The End of Late Bloomers?

[Grace T.]

There were 2 trends in the 2000s which seem to have sunset. One, the recommendation of the United Soccer Coaches here in the United States and of goalkeeper coaches abroad were that goalkeepers should not be in goal full time until U13 and should only really start training at around age 10. One trend I've noticed in the soccer camps here though is that full time goalkeepers have been getting younger and younger with kids as young as 7 doing training. And if you look at the ads on the announcement boards, teams younger and younger are advertising for FT keepers. The same has happened with the European Academies as they've gotten younger...the kids enter the academy as either a goalkeeper or a field player and there isn't a whole lot of change (a field player you later teach to be a goalkeeper or a goalkeeper that switches to field).

The other was in the women's game goalkeepers have been a weak spot (Americans excepted). But now that the Europeans have shifted to an academy model for women, this video makes the argument that there's been a notable improvement in women's goalkeeping. They also make the point that while the men have used their size to cover mistakes, the women, being shorter but playing in the same goals as men, have had to get really good with their footwork.

I think both in the US and abroad this bodes badly for the idea that kids should split time in the field and I think more and more soccer is going to move away from that at the younger ages. We're going to see younger and younger specialization in both the men's and women's game, and those that decide to switch late are just not going to be able to catch up. In any case, it's an interesting video.

 

[outside!]

Interesting point. In the future, if a field player is going to transition to GK at older ages, the only way to be successful may be if they have volleyball, basketball or rugby experience. I know a keeper that has played rugby at a high level.

 

[Grace T.]

Interesting point. In the future, if a field player is going to transition to GK at older ages, the only way to be successful may be if they have volleyball, basketball or rugby experience. I know a keeper that has played rugby at a high level.

I’d argue baseball outfielder before volleyball.

 

[Carlsbad7]

It should be required that all field goalies also play futsal. (In futsal goalies are encouraged to come out + also be field players.)

 

[dk_b]

My older daughter is a GK and went full time at U13. Before that, she was 1/2 in goal, 1/2 up top. When her younger sisters started playing competitively and I would see U10s in their full GK kit, it really bummed me out. One of the reason my older daughter has had the success she’s had is precisely because she had a foundation of footwork that can only come from being a field player. And the keeper learns the game in a different way by having had the experience - even as a kid - of playing on the field.

 

[espola]

It should be required that all field goalies also play futsal. (In futsal goalies are encouraged to come out + also be field players.)

Is that because of a rule? Coaching philosophy? Habit?

 

[Grace T.]

Is that because of a rule? Coaching philosophy? Habit?

Because the box is smaller and there are only 5 players…adding another field player makes a huge difference and there isn’t much risk in a gk wandering since the goal is smaller so harder to get pegged with a high ball.

It should be required that all field goalies also play futsal. (In futsal goalies are encouraged to come out + also be field players.)

I’d argue it’s great when they hit the middle school and higher ages but at the younger, especially for girls, it teaches bad habits if done too much…slapping the ball instead of catching it, footsaving instead of diving. Once the core techniques are mastered have at it. Agree.

My older daughter is a GK and went full time at U13. Before that, she was 1/2 in goal, 1/2 up top. When her younger sisters started playing competitively and I would see U10s in their full GK kit, it really bummed me out. One of the reason my older daughter has had the success she’s had is precisely because she had a foundation of footwork that can only come from being a field player. And the keeper learns the game in a different way by having had the experience - even as a kid - of playing on the field.

The Europeans are addressing it by adding foot training to their gk programs. The gk have passing drills but ones directed at them. For example, in receiving a ball a gk needs to be flat to the goal line and not angled…that way they can receive it to the foot away from pressure and switch it…field players learn to be angled to the ball. They can spend less time on footskills…they need a few and specifically targeted like the v and the rollover and will get little benefit from an attacking skill like stepovers or elastico. In rectangle rhondos the gks are placed on the opposite lines instead of in the scrum to work on 1 touch directional passing. My son became great with his feet because his npl coach did this with him and the skill on the line is much different than that from the players in the box.

the problem in the us especially with club gk training is the training is very limited (a group class where touches are limited 1-3 hours a week). Most coaches as a result don’t prioritize the feet because they don’t have time. The list of stuff to get to is so long it’s no surprise: catching (5 different types depending on height of the ball) footwork, angels, punting, gks, side winders, near cross, out cross, far post cross, different 1v1s on the ground, different 1v1s in the air, high ball tipping, tipping while falling back, etc etc. and that’s before you even get to conditioning. our gk coaches also aren’t integrated into the teams except on the academy level so the coach assumes the gk coach will train it and the gk coach assumes the coach is teaching feet. It’s why we have a rip roaring private gk market and gk camp market.

