The Late Bloomer Myth

[Unregistered]

I've been reading a lot of BTDT's posts recently, and I wanted to point out something I believe to be untrue.

There is some opinion out there that your current U10, U11 and U12 standout teams are nothing but a bunch of early bloomers who will be replaced as they get older by players who develop later.

This isn't completely untrue, it just is a fraction of the larger equation.

(This is a girls side discussino moreso than a boys side discussion).

First, name a recent standout coming out as now a U18 or former U18, college player, or nat pool player, that was not a standout as a U10/U11. I guarantee it's hard to do.

Now that you had trouble answering that question, let me get to the core of the facts.

The fact is that most U10 and U11 teams are local. Even those teams at Stars and Scorpions.

The fact is that most players enter clubs not based on club reputation, but based on what their friends do, and what they happen to find first.

With all that said, your top U10, U11 and U12 teams are not built on a bunch of early bloomers, and then replaced with later bloomers. They are simply built on a bunch of local players, or players developed in inhouse development programs, and they are replaced later by the standouts of other organizations. These standouts were usually also standouts as U10's and U11's. But they didn't play for the top teams back then because they didn't know about them, or they were too far away to drive, or they simply had a later introduction to high level soccer.

I think the late bloomer is a very small percentage of this picture.

Discuss if you want, but I think the myth is easily debunked.

[Unregistered]

I've been reading a lot of BTDT's posts recently, and I wanted to point out something I believe to be untrue.

There is some opinion out there that your current U10, U11 and U12 standout teams are nothing but a bunch of early bloomers who will be replaced as they get older by players who develop later.

This isn't completely untrue, it just is a fraction of the larger equation.

(This is a girls side discussino moreso than a boys side discussion).

First, name a recent standout coming out as now a U18 or former U18, college player, or nat pool player, that was not a standout as a U10/U11. I guarantee it's hard to do.

Now that you had trouble answering that question, let me get to the core of the facts.

The fact is that most U10 and U11 teams are local. Even those teams at Stars and Scorpions.

The fact is that most players enter clubs not based on club reputation, but based on what their friends do, and what they happen to find first.

With all that said, your top U10, U11 and U12 teams are not built on a bunch of early bloomers, and then replaced with later bloomers. They are simply built on a bunch of local players, or players developed in inhouse development programs, and they are replaced later by the standouts of other organizations. These standouts were usually also standouts as U10's and U11's. But they didn't play for the top teams back then because they didn't know about them, or they were too far away to drive, or they simply had a later introduction to high level soccer.

I think the late bloomer is a very small percentage of this picture.

Discuss if you want, but I think the myth is easily debunked.

This seems plausible to me, and I didn't understand why BTDT believes that "early developers" on top teams are likely to be replaced later. But let me see if I can clarify your point.

Early developers on top early-years teams are likely to continue to be good, if not standout, players--if they are in solid programs and work reasonably hard. The players likely to be replaced later by standout players from other clubs are middling players on top early-years teams.

That some clubs have a larger/better talent pool to start with in early years would largely help to explain why these clubs can maintain "destination club" status over time: they have relatively more quality players in the in-house mix from which to build top teams in later years by adding standout players from outside. Presumably, mere salesmanship and hype can only go so far for so long.

[Unregistered]

Kristine Lily didn't get identified for ODP until very late. She was smaller and matured later. His premise is correct. Kids develop and mature differently. Think back to the tall gawky middle schoolers that got their coordination back late in HS. The skinny, non-descript girl that was a knockout in her twenties, or the early developer that were fully mature at 13 and never grew afterwards. Soccer players don't avoid biology. There are ups and downs through the years. The number of late developers is small, in part because they don't receive the training and encouragment of the earlies. Those that stick with it and succeed are eventually at an advantage though because instead of brute force and speed, they have relied upon skill and vision and guile. These attributes are those required at the higher levels, and they are tougher to learn and train than physical ones.

[Unregistered]

Thanks for pointing out why USNT soccer underachieves. If they actually did a fair selection process after U14 then we would be MUCH better. A it stands now we (mis)identify talent at U10-U13 and coaches are either too afraid or don't know enough to go with other players or to even ID them.

Late bloomers are a reality. Your post shows me you likely either have not been around soccer long enough or have blinders on. Do this for me, it will take 2-3 years but is very enlightening. Find a decent U10 team, rank your players. Check back in at U12. The top 1, maybe 2 may still be there, but there will be a ton of movement and at least 2-3 players you had int eh bottom 1/3 will be near the top. The early bloomers clearly stand out at U10/11 but by U14/15 that element has faded and now we start to see who the real players are. Unfortunately, and as ridiculous as it seems, you and the USNT process has already deemed the NT players by then (for the most part). You are right about it being more localized and about friends when they are very young, but are drawing the wrong conclusion and are very wrong to dismiss the early/late bloomer phenomenon - it is very real and anyone with an objective view who has been coaching teams for 10+ years sees it, knows it and NEVER gives up on a kid at U10-12 or even U14 if they are smart.

