The Late Bloomer Myth

[beentheredonethat]

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.

I know exactly what you are talking about but that is just the basketball extention of the club soccer world at play. I'm 6'7" and in my day was trained as a small forward (3). Today I would be seen as power forward (4) or more likely as a center (5). I don't think the world is getting any shorter it is just that talent pool is being shaped differently.

[beentheredonethat]

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?

Absolutely. This is a huge problem that I deal with every year. It is one of the reasons why I do the freshman because I tend to be a pretty good teacher of the game and can fix some of this stuff so the kids might be able to help at the varsity level.

[Unregistered]

Absolutely. This is a huge problem that I deal with every year. It is one of the reasons why I do the freshman because I tend to be a pretty good teacher of the game and can fix some of this stuff so the kids might be able to help at the varsity level.

I thought so. I am now coaching a Town U12G soccer team and every player plays every position over the course of the season. They still have primary positions but I think it is very valuable for a Striker to see what a defender or midfielder must do and "sees" and vice versa. I think it really does make for much better players in the long run. There is enough time and opportunity on club soccer at that age to focus on one skill set. FWIW I didn't play organized b-ball until 8th grade. I got cut and then tried out as a 9th grader and made JV. By 10th grade I was on Varsity and started the 2nd half of 10th grade thru graduation. No Michael Jordan for sure, but it happens.

[Unregistered]

Hey all,

This is the original poster again.

Still no examples huh?

I'm not sure why people think this is all going to happen, because it's simply rare.

I guess since no one wants to provide real examples, I'll try to kickstart it.

Please review the Stars and Scorpions U17 and U18 rosters and let us know how many of those players weren't standouts as 10 and 11 year olds. Which of those players were the team's high goal scorers but faded.

I'm not saying there aren't examples, there are, but you are going to have a tough time finding them. But I think you are far more often going to find that the reality is that the post that BTDT had was wrong, and his one in this thread is also wrong.

The first was the original post said that 11 year old teams are often built on the strength of a few early bloomers. The second that for U10 teams the goals are usually scored by the fast kid with a nose for the goal. That one is actually true, but that is also true for almost all ages, even professional.

[Unregistered]

Not every girl who tries out for a d1 u13 team should make it just because they showed up and can kick a ball. A certain level of athletic ability needs to be displayed. To paraphrase BTDT, genetics can play a cruel role and if your daughter has a big butt and little speed, you might want to think about something else. If 20 girls show up for the try out and out of those, 4 are weak and 2 marginal at best, those 6 should be cut and a team of 14 fielded, imo. This is d1. Those 6 could go back to their town teams or accepted on a training roster only for developement. What ended up happening is the two marginal at best playeres were accepted, probably for club financial reasons, and given what was probably more playing time than deserved. But when the parents complained, the girls became instant starters. This was d1. My daughter who is one of the top players now had to share more playing time. I don't mind sharing playing time, just not with a marginal player who hurts more than helps. I have no illusions of grandeur for her but at this moment she wants to win. So, this ends up being a dilema for the coach. Who would you rather lose, a strong or weak player. If the spring doesn't change, then I can see us leaving for a strong team.

[Unregistered]

Hey all,

This is the original poster again.

Still no examples huh?

I'm not sure why people think this is all going to happen, because it's simply rare.

I guess since no one wants to provide real examples, I'll try to kickstart it.

Please review the Stars and Scorpions U17 and U18 rosters and let us know how many of those players weren't standouts as 10 and 11 year olds. Which of those players were the team's high goal scorers but faded.

I'm not saying there aren't examples, there are, but you are going to have a tough time finding them. But I think you are far more often going to find that the reality is that the post that BTDT had was wrong, and his one in this thread is also wrong.

The first was the original post said that 11 year old teams are often built on the strength of a few early bloomers. The second that for U10 teams the goals are usually scored by the fast kid with a nose for the goal. That one is actually true, but that is also true for almost all ages, even professional.

Original poster replying again.

I want to clarify my position.

I don't want to sound like I'm picking on BTDT, that's not my intention.

I don't want to discount biology or reality about the differences of when children mature.

Here is my argument. If you look at the top teams at the youngest ages in MAPLE right now, whoever's doing well at U10 (can't tell because results aren't posted, maybe that South Shore Select team), the BB dream U11 team and Stars U11, the NEFC U12 teams and
Stars U12 teams, if you look at all these teams, are they really built on the backs of a bunch of early developers?

If you believe that, I think you will have trouble proving it in 6 or 7 years, because if you look at actual precedent, it's not what happens. The standout players on the U18 and U17 best teams were literally all standouts at their teams as U10 players and U11 players.

I'm simply talking about the reality, because it's said a lot on this forum that those players should watch out because they are just early developers. They are going to be replaced by late bloomers. That's just a wrong statement.

[Unregistered]

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.

Fair enough. I have seen the phenomenon you describe. But I figured, and also have seen, that some coaches, parents, and kids realize that the most athletic and talented players in early years aren't only or necessarily the pure goal scorers.

