Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Boys 05

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

    Originally posted by Unregistered View Post
    Fc 4 - bsc 0
    Game report shows 3-0.

    Comment


      Originally posted by Unregistered View Post
      They won't magically become better soccer players after 12 to the point that they become pro-prospects. That's just the hard truth here and globally.

      Oregon is a small pond, and the "wide net" you need just isn't that wide. As long as player selection is sensitive to differences in physical/emotional maturity and access (i.e. don't use that hilarious goal count list on here to select players, and make sure you've put eyes on as many kids in the state as you can at some point), then no one is going to magically turn up as a legit player when they're 16.
      Access is actually a big deal, due to the relatively low population density of the Pacific NW as a whole, and the nasty traffic in Portland in particular. No matter where the Timbers Academy trains, it's going to be inconvenient for lots of people. If they train at the PTFC training center in Beaverton--that's terrible for kids in Clark County or on the east side. Were they to train at Harmony or ETFC Training Center or Hood View or Athey Creek or Hillsboro Stadium, likewise. Even if they were to train in a central location (Prov Park), it would be an impediment.

      At 16 or so, something magical happens--kids get drivers' licenses and can drive themselves to practice. Or become mature enough to take the bus (some kids are able to do this at 12, others not so much).

      A big part of the ID process is seeing who can go through an intense training regimen, and come out the other side of it. The sort of advanced training offered by the Timbers and other pro academies (which local clubs simply cannot afford to provide) has, as part of it's role, player identification.

      So no, narrowing the funnel at this age isn't really appropriate.

      Comment


        Originally posted by Unregistered View Post
        Access is actually a big deal, due to the relatively low population density of the Pacific NW as a whole, and the nasty traffic in Portland in particular. No matter where the Timbers Academy trains, it's going to be inconvenient for lots of people. If they train at the PTFC training center in Beaverton--that's terrible for kids in Clark County or on the east side. Were they to train at Harmony or ETFC Training Center or Hood View or Athey Creek or Hillsboro Stadium, likewise. Even if they were to train in a central location (Prov Park), it would be an impediment.

        At 16 or so, something magical happens--kids get drivers' licenses and can drive themselves to practice. Or become mature enough to take the bus (some kids are able to do this at 12, others not so much).

        A big part of the ID process is seeing who can go through an intense training regimen, and come out the other side of it. The sort of advanced training offered by the Timbers and other pro academies (which local clubs simply cannot afford to provide) has, as part of it's role, player identification.

        So no, narrowing the funnel at this age isn't really appropriate.
        You listed a bunch of reasons why playing at Timbers is hard, and then stated your desired conclusion.

        The best kids (i.e. kids with the most potential) need to be in a professional training environment as early and as often as possible. You don't expend those resources on kids with low/no potential as pro-prospects.

        No one is suggesting you stop kids from playing soccer, but the line between recreational and professional-development in this state needs to be firmed up. Too many people offering the former while calling it the latter. That's not a "wide net", it's just "lower on average."

        Comment


          Timbers take over a few fields at Delta Park and you’ll change the player base.

          Timbers tweak their yearly periodized training schedule to include activities that are non-soccer related you’ll change the player base.

          Timbers create an environment where younger players cross path with the pros during the week of training and you’ll change the level of player and retain players.

          Have games played at Providence Park. Market your teams so players enjoy the game in front of fans and peers.

          Comment


            Originally posted by Unregistered View Post
            You listed a bunch of reasons why playing at Timbers is hard, and then stated your desired conclusion.

            The best kids (i.e. kids with the most potential) need to be in a professional training environment as early and as often as possible. You don't expend those resources on kids with low/no potential as pro-prospects.

            No one is suggesting you stop kids from playing soccer, but the line between recreational and professional-development in this state needs to be firmed up. Too many people offering the former while calling it the latter. That's not a "wide net", it's just "lower on average."
            Of course nobody is stopping kids from playing soccer. We're talking specifically here about identifying prospects, and what the shape of the funnel needs to be.

            Too wide, and you waste money and effort on obvious non-starters.

            Too narrow, and you miss kids who are late bloomers. The age of 12 is too early to slam the door shut.

            After all, this topic got started when a ticked-off WashT parent, obviously annoyed at an 8-goal swing against their team between last fall and last weekend, came in and suggested that Westside had brought in ringers--a claim that is flat-out false. Instead, WashT got carved up by a group of kids who were either playing on our B team last year (and some of whom were playing on the B team earlier this season), or riding the bench on Copa last season while Ruben, Javi, and company got all the attention and props. Only 3-4 Copa starters from last season are still around--and that's including the former Crossfire goalie who joined at the end of the season.