[beentheredonethat]

This seems plausible to me, and I didn't understand why BTDT believes that "early developers" on top teams are likely to be replaced later. But let me see if I can clarify your point.

Early developers on top early-years teams are likely to continue to be good, if not standout, players--if they are in solid programs and work reasonably hard. The players likely to be replaced later by standout players from other clubs are middling players on top early-years teams.

That some clubs have a larger/better talent pool to start with in early years would largely help to explain why these clubs can maintain "destination club" status over time: they have relatively more quality players in the in-house mix from which to build top teams in later years by adding standout players from outside. Presumably, mere salesmanship and hype can only go so far for so long.

Not that I am going to fall on my sword on this concept because I do believe that a lot of things you are writing are correct, especially that real talent really can show early, but if you look at a lot of young (U10) teams the goal scorer is still usually the fastest kid with a nose for the goal. The thing that I have always found is that at the early ages that pure athleticism is more likely the key factor in success rather than skill. What I think happens with kids that get pruned from the herd so to speak is either they fail to develop the skill to compliment their athleticism or their athleticism does not continue to track ahead of the pack.

[Unregistered]

Kristine Lily didn't get identified for ODP until very late. She was smaller and matured later. His premise is correct. Kids develop and mature differently. Think back to the tall gawky middle schoolers that got their coordination back late in HS. The skinny, non-descript girl that was a knockout in her twenties, or the early developer that were fully mature at 13 and never grew afterwards. Soccer players don't avoid biology. There are ups and downs through the years. The number of late developers is small, in part because they don't receive the training and encouragment of the earlies. Those that stick with it and succeed are eventually at an advantage though because instead of brute force and speed, they have relied upon skill and vision and guile. These attributes are those required at the higher levels, and they are tougher to learn and train than physical ones.

I think you're spot on, and the orginal poster is way off because late bloomers do exist and are not a myth. When I was home from college, I frequently had to drive my youngest sister and her friend to club practice when they were 11-13. My sister was the star striker, her friend a scrawny little thing who didn't play much and when she did either played the wing or outside D. She was fast and was a great passer but really, really light. My sister was bigger than the others, not fat, just a bigger kid. (As an aside my father, a former pro hockey player never understood why the best passer didn't play in the middle, but that's another story). It appeared to me that she was on the team because she was my sister's friend.

Fast forward to high school. My sister has stopped growing, ends up about 5-4 5-5 or so, and becomes a sweeper. The scrawny one ends up 5-10, all state junior and senior years, many many awards, sets the school record for scoring, etc. etc. and went on to play at Cornell. I saw her a few years ago at my sister's wedding and yeah, she ended up being a knockout too.

[beentheredonethat]

Kristine Lily didn't get identified for ODP until very late. She was smaller and matured later. His premise is correct. Kids develop and mature differently. Think back to the tall gawky middle schoolers that got their coordination back late in HS. The skinny, non-descript girl that was a knockout in her twenties, or the early developer that were fully mature at 13 and never grew afterwards. Soccer players don't avoid biology. There are ups and downs through the years. The number of late developers is small, in part because they don't receive the training and encouragment of the earlies. Those that stick with it and succeed are eventually at an advantage though because instead of brute force and speed, they have relied upon skill and vision and guile. These attributes are those required at the higher levels, and they are tougher to learn and train than physical ones.

I see the effects of a lot of this up close and personal every year. I coach high school basketball at the freshman level. I wish that I could impress upon some of these youth programs just how damaging their selection process is to that game.

When I was in high school big men where truly big and most teams we competed against had centers in the 6'9" range and guards in the 6'2 range. Today our centers are usually in the 6'4" range and our guards are usually under 6'.

I attribute a lot of this to the tendency to build youth basketball teams around the small agile players rather than the awkward kids with true basketball bodies. What I see is the youth programs all tend to either cut the big "goofy" kids or place them so low in the program they end up getting frustrated and quit. A concrete example of the impact this has was a couple of years ago when I had 71 boys try out for my team and only had 11 that I could project as interior players (and none of those were ever going to be taller than 6'4"). The really sad part is I get at least 1 kid a year who was miscast as big because they grew early but really is a perimter player. Unfortunately most never developed the appropriate skills to play out on the perimeter and end up getting cut.