Btw (and this is directed to others), no one denies that there are late developers or that kids mature at different rates. Still, athleticism and talent tend to show fairly early, if not fully. Usually, late developers were already pretty good but not standouts--though everyone loves the rare "from the bottom to the top" story.

In general, coaches at all levels make judgments about a player's current level of ability and a player's ceiling. "Brute" physical factors--speed, agility, strength, size--are a major component of that ceiling. Obviously, skills, touch, vision, game IQ, and heart make a significant difference. But the ideal is to find players with a higher ceiling and try to "coach them up." This does not mean there is no room for very talented players who do not fit the athletic prototype or who developed late and without a flashy game.

Some parents might prefer to indulge in attacking straw men or in imagining that superior athleticism is usually a disadvantage in the end for youth soccer players. Believe it or not, though, there are superior athletes in youth soccer who are working hard on their soccer skills and intangibles from an early age.

[Unregistered]

Hey all,

This is the original poster again.

Still no examples huh?

I'm not sure why people think this is all going to happen, because it's simply rare.

I guess since no one wants to provide real examples, I'll try to kickstart it.

Please review the Stars and Scorpions U17 and U18 rosters and let us know how many of those players weren't standouts as 10 and 11 year olds. Which of those players were the team's high goal scorers but faded.

I'm not saying there aren't examples, there are, but you are going to have a tough time finding them. But I think you are far more often going to find that the reality is that the post that BTDT had was wrong, and his one in this thread is also wrong.

The first was the original post said that 11 year old teams are often built on the strength of a few early bloomers. The second that for U10 teams the goals are usually scored by the fast kid with a nose for the goal. That one is actually true, but that is also true for almost all ages, even professional.

Despite you inflamatory tone, you are still wrong. What you posted is somewhat true, but there are many mediocre U10/11 players that will be just as good as your stars by U15, it happens all the time, in many different sports. It's not rare, its actually the rule and not the exception. After u14 or so then I agree, but at U10/11 you are simply taking an educated guess, to say otherwise just means you haven't been around youth sports long enough to know better, ir you have blinders on and see the world as you want to.

[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.

Two words for ya. DANNY. WOODHEAD. Different sport. Same concept. How many alleged "genius" coaches at the pro and college level were wrong about him???

- Cujo

[Unregistered]

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.

Let me ask a different question: can you take a fantastic athlete and teach then soccer at the age of 13/14 i.e. skills, ball handling, trapping, shooting etc etc..??

[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.

Interesting and obviously unfortunate. I didn't realize this was going on now in youth basketball. (But give the 6'-and-under guards a break.)

[Unregistered]

Two words for ya. DANNY. WOODHEAD. Different sport. Same concept. How many alleged "genius" coaches at the pro and college level were wrong about him???

- Cujo

Danny Woodhead is not a late bloomer. He was a record holding HS and College player who was overlooked. Being overlooked does not make you a late bloomer. If anything, his stature probably proves he was an early bloomer.

This thread is about 10 year old and 11 year old girls who are not standouts now, who end up being standouts on the top teams in Massachusetts, and current 10 and 11 year old teams that are built on players who are just physically more developed now than their counterparts, who will eventually be replaced by players who develop later.

[Unregistered]

Even if it is true that there are no real late bloomers and the "top" players are identified early, so what does that say about the gradual decline in our women's program in the US?

[Unregistered]

Despite you inflamatory tone, you are still wrong. What you posted is somewhat true, but there are many mediocre U10/11 players that will be just as good as your stars by U15, it happens all the time, in many different sports. It's not rare, its actually the rule and not the exception. After u14 or so then I agree, but at U10/11 you are simply taking an educated guess, to say otherwise just means you haven't been around youth sports long enough to know better, ir you have blinders on and see the world as you want to.

Really?

I can't find the Stars of Mass roster right now for some reason on their website, but look at the Scorpions roster:

http://premium.bluesombrero.com/Team...5/Default.aspx

Now read this article written when they were U11:

http://www.soccernewengland.com/arti...cle.php?id=130

The early bloomer who scored all their goals as a U11 team? Sam Mewis.

Next player he talks about in the article? Corey Ryan.

Next? Melissa Gavin.

Next? Sarah Furlong (not in the Scorpions any more, but did have a good club career and was a High School All Star)

[Unregistered]

Let me ask a different question: can you take a fantastic athlete and teach then soccer at the age of 13/14 i.e. skills, ball handling, trapping, shooting etc etc..??

On average you can do it with a 13 yo, 14 is harder and 15+ is almost impossible. I've taken 13 year olds and made good GK and strikers out of them. Midfield is hard to do as you need to know the game a little more. An athletic , tall kid who has played basketball before can make a good striker if you have the right combo of skills and instruction and heart. I took a 13 yo baseball catcher and made an all-star GK out of him. He was big, had great hands and was a great athlete and understood angles and such. Technically he was still behind but his performance was outstanding by 10th grade.