by Guest » Fri Jun 21, 2024 1:27 pm
Guest wrote: ↑Fri Jun 21, 2024 12:20 pm
Guest wrote: ↑Fri Jun 21, 2024 11:48 am
Guest wrote: ↑Fri Jun 21, 2024 11:24 am
Here is the kicker for coaches and parents alike-
Observations from studies of the relative age effect provide some additional insights. Youth soccer players enrolled in the talent development program of the German Football Association who were born in the first quarter of the competitive year (January–March) presented the highest absolute mean values on a composite index of athletic aptitude (85). However, the scores fell below the median value for age when compared against the developmental curve for age, that is, the oldest players performed the best within their age group but were the weakest when evaluated relative to the developmental curve. Conversely, players born late in the competitive year (October–December) presented the lowest mean scores within their competitive age groups, yet scored well above the median when considered relative to the developmental curve. The largest differences in absolute athletic aptitude scores were observed between those players born at the start of the competitive year and the players born a month earlier (i.e., December) in their next oldest age group. The observation is seemingly consistent with the “underdog hypothesis,” which suggests that younger and/or later maturing athletes need to be physically, technically, and psychologically “ahead of the curve” to remain competitive within such programs (34). The results also suggest that older and/or early maturing males get by on their physical prowess rather than their technical or tactical abilities.
So coaches that want an elite professional athlete on their resume one day, here are you best odds it is obvious. I hope the irony of chasing wins is not lost on you.....that is why you have OHL level guys on your resume!
Coaches do not have the knowledge to identify an underdog and be accurate on what size they will be and when they will reach that size. Regardless, the coaches incentive is to win this year, not develop a single player to reach his peak. Some coaches may have the best intentions for a kid but only the parent can be tasked with have the best interest of the child as an individual.
Kids are picked in the spring, so the coach may pick a kid that they're hopeful grows over the summer. Can easily happen in the U13-U15 group. What a coach can't do is pick an entire team that way. Size plus some skill will be taken over more skill with no size... it sucks for those end of year and late puberty kids but it is what it is. There is an option however, play lower level (AA) until your kid catches up and then try to move up.
Yes a knowingly inequitable system that prioritizes winning now vs developing great athletes, does suck!
The issue with your lower level solution sounds very fair and pleasant but it works for next to nothing like .02 percent that enter it. Why you ask, because it takes a tremendous about of self esteem ( coach driven, recognition and identity driven) reinforced with success to create the desire to go to the rink everyday and really want to improve , be good! This is next to impossible when you have been beaten down by coaches etc with the exact opposite message. What happens is the vast majority quit that sport, which is backed by the stats they see in the system!
[quote=Guest post_id=127838 time=1718986827]
[quote=Guest post_id=127837 time=1718984900]
[quote=Guest post_id=127831 time=1718983464]
[b]Here is the kicker for coaches and parents alike-
[/b]
Observations from studies of the relative age effect provide some additional insights. Youth soccer players enrolled in the talent development program of the German Football Association who were born in the first quarter of the competitive year (January–March) presented the highest absolute mean values on a composite index of athletic aptitude (85). However, the scores fell below the median value for age when compared against the developmental curve for age, that is, the oldest players performed the best within their age group but were the weakest when evaluated relative to the developmental curve. Conversely, players born late in the competitive year (October–December) presented the lowest mean scores within their competitive age groups, yet scored well above the median when considered relative to the developmental curve. The largest differences in absolute athletic aptitude scores were observed between those players born at the start of the competitive year and the players born a month earlier (i.e., December) in their next oldest age group. The observation is seemingly consistent with the “underdog hypothesis,” which suggests that younger and/or later maturing athletes need to be physically, technically, and psychologically “ahead of the curve” to remain competitive within such programs (34). The results also suggest that older and/or early maturing males get by on their physical prowess rather than their technical or tactical abilities.
[b]So coaches that want an elite professional athlete on their resume one day, here are you best odds it is obvious. I hope the irony of chasing wins is not lost on you.....that is why you have OHL level guys on your resume![/b]
[/quote]
Coaches do not have the knowledge to identify an underdog and be accurate on what size they will be and when they will reach that size. Regardless, the coaches incentive is to win this year, not develop a single player to reach his peak. Some coaches may have the best intentions for a kid but only the parent can be tasked with have the best interest of the child as an individual.
[/quote]
Kids are picked in the spring, so the coach may pick a kid that they're hopeful grows over the summer. Can easily happen in the U13-U15 group. What a coach can't do is pick an entire team that way. Size plus some skill will be taken over more skill with no size... it sucks for those end of year and late puberty kids but it is what it is. There is an option however, play lower level (AA) until your kid catches up and then try to move up.
[/quote]
Yes a knowingly inequitable system that prioritizes winning now vs developing great athletes, does suck!
The issue with your lower level solution sounds very fair and pleasant but it works for next to nothing like .02 percent that enter it. Why you ask, because it takes a tremendous about of self esteem ( coach driven, recognition and identity driven) reinforced with success to create the desire to go to the rink everyday and really want to improve , be good! This is next to impossible when you have been beaten down by coaches etc with the exact opposite message. What happens is the vast majority quit that sport, which is backed by the stats they see in the system!