Boys 05

[Unregistered]

So your thesis here is that if you concentrate the best players from LA into 2-3 teams, they're going to be - on average - more talented and more athletic than Oregon teams.

Where do we send the Nobel prize?

Portland isn't LA, so Portland better innovate. Right now it looks like those in a position to do anything are just putting it in neutral.

What is interesting to me, is your blatant refusal to accept that athleticism plays into the equation. I am not the poster you have been beefing with, but I do accept that athleticism is a big part of the puzzle. Sorry, I know that you would prefer to see all technical players, regardless of size...and I can accept that to an extent. Hoping that a kid with touch at 11,12,13 will grow and develop into an athelete who can hang with athletes who developed technical skills is a losing proposition IMHO. The thing is, both of you are right. Put aside your bias and think about this for a moment. If there were two kids for one spot. Both are equally skilled technically (and by that I mean, exceptionally) and one is 5" shorter, and considerably slower. Otherwise, everything else is equal. Attitude, intelligence, and work ethic....who do you honestly want for that one spot. Be honest. I don't want to hear about exceptions versus the norm, or small market bullchit. Straight up assessment. I know the answer and so do you.

That is why PDX is so jacked up. TA gives 2 chits about youth development. Their selection process for the 05 group was not at all based on any true talent evaluation, and instead on the good old boy network. And when you combine that with indifference and arrogance...well you end up with a team like the 05 TA. A team that failed to beat the likes of Ballistic. Hats off to Westside (Westside, I have bashed you a lot, but you deserve this praise) for tweaking their roster and developing their kids. You should stop talking about all of the talent you allegedly lost to TA, and realize that those kids stop developing when they left. Coaching and club commitment are invaluable to player development. TA has shown that have neither. I watched 3 TA games this past weekend and I was shocked. The alleged, technical superstars from U12, looked like they were trapped at the same skill set as U12. In fact, some looked even worse. What a shame that "exposure" to what has been touted (and should be) the best training environment in PDX, has stunted and in some cases, destroyed those kids. (I am thinking of a certain ex FC player who was EXPOSED as a tremendous liability last weekend.) Ask and expect for more.

[Unregistered]

What is interesting to me, is your blatant refusal to accept that athleticism plays into the equation. I am not the poster you have been beefing with, but I do accept that athleticism is a big part of the puzzle. Sorry, I know that you would prefer to see all technical players, regardless of size...and I can accept that to an extent. Hoping that a kid with touch at 11,12,13 will grow and develop into an athelete who can hang with athletes who developed technical skills is a losing proposition IMHO. The thing is, both of you are right. Put aside your bias and think about this for a moment. If there were two kids for one spot. Both are equally skilled technically (and by that I mean, exceptionally) and one is 5" shorter, and considerably slower. Otherwise, everything else is equal. Attitude, intelligence, and work ethic....who do you honestly want for that one spot. Be honest. I don't want to hear about exceptions versus the norm, or small market bullchit. Straight up assessment. I know the answer and so do you.

That is why PDX is so jacked up. TA gives 2 chits about youth development. Their selection process for the 05 group was not at all based on any true talent evaluation, and instead on the good old boy network. And when you combine that with indifference and arrogance...well you end up with a team like the 05 TA. A team that failed to beat the likes of Ballistic. Hats off to Westside (Westside, I have bashed you a lot, but you deserve this praise) for tweaking their roster and developing their kids. You should stop talking about all of the talent you allegedly lost to TA, and realize that those kids stop developing when they left. Coaching and club commitment are invaluable to player development. TA has shown that have neither. I watched 3 TA games this past weekend and I was shocked. The alleged, technical superstars from U12, looked like they were trapped at the same skill set as U12. In fact, some looked even worse. What a shame that "exposure" to what has been touted (and should be) the best training environment in PDX, has stunted and in some cases, destroyed those kids. (I am thinking of a certain ex FC player who was EXPOSED as a tremendous liability last weekend.) Ask and expect for more.

Don’t talk about GM like that his daddy will get mad....and what happened to the supposed superstar TM? He looked very pedestrian in Oceanside.....

