Who are the best high school or college soccer players?

[Unregistered]

Agreed.

Truly a sick person that thinks it possible that only one person in the world either disagrees with him or other people might share some similar positions.

Why don't you move to Texas where you can fully indulge your paranoia and worry about Operation Jade Helm.

Give you credit, BTNT. You never tire of supporting your own posts. Heck, if YOU don't do it, who will, lol???

[Unregistered]

He can't imagine a topic that isn't a direct slight to him or his apparent beloved club.

How many posts do you think you'll rack up today, BTNT? And, please, how exactly do you think you hurt P's feelings? You're certain that your outrageous behavior for 8+ years is not even a marginal factor, lol?? Ever wonder if YOU might have a mental disorder???

[Unregistered]

From our club it's apparent the kids with the most connections get the most advanced training and become the most "advanced" players . This means the manager who owns the club (usually only during his son's tenure) gets tremendous access to specialized training from high level players, are invited and introduced to top clubs, and can place their prodigy in the position they wish to develop without any delays. Training time, access time, advanced time -

Second come the coaches kids. Previous players are able to train their own kids and have special access to training.

it's all about the level and access to training.

A poor kid or even one without special connections will have a very tough time excelling in the US. Heck, anywhere for that matter - the mafia uses FIFA as a role model.

Then you should sprint for the door.
But I do think this is a complete phony post.
Very few, if any, clubs are run in this manner.

[Unregistered]

How many posts do you think you'll rack up today, BTNT? And, please, how exactly do you think you hurt P's feelings? You're certain that your outrageous behavior for 8+ years is not even a marginal factor, lol?? Ever wonder if YOU might have a mental disorder???

Here ya go Crazy Amy:

http://youtu.be/pIMPqJrePUI

Blame the world for your delusions

[Unregistered]

Then you should sprint for the door.
But I do think this is a complete phony post.
Very few, if any, clubs are run in this manner.

Hey, Crazy Amy, connections do matter when ALL OTHER FACTORS are equal, meaning talent etc.

That is just how the world works. If, you are more talented than the "connected" kid then nepotism is neutralized. If a club is blatant about such nepotism then yes, run for the door, but a certain amount of nepotism is regrettably normal.

[Unregistered]

There is some quality dialogue buried in this thread. Bringing it back

This is an interesting thread. The key question in our house is less about "how" and more about "for what"? Are we doing this so she can be best soccer player her gentics allow, or happiest well-adjusted human our circumstance can enable? As parents we dont want to believe the two are mutually exclusive. The absence of clarity causes us to pursue "balance". This results in many middle of the road decisions. Those decisions sacrifice coaching quality so she can play with friends, and they sometimes sacrifice happiness so she can hold her spot in the soccer arms race. If we were crystal clear on goals, decisions would be easy.

Exactly, which is why earlier in the thread I asked about what exactly any of our young soccer players were going to make a legitimate career of soccer beyond college?

Someone posted "coaching". This is possible but I would hope that more of the college experience was used than just the soccer playing career.

I do believe that many future college players will find a way to involve soccer in their lives but very few will make a true career out of it. Coaching your kid at the club level because you played soccer in college is not a career but a past time.

So the end game for most college bound players is to simply extend competing at as high a level as they can for four more years.

So the "why" of playing in college in truth is "because they can".

The "what characteristics are most important" to succeed at the college level, I feel are love of playing the game.

There is very little incentive to play in college, especially for women, than the simple love of the game.

How many thousands of men play college football, knowing full well that they will never play another down beyond college? The guys that know going in that they will not be drafted likely have a very small scholarship, if any, but yet they play, and it is because they love the game.

So, if I am lucky enough that my kid can get into a college that is best for them that is what matters. IF I get to see four more years of soccer, then that is great and I could care less if it is D1 or D3.

[Unregistered]

There is some quality dialogue buried in this thread. Bringing it back

I am the person who penned the "for the love of the game" post.

The kid who can't stay away from the game, is juggling all the time, playing pickup wherever that can gets a clear edge to likely be a special player.

The next cut of talent lies with more of a "analytics" perspective. Here lies the case of the self fulling prophecy of the Relative Age Affect. This falls more in line with selecting "prototypical" talent based on early speed and size and then throwing the best training at them.

These kids generally fill the ranks but often, the truly special kids fall outside that mold. They had the "advantage" of competing against size and speed and held on long enough to bloom later.

So the "best" often fall within a predictable pattern of size, speed and trained skill that is heavily influenced at a younger age based on a fortunate birthdate.

But the "Best of the Best" players is more of a true natural distribution. These players have both skill and a unprecedented love of the game or a internal competitive drive that is above their peers.

[Unregistered]

agreed. You can't really coach Fire and Creativity. Couple that with innate athleticism, and mix in some discipline, you got a winner. Not an easy stew to cook. So what % would you place on the ingredients vs. the recipe?

I am the person who penned the "for the love of the game" post.

The kid who can't stay away from the game, is juggling all the time, playing pickup wherever that can gets a clear edge to likely be a special player.

The next cut of talent lies with more of a "analytics" perspective. Here lies the case of the self fulling prophecy of the Relative Age Affect. This falls more in line with selecting "prototypical" talent based on early speed and size and then throwing the best training at them.

These kids generally fill the ranks but often, the truly special kids fall outside that mold. They had the "advantage" of competing against size and speed and held on long enough to bloom later.