            Now whether or not anyone on Westside's current 05 roster (beyond the 06 player who has already been identified) is someone TA should consider, is an interesting question. Perhaps, perhaps not; I'm not going to comment on that. (My DS hasn't been invited to try out, and I'm not about to start tossing teammates under the bus). For the most part, the Timbers correctly identified the best players from Copa last year. But now that they are gone, some new players--some of them late bloomers, some of them talented kids simply stuck behind someone else on the depth chart--have risen to fill in the gap.

            Player development. You simply can't close the pipeline at this age. You simply can't.

            Comment


              Who is recommending anyone "close the pipeline"? If a kid is good enough at u13, but wasn't as a u12, then the whole idea is that you bring that kid in and get rid of one of the current players.

              Still, the idea that the "pipeline" for pro-prospects involves 6 local DA clubs is a bit nuts, don't you think? You could narrow that to 2 purely on geography and capture 99.99% of the actual prospects captured currently by the DAs. That number includes the parent-favorite "LATE BLOOMER."

              Comment


                Originally posted by Unregistered View Post
                Who is recommending anyone "close the pipeline"? If a kid is good enough at u13, but wasn't as a u12, then the whole idea is that you bring that kid in and get rid of one of the current players.

                Still, the idea that the "pipeline" for pro-prospects involves 6 local DA clubs is a bit nuts, don't you think? You could narrow that to 2 purely on geography and capture 99.99% of the actual prospects captured currently by the DAs. That number includes the parent-favorite "LATE BLOOMER."
                Indeed, Timbers Academy is reportedly doing that. A few kids know they won't be back, and other kids currently not in TA are being encouraged to try out. (And a few TA critics are upset about this; this is how high-level academy teams work, folks).

                But yes, the "pipeline" does indeed involve the local clubs. If you are going to keep the funnel open, you need to get players from somewhere, and that somewhere is the local clubs. DA teams are probably the first place the Timbers will look, then ODP, but there are certainly players worth scouting that don't play for either of those. That doesn't mean that the kid at the end of Eastside's bench should be considered a "pro prospect", but that does mean that the top club teams have an important role to play.

                Comment


                  A lot of kids have been invited to the tryout, including all the boys that did RTC. They want a good turnout and do subsidize expenses from the tryout fees. That being said, if you make the team you will be dealing with some extreme divas (ie goalie), four nights a week of training which cuts into homework and family time and your son will most likely not play very much in any of the games. The bonus is you will get to be a ball boy at Timber home games and the program is cheap ($500). It’s a great opportunity to speak to your child about why they play the game and what their goals are. Do they want to play in games? Do they want to play high school soccer? It’s a big time commitment that will only payout for maybe one kid in the end. Training with the academy can be a big burnout for a lot of kids.

                  Comment


                    Originally posted by Unregistered View Post
                    Of course nobody is stopping kids from playing soccer. We're talking specifically here about identifying prospects, and what the shape of the funnel needs to be.

                    Too wide, and you waste money and effort on obvious non-starters.

                    Too narrow, and you miss kids who are late bloomers. The age of 12 is too early to slam the door shut.

                    After all, this topic got started when a ticked-off WashT parent, obviously annoyed at an 8-goal swing against their team between last fall and last weekend, came in and suggested that Westside had brought in ringers--a claim that is flat-out false. Instead, WashT got carved up by a group of kids who were either playing on our B team last year (and some of whom were playing on the B team earlier this season), or riding the bench on Copa last season while Ruben, Javi, and company got all the attention and props. Only 3-4 Copa starters from last season are still around--and that's including the former Crossfire goalie who joined at the end of the season.

                    Now whether or not anyone on Westside's current 05 roster (beyond the 06 player who has already been identified) is someone TA should consider, is an interesting question. Perhaps, perhaps not; I'm not going to comment on that. (My DS hasn't been invited to try out, and I'm not about to start tossing teammates under the bus). For the most part, the Timbers correctly identified the best players from Copa last year. But now that they are gone, some new players--some of them late bloomers, some of them talented kids simply stuck behind someone else on the depth chart--have risen to fill in the gap.

                    Player development. You simply can't close the pipeline at this age. You simply can't.
                    I am not a fan of Westside (rivals) but I completely agree with this post. Well said.

                    Comment


                      Originally posted by Unregistered View Post
                      A lot of kids have been invited to the tryout, including all the boys that did RTC. They want a good turnout and do subsidize expenses from the tryout fees. That being said, if you make the team you will be dealing with some extreme divas (ie goalie), four nights a week of training which cuts into homework and family time and your son will most likely not play very much in any of the games. The bonus is you will get to be a ball boy at Timber home games and the program is cheap ($500). It’s a great opportunity to speak to your child about why they play the game and what their goals are. Do they want to play in games? Do they want to play high school soccer? It’s a big time commitment that will only payout for maybe one kid in the end. Training with the academy can be a big burnout for a lot of kids.
                      Well said. Some of this pertains to DA as well. My son was excited to be selected for the DA program last year. It turns out 4 nights a week of soccer is too much for him. He emphatically does not want to play DA next year. We will be returning to the state team, maybe play some RTC.