[Unregistered]

What is interesting to me, is your blatant refusal to accept that athleticism plays into the equation. I am not the poster you have been beefing with, but I do accept that athleticism is a big part of the puzzle. Sorry, I know that you would prefer to see all technical players, regardless of size...and I can accept that to an extent. Hoping that a kid with touch at 11,12,13 will grow and develop into an athelete who can hang with athletes who developed technical skills is a losing proposition IMHO. The thing is, both of you are right. Put aside your bias and think about this for a moment. If there were two kids for one spot. Both are equally skilled technically (and by that I mean, exceptionally) and one is 5" shorter, and considerably slower. Otherwise, everything else is equal. Attitude, intelligence, and work ethic....who do you honestly want for that one spot. Be honest. I don't want to hear about exceptions versus the norm, or small market bullchit. Straight up assessment. I know the answer and so do you.

I'm not the OP, but I'll chime in here.

Nobody is saying that athleticism doesn't matter, or that the TA (or any youth academy) should deliberately choose the less athletic kid, technical skills being equal. We're not worrying about the case of the short slow Messi vs the long fast Messi; in that case you choose the big kid if they are equal in touch.

The case we've been harping on is the short slow Messi vs the long fast Michael Bradley--where one kid is athletic but has poor (or at least worse) touch, and the other is less athletic but a more skilled soccer player.

Given the common gaps of both skill and size common in middle school, both of the following are likely to be true:

* The bigger kid (with worse touch) will often be able to beat the smaller kid, at this age. And a team composed of such bigger kids can often beat a team of more technical smaller kids, especially if coached in a way to best exploit the size and speed advantages. (Not necessarily "bootball", but a game that focuses on moving the ball through the air, and keeping it away from foot level as much as possible).

* The smaller kid (with better touch) is more likely to be a better pro prospect. Athletic ability at 12 doesn't predict athletic ability at 18 or 23; puberty can change things in a hurry. But touch gets better as players continue to train, but after a certain age, it becomes harder to acquire muscle memory. (And some aspects of "touch" are inborn traits, like size, not things that can be improved in training).

Of course, turning that smaller kid with better touch into someone who has a shot at the pros requires good coaching, and there's plenty to complain about there as far as the Timbers are concerned.

That is why PDX is so jacked up. TA gives 2 chits about youth development. Their selection process for the 05 group was not at all based on any true talent evaluation, and instead on the good old boy network.

Which old boy network is that? A wide variety of local clubs, including several non-Alliance clubs, sent players to 05TA. The Billups issue is a big red flag, but that's not an "old boy networks", that's flat naked bribery. :) The one blue-chip club that didn't send anyone to TA is Crossfire, and one continually hears that a few XFire players were invited but declined (and that Crossfire's coaching staff routinely criticized the TA and discourages XFire players to go). If that's true, Crossfire shouldn't whine that none of their players went. (Though I could be confusing a few Crossfire honks with a few WashT or FC honks).

And when you combine that with indifference and arrogance...well you end up with a team like the 05 TA. A team that failed to beat the likes of Ballistic. Hats off to Westside (Westside, I have bashed you a lot, but you deserve this praise) for tweaking their roster and developing their kids. You should stop talking about all of the talent you allegedly lost to TA, and realize that those kids stop developing when they left. Coaching and club commitment are invaluable to player development. TA has shown that have neither. I watched 3 TA games this past weekend and I was shocked. The alleged, technical superstars from U12, looked like they were trapped at the same skill set as U12. In fact, some looked even worse. What a shame that "exposure" to what has been touted (and should be) the best training environment in PDX, has stunted and in some cases, destroyed those kids. (I am thinking of a certain ex FC player who was EXPOSED as a tremendous liability last weekend.) Ask and expect for more.

Which ex-FC kid was that? Rumor has it that RF had a one-on-one with an opposing keeper and failed to score, but I was not in Oceanside to see it myself. TE and GM were also there, ZA is still either injured or training with Arsenal, depending on who you believe. :)

[Unregistered]

I'm not the OP, but I'll chime in here.

Nobody is saying that athleticism doesn't matter, or that the TA (or any youth academy) should deliberately choose the less athletic kid, technical skills being equal. We're not worrying about the case of the short slow Messi vs the long fast Messi; in that case you choose the big kid if they are equal in touch.