So the "best" often fall within a predictable pattern of size, speed and trained skill that is heavily influenced at a younger age based on a fortunate birthdate.

But the "Best of the Best" players is more of a true natural distribution. These players have both skill and a unprecedented love of the game or a internal competitive drive that is above their peers.

[Unregistered]

Talk about obsessive.

[Unregistered]

agreed. You can't really coach Fire and Creativity. Couple that with innate athleticism, and mix in some discipline, you got a winner. Not an easy stew to cook. So what % would you place on the ingredients vs. the recipe?

Love or Passion is more of an intangible and really can't be measured and it can't really be separated from talent either.

Not a percentage but in order of importance Passion>Skill>Training

[Unregistered]

I am the person who penned the "for the love of the game" post.

The kid who can't stay away from the game, is juggling all the time, playing pickup wherever that can gets a clear edge to likely be a special player.

The next cut of talent lies with more of a "analytics" perspective. Here lies the case of the self fulling prophecy of the Relative Age Affect. This falls more in line with selecting "prototypical" talent based on early speed and size and then throwing the best training at them.

These kids generally fill the ranks but often, the truly special kids fall outside that mold. They had the "advantage" of competing against size and speed and held on long enough to bloom later.

So the "best" often fall within a predictable pattern of size, speed and trained skill that is heavily influenced at a younger age based on a fortunate birthdate.

But the "Best of the Best" players is more of a true natural distribution. These players have both skill and a unprecedented love of the game or a internal competitive drive that is above their peers.

If you had a young child with a clear passion for the game (always juggling, playing, watching EPL games, etc…)…and who was a bit more skilled than kids in his age group, first of all, if given a choose between playing kids his size and age or "playing up" against kids a little bigger and faster, would you definitely choose the latter so that he'd have that "advantage" you speak of? And second, how do you think being a multi-sport athlete fits into this? Can he be passionate about two sports and still differentiate himself in soccer, or do you think he needs to be truly focused on only one sport to become "special" (however you define that).

[Unregistered]

If you had a young child with a clear passion for the game (always juggling, playing, watching EPL games, etc…)…and who was a bit more skilled than kids in his age group, first of all, if given a choose between playing kids his size and age or "playing up" against kids a little bigger and faster, would you definitely choose the latter so that he'd have that "advantage" you speak of? And second, how do you think being a multi-sport athlete fits into this? Can he be passionate about two sports and still differentiate himself in soccer, or do you think he needs to be truly focused on only one sport to become "special" (however you define that).

I have a kid playing up now but I do seek out at age opportunities to maintain confidence and success. I feel developing is a tight rope between challenge and success. The kid should struggle but not all the time. They need an opportunity to implement what they have learned.

Multiple sports should be a part of youth sports. A typical college student Changes their major 2-3 times before settling in. Kids should be exposed to as many things as possible.

[Unregistered]

I have a kid playing up now but I do seek out at age opportunities to maintain confidence and success. I feel developing is a tight rope between challenge and success. The kid should struggle but not all the time. They need an opportunity to implement what they have learned.

Multiple sports should be a part of youth sports. A typical college student Changes their major 2-3 times before settling in. Kids should be exposed to as many things as possible.

I like this post. It might be because that's how I see things as well...but it just makes sense. I think the concept of balancing challenge with opportunities for success is crucial. I've seen good players stop progressing because they never play better competition. But, I've also seen good players lose their passion because they played up against better competition too much. To play up, and not lose that passion, I think a player needs to be special (one of the most skilled players even at the older age group), have a strong internal drive to improve, and ideally have some size for his/her age so they are not at great risk for injury against older kids). If all three are not the case I'd suggest staying at their own age group. I think the passion part is critical at a young age, and that often correlates with success at a young age. They can certainly push themselves to find greater competition as they get older.

I'm a big believer in multi-sport athletes as well. I think it's better for their bodies to experience different movements, and I think it enables them to see each sport from a different angle. I also think going from season to season changing sports helps keep the passion alive. The year round, play only 1 sport mentality, feels detrimental to most kids...but does it create the cream of the crop players, who for whatever reason keep their passion despite playing only that sport, often year round? I don't know, and I do wonder if my kids are losing ground each year to some of those players.

[Unregistered]

If you had a young child with a clear passion for the game (always juggling, playing, watching EPL games, etc…)…and who was a bit more skilled than kids in his age group, first of all, if given a choose between playing kids his size and age or "playing up" against kids a little bigger and faster, would you definitely choose the latter so that he'd have that "advantage" you speak of? And second, how do you think being a multi-sport athlete fits into this? Can he be passionate about two sports and still differentiate himself in soccer, or do you think he needs to be truly focused on only one sport to become "special" (however you define that).

My kid played up last year. He's small for his own age group and did well with the bigger kids when he possessed the ball, as he has solid skills, but was outmatched trying for the 50/50 balls and defending against bigger, faster kids running full speed down the wings. He learned a lot about being a physical player. This year, he's back in his own age group, and has grown already so much more as a player. His confidence and love for playing are 3x as high, and he's able to bring the training onto the field during games much more effectively. I would agree, that if the kid is big for his age and can think/move as quickly as the kids in the older age group, then playing up has its benefits. For our kid, we'll probably keep playing up restricted to his summer league, so he can continue to learn to play physically with bigger kids, but won't be so outmatched with speed of play. Confidence is huge at the younger ages and the more a kid has, the more time he/she will want to spend studying and practicing the game.