MLS youth league

All fair points. However, there are HUGE physical differences in every age group starting at U11 and going up to professionals.

I really do understand your point, but I just don’t think we are missing out on quality professional players because of a dual age group. If kids are changing the way they play because of the size of opponents, their game wasn’t top class to begin with. The issue here is the conflicting end game of development. I will concede to you that it is probably better for a kid that wants to earn a scholarship to play his own age group and be one of the better players. It is not the way to develop top class professional players that will help build MLS and players to be sold to Europe to build our USMNT.

I'll boil it down to this: Many, many people complain that the U.S. keeps producing big/fast/strong athlete-types, but our best club teams and national teams still cannot compete and are left chasing the ball all game against top sides from Europe. While I hear the occasional argument that "other countries don't have basketball and football to suck away the best athletes", in general I don't hear (nor do I feel myself) that our problem is a lack of athleticism. Rather, we don't seem to produce players that keep their opponents off balance (defenders are forced to give creative dribblers a few feet of space so they don't get beat), ability to keep possession in tighter spaces in the attacking third, and break down opposing defenses with creative dribbling and passing.

Why don't we produce players with these qualities? I am not about to claim that the absence of a U16 single age group is the root cause! But, our funnel favors players who are physically advanced earlier than others - because of how U.S. coaches look at things, those earlier physically developed players are better able to "survive" against players that are a year older at an age where a year can make a supersized difference. What is one thing that can help mitigate against this? A single-year age group that changes the focus from having grown enough early on to physically match up (which is a short-term factor) to a much wider variety of factors.
 
isn't this the Boys DA thread ? Maybe now MLS? Newsflash....Girls development is way different than Boys development.
 
I agree with you. I understand the problem. I have even felt at times the strategy to contain my kid was to put her on her ass. Clean her clock so to speak. I was just fortunate for my kid to have the option of playing in Mexico.

My daughter is 12 and on the U15 team. They practice, travel, and play with the U17’s and the Xolo’s first team. My kid hates playing with kids her age because the game is too slow and simple. She holds her own against the bigger girls but she’s slower and weaker which is forcing her to develop creative solutions quickly under immense pressure. She’s also getting more time to develop at center mid because she’s too damn slow to be a winger with the older girls. I was concerned that she was going to get hurt but she’s already moving up on the roster at least she was before Covid.

I know it’s not realistic for all but I think your kid needs another environment. Keeping him in his comfort zone is going to kill his career because he’s not developing the “grit” to be successful at the highest levels. I think I recall reading an article about the problems Griezmann’s dad had finding a suitable environment for his undersized player.
Do you have any other development options?

I am actually not taking this view about a U16 age group solely out of personal interest. As I said, there are pros and cons for my own kid in playing U17. My biggest issue with the playing environment - not at our club but in the U.S. in general - is that coaches/scouts seem to gravitate towards kids who can bully past (or through) others because they grew earlier. We have a few of those players at our club (very highly regarded) who have or are flattening out now because their physical growth has stopped and other players (with other qualities) are catching up to them physically.

Because my kid didn't fit the mold of the favored (older, bigger) players at his club coming in, he had to swim against the tide (so to speak) - this has helped develop grit and forced him to overcome obstacles. So, in that sense, the environment has been very good for him. This past year, he also grew more than 6 inches, and now coaches started seeing his other qualities because increased size made it easier to display those. (He is still 10 months behind in overall physical growth, so until kids stop growing at age 17 or so, he won't completely catch up.) My beef is that a great coach/scout should be able to see those qualities and project ahead, it shouldn't be "wow, this player looks better than I thought" (because he predictably grew, because …. duh …. he was younger than other kids).
 
isn't this the Boys DA thread ? Maybe now MLS? Newsflash....Girls development is way different than Boys development.
I get that girls are different from boys-patna, you’re merely stating the obvious. I stated earlier my girl has played with 2008 boys in Mexico since she was 5. 2008 boys are entering the academy in Mexico. All of my experience is with boys soccer. My daughter has only played with girls for approximately 3 months. Moreover, I’ve observed boys academy teams train daily for the past 7 years at Club Tijuana so I’m actually more familiar with boys than girls.
 
