Developmental question

[Unregistered]

By 14 you will a good sense of where she stands in relation to the pack unless you are completely unrealistic about her abilities.

I would tend to agree with this poster especially for Girls, but remember that each kid develops differently and she may not get all of her coordination until 15 or 16. I remember a girl that played with my daughters as a freshman in HS. She wasn't horrible, but certainly didn't standout freshman or sophomore year, but started to show decent skills as a junior and was definitely a standout by senior year. If you kid really likes the game, find a good club with a coach that truly wants to develop players.

[Unregistered]

Ok. This "soccer is a contact sport" is getting annoying. That vague statement places it in the same realm as hockey, lacrosse, and football in which most contact is allowed. Permissible contact in soccer is, by comparison, quite limited and restricted by very specific parameters. Essentially contact is limited to the shoulders and below but with restricted positioning of the arm. So, to answer the OPs question, it is impossible to determine a players upside until they have physically matured and have matured mentally within the game itself to grasp tactical concepts and execute them by using a technical base. That being said the time frame for demonstrating sufficient competence on the field is entirely dependent on the real (not stated) philosophy of the club they play for. A strong player at ANY age will find a home on a top club. Coaches aren't stupid. They don't care whether a kid is a late bloomer or early bloomer - it is all about what they can bring to the team right now. And that depends largely on what the team needs are. Could be smaller and quick with a touch around the net. Could be big and fast and mentally tough for defending or countering. You are lucky if you have 4-5 four tool players. The rest of your roster is filled with players that fill various roles. Personally I would stay away from a club that is loaded with height outliers at 5-7+. To me that demonstrates narrow mindedness and obsession with size which is one of reasons why we are weaker than we should be in international competition.

Here's a quote from a DOC at a large four-lettered club to a parent recently:
"While your child is a better technical defender and more skilled on the ball, colleges are looking for fast, athletic, flashy, players. These are the players that we'll be taking to ID2 and PDP"

[Unregistered]

What do you mean?? Taller players are more exposed to ACL injuries? Please explain...

ACL injuries are frequently related to the Q angle - not sure whether taller players are more likely to have one that is problematic.

[Unregistered]

Here's a quote from a DOC at a large four-lettered club to a parent recently:
"While your child is a better technical defender and more skilled on the ball, colleges are looking for fast, athletic, flashy, players. These are the players that we'll be taking to ID2 and PDP"

I agree that colleges have gone in this direction. Based upon statistics if your kid is 5-8 or taller they have an exponentially greater chance of playing college soccer even if their skills are lacking.

[Unregistered]

I have never played soccer or paid much attention to it growing up, thus I'm just getting to know the game better. My U12 daughter started playing club this past year. My question is, at what age is the "make it or break it" age as far as their ability and aptitude for the game? The point where they will either be a great player or just average? U13?U14?
Thanks.

I've heard that 16 is roughly the point where a kid finally becomes whatever type of player they are. Everything up to that is still developmental.

[Unregistered]

Ok. This "soccer is a contact sport" is getting annoying. That vague statement places it in the same realm as hockey, lacrosse, and football in which most contact is allowed. Permissible contact in soccer is, by comparison, quite limited and restricted by very specific parameters. Essentially contact is limited to the shoulders and below but with restricted positioning of the arm. So, to answer the OPs question, it is impossible to determine a players upside until they have physically matured and have matured mentally within the game itself to grasp tactical concepts and execute them by using a technical base. That being said the time frame for demonstrating sufficient competence on the field is entirely dependent on the real (not stated) philosophy of the club they play for. A strong player at ANY age will find a home on a top club. Coaches aren't stupid. They don't care whether a kid is a late bloomer or early bloomer - it is all about what they can bring to the team right now. And that depends largely on what the team needs are. Could be smaller and quick with a touch around the net. Could be big and fast and mentally tough for defending or countering. You are lucky if you have 4-5 four tool players. The rest of your roster is filled with players that fill various roles. Personally I would stay away from a club that is loaded with height outliers at 5-7+. To me that demonstrates narrow mindedness and obsession with size which is one of reasons why we are weaker than we should be in international competition.

