Playing down is a great idea because now a days many of the kids at ages 12/13/14 are fully developed. Late bloomers often become the best players and this is that acknowledgement.
Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.
DA kids play down next year?
Collapse
X
-
UnregisteredTags: None
- Quote
-
Unregistered
-
Unregistered
Originally posted by Unregistered View PostWhat you mean playing down?
- Quote
Comment
-
Unregistered
Originally posted by Unregistered View PostPlaying down is a great idea because now a days many of the kids at ages 12/13/14 are fully developed. Late bloomers often become the best players and this is that acknowledgement.
I think if you're going to head in this direction, clubs need to ascertain an estimate of the full grown height of a kid based on mom and dad and then the percentage attained of this estimate. it is imperfect, but its only way to determine who is and who is not a late bloomer.
For example, if you are expected to grow to 70 inches at full size based on mom and dad and at 13 the kid is 65 inches that's 93% of potential and an early bloomer. A similar kid, 70 inches based on mom and dad but who at 13 is 58 inches is a late bloomer (83%). if the late bloomer is just as effective or skilled as the early bloomer, you have a player whose ceiling would be higher.
- Quote
Comment
-
Unregistered
Originally posted by Unregistered View PostI agree .. puberty is hitting a lot of kids early. kids that are on a normal track (13/14 puberty) face an uncomfortable year or two as "late bloomers." all this evens out eventually but needs to be considered in understanding player potential at these ages.
I think if you're going to head in this direction, clubs need to ascertain an estimate of the full grown height of a kid based on mom and dad and then the percentage attained of this estimate. it is imperfect, but its only way to determine who is and who is not a late bloomer.
For example, if you are expected to grow to 70 inches at full size based on mom and dad and at 13 the kid is 65 inches that's 93% of potential and an early bloomer. A similar kid, 70 inches based on mom and dad but who at 13 is 58 inches is a late bloomer (83%). if the late bloomer is just as effective or skilled as the early bloomer, you have a player whose ceiling would be higher.
- Quote
Comment
-
Unregistered
Originally posted by Unregistered View PostWhat if your kid is 71 inches, 150lbs at a just turned 14 and he is projected to be 75 inches, 190lbs at full growth, should he back off from physical challenges to the smaller late bloomer or give up his spot right now because he is physically dominate?
I would say that a kid that will be 6'3" 200 lb will be a physically imposing player, but the kid that will be 5'11" 195 will be about average. If the 5'11" kid is 5'10" at 14, he will need to develop skills to compete as he will not be physically dominant as he ages. On the other end of the spectrum, the 5'2" kid at 14 who is just entering pberty but will be 5'11" or 5'10" and can compete well on the field with much larger kids is a kid that should be very interesting in terms of potential. If the 5'2" kid survives because he thinks quickly and is a smart player, then when he also has size to leverage, that's a very interesting player.
- Quote
Comment
-
Unregistered
Originally posted by Unregistered View PostNo, of course not. I am saying that if we are going to consider the timing of kid's development, there should be some empirical basis behind it not just one coach saying someone is a late bloomer.
I would say that a kid that will be 6'3" 200 lb will be a physically imposing player, but the kid that will be 5'11" 195 will be about average. If the 5'11" kid is 5'10" at 14, he will need to develop skills to compete as he will not be physically dominant as he ages. On the other end of the spectrum, the 5'2" kid at 14 who is just entering pberty but will be 5'11" or 5'10" and can compete well on the field with much larger kids is a kid that should be very interesting in terms of potential. If the 5'2" kid survives because he thinks quickly and is a smart player, then when he also has size to leverage, that's a very interesting player.
- Quote
Comment
-
Unregistered
Lionel Messi is 5'6" and all of 145lbs... take your late bloomer conversation somewhere it matters, like a basketball forum. Skill, speed, agility, and strength are the keys in soccer, not how tall mom and dad are.
