Shift to Jan. 1 cutoff next year or year after?

[Unregistered]

I get so tired of hearing how the smaller less developed kids are the weakest link on a team. My kid is the smallest and is the one who has not matured(late bloomer) and she does just fine. Why do we constantly suggest they are the weak players? I don't understand that concept?

Sorry. I agree. My point was that the smaller younger players are getting the shaft in having two different systems. More of those smaller younger players turn out to be the best players. However, they are often overlooked at the younger ages & then you get the relative age effect. This is currently compounded by having school year cut offs for club & birth year for ODP/pdp, etc. if those younger birth months were playing with & against the olders in club, then they will be much more prepared to take on the older birth month kids from that the same year when competing for spots on elite rosters like ODP, etc. I hate when coaches look over talent for size. That hurts in the long run.

[Unregistered]

So it's not about player development then, just for administrative reasons?

How many US youth teams that aren't already on calendar year (US Nat teams) actually play in international competitions? The number is so minute that it is indistinguishable from ZERO. Again, absolutely no reason to make the change.

You're obviously new to competitive youth soccer, otherwise you would have played some Canadian teams by now and you would have already encountered the "different age issue"

[Unregistered]

if those younger birth months were playing with & against the olders in club, then they will be much more prepared to take on the older birth month kids from that the same year when competing for spots on elite rosters like ODP, etc.

That's...not quite what they're thinking.

The Fed expects RE to continue to be a problem, BUT at least it will occur along the same months as the rest of the globe. Again, this is not ideal, but better than what we have now.

The long-term goal is to eliminate the relative age-effect (RE) entirely. When those changes happen, it'll make the freaking out that's going on now look like a tea party.

[Unregistered]

You're obviously new to competitive youth soccer, otherwise you would have played some Canadian teams by now and you would have already encountered the "different age issue"

Not a big deal. It's only 6 months. And we always make them field younger teams so it's even less of an issue.

[Unregistered]

That's...not quite what they're thinking.

The Fed expects RE to continue to be a problem, BUT at least it will occur along the same months as the rest of the globe. Again, this is not ideal, but better than what we have now.

The long-term goal is to eliminate the relative age-effect (RE) entirely. When those changes happen, it'll make the freaking out that's going on now look like a tea party.

And how do we do that without eliminating calendars altogether and grouping kids by maturity, talent, size, etc. instead of age?

[Unregistered]

Sorry. I agree. My point was that the smaller younger players are getting the shaft in having two different systems. More of those smaller younger players turn out to be the best players. However, they are often overlooked at the younger ages & then you get the relative age effect. This is currently compounded by having school year cut offs for club & birth year for ODP/pdp, etc. if those younger birth months were playing with & against the olders in club, then they will be much more prepared to take on the older birth month kids from that the same year when competing for spots on elite rosters like ODP, etc. I hate when coaches look over talent for size. That hurts in the long run.

Changing the dates has no effect on this. There will still be kids that are up to 12 months younger than others in the same age group. All it does is change who has the advantage.

[All for One]

The charts on the attached PDF file show one way of looking at this change.

The top chart shows the current situation. The kids at the biggest age disadvantage overall (club + ODP) are the July births, as you might expect. They are at an average age disadvantage of 8.5 months. January births are at the smallest disadvantage of -2.5 months.

The middle chart is the proposed "calendar" year age grouping. Here you see the January births at 0 disadvantage and the December kids at -11 months. Note that all kids born in the last quarter of the year (25% of the kids) will be at a larger age disadvantage than the worst case (July) under the current system.

The bottom chart is one "ideal" scenario where the club cutoff date is moved to July 1st from August 1st. This provides the most balanced "age disadvantage". January would still be at the largest advantage but the worst case would only be -8 months which is better than either of the other scenarios.

[Unregistered]

Changing the dates has no effect on this. There will still be kids that are up to 12 months younger than others in the same age group. All it does is change who has the advantage.

Taken SEPARATELY there is no difference. BUT currently using both systems in the U.S. is causing more of an effect. Currently, Aug-Dec birthdates are the oldest on their club teams & practice & play with & against the younger kids from Jan-July birthdates of the next year. The Aug-Dec (2000 for example) goes to ODP and suddenly is up agains all the older Jan-July 2000 kids who are not only older but have also been playing with & against the even older Aug-Dec 1999 club kids and have been playing competitively an additional year as well. Those Aug-Dec kids don't stand much chance vs the Jan-July 2000 kids who have been playing on the year older club teams. This compounds the effect for all those possibly elite kids. That and the even bigger problem for the summer babies (especially July) is one of the main reasons the powers that be want to change to one system. Since the rest of the world (England has already switched) goes by birth year, that is the one we must narrow it down to as well.

[Unregistered]

Talking-soccer

And how do we do that without eliminating calendars altogether and grouping kids by maturity, talent, size, etc. instead of age?

