MLS youth league

[Husky13]

This is a scouting/coaching issue, not an issue with who develops when. If a scout or coach can’t see a kid is never going to be a good player when others catch up physically, or a smaller kid is going to be a good player when he catches up physically, they suck. Having a U16 age group isn’t going to solve that. Until scouts and coaches know what they are looking at it will be status quo.

I agree that this is primarily a scouting/coaching issue, but a separate U16 age group can help mitigate that by keeping kids who have recently grown and "caught up" physically (or are still in the process of doing so) in the mix and in sight of these scouts and coaches who cannot otherwise seem to project ahead and can only see what is right in front of them.

 

[MacDre]

I believe the topic was whether there is a benefit in a separate U16 age group. So, we are talking about 14 and 15 year old kids. There is a bit of a difference between that and kids who are 20+ years old in college. Surely you aren't equating the two when it comes to physical development? I would argue that physically developing at 15 isn't "late", so the term "late bloomer" isn't accurate.

And, there are all sorts of reasons why there aren't a high volume of great players coming out of college programs. Many will point to the lack of development in college because of the short season and terrible schedule (2 games/week). College soccer also reminds me a lot of high school soccer in terms of the style of play that college coaches seem to go for.

No, I’m saying that if so many talented undersized kids are being overlooked at 14 and 15, then it would seem likely that by time they are in college they would be physically mature and world class but it’s not happening.

I agree that college soccer isn’t good for development. But the problem with development starts before college.

 

[MacDre]

P

I agree that this is primarily a scouting/coaching issue, but a separate U16 age group can help mitigate that by keeping kids who have recently grown and "caught up" physically (or are still in the process of doing so) in the mix and in sight of these scouts and coaches who cannot otherwise seem to project ahead and can only see what is right in front of them.

Pressure makes diamonds. Nowhere else in the world are boys being coddled and given false hope. In Mexico only the top 10% of the 2008 birth year will enter academy next fall. At 12 the funnel starts to narrow and I think this is best. Others can play for fun.

 

[texanincali]

I agree that this is primarily a scouting/coaching issue, but a separate U16 age group can help mitigate that by keeping kids who have recently grown and "caught up" physically (or are still in the process of doing so) in the mix and in sight of these scouts and coaches who cannot otherwise seem to project ahead and can only see what is right in front of them.

I get what you are saying, but it really should be a non issue. My biggest issue with a stand alone U16 team is I think it would allow clubs to play U16 players in their own age group when they should be playing in the U17 age group. You are taking a pool of 25 players and creating one that’s 50 players. That waters it down.

If a U16 kid can’t make a U17 team, I doubt he is going to end up being a superstar. That said, there are examples of kids that drastically improved after U15. I would rather a coach be able to identify a kid or a couple of kids that have potential, let them train with the U17 team and play in a local league at the weekend. I would much rather have that than create another age group for the 2/3 late developers per team that could exist.

 

[vegasguy]

I agree with much of what you’re saying, I just don’t subscribe to the late bloomer theory. Can you name one world class late bloomer in any sport? To be clear, I’m not talking about talented athletes like Jordan and Brady that “peaked” late but were great athletes before they peaked.

Scottie Pippen and the Worm

 

[vegasguy]

P

Pressure makes diamonds. Nowhere else in the world are boys being coddled and given false hope. In Mexico only the top 10% of the 2008 birth year will enter academy next fall. At 12 the funnel starts to narrow and I think this is best. Others can play for fun.

But they come here and lose to our MLS teams and non-MLS teams. By the numbering on their jerseys they are not sending c teams. Mx academies are not any better than MLS academies.

 

[MacDre]

But they come here and lose to our MLS teams and non-MLS teams. By the numbering on their jerseys they are not sending c teams. Mx academies are not any better than MLS academies.

Coach, sometimes the teams lose because the priority is development and not just winning another trophy. How often does a MLS team beat a Liga MX team?

Garber: Liga MX better than MLS for now

Commissioner Don Garber said that Major League Soccer can be one of the best leagues in the world, but still lags behind Liga MX.

www.espn.com

 

[WuTang]

P

Pressure makes diamonds. Nowhere else in the world are boys being coddled and given false hope. In Mexico only the top 10% of the 2008 birth year will enter academy next fall. At 12 the funnel starts to narrow and I think this is best. Others can play for fun.