I am actually not taking this view about a U16 age group solely out of personal interest. As I said, there are pros and cons for my own kid in playing U17. My biggest issue with the playing environment - not at our club but in the U.S. in general - is that coaches/scouts seem to gravitate towards kids who can bully past (or through) others because they grew earlier. We have a few of those players at our club (very highly regarded) who have or are flattening out now because their physical growth has stopped and other players (with other qualities) are catching up to them physically.

Because my kid didn't fit the mold of the favored (older, bigger) players at his club coming in, he had to swim against the tide (so to speak) - this has helped develop grit and forced him to overcome obstacles. So, in that sense, the environment has been very good for him. This past year, he also grew more than 6 inches, and now coaches started seeing his other qualities because increased size made it easier to display those. (He is still 10 months behind in overall physical growth, so until kids stop growing at age 17 or so, he won't completely catch up.) My beef is that a great coach/scout should be able to see those qualities and project ahead, it shouldn't be "wow, this player looks better than I thought" (because he predictably grew, because …. duh …. he was younger than other kids).
I feel your pain brotha. I have an undersized kid with a December birthday.
 
Some teams in ECNL have a team in the new MLS youth league. How is that possible? Can a non-mls team and a MLS academy team field both an ecnl team and a team in the MLS youth league?
 
I am actually not taking this view about a U16 age group solely out of personal interest. As I said, there are pros and cons for my own kid in playing U17. My biggest issue with the playing environment - not at our club but in the U.S. in general - is that coaches/scouts seem to gravitate towards kids who can bully past (or through) others because they grew earlier. We have a few of those players at our club (very highly regarded) who have or are flattening out now because their physical growth has stopped and other players (with other qualities) are catching up to them physically.

Because my kid didn't fit the mold of the favored (older, bigger) players at his club coming in, he had to swim against the tide (so to speak) - this has helped develop grit and forced him to overcome obstacles. So, in that sense, the environment has been very good for him. This past year, he also grew more than 6 inches, and now coaches started seeing his other qualities because increased size made it easier to display those. (He is still 10 months behind in overall physical growth, so until kids stop growing at age 17 or so, he won't completely catch up.) My beef is that a great coach/scout should be able to see those qualities and project ahead, it shouldn't be "wow, this player looks better than I thought" (because he predictably grew, because …. duh …. he was younger than other kids).

US Soccer was trying to take early physical growth into consideration. At the three U14 regional camps last year, each kid was measured for peak height velocity to see where they were in terms of physical growth. When the kids went back to their teams, the teams administered the same peak height velocity testing.

I am not sure what US Soccer or the teams did with that data. Presumably they took into consideration boys who may not have hit their growth spurts yet. But looking at the selections for the next U14 camps and then the single U15 camp before the shutdown, it was clear the US YNT still favored more mature and physically dominant kids.
 
Some teams in ECNL have a team in the new MLS youth league. How is that possible? Can a non-mls team and a MLS academy team field both an ecnl team and a team in the MLS youth league?
This was done before by some of the larger clubs. Usually, the first team is in the Academy and the 2nd team is in the ECNL. At our club that is the plan.
 
US Soccer was trying to take early physical growth into consideration. At the three U14 regional camps last year, each kid was measured for peak height velocity to see where they were in terms of physical growth. When the kids went back to their teams, the teams administered the same peak height velocity testing.

I am not sure what US Soccer or the teams did with that data. Presumably they took into consideration boys who may not have hit their growth spurts yet. But looking at the selections for the next U14 camps and then the single U15 camp before the shutdown, it was clear the US YNT still favored more mature and physically dominant kids.
the challenge is that US Soccer was taking the data in as a method to discount players who had early developer advantages, but didn't have a plan for how to systematically ID and support promising late dob/late developers at scale.

France has probably been the NT leader in supporting late developers in recent years. Mbappe has a 12/20 dob, for example.

And some teams in the EPL were doing things to ID and support late developers. However, in general, the whole system globally is skewed towards early dob/early developers. Just human nature to favor those players/students who respond the best early on to lessons.

But there's also a huge, obvious inefficiency/arbitrage oppty to be exploited by a country with a pop the size of the US.

This is the piece that's crazy making. The USMNT, by insisting on playing by the same rules/competing on the same terms as every other country, is just falling behind less slowly. If we want to get ahead, then we have to compete differently, leverage our unique strengths and not just copy what country "x" has done.

One of the biggest accomplishments, imo, of the USSDA, was the significant increase in Latino players in the upper ranks of the top DA teams. (But, with USSDA going away, that progress is being put at risk.)