While I totally agree that there are defined limits of legal contact, to suggest its not a contact sport ignores reality. Maybe at U9-U12 things seem pretty benign, but starting around u13-14, the level of contact increases to the point where being a player who's not willing to fully engage physically on the pitch is likely to cause a player to lose their value. I'm certainly not saying that its the key factor - I'm biased towards soccer IQ and ball skills, but physical play and willingness to make legal contact also plays a factor.

[Unregistered]

Ok so I have a late bloomer tiny quick skill player. Someone asked earlier what happens to them so here's my child's story.

She, I am sure, was called a ball hog by many parents as a u10-14 player. She was routinely "pushed off the ball" because contrary to most parent's belief she never got a call because the refs assumed she would fall down with every contact legal or not. She was 4" and 50 pounds lighter than average until she was 15 at which time she hit a growth spurt and caught up height wise to 5'6" if not quite weight at 120 pounds. Had she been subjected to many less sophisticated coaches, she would probably have been put on the "B" team and quit soccer. Instead a coach, skilled in talent identification rather than talent selection, saw the potential, kept her happy and in the game for half and is now rewarded for his confidence.

She still has some of the best ball skills around, is lightening quick and arguably one of the fastest on the team. She now leads the team in assists by over twice the next highest count. She also leads the team in goals scored, but by a narrow margin. Children develop both physically and mentally- field vision, ability to "share" the ball, and overall game sophistication at different rates. Some coaches are genius at predicting potential at u17 others are all about the here and now. If I had an early bloomer I would appreciate the latter, but as a parent of a late bloomer, I am grateful to the former.

[Unregistered]

While I totally agree that there are defined limits of legal contact, to suggest its not a contact sport ignores reality. Maybe at U9-U12 things seem pretty benign, but starting around u13-14, the level of contact increases to the point where being a player who's not willing to fully engage physically on the pitch is likely to cause a player to lose their value. I'm certainly not saying that its the key factor - I'm biased towards soccer IQ and ball skills, but physical play and willingness to make legal contact also plays a factor.

Unless your kid is Lionel Messi avoidance of contact will take a player with 1st team potential and land them on the 3rd team - the ability to play under pressure without turnover and gain advantage by foul instead is an absolute at the competative level. Needs to be second nature for the elite player and this is not to be confused with acting/diving classes given attackers to show wincing pain while colapsing in a heap of drama at contact but true toughness to play through tackles without fear of the unavoidable. Add your soccer IQ and ball skills and there is a player who is fun to watch.

[Unregistered]

While I totally agree that there are defined limits of legal contact, to suggest its not a contact sport ignores reality. Maybe at U9-U12 things seem pretty benign, but starting around u13-14, the level of contact increases to the point where being a player who's not willing to fully engage physically on the pitch is likely to cause a player to lose their value. I'm certainly not saying that its the key factor - I'm biased towards soccer IQ and ball skills, but physical play and willingness to make legal contact also plays a factor.

Agreed on all accounts, well said. And contact is simply not relegated to shoulder to shoulder pushing. You have MS and HS kids running full speed at the ball and collisions happen. The one that initiates contact and doesn't flinch tends to win the ball.

[Unregistered]

While I totally agree that there are defined limits of legal contact, to suggest its not a contact sport ignores reality. Maybe at U9-U12 things seem pretty benign, but starting around u13-14, the level of contact increases to the point where being a player who's not willing to fully engage physically on the pitch is likely to cause a player to lose their value. I'm certainly not saying that its the key factor - I'm biased towards soccer IQ and ball skills, but physical play and willingness to make legal contact also plays a factor.