 

[Mystery Train]

our gk coaches also aren’t integrated into the teams except on the academy level so the coach assumes the gk coach will train it and the gk coach assumes the coach is teaching feet. It’s why we have a rip roaring private gk market and gk camp market.

THIS. ^^^^^^

 

[Mystery Train]

For me, this topic, and many others involving a debate or discussion on the "best" way to develop soccer players always boils down to more fundamental questions: What is the ultimate outcome being sought? What are the metrics you use to measure that outcome?

So many of these conversations are founded vaguely on the notion that whatever we do broadly as a culture (here specifically the US) in terms of player development, it must produce results like 1) higher quality national team players, 2) more US players signed in high level professional leagues, 3) national team ranking/winning percentage/World Cup results, etc. So by virtue of this goal, we are focused on getting the most out of the top 30-70 players in the country. Now, based on at least one source of data that I found, there's somewhere around 7.5 million teenagers and 24 million citizens (all ages) playing some type of organized soccer. That means we will always be working towards refining a system that maximizes the performance results of around .0001 percent of the soccer playing population. There is some assumption, perhaps based on our weirdly ingrained concept of trickle down economics, that whatever system that is will somehow also benefit the millions of children who play some version of club soccer. So if this is the intention, then sure, more specialization early on will likely produce more results later on the field of play in terms of how skilled the top .0001% of players are. You see this in all sports all around the world. Comparing the skill levels of quarterbacks and receivers in the NFL, ball handling and shooting skills of any position in the NBA, and skills of top world class professional soccer, I would argue that what we see in 2022 is far beyond what was seen in 1982 and even as recently as 1992. Youth training and coaching has been moving more and more towards specialization and sophistication for the past 40 years and it shows in those results.

But here's my take: It's NOT beneficial to the kids themselves. In any way, shape, or form. On all tangible metrics that we would consider more important for our individual children than winning trophies, such as injury, overall physical health, mental health/happiness, a life long love of sport and fitness, specialization produces dramatically worse results across the board. Convince me otherwise.

 

[Grace T.]

For me, this topic, and many others involving a debate or discussion on the "best" way to develop soccer players always boils down to more fundamental questions: What is the ultimate outcome being sought? What are the metrics you use to measure that outcome?

So many of these conversations are founded vaguely on the notion that whatever we do broadly as a culture (here specifically the US) in terms of player development, it must produce results like 1) higher quality national team players, 2) more US players signed in high level professional leagues, 3) national team ranking/winning percentage/World Cup results, etc. So by virtue of this goal, we are focused on getting the most out of the top 30-70 players in the country. Now, based on at least one source of data that I found, there's somewhere around 7.5 million teenagers and 24 million citizens (all ages) playing some type of organized soccer. That means we will always be working towards refining a system that maximizes the performance results of around .0001 percent of the soccer playing population. There is some assumption, perhaps based on our weirdly ingrained concept of trickle down economics, that whatever system that is will somehow also benefit the millions of children who play some version of club soccer. So if this is the intention, then sure, more specialization early on will likely produce more results later on the field of play in terms of how skilled the top .0001% of players are. You see this in all sports all around the world. Comparing the skill levels of quarterbacks and receivers in the NFL, ball handling and shooting skills of any position in the NBA, and skills of top world class professional soccer, I would argue that what we see in 2022 is far beyond what was seen in 1982 and even as recently as 1992. Youth training and coaching has been moving more and more towards specialization and sophistication for the past 40 years and it shows in those results.

But here's my take: It's NOT beneficial to the kids themselves. In any way, shape, or form. On all tangible metrics that we would consider more important for our individual children than winning trophies, such as injury, overall physical health, mental health/happiness, a life long love of sport and fitness, specialization produces dramatically worse results across the board. Convince me otherwise.

Absolutely agree it's not beneficial to the kids. It's bad enough they are specializing in year round travel soccer let alone now they have to be a goalkeeper at age 8. BUT, there is an element to a keeping up with the Jones problem.