The second biggest oppty next up is supporting the vast number of promising late dob/late developers to continue playing at high levels thru u17/u18.

How this is done? Not sure, but the MLS league and the ECNL, both look like - right now - big steps backward.
 
This was done before by some of the larger clubs. Usually, the first team is in the Academy and the 2nd team is in the ECNL. At our club that is the plan.
I agree, but there hasn't been any announcements from clubs like FC Dallas and De Anza Force. Like you I assume they would put their first team in MLS and second team in ECNL. FC Dallas as an MLS Club is a no brainer but how does a club like De Anza go back and tell ECNL the first team will be MLS and will ECNL kick them out again?
 
US Soccer was trying to take early physical growth into consideration. At the three U14 regional camps last year, each kid was measured for peak height velocity to see where they were in terms of physical growth. When the kids went back to their teams, the teams administered the same peak height velocity testing.

I am not sure what US Soccer or the teams did with that data. Presumably they took into consideration boys who may not have hit their growth spurts yet. But looking at the selections for the next U14 camps and then the single U15 camp before the shutdown, it was clear the US YNT still favored more mature and physically dominant kids.
Based on my limited personal experience, I’m not sure this is all US Soccer’s fault. I’m not sure if the Quakes academy is indicative of a typical development academy in the US, but if it is, the problem is skill and game IQ. The boys at the Quakes are substantially behind the boys at Xolo’s technically.
 
@MacDre So you are saying Weston McKinnie, Danny Leyva, Dante Sealy, and Chris Richards are 20yrs behind LigaMX? You have a daughter and not a son so I am assure you are not aware of the men players moving from MLS to Bundesliga and other leagues at a young age before they sign the homegrown or pro contract. MLS to Europe is a greater pipeline right now.

Quakes are not typical or the pinnacle of MLS development.

Freaking brothers every way like M.J.
I can't believe, today was a good day
 
@MacDre So you are saying Weston McKinnie, Danny Leyva, Dante Sealy, and Chris Richards are 20yrs behind LigaMX? You have a daughter and not a son so I am assure you are not aware of the men players moving from MLS to Bundesliga and other leagues at a young age before they sign the homegrown or pro contract. MLS to Europe is a greater pipeline right now.

Quakes are not typical or the pinnacle of MLS development.

Freaking brothers every way like M.J.
I can't believe, today was a good day
No, I’m saying that it’ll take 20 years or more until there is a FCD type academy in Vegas and similar ignored areas. It’s also going to take some time for weaker programs like the Quakes to come up to speed.

So is the Quakes academy middle of the road or bottom of the barrel? They looked really bad!
 
Did anyone listen in on the conference call?

They are still hammering out the details, but it appears MLS teams only have to carry U15 and U17 teams. U19 might be optional even for the MLS teams. That is not ideal. If that is the case, players will have to find different clubs to play for during their HS senior year.
 
Did anyone listen in on the conference call?

They are still hammering out the details, but it appears MLS teams only have to carry U15 and U17 teams. U19 might be optional even for the MLS teams. That is not ideal. If that is the case, players will have to find different clubs to play for during their HS senior year.
Maybe or Maybe not. If a kid signs a pro contract by 16, it’s all good. However, I do see how it could be problematic for a kid that gets cut.
 
I'll boil it down to this: Many, many people complain that the U.S. keeps producing big/fast/strong athlete-types, but our best club teams and national teams still cannot compete and are left chasing the ball all game against top sides from Europe. While I hear the occasional argument that "other countries don't have basketball and football to suck away the best athletes", in general I don't hear (nor do I feel myself) that our problem is a lack of athleticism. Rather, we don't seem to produce players that keep their opponents off balance (defenders are forced to give creative dribblers a few feet of space so they don't get beat), ability to keep possession in tighter spaces in the attacking third, and break down opposing defenses with creative dribbling and passing.
I agree there is no shortgage of great atheletes playing in the US. We have more youth playing soccer than any other nation, the only other nation remotely close is Germany I believe. I'm going to divert a little bit from your opinion, but yes we focus too much on size and raw athleticism. I also believe coaches in the US favors the 1v1 player and creative dribbler too much, at the expense of other skills. What US coaches don't seem to understand is that the ball can travel much faster than one can run and that one can dribble. Soccer is primarily a decision making sport (aka Soccer IQ) and speed of play is critical. We're very poor at decision making, particularly at speed. Its a tremendous skill to be a creative dribbler but it has to be combined with Soccer IQ other wise you're just slowing down the game. It seems we make our decisions after we receive the ball and were not proactive, ie we lack field vison and awareness, or the technicall term is "scanning".

