 5'2" - had she been 4" and 30 pounds bigger I believe she would still be a force but once people started pushing her off the ball it was over. My pick for 4th is still playing at a very high level. Was technical then and technical now. Also got physically developed in high school. Not flashy but extremely effective. Fifth, in my opinion, was one of my kids. She was a relatively smaller player but we are a physically big family so I guess she might be considered a "late bloom". Very quick and technical with a nose for goal. Rose steadily in relative terms over those development years. Injury knocked her out.

So, in my limited set, top 3 were out and next 2 were the players (save for injury). Looking at the other faces in the picture, most are still playing at one level or another but none are lighting the world on fire. A couple in the middle of the roster were freshman starters for coaches who obviously valued size and strength. Back of the roster has been gone for several years. Based on that data set I'd rather have my draft picks at U16 than U11. In all honesty, you would have to draft 20+ U11s just to make sure you had enough players for a team 6 years later.

[Unregistered]

Except that I (the OP) have kids who were early bloomers and regular bloomers, respectively. The "regular" bloomer has far surpassed the early bloomer despite the fact that the early bloomer was the "it" player in our area back at U11/12. It's just such nonsense. You show me a player that wants to keep banging a ball against the basement wall all winter at U13/14/15 and I'll show you the kid who is going to be the player. I don't care how many goals they had at U11.

Consider who is the one bringing in the patently false puberty statistics (10 years old?!). What was their intent with that, I wonder. Puberty at U13 is not a "late bloomer" LOL!

What is your definition of an early bloomer? The ones that I typically classify that way are the small speedy gymnast types that score a lot of goals early on simply because they can out run everyone. Usually those girls are not the same "hot shots" you see at 13. The hot shots at U13 are typically the ones that ended up tall and sinewy with speed after puberty. The big oalfish girls that can't move as someone described typically leave the game for other sports (volleyball) and a lot of the ones that fill out with nice curves often drop out of sports altogether due to the positive social attention that comes with their figure. The thing is when you start looking at 13 it is much easier to spot these sorts of things.

[Unregistered]

What is your definition of an early bloomer? The ones that I typically classify that way are the small speedy gymnast types that score a lot of goals early on simply because they can out run everyone. Usually those girls are not the same "hot shots" you see at 13. The hot shots at U13 are typically the ones that ended up tall and sinewy with speed after puberty. The big oalfish girls that can't move as someone described typically leave the game for other sports (volleyball) and a lot of the ones that fill out with nice curves often drop out of sports altogether due to the positive social attention that comes with their figure. The thing is when you start looking at 13 it is much easier to spot these sorts of things.

Absolutely. And at 14 even easier. At 15, even easier. At 16, easier still. I see where you are headed and I agree.

[Unregistered]

Sounded fun so I just did it with one of my kid's teams. Couldn't do U11 to U17 but close. Looking at a team photo (and trying to abstract from how things turned out in the end) I can say that the top 5 on the team(as a group) did not pan out well.

The clear best, a phenom with a dutch parent, flamed out by U14 in soccer but continued to be a super athlete in other sports. Killed the parents to have her leave soccer. Thinking about it now, it's clear that her amazing early career was mostly a function of having been totally focused on soccer from the time she was 3 years old. She was probably a little burned out, the pack caught up to her and size also hurt her in the end (despite very tall dad). The second best player was biggest on the team by far. Not "early bloomer" big, pituitary big. She's a 6 footer today. Fell quickly as the game got technical. Couldn't keep up with it even though she remained effective for a couple years. Track & Field only now. I think she throws something. Number 3 was a crafty fast ball hog with vision only for the goal. Much more coordinated than other U11 and U12. An acrobat. Could dribble through crowds of defenders. Didn't make varsity as a freshman. Still plays but at a lower club. Losing the ball 100% of the time as opponents got better didn't sit well. She never grew beyond about 5'2" - had she been 4" and 30 pounds bigger I believe she would still be a force but once people started pushing her off the ball it was over. My pick for 4th is still playing at a very high level. Was technical then and technical now. Also got physically developed in high school. Not flashy but extremely effective. Fifth, in my opinion, was one of my kids. She was a relatively smaller player but we are a physically big family so I guess she might be considered a "late bloom". Very quick and technical with a nose for goal. Rose steadily in relative terms over those development years. Injury knocked her out.

So, in my limited set, top 3 were out and next 2 were the players (save for injury). Looking at the other faces in the picture, most are still playing at one level or another but none are lighting the world on fire. A couple in the middle of the roster were freshman starters for coaches who obviously valued size and strength. Back of the roster has been gone for several years. Based on that data set I'd rather have my draft picks at U16 than U11. In all honesty, you would have to draft 20+ U11s just to make sure you had enough players for a team 6 years later.

As I look back on my kids' U10-11 teams, the kids who were small, quick and very technical seem to have held up best over time. Some of them kept their speed and ability and have grown enough to continue to be top level players. The kids who were strong & fast and simply out-ran and overpowered other players fared worst, as they were the classic early-bloomers who got passed as other kids grew up. Their lack of creativity and nuance, and average technical ability became very apparent by the recruiting years. At the end of the day, the kids who always loved to work on technical things but who also happened to mature into superior athletes are the real impact players. There are no "average" athletes at the elite levels.