The case we've been harping on is the short slow Messi vs the long fast Michael Bradley--where one kid is athletic but has poor (or at least worse) touch, and the other is less athletic but a more skilled soccer player.

Given the common gaps of both skill and size common in middle school, both of the following are likely to be true:

* The bigger kid (with worse touch) will often be able to beat the smaller kid, at this age. And a team composed of such bigger kids can often beat a team of more technical smaller kids, especially if coached in a way to best exploit the size and speed advantages. (Not necessarily "bootball", but a game that focuses on moving the ball through the air, and keeping it away from foot level as much as possible).

* The smaller kid (with better touch) is more likely to be a better pro prospect. Athletic ability at 12 doesn't predict athletic ability at 18 or 23; puberty can change things in a hurry. But touch gets better as players continue to train, but after a certain age, it becomes harder to acquire muscle memory. (And some aspects of "touch" are inborn traits, like size, not things that can be improved in training).

Of course, turning that smaller kid with better touch into someone who has a shot at the pros requires good coaching, and there's plenty to complain about there as far as the Timbers are concerned.



Which old boy network is that? A wide variety of local clubs, including several non-Alliance clubs, sent players to 05TA. The Billups issue is a big red flag, but that's not an "old boy networks", that's flat naked bribery. :) The one blue-chip club that didn't send anyone to TA is Crossfire, and one continually hears that a few XFire players were invited but declined (and that Crossfire's coaching staff routinely criticized the TA and discourages XFire players to go). If that's true, Crossfire shouldn't whine that none of their players went. (Though I could be confusing a few Crossfire honks with a few WashT or FC honks).



Which ex-FC kid was that? Rumor has it that RF had a one-on-one with an opposing keeper and failed to score, but I was not in Oceanside to see it myself. TE and GM were also there, ZA is still either injured or training with Arsenal, depending on who you believe. :)

I saw two TA games, and RF was playing well. In many ways, he stood out with his effort and work ethic. I saw numerous times where he was open and one more pass would have put him 1V1 with the keeper. However, miss were not able to make that pass. Over dribbling was the norm.

[Unregistered]

I'm not the OP, but I'll chime in here.

Nobody is saying that athleticism doesn't matter, or that the TA (or any youth academy) should deliberately choose the less athletic kid, technical skills being equal. We're not worrying about the case of the short slow Messi vs the long fast Messi; in that case you choose the big kid if they are equal in touch.

The case we've been harping on is the short slow Messi vs the long fast Michael Bradley--where one kid is athletic but has poor (or at least worse) touch, and the other is less athletic but a more skilled soccer player.

Given the common gaps of both skill and size common in middle school, both of the following are likely to be true:

* The bigger kid (with worse touch) will often be able to beat the smaller kid, at this age. And a team composed of such bigger kids can often beat a team of more technical smaller kids, especially if coached in a way to best exploit the size and speed advantages. (Not necessarily "bootball", but a game that focuses on moving the ball through the air, and keeping it away from foot level as much as possible).

* The smaller kid (with better touch) is more likely to be a better pro prospect. Athletic ability at 12 doesn't predict athletic ability at 18 or 23; puberty can change things in a hurry. But touch gets better as players continue to train, but after a certain age, it becomes harder to acquire muscle memory. (And some aspects of "touch" are inborn traits, like size, not things that can be improved in training).

Of course, turning that smaller kid with better touch into someone who has a shot at the pros requires good coaching, and there's plenty to complain about there as far as the Timbers are concerned.

I think the size thing is overdone, both ways, in terms of being any kind of advantage in terms of "winning" or "selection".

Outside of 3 positions on the field, height isn't an advantage. Now if you couple it with speed and/or strength (assuming technical, character, and tactical are the same), different story, but all things being equal, I don't think the taller team wins more than a shorter team.

I also think american soccer coach preference for larger players is the thing of the past. Yes there are a couple of neanderthal holdovers, but the exception not the rule. Players going through a growth spurt look clumsier than their shorter teammates who are at a growth plateau; I see plenty of short players picked for "A" teams of both genders in the middle age years.

[Unregistered]

I think the size thing is overdone, both ways, in terms of being any kind of advantage in terms of "winning" or "selection".