The youth basketball programs around here seem to get so hung up on winning now that they seldom include any kids that they have to wait on to have an impact. The unfortunate thing is that as a high school basketball coach you don't expect that your "bigs" to impact early (most typically develop during their junior year) and you plan your program accordingly.

[Unregistered]

I've been reading a lot of BTDT's posts recently, and I wanted to point out something I believe to be untrue.

There is some opinion out there that your current U10, U11 and U12 standout teams are nothing but a bunch of early bloomers who will be replaced as they get older by players who develop later.

This isn't completely untrue, it just is a fraction of the larger equation.

(This is a girls side discussino moreso than a boys side discussion).

First, name a recent standout coming out as now a U18 or former U18, college player, or nat pool player, that was not a standout as a U10/U11. I guarantee it's hard to do.

Now that you had trouble answering that question, let me get to the core of the facts.

The fact is that most U10 and U11 teams are local. Even those teams at Stars and Scorpions.

The fact is that most players enter clubs not based on club reputation, but based on what their friends do, and what they happen to find first.

With all that said, your top U10, U11 and U12 teams are not built on a bunch of early bloomers, and then replaced with later bloomers. They are simply built on a bunch of local players, or players developed in inhouse development programs, and they are replaced later by the standouts of other organizations. These standouts were usually also standouts as U10's and U11's. But they didn't play for the top teams back then because they didn't know about them, or they were too far away to drive, or they simply had a later introduction to high level soccer.

I think the late bloomer is a very small percentage of this picture.

Discuss if you want, but I think the myth is easily debunked.

The only reason that it is hard to be a late bloomer is because of the desire of parents and coaches to push the development envelope too aggressively and too early. Club soccer is now 90% recruiting and 10% development. That pyramid SHOULD be turned upside down but obviously because of the money involved for clubs and the prestige and chimeral lure of college scholarships the pyramid will remain upside down for the forseeable future. And that is a shame. God knows how many quality players have been overlooked in the last 10 years. The end product? A WNT comprised of 5-10 pony-tailed players that can trap a bb traveling 100 MPH but then have no clue what to do with it.

- Cujo

[MASC]

Not all children develop at the same pace. The system is geared towards one model of development. We track the children way too early. One has no clue what type of player one will have until well after puberty.

By driving players out of the sport too young, with the mania for high national rankings at U11 (just read the idicy posted by adults elsewhere on these forums). I'm sorry but these various youth "championships" are all well and good so long as adults keep these meaningless competitions in perspective.

As children mature and become young adults, the physical differences narrow. Part of the beauty of soccer is that no one body type dominates. Unfortunately, too many of our teams appear to be selected based on one image of the "perfect" soccer player.

By the U17, speed differences are measured in tenth's of a second (half a step). Physical advantages are not as large and many of the early bloomers have faded since it requires a much higher level of work, skill, and intelligence to be an effective player.

I can not count the number of people who told me in all sincerity that a certain U10 or U11 player would be on the national team, only to see them passed by all of the "late bloomers' by U15.

One might at the younger ages see the drive and love of the game that will allow a player to eventually develop, but to be able to choose the future "stars" at the ages discussed here is foolish.

Too much effort is being placed on early identification reducing the pool of quality players, rather than expanding the pool so that there is the necessary competiton to develop players able to play at the highest levels.

[Unregistered]

Kristine Lily didn't get identified for ODP until very late. She was smaller and matured later. His premise is correct. Kids develop and mature differently. Think back to the tall gawky middle schoolers that got their coordination back late in HS. The skinny, non-descript girl that was a knockout in her twenties, or the early developer that were fully mature at 13 and never grew afterwards. Soccer players don't avoid biology. There are ups and downs through the years. The number of late developers is small, in part because they don't receive the training and encouragment of the earlies. Those that stick with it and succeed are eventually at an advantage though because instead of brute force and speed, they have relied upon skill and vision and guile. These attributes are those required at the higher levels, and they are tougher to learn and train than physical ones.

This all depends on what you consider early. If you are talking 10 or 11 years old, of course it is too early to expect much about any kid. But understand that Lilly was playing for the full USWNT at 16. Still, she is the product of a by-gone era and her story really has very little relevance today. I think that the earlier poster has a good handle on how the top teams evolve over time. It always amazes me that for most of these teams, the core of performers stays pretty well intact - especially after U14. I'm not sure that someone could watch U10 games and make a reasonable determination that player x is going to be the "best" girl player at U18, but by U13/14 the status has often been clearly established - and it rarely changes.