So, taking the boys, the MLS academy goalkeepers will be pressed into specialization early because that's the aspiration and if we are aiming to build boy success on the world's stage that's what's required if the other countries are doing it. The MLS Next players may harbor aspirations or be in contention for those academy slots (they won't really know until they are older) so to keep the possibility open they'll have to do the same as the MLS academy goalkeepers....they also have to preserve their spot from EA keepers who may be doing the same. The EA keepers may want to move up to MLS Next, so they'll in order not to fall behind have to do the same...even if they don't want to move up if certain EA keepers are doing it, the other EA keepers will need to in order to be competitive and keep their slots...etc as it trickles down to extras. It actually gets more complicated than this because at age 7 8 9 we don't know who might make the academy, MLS Next, EA slots and so are guessing as to who is a future person to take those slots.

The coaches go along because while a GK might not be able to win you the game (until a certain point the only thing you need to do is to hit it over the boy's heads...was just watching an 09 NPL game where all 3 goals were DFKs hit over the GK and otherwise no goals were scored all game) an untrained goalkeeper will certainly cost you potentially 50% more goals and we've discussed elsewhere how important winning is.

So while it may not be ideal for kids, as long as we set the expectation for the highest tier that way, it will trickle down the line as each level tries to keep up with the level above it, until it peters out somewhere in flight 2/3/Extras. It's sort of the same thing that happened with club soccer when it used to be really small in the 70s but then everyone jumped into the pool in order to keep up.

p.s. as a side note, except for the year before they move into the big goals, and except starting at age 14 or up in the boys game (and for all the time period in the girls games....sure they'll be a handful of keepers this won't work against on both the boys and girls end, but they are the exception) I'm surprised the coaches that are so obsessed with winning don't just take two players and drill them non stop in shooting DFKs over the keeper's head. You can't ignore the other aspects of the game (you need a defense for example) but it seems to me that focusing on this one skill is a way for coaches to get easy winning results. I'm surprised it doesn't happen more often....maybe it's too hard to train.

 

[Mystery Train]

Absolutely agree it's not beneficial to the kids. It's bad enough they are specializing in year round travel soccer let alone now they have to be a goalkeeper at age 8. BUT, there is an element to a keeping up with the Jones problem.

So, taking the boys, the MLS academy goalkeepers will be pressed into specialization early because that's the aspiration and if we are aiming to build boy success on the world's stage that's what's required if the other countries are doing it. The MLS Next players may harbor aspirations or be in contention for those academy slots (they won't really know until they are older) so to keep the possibility open they'll have to do the same as the MLS academy goalkeepers....they also have to preserve their spot from EA keepers who may be doing the same. The EA keepers may want to move up to MLS Next, so they'll in order not to fall behind have to do the same...even if they don't want to move up if certain EA keepers are doing it, the other EA keepers will need to in order to be competitive and keep their slots...etc as it trickles down to extras. It actually gets more complicated than this because at age 7 8 9 we don't know who might make the academy, MLS Next, EA slots and so are guessing as to who is a future person to take those slots.

The coaches go along because while a GK might not be able to win you the game (until a certain point the only thing you need to do is to hit it over the boy's heads...was just watching an 09 NPL game where all 3 goals were DFKs hit over the GK and otherwise no goals were scored all game) an untrained goalkeeper will certainly cost you potentially 50% more goals and we've discussed elsewhere how important winning is.

So while it may not be ideal for kids, as long as we set the expectation for the highest tier that way, it will trickle down the line as each level tries to keep up with the level above it, until it peters out somewhere in flight 2/3/Extras. It's sort of the same thing that happened with club soccer when it used to be really small in the 70s but then everyone jumped into the pool in order to keep up.

p.s. as a side note, except for the year before they move into the big goals, and except starting at age 14 or up in the boys game (and for all the time period in the girls games....sure they'll be a handful of keepers this won't work against on both the boys and girls end, but they are the exception) I'm surprised the coaches that are so obsessed with winning don't just take two players and drill them non stop in shooting DFKs over the keeper's head. You can't ignore the other aspects of the game (you need a defense for example) but it seems to me that focusing on this one skill is a way for coaches to get easy winning results. I'm surprised it doesn't happen more often....maybe it's too hard to train.

Yes. I'm not saying there's any way to reverse this momentum, either. It just is what it is. Though I do dislike it quite a lot for the majority of kids playing youth sports.