Outside of 3 positions on the field, height isn't an advantage. Now if you couple it with speed and/or strength (assuming technical, character, and tactical are the same), different story, but all things being equal, I don't think the taller team wins more than a shorter team.

I also think american soccer coach preference for larger players is the thing of the past. Yes there are a couple of neanderthal holdovers, but the exception not the rule. Players going through a growth spurt look clumsier than their shorter teammates who are at a growth plateau; I see plenty of short players picked for "A" teams of both genders in the middle age years.

I think the interactions with size and maturity are what cause difficulties. A big kid at 13 can end up being not very big at all, so if they're distinguishing themselves because of their size (or papering over deficiencies in intelligence or ability with their size) then you're basically wasting resources that could be spent elsewhere.

[Unregistered]

I think the interactions with size and maturity are what cause difficulties. A big kid at 13 can end up being not very big at all, so if they're distinguishing themselves because of their size (or papering over deficiencies in intelligence or ability with their size) then you're basically wasting resources that could be spent elsewhere.

We all agree that technical ability is a must. That is a given...as far as the athleticism criteria goes, the most desirable attributes are quickness and pace. Watching teams like LAFC, Surf and other top SoCal teams, they were collectively all quicker and faster than oregon. Even the more quick and fast kids in Oregon were at best equal. However, their technical skills were not on par with those kids so they were not effective.

Honestly, kids who are quick and fast do not lose speed, so identify them early and train them up.

[Unregistered]

I'm not the OP, but I'll chime in here.

Nobody is saying that athleticism doesn't matter, or that the TA (or any youth academy) should deliberately choose the less athletic kid, technical skills being equal. We're not worrying about the case of the short slow Messi vs the long fast Messi; in that case you choose the big kid if they are equal in touch.

The case we've been harping on is the short slow Messi vs the long fast Michael Bradley--where one kid is athletic but has poor (or at least worse) touch, and the other is less athletic but a more skilled soccer player.

Given the common gaps of both skill and size common in middle school, both of the following are likely to be true:

* The bigger kid (with worse touch) will often be able to beat the smaller kid, at this age. And a team composed of such bigger kids can often beat a team of more technical smaller kids, especially if coached in a way to best exploit the size and speed advantages. (Not necessarily "bootball", but a game that focuses on moving the ball through the air, and keeping it away from foot level as much as possible).

* The smaller kid (with better touch) is more likely to be a better pro prospect. Athletic ability at 12 doesn't predict athletic ability at 18 or 23; puberty can change things in a hurry. But touch gets better as players continue to train, but after a certain age, it becomes harder to acquire muscle memory. (And some aspects of "touch" are inborn traits, like size, not things that can be improved in training).

Of course, turning that smaller kid with better touch into someone who has a shot at the pros requires good coaching, and there's plenty to complain about there as far as the Timbers are concerned.



Which old boy network is that? A wide variety of local clubs, including several non-Alliance clubs, sent players to 05TA. The Billups issue is a big red flag, but that's not an "old boy networks", that's flat naked bribery. :) The one blue-chip club that didn't send anyone to TA is Crossfire, and one continually hears that a few XFire players were invited but declined (and that Crossfire's coaching staff routinely criticized the TA and discourages XFire players to go). If that's true, Crossfire shouldn't whine that none of their players went. (Though I could be confusing a few Crossfire honks with a few WashT or FC honks).



Which ex-FC kid was that? Rumor has it that RF had a one-on-one with an opposing keeper and failed to score, but I was not in Oceanside to see it myself. TE and GM were also there, ZA is still either injured or training with Arsenal, depending on who you believe. :)

Did you purposely throw RF under the bus to deflect attention from your ds? TE was dealing with a knee injury, ZA HAS a broken arm (nothing to Debate it’s a fact) and RF actually made run after run and was wide open several times on the wing but the juggling and dribbling circus could not make the easy next pass and was constantly closed down because they held the ball too long (so much for superior field vision). Which leaves just one....

[Unregistered]

Did you purposely throw RF under the bus to deflect attention from your ds? TE was dealing with a knee injury, ZA HAS a broken arm (nothing to Debate it’s a fact) and RF actually made run after run and was wide open several times on the wing but the juggling and dribbling circus could not make the easy next pass and was constantly closed down because they held the ball too long (so much for superior field vision). Which leaves just one....

