What happens to elite women's youth players?
Sept 23, 2016 8:18:20 GMT -5
Soccerhouse and alacrity174 like this
Post by zizou on Sept 23, 2016 8:18:20 GMT -5
There are the youth development and talent identification angles obviously. Development from an early age is unquestionably critical. Whether USSF should be personally responsible for directing that development is an open question (as opposed to letting clubs compete for development kudos, developing their own systems, maybe with input from the Fed).
One thing that concerns me about the Fed intervening in youth development is the possible homogenization of youth soccer that might be the result. Everyone plays the same (or similar) system, everyone learns in the same format, etc (the old argument that the DAP has created similar, robotic-like players with little flair, little real incentive for clubs to develop creative players).
Another thing that worries me about the Fed being more involved in youth soccer development is the possible restriction of access to higher level soccer playing experiences this might entail. For instance, if USSF essentially lets players know that they need to be in DAP if they want a shot at a YNT then that gives priority to a very small segment of the soccer playing nation. Are those the best players really? Or are they just the ones USSF staff see most often? And what are you asking these kids to sacrifice? Is this really in the long term best interests of youth soccer development in our giant country? Is it wise to restrict access rather than devising a strategy that would EXPAND access to higher level training environments and visibility of more players?
These are complicated issues obviously, but what lead me to create this thread is a statistic I saw yesterday. The 2012 U20 women's YNT won the World Cup. That is only 4 years ago this very month. Those players should have been the cream of the crop in US youth soccer development terms. They should be really hitting their strides right now. And still have considerable playing time left in their futures. They would be mostly 22-24 year olds now. Something like 40% of those players are not only not playing professionally, they are not playing period. Maybe that statistic does not surprise anyone but me. What happened? Number of possibilities I suppose. Talent ID by USSF was actually pretty poor, injuries, burnout, can't make a living playing professionally.
This is just another of the multitude of examples of why asking adolescents to make the sacrifices USSF is requiring to be part of DAP seems to be an awful lot to ask. Give up your adolescent development (other than soccer development) to us for the privilege of having no career path, maybe being the one or two kids per birth year who will make the USWNT, being done with soccer by 22 years old anyway. Not like I have an answer, but I did post something in another thread about the youth soccer development pathway in Canada. They integrated elite level training with an actual school environment. Germany does something like this by region. And they take the schooling part very seriously because they know that the overwhelming majority of youth players will never play beyond youth soccer. I find it odd that we could not do the same thing on a large scale in the USA. Too much to ask, I suppose, for clubs to work with local school districts to make this experience better for everyone.
One thing that concerns me about the Fed intervening in youth development is the possible homogenization of youth soccer that might be the result. Everyone plays the same (or similar) system, everyone learns in the same format, etc (the old argument that the DAP has created similar, robotic-like players with little flair, little real incentive for clubs to develop creative players).
Another thing that worries me about the Fed being more involved in youth soccer development is the possible restriction of access to higher level soccer playing experiences this might entail. For instance, if USSF essentially lets players know that they need to be in DAP if they want a shot at a YNT then that gives priority to a very small segment of the soccer playing nation. Are those the best players really? Or are they just the ones USSF staff see most often? And what are you asking these kids to sacrifice? Is this really in the long term best interests of youth soccer development in our giant country? Is it wise to restrict access rather than devising a strategy that would EXPAND access to higher level training environments and visibility of more players?
These are complicated issues obviously, but what lead me to create this thread is a statistic I saw yesterday. The 2012 U20 women's YNT won the World Cup. That is only 4 years ago this very month. Those players should have been the cream of the crop in US youth soccer development terms. They should be really hitting their strides right now. And still have considerable playing time left in their futures. They would be mostly 22-24 year olds now. Something like 40% of those players are not only not playing professionally, they are not playing period. Maybe that statistic does not surprise anyone but me. What happened? Number of possibilities I suppose. Talent ID by USSF was actually pretty poor, injuries, burnout, can't make a living playing professionally.
This is just another of the multitude of examples of why asking adolescents to make the sacrifices USSF is requiring to be part of DAP seems to be an awful lot to ask. Give up your adolescent development (other than soccer development) to us for the privilege of having no career path, maybe being the one or two kids per birth year who will make the USWNT, being done with soccer by 22 years old anyway. Not like I have an answer, but I did post something in another thread about the youth soccer development pathway in Canada. They integrated elite level training with an actual school environment. Germany does something like this by region. And they take the schooling part very seriously because they know that the overwhelming majority of youth players will never play beyond youth soccer. I find it odd that we could not do the same thing on a large scale in the USA. Too much to ask, I suppose, for clubs to work with local school districts to make this experience better for everyone.