[Unregistered]

As I look back on my kids' U10-11 teams, the kids who were small, quick and very technical seem to have held up best over time. Some of them kept their speed and ability and have grown enough to continue to be top level players. The kids who were strong & fast and simply out-ran and overpowered other players fared worst, as they were the classic early-bloomers who got passed as other kids grew up. Their lack of creativity and nuance, and average technical ability became very apparent by the recruiting years. At the end of the day, the kids who always loved to work on technical things but who also happened to mature into superior athletes are the real impact players. There are no "average" athletes at the elite levels.

The David Robinson effect. Best to start small and lean on all of the skill and quickness you can muster. Then get hit with a continuous and long lasting physical growth period that doesn't leave you awkward and uncoordinated at any particular stretch of time. Just like ability jump high at 12 years old is a curse for basketball players, so is early physical size and strength in soccer. Unless the player is going to be a goon or a goalie their whole career.

[Unregistered]

Absolutely. And at 14 even easier. At 15, even easier. At 16, easier still. I see where you are headed and I agree.

So if you had to pick one specific age when you think all of the evaluation process SHOULD start what would it be?

[Unregistered]

So if you had to pick one specific age when you think all of the evaluation process SHOULD start what would it be?

When should evaluation start? First time the kid picks up the ball. And it never stops.

[Unregistered]

As I look back on my kids' U10-11 teams, the kids who were small, quick and very technical seem to have held up best over time. Some of them kept their speed and ability and have grown enough to continue to be top level players. The kids who were strong & fast and simply out-ran and overpowered other players fared worst, as they were the classic early-bloomers who got passed as other kids grew up. Their lack of creativity and nuance, and average technical ability became very apparent by the recruiting years. At the end of the day, the kids who always loved to work on technical things but who also happened to mature into superior athletes are the real impact players. There are no "average" athletes at the elite levels.

I think that a lot of this discussion gets impacted by the parental expectations going in and that there is a lot of self fulfillment that takes place. My experience has been that families who go searching soccer success can find it if they know what they are looking for and how to go about getting what they want. I guess the proof of that shows up with parents who have had multiple kids participate in club soccer. You seldom see them NOT cut right to the chase and get right to where they want to get with their kids.

In terms of this discussion about thinking back and picking out the talent my experience is a lot depends on the level of team you are with at U11. When I look back at this daughter's first U11 team (she was playing up a year) I think most of the starting line up looks like they are going to be playing in college with at least half going to fairly high level D1 programs.

As far as this idea that you can't pick out the future talents at 12-13 years old. I would like to draw some attention to the girls selected from the '97 and '98 age groups to the ODP regional pool back when they were 12-13. I will admit that I have lost track of one player but from what I have heard all the rest of them have actually met the expectation that was created by them being "identified" back when they were that young. Two from the group have spent time in national team camps and everyone of them that I am aware of has committed to a D1 program with most being in the top 100. Just saying that there was not a lot of misses in that group.

--BTDT

[Unregistered]

So if you had to pick one specific age when you think all of the evaluation process SHOULD start what would it be?

Start at U13, but understand that the pool will have to be refreshed continuously over the next 3-5 years. Some of the U13 studs will absolutely still be studs at U17, but others will level out and still others will begin to emerge. You can't just close your eyes until U16-17 and then do a one-time selection process for the whole country and expect to get it right. There are too many players in the mix for that. That's why the NT scouts are watching kids constantly over a long period of time. By the time my kid got called up, they had seen her play at least 8-10 times.

[Unregistered]

HA

Yeah, no one comes on TS anymore. The U12 thread has 135K page views....

That a lot considering only a DOZEN unique IP address.. Grow up Losers

[Unregistered]

That a lot considering only a DOZEN unique IP address.. Grow up Losers

Since only a website administrator has access to this information, this post tells you 1 of 2 things. Either the troll who constantly makes these sort of negative posts is actually an administrator of the site or this person knows nothing and is just trying to stir the pot to support their own warped view of this site. Either case would be pretty sick.

[Unregistered]

Who needs ECNL when the NEFC Elite keep beating your Stars ECNL at 15, 16, and 17. These are the same NEFC teams that everyone said girls were leaving for Stars. Funny that didnt happen and they are still beating the ECNL Stars Almighty. Guess ECNL around here isnt the best. Must suck spending 5-10k more and get beat by a local team.

[Unregistered]

Who needs ECNL when the NEFC Elite keep beating your Stars ECNL at 15, 16, and 17. These are the same NEFC teams that everyone said girls were leaving for Stars. Funny that didnt happen and they are still beating the ECNL Stars Almighty. Guess ECNL around here isnt the best. Must suck spending 5-10k more and get beat by a local team.

Pathetically desperate.

[Unregistered]

Who needs ECNL when the NEFC Elite keep beating your Stars ECNL at 15, 16, and 17. These are the same NEFC teams that everyone said girls were leaving for Stars. Funny that didnt happen and they are still beating the ECNL Stars Almighty. Guess ECNL around here isnt the best. Must suck spending 5-10k more and get beat by a local team.

You think NEFC is 5k-10k less? With NPL travel and your tournament travel? About the same I would think.

[Unregistered]

Pathetically desperate.

You mad bro?