Meh. Messi is 5-7. Skill will almost always trump physicality. Soccer is a (lower case / small font) contact sport. It is LEGAL only within very specific and limited parameters. Sure players need the mentality to challenge for balls within a physical context but speed and quickness combined with skill are the primary factors. This uniquely American idea that soccer is a contact sport comparable to hockey or football is why we suck.

[Unregistered]

but starting around u13-14, the level of contact increases to the point where being a player who's not willing to fully engage physically on the pitch is likely to cause a player to lose their value.

Fully engage physically? Seriously? W.T.F. are you talking about? The LOTG set very strict parameters about contact. This forum is so nuts. Just last week there was a barrage of people whining about how officials let players run amuck and then all of a sudden because somebody says "whoa, contact has limits" the prevailing opinion is that unrestrained contact is a primary factor for on field success. What I see in the U18 boys games is ridiculous levels of clutching, grabbing, and grappling. It is ugly and pointless soccer. If it is a defender in his own third getting mugged I abandon flow and advantage and award a free kick. Go watch Connor McGregor if you want to see that kind of crappy play. Not on my field.

[Unregistered]

Meh. Messi is 5-7. Skill will almost always trump physicality. Soccer is a (lower case / small font) contact sport. It is LEGAL only within very specific and limited parameters. Sure players need the mentality to challenge for balls within a physical context but speed and quickness combined with skill are the primary factors. This uniquely American idea that soccer is a contact sport comparable to hockey or football is why we suck.

I don't think there was ever any comparison to football hockey - that was you. As I said, soccer IQ and ball control are key factors as well (more important in my book), but in every game, every gender, and at almost all levels, the physical play of the game is indisputable - Messi or not. Just because he's small doesn't mean he isn't physical - you're confusing 2 totally different concepts. Size and physical play are not mutually exclusive.

And while I agree American soccer isn't where it needs to be internationally, are you trying to say that this resulted because we view it as a contact sport. Not sure I'd say that's our problem - I would tend to lean towards our development process and focus on winning as more a contributing factor than any perception of the game being physical - or are you simply saying that our tendency to view it as a contact sport minimizes the need for skill development? Not trying to disagree, just trying to understand.

[Unregistered]

Fully engage physically? Seriously? W.T.F. are you talking about? The LOTG set very strict parameters about contact. This forum is so nuts. Just last week there was a barrage of people whining about how officials let players run amuck and then all of a sudden because somebody says "whoa, contact has limits" the prevailing opinion is that unrestrained contact is a primary factor for on field success. What I see in the U18 boys games is ridiculous levels of clutching, grabbing, and grappling. It is ugly and pointless soccer. If it is a defender in his own third getting mugged I abandon flow and advantage and award a free kick. Go watch Connor McGregor if you want to see that kind of crappy play. Not on my field.

Fully engaged can be fair - its still physical. I've seen what you describe and agree, but won't agree that soccer isn't a physical game that demands a player be willing to make contact (i.e., contact sport).

[Unregistered]

The game doesn't need to be overly physical. If a player is highly skilled and quick with the ball the physicality isn't much of a factor. The game becomes overly physical when the player holds on to the ball too long. We had a new player on our team this year who played very physical, they suffered a concussion, knee injury and finally a torn ACL. I would rather have my kid get rid of the ball and play one touch than receive a serious injury. Let's be honest, 99.9% aren't playing professionally and their health is more important.

[Unregistered]

Fully engaged can be fair - its still physical. I've seen what you describe and agree, but won't agree that soccer isn't a physical game that demands a player be willing to make contact (i.e., contact sport).

I agree with you but I think it is a mistake to overstate the importance of contact. Physicality is importance yes but not at the top of the list. In and of itself it is useless. Combined with other more important factors it can be the difference. I think my ultimate point is that I cringe when I hear American fans (without context) blurt out that soccer is a contact sport. To me that lumps into sports where contact is a primary means of dispossessing a player of the ball. As I said - contact sport? Yes but with lower case small font.