Odp/rtc

[Unregistered]

As to size, I assume you are talking about height because weight slows you down. You don't want girls weighing 150 plus pounds unless they can run fast with that weight. But having height is nothing new. Programs like certain players to be tall. However, take a look at the rosters of top programs and there are a number of girls on there that are under 5'5". I know that not being 5'7" does not preclude a girl from getting an offer to a top program, much less lower tier programs.

Once they get in college many shorter (<5'5") players do weigh in at close to or over 150 lbs with all the weight training they do. They likely did not weigh in that heavy before college. The weight in these cases does not seem to slow them down.

[Unregistered]

How the games is called requires size/strength

True. I've seen the shorter, fast but not quite as fast players repeatedly passed over for taller fast players who are good but not as good technically. Girls soccer has become very physical. Speed & size/strength are where it's at. Very tough path now for the smaller girls, even if they're fast. Not impossible but MUCH tougher.

Not that long ago the refs would not let the bigger girls plow through the player with position and take the ball. Today the bigger players are "allowed" to bash into the smaller player and disposes them of the ball or disrupt their control. That being the current state of the game why would you choose a smaller player who was not going to be able to retain possession and or dole out the same hit to take the ball?

Further if that bigger player is not also as fast as the other players they don't get to use their size advantage therefore the coaches are looking for fast AND big/strong. I say strong because there are many 5' 5" girls who weight 140+ and have a lower center of gravity and or have upper body strength that allows them to absorb the hits and retain balance and control of the ball.

So when I type "bigger" that does not always mean taller and includes those with strength. Similarly the taller players need to have the strength to retain their balance or they suffer the same result as the shorter slightly built player. Bottom line is that top players need to have a combination of speed and strength to play at the top level of today's game as any age beyond U16.

Lastly, the games trend toward set piece scoring requires above the ground heading so unless the short girls can "sky" they are also going to fall down on the coaches draft board.

[Unregistered]

you guys are missing a huge piece to this whole Elite thing...

I would bet that 90% of the players were born in the first four months of the year.

they are more mature.
Generally physically bigger.
Generally more technical

[Unregistered]

True. I've seen the shorter, fast but not quite as fast players repeatedly passed over for taller fast players who are good but not as good technically. Girls soccer has become very physical. Speed & size/strength are where it's at. Very tough path now for the smaller girls, even if they're fast. Not impossible but MUCH tougher.

Women's college soccer is going through now what men's college soccer went through in the 90's and 00's and to some extent still does and that is athleticism being overvalued and highly skilled or technical players being undervalued (obviously the best thing is to be both).

It's easy to understand why. There's no question that all things being equal, bigger, faster and stronger is better. The problem is that things are rarely equal. It's less risky for a coach to favor the bigger, less skilled player because "size can't be taught, coached etc" but skills can; or so the coach thinks or says. If the bigger player doesn't get better, then it's the player's fault. It will balance out over time, but right now we're in a bigger is better phase where the focus on athleticism is going to favor a direct, physical game.

[Unregistered]

you guys are missing a huge piece to this whole Elite thing...

I would bet that 90% of the players were born in the first four months of the year.

they are more mature.
Generally physically bigger.
Generally more technical

Uhhhmmm how is that any different than current club A teams being dominated by the August-December birth dates? It's a good thing that those born Jan-June have something that caters to them.

No matter where you put cutoffs someone is bound to have a slight advantage. The best players, those very few who actually should be doing this whole "Elite" thing, ODP/RTC/Premiere soccer in general will stand out regardless.

Which marginal bubble player gets left out due to age cutoffs, or a preference for tall people, or whatever is unimportant, they are bubble players.

[Unregistered]

Wrong conlcusion from selection bias

you guys are missing a huge piece to this whole Elite thing...

I would bet that 90% of the players were born in the first four months of the year.

they are more mature.
Generally physically bigger.
Generally more technical

There is ZERO evidence to support that claim. The only rational explanation for the selection bias has to do with "when" the players get on the radar and develop a rep. I have not seen an empirical study but from my experience the players who bucked the birth month trend did display their talents early and thus their reputation gave them a chance to grow into their body without being discriminated against.

It's silly to think a player born on Dec 15 is any less of a player born 17 days later.

Did I just get Trolled?

[Unregistered]

Even in the Pro's

Uhhhmmm how is that any different than current club A teams being dominated by the August-December birth dates? It's a good thing that those born Jan-June have something that caters to them.

No matter where you put cutoffs someone is bound to have a slight advantage. The best players, those very few who actually should be doing this whole "Elite" thing, ODP/RTC/Premiere soccer in general will stand out regardless.

Which marginal bubble player gets left out due to age cutoffs, or a preference for tall people, or whatever is unimportant, they are bubble players.

The problem is that this birth month issue carries through to the pro's where the players physical abilities "should" be equal. There are theories that the younger players do not get the same encouragement/training/coaching as the early birth month players so that they end up with an instructional deficit that only the extremely gifted or driven can overcome.

It's also likely that these players get discouraged due to the attention and playing time doled out to the "older" players and that by the time the physical differences are gone so are they from the game!

[Unregistered]

The problem is that this birth month issue carries through to the pro's where the players physical abilities "should" be equal. There are theories that the younger players do not get the same encouragement/training/coaching as the early birth month players so that they end up with an instructional deficit that only the extremely gifted or driven can overcome.

It's also likely that these players get discouraged due to the attention and playing time doled out to the "older" players and that by the time the physical differences are gone so are they from the game!

