The Girls 2007 Thread

[Unregistered]

Bingo. Make up game on a Saturday two hours away, so missing a bunch of kids. SSS tried to reschedule once the coaches figured out the limited numbers, but WUP refused. Game was played with the kids who were available and some younger kids and kids from other Select teams.

[Unregistered]

Can someone please explain how WUP beat SSS??? Was half the SSS sick or something?

I heard Suzie had a birthday party and some of the players wanted to go there instead. They had already reserved Chuck E Cheese's and bought presents and really cool Disney outfits to wear.

[Unregistered]

The Girls 2007 Thread

I heard Suzie had a birthday party and some of the players wanted to go there instead. They had already reserved Chuck E Cheese's and bought presents and really cool Disney outfits to wear.

Wow you really stepped up your game and used Suzie instead of Mia this time. Why waste your time coming to a thread to point out what 10 year olds like every time someone comments. Go ahead and post on the 2005 and 2004 threads because they are so old and mature.

[Unregistered]

Wow you really stepped up your game and used Suzie instead of Mia this time. Why waste your time coming to a thread to point out what 10 year olds like every time someone comments. Go ahead and post on the 2005 and 2004 threads because they are so old and mature.

Another possibility is kids couldn't make it for trick-or-treating. That's more important at that age anyway.

[Unregistered]

Exactly. Anyone who thinks they can ID top players at 10, girls or boys, has no idea what puberty can and does do to players. There has been plenty of research that shows zero correlation between being ID'ed at a young age for high level play in a sport and success at higher levels later on.

Most girls hit puberty and then high school, put on weight, grow breasts, start dating boys (the dreaded 3 B's that ruin girls athletes) and their athleticism goes to crap. Then there are the ones that don't grow and end up 5'0", with lots of skill, but no size/strength/speed and gets crushed when playing full grown 5'6+ athletes. Lastly are the playes who come out of nowhere because they have grit and work ethic and maybe a late growth spurt. You parents have zero clue what level your kids will be at if they are even playing soccer in 5 years.

A director of coaching told me that virtually every great player at 18 was identified at a young age. All the kids they thought were going to be great may not have turned out to be but the ones that did were identified.

[Unregistered]

A director of coaching told me that virtually every great player at 18 was identified at a young age. All the kids they thought were going to be great may not have turned out to be but the ones that did were identified.

Right, and any DOC worth is salt would tell you results at this age don't matter. Hence the absurdity of this thread.

My kid at this age was never on the top team. Practiced with them occasionally, very rarely got game time. Was always on the lower team. DOC clearly explained why. While the ego was bruised, we trusted him in his path to development. Give her time, wait until she gets on a full field, and you'll see.

He was 100% spot on. 1/2 the kids on the top team at this age no longer play. Another 1/4 of those she has surpassed by leaps and bounds. Only a few that were stars then are now.

Results at this age do not matter. Any club, coach, or parent pushing otherwise is short-sighted.

There's no tactics here...it's all about technique as it should be. When doing everything based on technique, you will lose games to teams without a long-term picture.

Sad we have threads and parents like this. Same ones will complain when we can't make the WC, and can't understand why.

[Unregistered]

A director of coaching told me that virtually every great player at 18 was identified at a young age. All the kids they thought were going to be great may not have turned out to be but the ones that did were identified.

I hope you didn't believe him... in fact, you should call out the club he is from so we can all stay far away since this is a DOC that is very ill-informed.

* A. Morgan - multi sport athlete who tried out for club soccer at 13 and was cut. Up to then, she played town soccer. She tried out with another club at 14 and was selected. Made her ODP regional team at 15.

* R. Lambert - started playing for Liverpool academy at 10, was dropped at 15, played 2nd division at 17, 3rd division at 19. Wasn't signed as a Premier League player until he was 30

* D. Drogba - played street soccer until he was 15. Didn't play professionally until he was 18 for a 2nd division club. Wasn't signed on a contract until he was 21

[Unregistered]

I hope you didn't believe him... in fact, you should call out the club he is from so we can all stay far away since this is a DOC that is very ill-informed.

* A. Morgan - multi sport athlete who tried out for club soccer at 13 and was cut. Up to then, she played town soccer. She tried out with another club at 14 and was selected. Made her ODP regional team at 15.