I am assuming you are saying 10% is a good number of kids who should be academy.
Well, if all 95 clubs have an 08 team next year, that would be a little over 1600 08’s in academy. I know that is way less then 10% of all American 08 soccer players. So, if anything the US even narrows fewer kids down.

 

[Husky13]

I get what you are saying, but it really should be a non issue. My biggest issue with a stand alone U16 team is I think it would allow clubs to play U16 players in their own age group when they should be playing in the U17 age group. You are taking a pool of 25 players and creating one that’s 50 players. That waters it down.

If a U16 kid can’t make a U17 team, I doubt he is going to end up being a superstar. That said, there are examples of kids that drastically improved after U15. I would rather a coach be able to identify a kid or a couple of kids that have potential, let them train with the U17 team and play in a local league at the weekend. I would much rather have that than create another age group for the 2/3 late developers per team that could exist.

First of all, 2-3 late bloomers who turn into something off a U16 team would be a great success ….

Personally, I see pros and cons to a 2-year, U17 age group for my own (05) son. He will very likely make the U17 squad, but do I think that is best for his development? If the emphasis on our teams was true possession/quick passing/decision-making, then playing at U17 can help. Of my own son's strengths and weaknesses, quick passing/decision-making are strengths and he has done well playing up a year in friendlies already. But, how many truly creative players does the U.S. develop? The issue I see with the two year age group at this U17 level is that there are HUGE physical differences between kids who have already sprouted/filled out and kids who are just starting that process. You see more emphasis on just getting rid of the ball quickly before you get squashed. Playing on age, the game has more dimensions - the element of creative 1v1 dribbling in addition to passing becomes more realistic. We should want to keep developing that quality. We aren't developing many of those types of players in the U.S.

 

[MacDre]

I am assuming you are saying 10% is a good number of kids who should be academy.
Well, if all 95 clubs have an 08 team next year, that would be a little over 1600 08’s in academy. I know that is way less then 10% of all American 08 soccer players. So, if anything the US even narrows fewer kids down.

I was just approximating. The numbers may be lower than 10%. I have a 2007 girl that has played on a 2008 boys team since she was 5. Most of the boys she grew up playing with did not get selected for academy. Their soccer career is over. And for those that like rooting for the underdogs, 2 of my favorite 2008’s were selected-one is the smallest kid in Baja California and the other is an overweight kid that’s very entertaining. I think the selection process was fair but I’m sure 1 or 2 kids were overlooked.

 

[vegasguy]

Coach, sometimes the teams lose because the priority is development and not just winning another trophy. How often does a MLS team beat a Liga MX team?

Garber: Liga MX better than MLS for now

Commissioner Don Garber said that Major League Soccer can be one of the best leagues in the world, but still lags behind Liga MX.

www.espn.com

You know that article is from 2016. In the last 3years US has sent more under 20s to UK than MX. Seattle has developed Danny Leyva and you once said Xolos come here to win but you could not prove it. In terms of development the two countries are closer than you think.

 

[MacDre]

You know that article is from 2016. In the last 3years US has sent more under 20s to UK than MX. Seattle has developed Danny Leyva and you once said Xolos come here to win but you could not prove it. In terms of development the two countries are closer than you think.

I think the US is at least 20 years behind Mexico. Mexico has a soccer culture and the US doesn’t. The US is making progress but has a long way to go. I think if MLS and Liga MX combined North America would have the best league in the world though.

 

[messy]

I think the US is at least 20 years behind Mexico. Mexico has a soccer culture and the US doesn’t. The US is making progress but has a long way to go. I think if MLS and Liga MX combined North America would have the best league in the world though.

No you don't really think that. Is there one player in either league who could start on Man City or Liverpool or Barca or Athletico, etc etc?

 

[MacDre]

No you don't really think that. Is there one player in either league who could start on Man City or Liverpool or Barca or Athletico, etc etc?

You misunderstand me. I’m saying a huge part of the development problem in the US is the lack of soccer culture.
The Rayados played well against Liverpool.