[beentheredonethat]

The only reason that it is hard to be a late bloomer is because of the desire of parents and coaches to push the development envelope too aggressively and too early. Club soccer is now 90% recruiting and 10% development. That pyramid SHOULD be turned upside down but obviously because of the money involved for clubs and the prestige and chimeral lure of college scholarships the pyramid will remain upside down for the forseeable future. And that is a shame. God knows how many quality players have been overlooked in the last 10 years. The end product? A WNT comprised of 5-10 pony-tailed players that can trap a bb traveling 100 MPH but then have no clue what to do with it.

- Cujo

Another way of looking at things is that we have way to many kids playing at levels they really have no chance of succeeding at. This is why I often ask the question, "development for what?". Half the problem is we have created these youth sport cultures that really have no idea what elite really is. I personally believe that if half the parents really understood what it takes to be elite most of them would turn around and say "no thanks, not for my kid."

[Unregistered]

I see the effects of a lot of this up close and personal every year. I coach high school basketball at the freshman level. I wish that I could impress upon some of these youth programs just how damaging their selection process is to that game.

When I was in high school big men where truly big and most teams we competed against had centers in the 6'9" range and guards in the 6'2 range. Today our centers are usually in the 6'4" range and our guards are usually under 6'.

I attribute a lot of this to the tendency to build youth basketball teams around the small agile players rather than the awkward kids with true basketball bodies. What I see is the youth programs all tend to either cut the big "goofy" kids or place them so low in the program they end up getting frustrated and quit. A concrete example of the impact this has was a couple of years ago when I had 71 boys try out for my team and only had 11 that I could project as interior players (and none of those were ever going to be taller than 6'4"). The really sad part is I get at least 1 kid a year who was miscast as big because they grew early but really is a perimter player. Unfortunately most never developed the appropriate skills to play out on the perimeter and end up getting cut.

The youth basketball programs around here seem to get so hung up on winning now that they seldom include any kids that they have to wait on to have an impact. The unfortunate thing is that as a high school basketball coach you don't expect that your "bigs" to impact early (most typically develop during their junior year) and you plan your program accordingly.

The quality of basketball in public schools in MA suburbs is not very good compared to many other places in the country. Check out some of the local prep schools if you want to see some bigs. There are 6 kids on my kid's high school team 6'6" or taller and that is not atypical for a competitive prep school team. The kids with this kind of size and some basic athletic ability are not being passed over- they are being funneled into AAU programs and the top prep schools.

[beentheredonethat]

Not all children develop at the same pace. The system is geared towards one model of development. We track the children way too early. One has no clue what type of player one will have until well after puberty.

By driving players out of the sport too young, with the mania for high national rankings at U11 (just read the idicy posted by adults elsewhere on these forums). I'm sorry but these various youth "championships" are all well and good so long as adults keep these meaningless competitions in perspective.

As children mature and become young adults, the physical differences narrow. Part of the beauty of soccer is that no one body type dominates. Unfortunately, too many of our teams appear to be selected based on one image of the "perfect" soccer player.

By the U17, speed differences are measured in tenth's of a second (half a step). Physical advantages are not as large and many of the early bloomers have faded since it requires a much higher level of work, skill, and intelligence to be an effective player.

I can not count the number of people who told me in all sincerity that a certain U10 or U11 player would be on the national team, only to see them passed by all of the "late bloomers' by U15.

One might at the younger ages see the drive and love of the game that will allow a player to eventually develop, but to be able to choose the future "stars" at the ages discussed here is foolish.

Too much effort is being placed on early identification reducing the pool of quality players, rather than expanding the pool so that there is the necessary competiton to develop players able to play at the highest levels.

Masc .. I think that the cause is just the opposite. I think that in our drive to include everyone that we lose sight of just how much genetics plays a role in sport and how few people really succeed at it. Half the problem is we have so many kids playing at supposedly competitive levels that it becomes a resource thing where you want to identify the gifted and talented so that you can make sure they get them. The problem with that is everyone seems to think every kid is gifted and talented. The truth of the matter is that truly gifted and talented athletes are few and far between. Sadly their development actually ends up getting watered down because the system is geared more towards the masses rather than the individual.

[Unregistered]

Too much effort is being placed on early identification reducing the pool of quality players, rather than expanding the pool so that there is the necessary competiton to develop players able to play at the highest levels.[/QUOTE]

And this is one major reason we don't have a strong national program.

[Unregistered]

BTDT, Don't you think part of the problem with "big men" is that at an early age they are told to get under the basket and rebound. Shooting outside the paint or handling the ball is strongly discouraged. They are never taught to handle the ball or do much else and never "develop" into a well rounded player that they need to be to be successful? By the time you get them in 9th grade, they are either very far behind the curve skill wise or have quit b/c sitting under the basket waiting to rebound is too boring for young kids?