There's no doubt that the quality of keeper play in this past Euro cup was far beyond what I'd seen in the past. My DD and I geeked out breaking down the GK performances all tournament long. It was really impressive. I noted that overall, the level of play in the field was also vastly superior to what I had seen in prior years' women's Euro Cup. Specialization like this does produce some amazing skill, no doubt.

In my household, however, I've seen this cultural fixation with specialization result in quite different experiences for my children in sports. My middle child's personality is well suited for specialization. She hyper-focuses on things in her life across the board. She's uber competitive. She really got into soccer as a 9 year old and hasn't looked back. Has zero FOMO, so she'll sacrifice her social life for soccer without hesitation. My oldest loves sports, wants to have fun and enjoys playing, but there's no place for her in organized sports because it's too all-consuming. She's got diverse interests and likes doing lots of different activities. She also has the kind of big-picture perspective to recognize that failure to knock a ball through a net isn't something one should be yelled at over, so she ain't wasting time on a game if your options are win or get berated. My youngest is a boy who loves physical competition, but wants to do everything. Surfing, soccer, lacrosse, basketball, football, skateboarding... he messes around with all of them, but gets bored doing just one all the time. The problem is, because all youth sports are now directed towards more specialization for the top performers, there's no place in organized sports for two of my three kids once they got beyond the age of 10. So even though they both love playing sports, they end up doing none because if you're not in club or travel ball for basically any sport, you've got no options and almost all levels of club or travel ball are directed by the "keeping up" dilemma you describe above. And that's a damn shame.

 

[Grace T.]

Yes. I'm not saying there's any way to reverse this momentum, either. It just is what it is. Though I do dislike it quite a lot for the majority of kids playing youth sports.

There's no doubt that the quality of keeper play in this past Euro cup was far beyond what I'd seen in the past. My DD and I geeked out breaking down the GK performances all tournament long. It was really impressive. I noted that overall, the level of play in the field was also vastly superior to what I had seen in prior years' women's Euro Cup. Specialization like this does produce some amazing skill, no doubt.

In my household, however, I've seen this cultural fixation with specialization result in quite different experiences for my children in sports. My middle child's personality is well suited for specialization. She hyper-focuses on things in her life across the board. She's uber competitive. She really got into soccer as a 9 year old and hasn't looked back. Has zero FOMO, so she'll sacrifice her social life for soccer without hesitation. My oldest loves sports, wants to have fun and enjoys playing, but there's no place for her in organized sports because it's too all-consuming. She's got diverse interests and likes doing lots of different activities. She also has the kind of big-picture perspective to recognize that failure to knock a ball through a net isn't something one should be yelled at over, so she ain't wasting time on a game if your options are win or get berated. My youngest is a boy who loves physical competition, but wants to do everything. Surfing, soccer, lacrosse, basketball, football, skateboarding... he messes around with all of them, but gets bored doing just one all the time. The problem is, because all youth sports are now directed towards more specialization for the top performers, there's no place in organized sports for two of my three kids once they got beyond the age of 10. So even though they both love playing sports, they end up doing none because if you're not in club or travel ball for basically any sport, you've got no options and almost all levels of club or travel ball are directed by the "keeping up" dilemma you describe above. And that's a damn shame.

And it's not just club sports but also pretty much anything having to do with college admissions...you have to be "Well oblonged" to be competitive which means not just well rounded but you have to be able to hyperfocus on one or two things as your hook (which sort of defines you....I'm a soccer player, I'm captain of the debate team, I'm student body president, I'm a retreat leader....it's why so many of the kids fall into the fake charity when they don't have something else...). It's a shame because it does a disservice to kids that don't like to obsess about one thing and would rather sample life's experiences. It's also a shame because kids could learn something by working part time, but unless they are head counselor and basically running a camp or have their own McDonald's franchise by 18, they don't really get "credit" for work either.

 

[Mystery Train]

And it's not just club sports but also pretty much anything having to do with college admissions...you have to be "Well oblonged" to be competitive which means not just well rounded but you have to be able to hyperfocus on one or two things as your hook (which sort of defines you....I'm a soccer player, I'm captain of the debate team, I'm student body president, I'm a retreat leader....it's why so many of the kids fall into the fake charity when they don't have something else...). It's a shame because it does a disservice to kids that don't like to obsess about one thing and would rather sample life's experiences. It's also a shame because kids could learn something by working part time, but unless they are head counselor and basically running a camp or have their own McDonald's franchise by 18, they don't really get "credit" for work either.