LET'S GO PORTLAND!!!!

I wonder who it could be....

[Unregistered]

Did you purposely throw RF under the bus to deflect attention from your ds? TE was dealing with a knee injury, ZA HAS a broken arm (nothing to Debate it’s a fact) and RF actually made run after run and was wide open several times on the wing but the juggling and dribbling circus could not make the easy next pass and was constantly closed down because they held the ball too long (so much for superior field vision). Which leaves just one....

I'll tell you what though, it is not lost on me that RF and TE are winners and competitors and were brought into TA for a reason. Seems like TA figured out that they brought the wrong kids in the year before.

[Unregistered]

I'll tell you what though, it is not lost on me that RF and TE are winners and competitors and were brought into TA for a reason. Seems like TA figured out that they brought the wrong kids in the year before.

Training with Tracy may have played a part?? And for those that blindly believed TA was doing it right- oceanside just gave you a peek into the slime that is TA

[Unregistered]

I'm not the OP, but I'll chime in here.

Nobody is saying that athleticism doesn't matter, or that the TA (or any youth academy) should deliberately choose the less athletic kid, technical skills being equal. We're not worrying about the case of the short slow Messi vs the long fast Messi; in that case you choose the big kid if they are equal in touch.

The case we've been harping on is the short slow Messi vs the long fast Michael Bradley--where one kid is athletic but has poor (or at least worse) touch, and the other is less athletic but a more skilled soccer player.

Given the common gaps of both skill and size common in middle school, both of the following are likely to be true:

* The bigger kid (with worse touch) will often be able to beat the smaller kid, at this age. And a team composed of such bigger kids can often beat a team of more technical smaller kids, especially if coached in a way to best exploit the size and speed advantages. (Not necessarily "bootball", but a game that focuses on moving the ball through the air, and keeping it away from foot level as much as possible).

* The smaller kid (with better touch) is more likely to be a better pro prospect. Athletic ability at 12 doesn't predict athletic ability at 18 or 23; puberty can change things in a hurry. But touch gets better as players continue to train, but after a certain age, it becomes harder to acquire muscle memory. (And some aspects of "touch" are inborn traits, like size, not things that can be improved in training).

Of course, turning that smaller kid with better touch into someone who has a shot at the pros requires good coaching, and there's plenty to complain about there as far as the Timbers are concerned.



Which old boy network is that? A wide variety of local clubs, including several non-Alliance clubs, sent players to 05TA. The Billups issue is a big red flag, but that's not an "old boy networks", that's flat naked bribery. :) The one blue-chip club that didn't send anyone to TA is Crossfire, and one continually hears that a few XFire players were invited but declined (and that Crossfire's coaching staff routinely criticized the TA and discourages XFire players to go). If that's true, Crossfire shouldn't whine that none of their players went. (Though I could be confusing a few Crossfire honks with a few WashT or FC honks).



Which ex-FC kid was that? Rumor has it that RF had a one-on-one with an opposing keeper and failed to score, but I was not in Oceanside to see it myself. TE and GM were also there, ZA is still either injured or training with Arsenal, depending on who you believe. :)

Funny I did not see the midget from westside (not rostered?) that everyone on here defends (who does not belong), the slytherins were absent, the “rostered players” from FC completely underwhelmed, players from westside struggled and for the “really skilled” midfielders (you said you had them) they were suspect as well. TM, who I looked forward to watching was a complete disappointment and your bio banders (you had 2) did nothing and you expect the rest of us to just accept the mediocrity?? Reality check time, none of your current players have a shot in hell of making it professionally....

[Unregistered]

Enough with the reality checks and personal agendas, I need my Las Vegas sanctioned predictions- we have games this weekend people and parlays to place

[Unregistered]

Enough with the reality checks and personal agendas, I need my Las Vegas sanctioned predictions- we have games this weekend people and parlays to place

Westside and Capital win comfortably.

TA wins but no one cares.

[Unregistered]

Westside and Capital win comfortably.

TA wins but no one cares.

Who are Westside and Capital playing?
If TA is winning, then they are playing...Eastside, Snohomish or Rush?