The thing that causes RE is selection driven by the focus on winning at young ages. We all know that older (read bigger, stronger, more cognitively mature) players are preferred WITHIN age group when teams want to win. So, you're absolutely correct: to remove RE, you have to remove the selection pressure caused by a focus on winning.

Southampton (for instance) does this by ruthlessly enforcing equal playing times all the way through u17 and relentlessly encouraging kids to play for quality rather than results. They reckon that because "winning soccer" doesn't correlate with "quality soccer" at young ages, they'd rather remove the focus on winning so that their academy produces better quality players. There is, of course, cutthroat competition at all levels on an INDIVIDUAL basis, but again it's geared toward technical and tactical quality. Belgium, on the other hand, groups kids by maturity level.

When (if?) US Soccer tries to fully adopt what they KNOW to be the proper way to develop players, it'll be a sea change. League tables? Gone before age 14. Competition days? Cut by half in favor of more training. Teams? Nope, pools.

[Unregistered]

Taken SEPARATELY there is no difference. BUT currently using both systems in the U.S. is causing more of an effect. Currently, Aug-Dec birthdates are the oldest on their club teams & practice & play with & against the younger kids from Jan-July birthdates of the next year. The Aug-Dec (2000 for example) goes to ODP and suddenly is up agains all the older Jan-July 2000 kids who are not only older but have also been playing with & against the even older Aug-Dec 1999 club kids and have been playing competitively an additional year as well. Those Aug-Dec kids don't stand much chance vs the Jan-July 2000 kids who have been playing on the year older club teams. This compounds the effect for all those possibly elite kids. That and the even bigger problem for the summer babies (especially July) is one of the main reasons the powers that be want to change to one system. Since the rest of the world (England has already switched) goes by birth year, that is the one we must narrow it down to as well.

No. You're claiming a boost from "playing on the year older club teams". Relative age-effect is a thing precisely because that's NOT an advantage: the kids who are big and strong and can help you win get increased resources. You're correct in saying that, right now, we have a muddied effect because of the two cutoffs (i.e. one springs up along the August date at the youngest ages, and a later, weaker one shows up on the January date).

From US Soccer's perspective, if there's gonna be an age-effect you might as well have it look the same as the rest of the globe's. Of course, the best thing would be to eliminate the effect all together.

[Slow Xavi]

The thing that causes RE is selection driven by the focus on winning at young ages. We all know that older (read bigger, stronger, more cognitively mature) players are preferred WITHIN age group when teams want to win. So, you're absolutely correct: to remove RE, you have to remove the selection pressure caused by a focus on winning.

Southampton (for instance) does this by ruthlessly enforcing equal playing times all the way through u17 and relentlessly encouraging kids to play for quality rather than results. They reckon that because "winning soccer" doesn't correlate with "quality soccer" at young ages, they'd rather remove the focus on winning so that their academy produces better quality players. There is, of course, cutthroat competition at all levels on an INDIVIDUAL basis, but again it's geared toward technical and tactical quality. Belgium, on the other hand, groups kids by maturity level.

When (if?) US Soccer tries to fully adopt what they KNOW to be the proper way to develop players, it'll be a sea change. League tables? Gone before age 14. Competition days? Cut by half in favor of more training. Teams? Nope, pools.

Insightful post. Questions on some finer points:

• Southampton wins quite a bit at the youth levels; are we sure that they place no emphasis on winning? Sometimes it seems some of the top-flight development programs downplay the importance of winning when they describe themselves publicly . . . begs the question do they not talk about winning because they don't have to (this is a point the Kliebert brothers make when talking about la Masia for example)?
• Fan of pools, but how do we foster the bonds among players that can be so important to keeping players in the game particularly at the young ages? How do coaches develop an individual understanding of a player in their pool, when there is 36 that they see for only short periods of time in any given training week? Does gender play a role?
• Instead of blowing up league tables, what if we put greater emphasis on league play v. tournaments? Reorient clubs towards a weekly game then move to 3 training sessions a week. That does not mean win at all cost; but directing the competitive energy towards a healthier periodization-model.

[Unregistered]

I am still not understanding the benefit of the change? All it does is switches who gets the "disadvantage"

[Unregistered]

I am still not understanding the benefit of the change? All it does is switches who gets the "disadvantage"

And it actually makes it worse for the most disadvantaged birth months.

[Unregistered]

And it actually makes it worse for the most disadvantaged birth months.

How about not thinking so damn negative about everything. If it happens great, if it doesn't great. Kids will still be playing the sport they love, soccer. Why do you people bitch about everything under the sun?

[Unregistered]

How about not thinking so damn negative about everything. If it happens great, if it doesn't great. Kids will still be playing the sport they love, soccer. Why do you people bitch about everything under the sun?

All in favor of change that improves the situation for all of the kids, not just some of them.