Originally posted by Guest
View Post
Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.
Birth year /school year relative age effect
Collapse
X
-
Guest
- Quote
-
Guest
Originally posted by Guest View Post
None of the explanations for going to calendar year instead of school year ever made sense and they still don’t. Relative age effect exists however the year is split; anyone wanting to deal with it needs to think long term in selecting teams at young ages and make sure the smaller/later developing kids aren’t lost in the shuffle early. And the “rest of the world does it that way” argument is also nonsense — the guardian article linked above shows the UK uses a Sept 1 cutoff. On the other hand, moving away from school year meant awkward splits and reshufflings of teams every year for 7th/8th grade (when half the age group is in high school) and 11th/12th grade (when half a calendar year graduates and 1 1/2 calendar years are crammed into a single age group). US Soccer couldn’t go back to school year soon enough.
- Quote
Comment
-
Guest
Originally posted by Guest View Post
Yes, the issue does exist everywhere and it doesn't matter where you start and end the age group. A group of kids is always going to get the raw end of it.
Question is, how do we fix it? I would bet a lot of the ECNL teams, especially at the u13-u15 ages skew toward early birth year. And it's not just scouting and recruiting. Even once a kid makes a team, their size can play a big role. There is a player on my sons team who is probably the most technical and tactical player they have and he gets limited minutes. Only obvious reason would be coach chooses to player bigger kids in the position as he thinks they need size and speed.
- Quote
Comment
-
Guest
Originally posted by Guest View Post
I've been around long enough to understand that "technical & tactical player" is Seattlespeak for a small kid with good touch, excels in small-sided games and is comfortable playing lateral passes under 5 yards. That is fine, but the reality is that "being highly technical" isn't nearly enough. Plus, there aren't many positions that those kids can really excel at beyond Center Midfield. Now if they can complement their technical ability with quickness, strength to possess the ball, defensive positioning, passing range, shooting ability, etc then players with that particular profile would thrive.
- Quote
Comment
-
Guest
Originally posted by Guest View Post
In Europe and I think in Brazil they do bio banding, that way kids play with their biological peers not their chronological peers, this is so important for esp. boys as pre pubescent boys can't build muscle yet.So if they are very immature biologically for their age, they can't do anything about it until puberty and then they build muscle , but by then they are playing catch up. Bio Banding is the way to go.I think birth year is better than school year but bio banding would be best.
- Quote
Comment
-
Guest
Why is this coming up again. Are they talking about switching back? I know it was being considered right before the pandemic hit.
- Quote
Comment
-
Guest
It all switches back in high school.
age drops out and the teams all combine again.
players who played together as kids, but play for different clubs all come back and meet on the pitch. Breaking teams up by age is stupid. Should be school year!
- Quote
Comment
-
Guest
You say it isn’t switching but I have on good authority from someone n the US board it was switching back than the pandemic hit and more important things popped up. Truth is youth player levels have dipped dramatically since this switch. Could be a bunch of reasons that happened but seems to coincide. Also the supposed golden era of Us soccer we are coming into those players came up mostly in the school year system not this current system.
- Quote
Comment
-
Guest
Originally posted by Guest View PostYou say it isn’t switching but I have on good authority from someone n the US board it was switching back than the pandemic hit and more important things popped up. Truth is youth player levels have dipped dramatically since this switch. Could be a bunch of reasons that happened but seems to coincide. Also the supposed golden era of Us soccer we are coming into those players came up mostly in the school year system not this current system.
- Quote
Comment
-
Guest
You do realize this is not the first time the switched it. It was birth year before and they switched to school year.
- Quote
Comment
-
Guest
-
Guest
Soccer participation has seen a huge increase. Not because of birth year, in spite of it.
The fact is there is no reason to change it back outside of appeasing your kid who was born in September and went from one of the oldest to one of the youngest.
"In 2021 and 2022, more than 800,000 students played on high school soccer teams, ranking soccer fourth after track and field, basketball, and football, according to the National Federation of State High School Associations (NFHS). In 1969 and 1970, soccer ranked 11th in popularity, with less than 50,000 students playing high school soccer."
In 2014, the last time the U.S. played in a World Cup, Jurgen Klinsmann’s roster averaged 27.2 years old. Comparatively, Berhalter’s average roster age when the team qualified was 23.8 years old, which was not just the youngest American team to ever qualify but the youngest team to qualify, period.
3 players are 19 (and absolutely grew up in birth year system being 12/13 when the change occurred) and 14 players are 24 or younger.
Their is no denying that soccer has grown in popularity likely in spite of birth year. There are no statistics showing any decline in soccer since the conversion.
Again, it ain't switching.
Everyone is moving forward, and soon you won't care any longer.
- Quote
Comment
Comment