                      Some kids can't get enough, however. Four nights a week? No problem! Futsal? Yes! Private lessons on the weekend? Absolutely! As the poster said, talk to your son and let him think about what his goals are. Find the best fit. Have some fun! Enjoy the game.

                      Comment


                        Originally posted by Unregistered View Post
                        A lot of kids have been invited to the tryout, including all the boys that did RTC. They want a good turnout and do subsidize expenses from the tryout fees. That being said, if you make the team you will be dealing with some extreme divas (ie goalie), four nights a week of training which cuts into homework and family time and your son will most likely not play very much in any of the games. The bonus is you will get to be a ball boy at Timber home games and the program is cheap ($500). It’s a great opportunity to speak to your child about why they play the game and what their goals are. Do they want to play in games? Do they want to play high school soccer? It’s a big time commitment that will only payout for maybe one kid in the end. Training with the academy can be a big burnout for a lot of kids.
                        Tryouts are to generate money. They know who they want. Spots are already being offered

                        Comment


                          Originally posted by Unregistered View Post
                          Is it just me, or are there quite a few good 06s? Seems like that birth year is kind of strong.
                          There are some really good 2006 players, but the talent pool is thin and narrow. There are 13-14 players, who should represent TA extremely well next season. Once you start going beyond that core group, the wheels really all off. Selections should be far less controversial than the 2005 group. It's pretty clear who of the 2006 players belong and there won't be a lot of weak links in the roster.

                          Comment


                            Originally posted by Unregistered View Post
                            There are some really good 2006 players, but the talent pool is thin and narrow. There are 13-14 players, who should represent TA extremely well next season. Once you start going beyond that core group, the wheels really all off. Selections should be far less controversial than the 2005 group. It's pretty clear who of the 2006 players belong and there won't be a lot of weak links in the roster.
                            It certainly helps that a certain dad who funded this all will not have a kid involved at the age group. Unfortunately you will still have 4-5 kids on the roster who do not belong and checkbooks and nepotism will run the show...the solution is to have fewer DA teams (3) in pdx area at the younger ages, have them play in conjunction with Seattle DA and narrow down to TA like before at u-15. This competition would lead to better decision making by the local DA teams for rosters, would allow for late bloomers to be identified and the TA staff can be hands on with the local young DA teams leading to selections at u-15

                            Comment


                              Originally posted by Unregistered View Post
                              It certainly helps that a certain dad who funded this all will not have a kid involved at the age group. Unfortunately you will still have 4-5 kids on the roster who do not belong and checkbooks and nepotism will run the show...the solution is to have fewer DA teams (3) in pdx area at the younger ages, have them play in conjunction with Seattle DA and narrow down to TA like before at u-15. This competition would lead to better decision making by the local DA teams for rosters, would allow for late bloomers to be identified and the TA staff can be hands on with the local young DA teams leading to selections at u-15
                              100 perc agree but this won’t happen this year. It would be great if DA would do a small showcase in PAC NW for the u13 and u14 age groups at least.

                              Comment


                                Originally posted by Unregistered View Post
                                It certainly helps that a certain dad who funded this all will not have a kid involved at the age group. Unfortunately you will still have 4-5 kids on the roster who do not belong and checkbooks and nepotism will run the show...the solution is to have fewer DA teams (3) in pdx area at the younger ages, have them play in conjunction with Seattle DA and narrow down to TA like before at u-15. This competition would lead to better decision making by the local DA teams for rosters, would allow for late bloomers to be identified and the TA staff can be hands on with the local young DA teams leading to selections at u-15
                                I gotta know: is your "late bloomer"...

                                a) a highly intelligent, highly technical player who is physically immature.

                                b) a not highly intelligent, not highly technical player who is physically mature.

                                c) a not highly intelligent, not highly technical player who is physically immature.

                                If he is "a", then Timbers will see him and take him. If he is "b" or "c", then he's not a "late bloomer".

                                I have no idea what your proposed solution would do other than make sure you were better prepared to select players 13-18 at u15. Certainly your proposed solution puts top players in a worse environment for 2-3 years just because you were worried about 4-5 kids who shouldn't be on the roster. Come on, man.

                                This game is way, way harder than the rank-and-file seem to grasp. The way you keep track of "diamonds in the rough" is to stay in touch with local coaches and get out and see some games as the kids age. What you don't do is make your best players play in some watered down middle-ground.

                                Comment

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