So true. It really does show up in every aspect of schooling and college admissions. Civilization continually refines the process of creating and rewarding narcissistic psychopathy.

 

[EvilGoalie 21]

college admissions...you have to be "Well oblonged"

There's two key check boxes for extracurriculars on an application to a competitive private school. Engaged in community. Leadership potential. That's why the paper tiger nonprofit often fits the bill even if it is completely silly. And (for regular admission process) why "I was JV team captain" = "I played since I was 5 and led my team to victory in this really big tournament". The dedication it takes a young athlete to succeed can actually work against a prospective student because there is less time for weekends doing community oriented volunteer stuff, etc. People on this forum will know what it means but many admissions people will not.

 

[EvilGoalie 21]

our gk coaches also aren’t integrated into the teams except on the academy level \

It is remarkable. I'd say even MLS academy level it's not that much better from what I've seen (guys). Still lots of horizontal distribution because the outside backs don't push up. So no momentum playing out. It gets better but they sort of teach it to themselves.

 

[EvilGoalie 21]

It should be required that all field goalies also play futsal. (In futsal goalies are encouraged to come out + also be field players.)

Agree that it's really useful. Different types of saves but it's so fast and great for keeper feet. You can face so many situations in one game. Plus, if it widens out keepers can take a touch of the middle and have a crack at it.

 

[Grace T.]

There's two key check boxes for extracurriculars on an application to a competitive private school. Engaged in community. Leadership potential. That's why the paper tiger nonprofit often fits the bill even if it is completely silly. And (for regular admission process) why "I was JV team captain" = "I played since I was 5 and led my team to victory in this really big tournament". The dedication it takes a young athlete to succeed can actually work against a prospective student because there is less time for weekends doing community oriented volunteer stuff, etc. People on this forum will know what it means but many admissions people will not.

Yeah if you aren’t doing the recruited route club sports can be the kiss of death. A huge amount of time spent just to check the well rounded box and not enough for other activities. Plus you have to explain away if you are so passionate about something why arent you going to do it in college and instead you’ve spent little time on this other thing you also say you are “passionate” about but are going to do in college.

It is remarkable. I'd say even MLS academy level it's not that much better from what I've seen (guys). Still lots of horizontal distribution because the outside backs don't push up. So no momentum playing out. It gets better but they sort of teach it to themselves.

You mean the rb and lb pushing up and wide but instead the ball is always played horizontally to the cbs? That’s just the way they are teaching it these days as a result of the goalkick rule changes. The preference is to retain possession, draw pressure in away from the rb and lb and then decide whether to go long, short to the outside backs or back to the gk checking in on the side of the goal. If the gk sends it to the outside backs instead of the cbs it’s most likely going to get lost because they are more likely to be covered and it’s a clipped ball which is harder to control. The preference instead is to either go horizontally, or if they’ve drawn pressure to the dm, or if they are all covered over the top since you can’t be offside on a goalkick. Gk to outside back is lower on the list with probably only gk to cam less preferred. But you are correct that failure of the outside backs to push up leads to an easy high pressure environment where the ball can be lost due to crowding.

 

[EvilGoalie 21]

Yeah if you aren’t doing the recruited route club sports can be the kiss of death. A huge amount of time spent just to check the well rounded box and not enough for other activities. Plus you have to explain away if you are so passionate about something why arent you going to do it in college and instead you’ve spent little time on this other thing you also say you are “passionate” about but are going to do in college.




You mean the rb and lb pushing up and wide but instead the ball is always played horizontally to the cbs? That’s just the way they are teaching it these days as a result of the goalkick rule changes. The preference is to retain possession, draw pressure in away from the rb and lb and then decide whether to go long, short to the outside backs or back to the gk checking in on the side of the goal. If the gk sends it to the outside backs instead of the cbs it’s most likely going to get lost because they are more likely to be covered and it’s a clipped ball which is harder to control. The preference instead is to either go horizontally, or if they’ve drawn pressure to the dm, or if they are all covered over the top since you can’t be offside on a goalkick. Gk to outside back is lower on the list with probably only gk to cam less preferred. But you are correct that failure of the outside backs to push up leads to an easy high pressure environment where the ball can be lost due to crowding.