Monterrey dreaming of monumental Liverpool upset

Monterrey will be huge underdogs when they take on Liverpool at the Club World Cup on Wednesday. There is, however, hope for Antonio Mohamed's team.

www.google.com

 

[messy]

You misunderstand me. I’m saying a huge part of the development problem in the US is the lack of soccer culture.
The Rayados played well against Liverpool.

Monterrey dreaming of monumental Liverpool upset

Monterrey will be huge underdogs when they take on Liverpool at the Club World Cup on Wednesday. There is, however, hope for Antonio Mohamed's team.

www.google.com

I agree about our culture...but combining the MLS and Liga MX personnel into one league...maybe the league would fit somewhere between the Portuguese league and the Belgian league?

 

[MacDre]

I agree about our culture...but combining the MLS and Liga MX personnel into one league...maybe the league would fit somewhere between the Portuguese league and the Belgian league?

Not merely combining personnel but pooling resources to create a superior environment to Europe. Mexico has the culture and the know how and the US has the resources. We would produce more and better players. We could also compete financially with the big European clubs for the best players in the world.

 

[vegasguy]

I agree with you on culture but that has always been a given. But it is growing in places like Atlanta, Seattle, Portland and Socal very fast.

20yrs behind in development is way dramatic and I think our youth development especially Sounders and FCDallas are producing players who are getting opportunities abroad at 18. Heck Jesse Gonzales made his one time switch back to USA and youth like Leyva chose Stars and Stripes although Leyva can still make a one time switch but I do not think he will in the long run.

I think LigaMX us run poorly and could use the structure of the MLS. They already stopped pro-rel which I hate but seems an obvious move to begin the first 3 country league. Next step is the improvement of pay structure on both sides and FMF USSoccer changing the roster structures.

 

[texanincali]

First of all, 2-3 late bloomers who turn into something off a U16 team would be a great success ….

Personally, I see pros and cons to a 2-year, U17 age group for my own (05) son. He will very likely make the U17 squad, but do I think that is best for his development? If the emphasis on our teams was true possession/quick passing/decision-making, then playing at U17 can help. Of my own son's strengths and weaknesses, quick passing/decision-making are strengths and he has done well playing up a year in friendlies already. But, how many truly creative players does the U.S. develop? The issue I see with the two year age group at this U17 level is that there are HUGE physical differences between kids who have already sprouted/filled out and kids who are just starting that process. You see more emphasis on just getting rid of the ball quickly before you get squashed. Playing on age, the game has more dimensions - the element of creative 1v1 dribbling in addition to passing becomes more realistic. We should want to keep developing that quality. We aren't developing many of those types of players in the U.S.

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.

 

[MacDre]

I agree with you on culture but that has always been a given. But it is growing in places like Atlanta, Seattle, Portland and Socal very fast.

20yrs behind in development is way dramatic and I think our youth development especially Sounders and FCDallas are producing players who are getting opportunities abroad at 18. Heck Jesse Gonzales made his one time switch back to USA and youth like Leyva chose Stars and Stripes although Leyva can still make a one time switch but I do not think he will in the long run.

I think LigaMX us run poorly and could use the structure of the MLS. They already stopped pro-rel which I hate but seems an obvious move to begin the first 3 country league. Next step is the improvement of pay structure on both sides and FMF USSoccer changing the roster structures.

It’s gonna be a good day Coach because it’s early in the morning and I agree with you.

In terms of development, I think it’ll be at least 20 years before environments like FCD and Sounders are commonplace though.

 

[MacDre]

First of all, 2-3 late bloomers who turn into something off a U16 team would be a great success ….

Personally, I see pros and cons to a 2-year, U17 age group for my own (05) son. He will very likely make the U17 squad, but do I think that is best for his development? If the emphasis on our teams was true possession/quick passing/decision-making, then playing at U17 can help. Of my own son's strengths and weaknesses, quick passing/decision-making are strengths and he has done well playing up a year in friendlies already. But, how many truly creative players does the U.S. develop? The issue I see with the two year age group at this U17 level is that there are HUGE physical differences between kids who have already sprouted/filled out and kids who are just starting that process. You see more emphasis on just getting rid of the ball quickly before you get squashed. Playing on age, the game has more dimensions - the element of creative 1v1 dribbling in addition to passing becomes more realistic. We should want to keep developing that quality. We aren't developing many of those types of players in the U.S.

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?