* R. Lambert - started playing for Liverpool academy at 10, was dropped at 15, played 2nd division at 17, 3rd division at 19. Wasn't signed as a Premier League player until he was 30

* D. Drogba - played street soccer until he was 15. Didn't play professionally until he was 18 for a 2nd division club. Wasn't signed on a contract until he was 21

I kinda get that DOCs point. First...let's be real...we aren't talking about world class players here in the northeast for the most part.

Second, rare for a kid to come out of nowhere. The examples you posted are outliers. Drogba is always brought up as a case, but he played street soccer because that's all he had. I'm sure if there was a super-duper club out there, he would've been on it.

A DOC can look at a kid early on, see their mannerisms, how the receive the ball, how they move, and know they get it. They may see potential in places, and they may see some kids good now who won't be.

A vast majority are good all along, or at least have their potential identified all along.

IMO, only.

[Unregistered]

Right, and any DOC worth is salt would tell you results at this age don't matter. Hence the absurdity of this thread.

My kid at this age was never on the top team. Practiced with them occasionally, very rarely got game time. Was always on the lower team. DOC clearly explained why. While the ego was bruised, we trusted him in his path to development. Give her time, wait until she gets on a full field, and you'll see.

He was 100% spot on. 1/2 the kids on the top team at this age no longer play. Another 1/4 of those she has surpassed by leaps and bounds. Only a few that were stars then are now.

Results at this age do not matter. Any club, coach, or parent pushing otherwise is short-sighted.

There's no tactics here...it's all about technique as it should be. When doing everything based on technique, you will lose games to teams without a long-term picture.

Sad we have threads and parents like this. Same ones will complain when we can't make the WC, and can't understand why.

My D played town soccer until 9 and was an average player at that age. Didn't start playing club until 10 and was on the regional B team. At 11, she was still on the regional B team, but was probably the top player on that team by the middle of the season and was playing for her team and a U13 team every week. She was doubling up practices with the U12 regional A team and the U13's and working on her skills on her own. By 12, she was on a regional A team, though not identified for the club's top NPL team. At 13, she is now at a different club and playing for that club's top team and is one of the team's strongest players.

She has gotten stronger, faster, more skilled and smarter about the game every year. She isn't close to reaching her peak playing ability or her limit of speed of play. Many of her former teammates have plateaued and are the same player they were last year or 2 years ago. Many former teammates have moved on to smaller (cheaper) clubs or stopped playing altogether, especially when they didn't move up the club soccer ladder.

So, yes, you can not be identified early and still move up and play for top teams. You can start as an average player with average athleticism and work very hard on all aspects of your game to be better than the rest. The difference between what I saw with my D and everyone else was 2 things: desire and a work ethic to reach your goal.

Talent can be developed if there is desire.
Talent without desire is wasted.

[Unregistered]

Right, and any DOC worth is salt would tell you results at this age don't matter. Hence the absurdity of this thread.

My kid at this age was never on the top team. Practiced with them occasionally, very rarely got game time. Was always on the lower team. DOC clearly explained why. While the ego was bruised, we trusted him in his path to development. Give her time, wait until she gets on a full field, and you'll see.

He was 100% spot on. 1/2 the kids on the top team at this age no longer play. Another 1/4 of those she has surpassed by leaps and bounds. Only a few that were stars then are now.

Results at this age do not matter. Any club, coach, or parent pushing otherwise is short-sighted.

There's no tactics here...it's all about technique as it should be. When doing everything based on technique, you will lose games to teams without a long-term picture.

Sad we have threads and parents like this. Same ones will complain when we can't make the WC, and can't understand why.

Great post. We get these threads every year and anyone who has been round the block knows that things change rapidly between U11 and U13 as players start to consolidate onto the top teams/clubs.

I bet that the difference in some of these teams is one outstanding player, or more likely at this age, athlete. Some coaches will be building their team and their tactics around that player(s). The other easy red flags on whether the coach is focused on winning or development is how often the goalie punts it and whether a field player takes the goal kicks.

[Unregistered]

I kinda get that DOCs point. First...let's be real...we aren't talking about world class players here in the northeast for the most part.

Second, rare for a kid to come out of nowhere. The examples you posted are outliers. Drogba is always brought up as a case, but he played street soccer because that's all he had. I'm sure if there was a super-duper club out there, he would've been on it.