- Quote
Comment
-
Unregistered
-
Unregistered
Originally posted by Unregistered View PostI agree .. puberty is hitting a lot of kids early. kids that are on a normal track (13/14 puberty) face an uncomfortable year or two as "late bloomers." all this evens out eventually but needs to be considered in understanding player potential at these ages.
I think if you're going to head in this direction, clubs need to ascertain an estimate of the full grown height of a kid based on mom and dad and then the percentage attained of this estimate. it is imperfect, but its only way to determine who is and who is not a late bloomer.
For example, if you are expected to grow to 70 inches at full size based on mom and dad and at 13 the kid is 65 inches that's 93% of potential and an early bloomer. A similar kid, 70 inches based on mom and dad but who at 13 is 58 inches is a late bloomer (83%). if the late bloomer is just as effective or skilled as the early bloomer, you have a player whose ceiling would be higher.
By the way, I hope they don't use the parental height method to calculate predicted player height. It works for kids on the average growth curve, but greatly underpredicts final adult height for late bloomers (that method predicts my kid's adult height as 5 inches less than the more accurate bone age method), so late bloomers will be calculated as a higher percentage to adult height than they really are.
- Quote
Comment
-
Unregistered
Originally posted by Unregistered View PostSome late bloomers have the extra advantage of never having a growth spurt, or a relatively weaker spurt than average, and instead have fairly steady growth to full height. These kids don't go through that awkward stage trying to adjust to a rapidly changing body during those critical years for developing technical skills from 10-14, so can potentially end better technicians. The trouble is convincing coaches to keep them around when they are 13 years old and weigh 75 lbs. This is when the playing down allowance in DA might really be useful, in that it will allow kids like this to keep developing within the program, rather than cut or benched until puberty kicks in two years later.
By the way, I hope they don't use the parental height method to calculate predicted player height. It works for kids on the average growth curve, but greatly underpredicts final adult height for late bloomers (that method predicts my kid's adult height as 5 inches less than the more accurate bone age method), so late bloomers will be calculated as a higher percentage to adult height than they really are.
- Quote
Comment
-
Unregistered
Originally posted by Unregistered View PostBy the way, I hope they don't use the parental height method to calculate predicted player height. It works for kids on the average growth curve, but greatly underpredicts final adult height for late bloomers (that method predicts my kid's adult height as 5 inches less than the more accurate bone age method), so late bloomers will be calculated as a higher percentage to adult height than they really are.
- Quote
Comment
-
Unregistered
-
Unregistered
Originally posted by Unregistered View PostPediatricians use growth charts more often to predict height. A child tracking on a certain curve will most likely stay on that curve to adulthood. There may be blips up or down for awhile depending on when they hit puberty, but overall it's pretty accurate. A child who has tracked 50th percentile consistently pre-puberty isn't very likely to end up at 6'4" - there's exceptions or course. The parent height method is definitely not every accurate just ballpark. As a single data point all of my kids were accurately estimated with the growth charts, (so much so that I asked an old friend who is a pediatrician and our own pediatrician about it out of curiosity). My two boys are actually taller (by 2-4") than me while my daughter is the same exact height as my wife. My wife is average height for a woman but has tall parents, aunts and uncles. The parental method would have had the all three of them midway between my wife and I, yet none are.
- Quote
Comment
-
Unregistered
Originally posted by Unregistered View PostYou are correct unless the child is a later bloomer. Meaning his growth plates open much slower then a regular kid or in some cases a kid who is pumped up on hormones because of his diet. The only way to determine if a child is a late bloomer is an X-ray of his left hand. There you will find out and consider the height of the parents.
Being a "late bloomer" doesn't mean that kid will be taller than average. It just means they start later than most - think of the boy who grows 5 inches as a freshman in college instead of as a freshman in HS. Chances are they'll still end up on the same place on the growth chart as when they were a child. Hormone intervention only adds a small amount of height, has many downsides, and won't turn your small kid into a 6 footer
- Quote
Comment
Comment