Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Relative Age Effect - NYCFC

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

    Relative Age Effect - NYCFC

    Interestingly I went to NYCFC 2001 DA roster

    http://www.nycfc.com/academy/roster

    I noticed that 9 of the 16 players on their roster were born in Jan, Feb or March. This really is in line with Gladwells "Outlyers". I wonder how it is with other academy teams and if the coaches are in tune with RAE. Over 50% is an astonishing number.

    4 born April-June
    2 born July-Sept
    Only 1 player was born in Oct-Dec timeline (Nov) and everyone knows who this kid is

    There obviously needs to be better education regarding this issue. This, to me, is quite alarming.

    #2
    Originally posted by Unregistered View Post
    Interestingly I went to NYCFC 2001 DA roster

    http://www.nycfc.com/academy/roster

    I noticed that 9 of the 16 players on their roster were born in Jan, Feb or March. This really is in line with Gladwells "Outlyers". I wonder how it is with other academy teams and if the coaches are in tune with RAE. Over 50% is an astonishing number.

    4 born April-June
    2 born July-Sept
    Only 1 player was born in Oct-Dec timeline (Nov) and everyone knows who this kid is

    There obviously needs to be better education regarding this issue. This, to me, is quite alarming.
    Not at all surprising. Take a look at the combined two-year team rosters and it will be heavily skewed to the older kids as well.

    Comment


      #3
      When US Soccer made the age group change to calendar year and made some noise about it helping with RAE everyone called them out on the flaw in that logic (12 months is 12 months no matter how you define it).

      So it is of course no surprise to find DA teams stuffed with Jan-Mar kids.

      Comment


        #4
        Originally posted by Unregistered View Post
        When US Soccer made the age group change to calendar year and made some noise about it helping with RAE everyone called them out on the flaw in that logic (12 months is 12 months no matter how you define it).

        So it is of course no surprise to find DA teams stuffed with Jan-Mar kids.
        This really should be addressed better by the youth soccer world

        https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rela...ments_2010.pdf

        Comment


          #5
          Originally posted by Unregistered View Post
          Interestingly I went to NYCFC 2001 DA roster

          http://www.nycfc.com/academy/roster

          I noticed that 9 of the 16 players on their roster were born in Jan, Feb or March. This really is in line with Gladwells "Outlyers". I wonder how it is with other academy teams and if the coaches are in tune with RAE. Over 50% is an astonishing number.

          4 born April-June
          2 born July-Sept
          Only 1 player was born in Oct-Dec timeline (Nov) and everyone knows who this kid is

          There obviously needs to be better education regarding this issue. This, to me, is quite alarming.
          You do realize that some of those are January of the following year (02), right???

          Comment


            #6
            Originally posted by Unregistered View Post
            You do realize that some of those are January of the following year (02), right???
            Just looked and you are correct. Looks like five 2002. But, again 4 of 5 in Jan, Feb or March.

            Comment


              #7
              No one said it would HELP with RAE, only that the change would SHIFT it.

              Comment


                #8
                Originally posted by Unregistered View Post
                No one said it would HELP with RAE, only that the change would SHIFT it.
                Exactly. It's just a different date. USSF wanted to line up with the rest of the world (despite the fact that virtually no US players will ever play internationally, but that's for a debate as to whether the age change was necessary). Also I believe DA has been operating on calendar year for awhile now - if not always? - so you wouldn't see big roster shakeups like with all the other teams that were school-year based.

                Comment


                  #9
                  RAE impact starts sooner than these boys ages. But is also relevant at this age as puberty ages where you see and exaggerated separation that flattens out once everyone has finished puberty.

                  Clubs in the business of selling players to make real money are aware of this and have been playing some ideas like 6 month age bracket and. Biological age groups. Too much work here and less likely ROI and work only when all area clubs buy in (good luck).

                  By the way that is an old roster go to the USSF web site to see current rosters and look at all academies in the area you see the same thing.

                  Comment

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