My kid moved through before the build out line. He was lucky in that he never had a just kick it coach. I get the point is to encourage playing out of the back. Fewer long kicks and punts. But ultimately a different kind of predictable. IMO for a keeper it forestalls some of the situational awareness and decision making that they will need to learn and can help develop them to be the first point of attack. If they bring a high press I push them back on restarts. If they don't press I roll out easy to a CB, look for a mid wide at the half mark, or see what's cooking. If we regain possession in final third with momentum I call the defense to swing through me and play out on one side or the other. If I catch a cross I'm to the top of my box and want my outside back (depending on system) on their weak side to be taking off because he/she knows that's where its going.

Like you say, rare for there to be an excercise where the point is to have the keeper and defense work as a unit on these things, at least in my experience. Perhaps the build out line forces that to an extent. "Billy, your keeper was yelling "away" and you gave them a panicked back pass. What would have been a different decision".

 

[Grace T.]

My kid moved through before the build out line. He was lucky in that he never had a just kick it coach. I get the point is to encourage playing out of the back. Fewer long kicks and punts. But ultimately a different kind of predictable. IMO for a keeper it forestalls some of the situational awareness and decision making that they will need to learn and can help develop them to be the first point of attack. If they bring a high press I push them back on restarts. If they don't press I roll out easy to a CB, look for a mid wide at the half mark, or see what's cooking. If we regain possession in final third with momentum I call the defense to swing through me and play out on one side or the other. If I catch a cross I'm to the top of my box and want my outside back (depending on system) on their weak side to be taking off because he/she knows that's where its going.

Like you say, rare for there to be an excercise where the point is to have the keeper and defense work as a unit on these things, at least in my experience. Perhaps the build out line forces that to an extent. "Billy, your keeper was yelling "away" and you gave them a panicked back pass. What would have been a different decision".

Agree with what you wrote but the relevant rule change wasn’t the build out line for the youngins. It’s the change in goalkicks that the ball no longer has to leave the box to be in play. It allowed teams to bring in the cbs into the box away from pressure so there is always an option and it makes the high press more difficult (if a team does it it opens space long). It changed the distribution formations in the pros and has trickled (in fairly surprising speed…most higher level youth coaches and gks do seem to watch soccer which is both surprising and great to see) down to us youth soccer. Direct to the outside r and l backs on a goalkick (as opposed to hand distribution) is now much more disfavored.

 

[jojon]

Yes. I'm not saying there's any way to reverse this momentum, either. It just is what it is. Though I do dislike it quite a lot for the majority of kids playing youth sports.

There's no doubt that the quality of keeper play in this past Euro cup was far beyond what I'd seen in the past. My DD and I geeked out breaking down the GK performances all tournament long. It was really impressive. I noted that overall, the level of play in the field was also vastly superior to what I had seen in prior years' women's Euro Cup. Specialization like this does produce some amazing skill, no doubt.

In my household, however, I've seen this cultural fixation with specialization result in quite different experiences for my children in sports. My middle child's personality is well suited for specialization. She hyper-focuses on things in her life across the board. She's uber competitive. She really got into soccer as a 9 year old and hasn't looked back. Has zero FOMO, so she'll sacrifice her social life for soccer without hesitation. My oldest loves sports, wants to have fun and enjoys playing, but there's no place for her in organized sports because it's too all-consuming. She's got diverse interests and likes doing lots of different activities. She also has the kind of big-picture perspective to recognize that failure to knock a ball through a net isn't something one should be yelled at over, so she ain't wasting time on a game if your options are win or get berated. My youngest is a boy who loves physical competition, but wants to do everything. Surfing, soccer, lacrosse, basketball, football, skateboarding... he messes around with all of them, but gets bored doing just one all the time. The problem is, because all youth sports are now directed towards more specialization for the top performers, there's no place in organized sports for two of my three kids once they got beyond the age of 10. So even though they both love playing sports, they end up doing none because if you're not in club or travel ball for basically any sport, you've got no options and almost all levels of club or travel ball are directed by the "keeping up" dilemma you describe above. And that's a damn shame.

I like this discussion. It has been in my mind the past couple of years. As my oldest gets closer to high school age, I may decide to drop club sports and join AYSO and community basketball leagues to be able to maintain multi sports involvement (actually multi-activities in general).