Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

DA kids play down next year?

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

    DA kids play down next year?

    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.

    #2
    What you mean playing down?

    Comment


      #3
      Originally posted by Unregistered View Post
      What you mean playing down?
      What that means is Junior's playing against freshman and sophomores. What that means if they were in college and they had a JV team the weak juniors that play down would on it. The strong juniors and seniors would be on varsity.

      Comment


        #4
        Originally posted by Unregistered View Post
        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.
        I 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.

        Comment


          #5
          Originally posted by Unregistered View Post
          I 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.
          What 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?

          Comment


            #6
            Originally posted by Unregistered View Post
            What 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?
            No, 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.

            Comment


              #7
              Originally posted by Unregistered View Post
              No, 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.
              You know what I have found is that the shorter players are quicker at the younger ages and have a lower center a gravity which makes them more agile. Many taller players appear to be slower and not as agile, until that is, they fill out muscularly. The taller player still has to work at that aspect of the game. Also, their feet are bigger and with several growth spurts they tend to continuously need some time to learn their new body. I tend to think that smaller players sometimes have an advantage, especially in the midfield. Also, many coaches tend to see a big kid and want to put him mainly at defense or forward, whereas they may be better at midfield when they become more muscular and agile. But once again, late bloomers works both ways, doesn't it. It seems that smaller players have the unfair advantage in the midfield.

              Comment


                #8
                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.

                Comment


                  #9
                  Size matters less after puberty then before puberty.

                  Comment


                    #10
                    Originally posted by Unregistered View Post
                    I 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.
                    Some 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.

                    Comment


                      #11
                      Originally posted by Unregistered View Post
                      Some 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.
                      First paragraph is key. It's the transition years where evaluating players gets problematic. Kids who have a sudden growth spurt can look like scrawny Bambi on ice. Late bloomers are easily passed over. These guys are coaches, not all well trained and certainly not all well versed on pediatric development. Few can discern true talent vs size and athleticism

                      Comment


                        #12
                        Originally posted by Unregistered View Post
                        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.
                        Pediatricians 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.

                        Comment


                          #14
                          Originally posted by Unregistered View Post
                          Pediatricians 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.
                          You 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.

                          Comment


                            #15
                            Originally posted by Unregistered View Post
                            You 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.
                            And almost no one will do that unless there are concerns about a child's growth rate, in other words well behind the curve (went through this with one of my very petite kids to determine if hormone therapy was appropriate, which is a whole other difficult topic). Also if a parent(s) was a late bloomer that increases the likelihood of the offspring being one as well.

                            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

                            Comment

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