A DOC can look at a kid early on, see their mannerisms, how the receive the ball, how they move, and know they get it. They may see potential in places, and they may see some kids good now who won't be.

A vast majority are good all along, or at least have their potential identified all along.

IMO, only.

The DOC can look at a player and see
1. Aggression
2. Athleticism
3. Technical skill

The DOC can't see or predict how these things will be impacted by
4. Genetics and puberty, though if they are early developers, it is easier and girls by 13 are mostly done growing on average, but not so with boys.
5. Mental toughness, tenacity, desire, grit
6. The luck factor

Bottom line, all a DoC can do at that point in time is look at 1, 2 and 3 and make a judgement call. 4, 5, and 6 will shake out as they will. Some will benefit and some will not.
Most top talent ID'ers recognize now that skeletal age is a much better predictor of potential vs. chronological age, but until that becomes easier to test, we're stuck with the system we have and trying not to dismiss smaller/slower/younger players out of hand. Also, 1 and 2 are more important in the decision making because they are harder to train and develop, while 3 is the easiest to develop.

[Unregistered]

Exactly. Anyone who thinks they can ID top players at 10, girls or boys, has no idea what puberty can and does do to players. There has been plenty of research that shows zero correlation between being ID'ed at a young age for high level play in a sport and success at higher levels later on.

Most girls hit puberty and then high school, put on weight, grow breasts, start dating boys (the dreaded 3 B's that ruin girls athletes) and their athleticism goes to crap. Then there are the ones that don't grow and end up 5'0", with lots of skill, but no size/strength/speed and gets crushed when playing full grown 5'6+ athletes. Lastly are the playes who come out of nowhere because they have grit and work ethic and maybe a late growth spurt. You parents have zero clue what level your kids will be at if they are even playing soccer in 5 years.

I get 2 of the “b”s?
But thanks for anatomy class.

[Unregistered]

I get 2 of the “b”s?
But thanks for anatomy class.

The destroyer of parental female athlete dreams: boobs, bums, and boys. All three get bigger as girls get older...

[Unregistered]

The Girls 2007 Thread

Great post. We get these threads every year and anyone who has been round the block knows that things change rapidly between U11 and U13 as players start to consolidate onto the top teams/clubs.

I bet that the difference in some of these teams is one outstanding player, or more likely at this age, athlete. Some coaches will be building their team and their tactics around that player(s). The other easy red flags on whether the coach is focused on winning or development is how often the goalie punts it and whether a field player takes the goal kicks.

I wonder how many of you posting have watched a game at this age or are involved. First off the DOC's are not evaluating all the players at the young ages especially at the big clubs. The coaches pic the teams and the DOC's focus on their NPL, ECNL and now DA teams.

Red flags are punting and goal kicks? If you watch a game half these teams put 5 or 6 players up the field with nowhere to roll out or play a pass. To ask a player to pass it there anyway makes no sense. A 9 or 10 year old should be tought to make smart decisions not just build out from the back beacuse Pep does it. The build out lines have helped a lot in the U9 and U10 games because no they can build out without pressure. Watching teams roll it out in the box tosomeone from the other team over and over and lose by 10 goals does not teach the kids anything.

[Unregistered]

I wonder how many of you posting have watched a game at this age or are involved. First off the DOC's are not evaluating all the players at the young ages especially at the big clubs. The coaches pic the teams and the DOC's focus on their NPL, ECNL and now DA teams.

Don't kid yourself. If a player is good and has potential, DOC knows about them and is already keeping an eye on them so they stay

Red flags are punting and goal kicks? If you watch a game half these teams put 5 or 6 players up the field with nowhere to roll out or play a pass. To ask a player to pass it there anyway makes no sense. A 9 or 10 year old should be tought to make smart decisions not just build out from the back beacuse Pep does it. The build out lines have helped a lot in the U9 and U10 games because no they can build out without pressure. Watching teams roll it out in the box tosomeone from the other team over and over and lose by 10 goals does not teach the kids anything.

Hence, again, why results don't matter. Of course they have to clear it occasionally...those aren't the instances being referred to. It's the ones only punting and chasing and parents bragging 'cuzz the fast kid scored again. I'll submit that kids would learn the game better even if they were giving it up in their own third vs. watching a few chase after it 50 yards downfield. At least they get to play with the ball once in a while.