Boys 05

[Unregistered]

I gotta know: is your "late bloomer"...

a) a highly intelligent, highly technical player who is physically immature.

b) a not highly intelligent, not highly technical player who is physically mature.

c) a not highly intelligent, not highly technical player who is physically immature.

If he is "a", then Timbers will see him and take him. If he is "b" or "c", then he's not a "late bloomer".

I have no idea what your proposed solution would do other than make sure you were better prepared to select players 13-18 at u15. Certainly your proposed solution puts top players in a worse environment for 2-3 years just because you were worried about 4-5 kids who shouldn't be on the roster. Come on, man.

This game is way, way harder than the rank-and-file seem to grasp. The way you keep track of "diamonds in the rough" is to stay in touch with local coaches and get out and see some games as the kids age. What you don't do is make your best players play in some watered down middle-ground.

This made me laugh. Are you suggesting Snohomish and Washington Rush aren’t “watered down middle ground”? What a joke. They are the only teams that the bottom feeders ever get to play minutes in to get the 25% start time stats unless they are tossed in for the final ten garbage minutes in other matches. The assumption that a filtered league to three Oregon DA teams would somehow cripple TAs 1-12 shows your naïveté when it comes to boys development/puberty in these years.

[Unregistered]

I gotta know: is your "late bloomer"...

a) a highly intelligent, highly technical player who is physically immature.

b) a not highly intelligent, not highly technical player who is physically mature.

c) a not highly intelligent, not highly technical player who is physically immature.

If he is "a", then Timbers will see him and take him. If he is "b" or "c", then he's not a "late bloomer".

I have no idea what your proposed solution would do other than make sure you were better prepared to select players 13-18 at u15. Certainly your proposed solution puts top players in a worse environment for 2-3 years just because you were worried about 4-5 kids who shouldn't be on the roster. Come on, man.

This game is way, way harder than the rank-and-file seem to grasp. The way you keep track of "diamonds in the rough" is to stay in touch with local coaches and get out and see some games as the kids age. What you don't do is make your best players play in some watered down middle-ground.

There are six on TA now that are b and c.

[Unregistered]

The assumption that a filtered league to three Oregon DA teams would somehow cripple TAs 1-12 shows your naïveté when it comes to boys development/puberty in these years.

Puberty doesn't make good soccer players. Please tell me you get that.

[Unregistered]

Puberty doesn't make good soccer players. Please tell me you get that.

Please tell me you get a child is not done developing and increasing soccer IQ by 12 year’s old?

[Unregistered]

100 perc agree but this won’t happen this year. It would be great if DA would do a small showcase in PAC NW for the u13 and u14 age groups at least.

How do you know what DA will do? Have they made an announcement?

[Unregistered]

Puberty doesn't make good soccer players. Please tell me you get that.

One problem with the club scene (not so much TA) is that many coaches seem to think so. Or at least they think "if I staff up with physically advanced kids, I can win and blow the smaller, more technical kids off the ball!" And this works, too. At winning ball games, that is. Doesn't help the technical development of the bigger kids though to be matched up against kids they can physically dominate, and it doesn't help smaller more skilled players to be stuck at the end of the bench.

As to what sort of "late bloomers" should be considered:

Certain attributes of a player are "made"--a player either has them, or he (or she) doesn't: Overall intelligence. Speed. Reaction time. Arguably, "vision". Some of them may be improved (or diminshed) by puberty; others may not be.

Other attributes of a player are learned: Touch. Tactical awareness.

Size and strength are generally a function of development. As is emotional maturity--quite a few ten-year-olds, for instance, simply cannot deal with an *****hole coach, or put up with an intense or focused training regimen.

As to who constitutes a "late bloomer", I would say a player who:

1) Scores highly on the attributes that generally can't be acquired with training, given his state of physical development. (When dealing with pre-pubescent players, you need to be careful). Particularly if you see a player with the "it" factor that can't be taught.

2) Does well, or is improving, on the things that may be taught with training.

3) Has no obvious "red flags"--bad attitude or uncoachable, lazy, low pitch intelligence, poor response to coaching, poor athletic ability, etc.

So in other words, several categories of late bloomer worth considering:

1) Tactically-gifted players who are behind on physical maturity.
2) Physically talented players with a late start into the game, who have shown excellent progress in acquiring technical skill, and a willingness to put in the work to improve, even if somewhat behind the platoon of mini-Messis that occupy category 1.
3) Players who are both physically and tactically skilled, but lack the maturity at younger ages to participate in high-level development programs. If, as they grow up, they acquire the discipline necessary to succeed at high levels, give 'em a shot.

[Unregistered]

This thread is always fun to read for a good laugh. So many delusional parents bickering at each other under the cloak of anonymity that this site provides. 😂

[Unregistered]

one problem with the club scene (not so much ta) is that many coaches seem to think so. Or at least they think "if i staff up with physically advanced kids, i can win and blow the smaller, more technical kids off the ball!" and this works, too. At winning ball games, that is. Doesn't help the technical development of the bigger kids though to be matched up against kids they can physically dominate, and it doesn't help smaller more skilled players to be stuck at the end of the bench.

