Getting Better vs. Getting Seen

[Guest]

Make smart decisions this tryout season:

https://changingthegameproject.com/g...oung-athletes/

[Guest]

Make smart decisions this tryout season:

https://changingthegameproject.com/g...oung-athletes/

This is pure gold: "But every year I think to myself you spent a lot of time and a lot of gas money to arrive at the same destination."

[Guest]

This is a tough one. I ultimately agree with the premise. My kid changed late, sort of a case where "someone else did the work, new club gets the credit" scenario. So, we certainly didn't switch as is the premise of the article. However, she also says she wishes she switched two years earlier as while she was decently recruited and it worked out well, she thinks it could've been even better with an earlier switch (she's a confident kid....). She thinks she would be a better player and would've got more interest being on the front of the recruiting cycle vs. the back end.

Personally, I was happy where we were and wished we didn't need to switch at all...

[Guest]

I get the premise but it this is sort of an incomplete argument. No one gets better by staying among weak players, either. There has to be some balance and some realistic assessment of the player. You may not get better in a car, but you also won't get better playing with lower competition, many of whom miss practices and games for other sports or random other reasons. It is not an easy question to answer at all.

[Guest]

I get the premise but it this is sort of an incomplete argument. No one gets better by staying among weak players, either. There has to be some balance and some realistic assessment of the player. You may not get better in a car, but you also won't get better playing with lower competition, many of whom miss practices and games for other sports or random other reasons. It is not an easy question to answer at all.

This. The premise assumes that the better training/competition/potential for improvement is at the smaller/less visible/local club when that's often not the case.

[Guest]

This. The premise assumes that the better training/competition/potential for improvement is at the smaller/less visible/local club when that's often not the case.

Looks like it was written by a smaller club who always feel they do it best and are being slighted, and the big bad wolf is always coming to lie and sell to the parents...

[Guest]

I get the premise but it this is sort of an incomplete argument. No one gets better by staying among weak players, either. There has to be some balance and some realistic assessment of the player. You may not get better in a car, but you also won't get better playing with lower competition, many of whom miss practices and games for other sports or random other reasons. It is not an easy question to answer at all.

Agree with this. The level of commitment and effort for some kids is more than others at their current clubs. For some, getting better may mean changing clubs.

But many miss the "realistic assessment of the player" part.

Also worth comparing the soccer assessment to the player's goals for academics, major, and type of college experience. Look at the list of commits, and the actual schools where the top players in New England are going. Does your player's skill level get them to a school that matches their other college goals? A small number of New England players play in college, and only a fraction of those go to strong soccer or academic schools.

[Guest]

The article is far too generic to be relevant.

[Guest]

I get the premise but it this is sort of an incomplete argument. No one gets better by staying among weak players, either. There has to be some balance and some realistic assessment of the player. You may not get better in a car, but you also won't get better playing with lower competition, many of whom miss practices and games for other sports or random other reasons. It is not an easy question to answer at all.

Generally I agree with you. But there is definitely value to being the best player on a team full of weak/mediocre players. You get experiences that you might not get on a more talented team; as the best player, you will face more double/triple-teams and need to learn how to beat them; maybe you take the PKs that you wouldn't get to take on a better team; maybe you take the corner kicks...in general, you get the experience of being the one everyone else relies on. Of course, you need more of that to develop as a full player, but I'm just pointing out that players can get better in some ways in that circumstance.

[Guest]

Generally I agree with you. But there is definitely value to being the best player on a team full of weak/mediocre players. You get experiences that you might not get on a more talented team; as the best player, you will face more double/triple-teams and need to learn how to beat them; maybe you take the PKs that you wouldn't get to take on a better team; maybe you take the corner kicks...in general, you get the experience of being the one everyone else relies on. Of course, you need more of that to develop as a full player, but I'm just pointing out that players can get better in some ways in that circumstance.

OK, 90% of it is worthless, but the rest as you point out isn't....

[Guest]

The "best with the best" idea is a fallacy. Kids can absolutely improve and in the long run even end up better players by playing with teammates of mixed abilities.
I'm not saying that I agree 100% with the article, but I do think that putting a kid in a car for an hour drive to practice, then another hour drive back, 2 or 3 times a week... should be avoided if possible, even if that means playing of a team that is "not as good".

[Guest]

"Players play better when they play with better players".

An old adage that I will believe to be true as long as I am around this game.

[Guest]

The "best with the best" idea is a fallacy. Kids can absolutely improve and in the long run even end up better players by playing with teammates of mixed abilities.
I'm not saying that I agree 100% with the article, but I do think that putting a kid in a car for an hour drive to practice, then another hour drive back, 2 or 3 times a week... should be avoided if possible, even if that means playing of a team that is "not as good".

Players can learn a lot of skills in mixed ability groups. And they have to work outside of club on their own if they want to improve. But there are things like speed of play that can only be practiced and learned in a group.

[Guest]

The "best with the best" idea is a fallacy. Kids can absolutely improve and in the long run even end up better players by playing with teammates of mixed abilities.
I'm not saying that I agree 100% with the article, but I do think that putting a kid in a car for an hour drive to practice, then another hour drive back, 2 or 3 times a week... should be avoided if possible, even if that means playing of a team that is "not as good".

Does your kid have homework? Have them do that in the car so it’s not wasted time.

[Guest]

Players can learn a lot of skills in mixed ability groups. And they have to work outside of club on their own if they want to improve. But there are things like speed of play that can only be practiced and learned in a group.

how do you practice or learn speed of play?