That's very sad and disheartening. Wait a minute, I thought the coaches and clubs were in this for the development of all the kids, not just wins at the moment. At least that's what my club coach told me......;)

[Unregistered]

There is ZERO evidence to support that claim. The only rational explanation for the selection bias has to do with "when" the players get on the radar and develop a rep. I have not seen an empirical study but from my experience the players who bucked the birth month trend did display their talents early and thus their reputation gave them a chance to grow into their body without being discriminated against.

It's silly to think a player born on Dec 15 is any less of a player born 17 days later.

Did I just get Trolled?

There's tons of evidence to support the claim that players born in the first quarter following an age cut-off tend to be over-represented in competitive sports. They are in competitive academics as well. It's called the Matthew effect. It tends to start at relatively young ages where a few months can make a huge difference in size, maturity etc. It feeds on itself, because those kids are identified as being "better" whether it's athletically or academically and get treated that way so there's positive reinforcement. Better at those ages is easily confused with older.

With respect to your example, in a January 1, cut-off sport, the kid born on Jan 1 will be the oldest player on the team, the kid born 17 days earlier will be one of the youngest, if not the youngest, on the next age group up. It can make a huge difference. One is more likely to be viewed as a dominant player and the other less so even though they are both more or less the same age.

[Unregistered]

The problem is that this birth month issue carries through to the pro's where the players physical abilities "should" be equal. There are theories that the younger players do not get the same encouragement/training/coaching as the early birth month players so that they end up with an instructional deficit that only the extremely gifted or driven can overcome.

It's also likely that these players get discouraged due to the attention and playing time doled out to the "older" players and that by the time the physical differences are gone so are they from the game!

I understand the relative age effect issue and it is absolutely a real, verified factor. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relative_age_effect

My point is that to bring it up in regard to RTC/ODP does not make a lot of sense, because early on, when the kids are younger and the differences in ages are more pronounced, the cutoff is July, not January, for club soccer in general. That cutoff is a lot more important than the RTC/ODP cutoff.

Currently in the US, the kids getting the most pronounced benefit from relative ages and those getting all the praise, positive feedback loop, playing time and etc. are not those with January - May birthdates, it is those with the August - December birth dates.

Finally, relative age effect is definitely a factor, but as someone said earlier it is a very minor one. I have 4 children, three of whom play high level soccer and I also played. Our birthdays are all over the map and I don't think they ever affected any of our "careers".

[Unregistered]

BTW my DD is not only top 10% in her league but the state and that allowed her to have success in the ECNL and when combined with an equally high level game IQ earned her a very generous D1 offer but we are not talking about players with her gifts.

Sure you do and that is why you are on this ODP/RTC thread.

If she is your child, I doubt her IQ helped her earn a scholarship.

[Unregistered]

I understand the relative age effect issue and it is absolutely a real, verified factor. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relative_age_effect

My point is that to bring it up in regard to RTC/ODP does not make a lot of sense, because early on, when the kids are younger and the differences in ages are more pronounced, the cutoff is July, not January, for club soccer in general. That cutoff is a lot more important than the RTC/ODP cutoff.

Currently in the US, the kids getting the most pronounced benefit from relative ages and those getting all the praise, positive feedback loop, playing time and etc. are not those with January - May birthdates, it is those with the August - December birth dates.

Finally, relative age effect is definitely a factor, but as someone said earlier it is a very minor one. I have 4 children, three of whom play high level soccer and I also played. Our birthdays are all over the map and I don't think they ever affected any of our "careers".

This had never occurred to me, maybe I am slow. In any event I looked at the roster for my kids premiere team and out of 16 players, 11 had birthdays between August and January. Mind blown.

Seems counterproductive to have the clubs and ODP using a different cutoff then.

[Unregistered]

I understand the relative age effect issue and it is absolutely a real, verified factor. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relative_age_effect

My point is that to bring it up in regard to RTC/ODP does not make a lot of sense, because early on, when the kids are younger and the differences in ages are more pronounced, the cutoff is July, not January, for club soccer in general. That cutoff is a lot more important than the RTC/ODP cutoff.

Currently in the US, the kids getting the most pronounced benefit from relative ages and those getting all the praise, positive feedback loop, playing time and etc. are not those with January - May birthdates, it is those with the August - December birth dates.

Finally, relative age effect is definitely a factor, but as someone said earlier it is a very minor one. I have 4 children, three of whom play high level soccer and I also played. Our birthdays are all over the map and I don't think they ever affected any of our "careers".

Look at the top men's national teams around the world. Overwhelmingly, the birthdates are skewed towards the first half of the year. It's not a coincidence.

[Unregistered]

Look at the top men's national teams around the world. Overwhelmingly, the birthdates are skewed towards the first half of the year. It's not a coincidence.

Lets start with our own MNT roster. 11 out of 21 have birthdays that are 2nd half of the year.

Oh, how about the WNT roster? 11 out of 21 have birthdays that are 2nd half of the year.

Looks like the birthdates are overwhelmingly skewed towardds the first half of the year.

You read a book so now you are throwing out "facts" that you know nothing about.

[Unregistered]

Lets start with our own MNT roster. 11 out of 21 have birthdays that are 2nd half of the year.

Oh, how about the WNT roster? 11 out of 21 have birthdays that are 2nd half of the year.

Looks like the birthdates are overwhelmingly skewed towardds the first half of the year.

You read a book so now you are throwing out "facts" that you know nothing about.

And Germany's MNT is 14 out of 32 with 2nd half birthdates.