As to what sort of "late bloomers" should be considered:

Certain attributes of a player are "made"--a player either has them, or he (or she) doesn't: Overall intelligence. Speed. Reaction time. Arguably, "vision". Some of them may be improved (or diminshed) by puberty; others may not be.

Other attributes of a player are learned: Touch. Tactical awareness.

Size and strength are generally a function of development. As is emotional maturity--quite a few ten-year-olds, for instance, simply cannot deal with an *****hole coach, or put up with an intense or focused training regimen.

As to who constitutes a "late bloomer", i would say a player who:

1) scores highly on the attributes that generally can't be acquired with training, given his state of physical development. (when dealing with pre-pubescent players, you need to be careful). Particularly if you see a player with the "it" factor that can't be taught.

2) does well, or is improving, on the things that may be taught with training.

3) has no obvious "red flags"--bad attitude or uncoachable, lazy, low pitch intelligence, poor response to coaching, poor athletic ability, etc.

So in other words, several categories of late bloomer worth considering:

1) tactically-gifted players who are behind on physical maturity.
2) physically talented players with a late start into the game, who have shown excellent progress in acquiring technical skill, and a willingness to put in the work to improve, even if somewhat behind the platoon of mini-messis that occupy category 1.
3) players who are both physically and tactically skilled, but lack the maturity at younger ages to participate in high-level development programs. If, as they grow up, they acquire the discipline necessary to succeed at high levels, give 'em a shot.

tl:dr

[Unregistered]

tl:dr

You should read it.

Everyone should read it.

[Unregistered]

You should read it.

Everyone should read it.

Yes sir!

[Unregistered]

This thread is always fun to read for a good laugh. So many delusional parents bickering at each other under the cloak of anonymity that this site provides. 😂

My Messi is better than your Ronaldo, and you know it.

[Unregistered]

tl:dr

Shorter version: Consider player's ceiling and trajectory. If they have a high ceiling and are on a trajectory to reach it, give 'em a shot--especially if being involved in the advanced training program will improve their trajectory. (Which is, after all, the whole point).

If they aren't likely to reach a high level even if personally trained by Johan Cruyff's ghost, or if they aren't in a place where they can benefit from the advanced training program--then no. But re-evaluate if there's a chance they will change.

Basically, you don't want to put players in advanced training if it's going to be a waste of their time, and that of the coaches.

(If there are more candidate players than slots available, that's a different problem--one that should be solved, ideally, by advancing the size and scope of the training program, not by prematurely culling the herd. Whether Oregon youth soccer is at this point is another matter).

[Unregistered]

hi and best part of timber acad is you can play all year at hillsboro and win trophy see gerardo1o instagram account the timber academy coaches say ok to play on other teams all year for some kids they like the photo was on hilsboro indoor soccer web but they asked to take it off now

[Unregistered]

I gotta know: is your "late bloomer"...

a) a highly intelligent, highly technical player who is physically immature.

b) a not highly intelligent, not highly technical player who is physically mature.

c) a not highly intelligent, not highly technical player who is physically immature.

If he is "a", then Timbers will see him and take him. If he is "b" or "c", then he's not a "late bloomer".

I have no idea what your proposed solution would do other than make sure you were better prepared to select players 13-18 at u15. Certainly your proposed solution puts top players in a worse environment for 2-3 years just because you were worried about 4-5 kids who shouldn't be on the roster. Come on, man.

This game is way, way harder than the rank-and-file seem to grasp. The way you keep track of "diamonds in the rough" is to stay in touch with local coaches and get out and see some games as the kids age. What you don't do is make your best players play in some watered down middle-ground.

Actually it would be D- he is technically and physically in the top 15 and sees the field better than 99% of kids and we actually declined the opportunity to be a part of the BB **** show even though Fernando (who I actually like by the way) chased my son from the time he left ADF through odp and the regional odp team. TA IS NOT ALL ITS CRACKED UP TO BE

[Unregistered]

I gotta know: is your "late bloomer"...

a) a highly intelligent, highly technical player who is physically immature.

b) a not highly intelligent, not highly technical player who is physically mature.

c) a not highly intelligent, not highly technical player who is physically immature.

If he is "a", then Timbers will see him and take him. If he is "b" or "c", then he's not a "late bloomer".

I have no idea what your proposed solution would do other than make sure you were better prepared to select players 13-18 at u15. Certainly your proposed solution puts top players in a worse environment for 2-3 years just because you were worried about 4-5 kids who shouldn't be on the roster. Come on, man.

This game is way, way harder than the rank-and-file seem to grasp. The way you keep track of "diamonds in the rough" is to stay in touch with local coaches and get out and see some games as the kids age. What you don't do is make your best players play in some watered down middle-ground.

You are right they should play with Boston and yaseen...