I also believe we've distorted what it means to be a great 1v1 player. Its now been boiled down to someone that can beat someone on the dribble...actually its evolved into someone that can sometimes win a 1v2, 1v3, 1v4. In my mind, a 1v1 player is one that can defend the dribble, win 50/50 or less balls, can out position or outsmart their opponent to receive the ball, etc. These "new age" 1v1 players that take on two or more players are not only slowing the game down but they are also not taking advantage of their teams numerical advantage that has been created. That's something else I don't see very often is coaches teaching the importance of gaining a numerical advantage where play is occuring. Coaching of movement off the ball is improving but we still have a lot of room to improve.

I guess my conclusion is that coaches don't seem to favor Soccer IQ, whereas I don't think Soccer IQ can be overrated. Maybe coaches think they can teach Soccer IQ to the physically dominant players...I just havent seen much of that occuring.
 
Did anyone listen in on the conference call?

They are still hammering out the details, but it appears MLS teams only have to carry U15 and U17 teams. U19 might be optional even for the MLS teams. That is not ideal. If that is the case, players will have to find different clubs to play for during their HS senior year.
for the non-mls clubs, sounds like many will be still stuck at u13/u14. likely not Barca or TFA, maybe not LAUFA, but the rest.

for those u13/u14 non-MLS clubs, new MLS league seems like window dressing. better, more honest option for those clubs' families would have been to play in leagues where there would be pro/rel now, which is what their option will be at u15.
 
for the non-mls clubs, sounds like many will be still stuck at u13/u14. likely not Barca or TFA, maybe not LAUFA, but the rest.

for those u13/u14 non-MLS clubs, new MLS league seems like window dressing. better, more honest option for those clubs' families would have been to play in leagues where there would be pro/rel now, which is what their option will be at u15.

Sounds like the same deal as the old USSDA.
 
Maybe or Maybe not. If a kid signs a pro contract by 16, it’s all good. However, I do see how it could be problematic for a kid that gets cut.


Yeah that would be fantastic if a kid can sign a MLS homegrown contract or play in Europe by 16. There are only a small handful of those though.
 
I agree there is no shortgage of great atheletes playing in the US. We have more youth playing soccer than any other nation, the only other nation remotely close is Germany I believe. I'm going to divert a little bit from your opinion, but yes we focus too much on size and raw athleticism. I also believe coaches in the US favors the 1v1 player and creative dribbler too much, at the expense of other skills. What US coaches don't seem to understand is that the ball can travel much faster than one can run and that one can dribble. Soccer is primarily a decision making sport (aka Soccer IQ) and speed of play is critical. We're very poor at decision making, particularly at speed. Its a tremendous skill to be a creative dribbler but it has to be combined with Soccer IQ other wise you're just slowing down the game. It seems we make our decisions after we receive the ball and were not proactive, ie we lack field vison and awareness, or the technicall term is "scanning".

I also believe we've distorted what it means to be a great 1v1 player. Its now been boiled down to someone that can beat someone on the dribble...actually its evolved into someone that can sometimes win a 1v2, 1v3, 1v4. In my mind, a 1v1 player is one that can defend the dribble, win 50/50 or less balls, can out position or outsmart their opponent to receive the ball, etc. These "new age" 1v1 players that take on two or more players are not only slowing the game down but they are also not taking advantage of their teams numerical advantage that has been created. That's something else I don't see very often is coaches teaching the importance of gaining a numerical advantage where play is occuring. Coaching of movement off the ball is improving but we still have a lot of room to improve.

I guess my conclusion is that coaches don't seem to favor Soccer IQ, whereas I don't think Soccer IQ can be overrated. Maybe coaches think they can teach Soccer IQ to the physically dominant players...I just havent seen much of that occuring.
I 100% agree with your assessment but my experience is limited to the Quakes academy. @vegasguy seems to think the Quakes aren’t a top club and the US soccer landscape is full of great talent going to Germany for a promising future. How prevalent is this lack of soccer IQ that you and I speak of in the US soccer landscape?
 
Back
Top