|
Post by Soccerhouse on Sept 9, 2017 12:57:09 GMT -5
Sat Sept 8 DA scores?
|
|
|
Post by footy on Sept 9, 2017 19:47:39 GMT -5
CF boys U13 and U17 won, others lost.
|
|
|
Post by krazykickers on Sept 10, 2017 8:39:08 GMT -5
AU 15s (03) lost. I must say that I'm very surprised given the shake up with that team after last year. Big question that I hope someone can answer: I have noticed that some teams/games have had 1-2 02s playing in these 03 games. This is not supposed to be a mixed age group like the 16/17 or 18/19. It was my understanding that this would be one pure age group. Did a rule change happen that I'm not aware of? Anybody know the answer? The first weekend I thought it was just a reporting mistake but this weekend I saw a tweeted picture of an 03 starting 11 with an 02 in that picture and the game report reflects that he played the entire game. I should mention they are listed as DPs but still I don't understand an 02 playing with the 03s.
|
|
|
Post by Soccerhouse on Sept 10, 2017 10:16:17 GMT -5
There were rumors of smaller/younger 02s being allowed to play with 03s. But then heard it wasn't going to be instituted this year. Guess it was.
|
|
|
Post by krazykickers on Sept 10, 2017 12:13:15 GMT -5
That's interesting. The three players that I know who have played with 03 teams so far are not actually that small. This in my opinion would be more beneficial for the 13/14 group as that's when puberty kicks in with kids at hugely varying sizes. From the two games I've seen so far, the 02 players have played 80 minutes on a squad with 18&20 players so they're getting playing time when an 03 did not. The 02s are also rostered on the 16/17 teams. Playing smaller year players on a younger team is done outside of the U.S and in my opinion should be happening here but US soccer just doesn't always know how to implement things properly.
|
|
|
Post by Soccerhouse on Sept 10, 2017 12:35:48 GMT -5
Atlanta united players?
|
|
|
Post by hateallthesechanges on Sept 10, 2017 18:39:50 GMT -5
So we had to move to birth year to get in line with the rest of the world for the top .01% of elite players that may play on the national team and now the only ones bending the rules are those "elite" players. Nice.
|
|
|
Post by Soccerhouse on Sept 10, 2017 19:25:21 GMT -5
So we had to move to birth year to get in line with the rest of the world for the top .01% of elite players that may play on the national team and now the only ones bending the rules are those "elite" players. Nice. Now that's a quality post!!!
|
|
|
Post by krazykickers on Sept 10, 2017 19:34:36 GMT -5
no. But thinking back to last year's 03 AU team for example, they had some small players so they sure could have benefitted from something like this. They just keep moving the goal posts and I'm just not so sure the older age groups are where this should have started. And yes, are they going to do this for ALL kids eventually? I'm sure this is a test run but so far not all DA teams even have 02s as DPs (I know, it's early in the season) It's just sad that we couldn't do the right things for smaller players years ago. Meanwhile, they have been pushed aside with some coaches not seeing their value so some kids may eventually quit the game.
|
|
|
Post by gaprospects on Sept 11, 2017 0:54:13 GMT -5
AU 03's lost to Carolina Rapids 2-0, Concorde beat them 6-0. But Concorde lost 4-1 to CSA and AU beat them 2-1. Really can't draw any correlation from any of that.
And for what it's worth, I haven't seen any team that's using 02's in the 03 bracket in any game reports. Unless you're straight up accusing teams of falsifying birth certificates (which is befitting of the other forum), I would hope you could cite a specific example of this happening before you get riled up over it.
|
|
|
Post by krazykickers on Sept 11, 2017 5:19:10 GMT -5
AU 03's lost to Carolina Rapids 2-0, Concorde beat them 6-0. But Concorde lost 4-1 to CSA and AU beat them 2-1. Really can't draw any correlation from any of that. And for what it's worth, I haven't seen any team that's using 02's in the 03 bracket in any game reports. Unless you're straight up accusing teams of falsifying birth certificates (which is befitting of the other forum), I would hope you could cite a specific example of this happening before you get riled up over it. Just a quick example since you have straight up accused me of lying. But since you act like you have computer skills, I will let you look it up yourself. Look at the game report of U15 UFA vs. NCFC or Orlando City. It's important that you look at the game reports for both teams to form an intelligent reply because if you had then you could also see an 02 also at the bottom of the list for Concorde which you yourself cited, although not used this weekend. So before you get any more riled up, how about you do your own digging before calling someone a liar!! My original post was to report a score and to ask a legitimate question about this age group. I did not in any way imply falsifying birth certificates. This was a great conversation about the subject of using smaller players on teams until you came along acting like those "on the other forum".
|
|
|
Post by Soccerhouse on Sept 11, 2017 8:23:28 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by cantgetright on Sept 11, 2017 9:11:39 GMT -5
CF Vs Charlotte was actually 3-2 Charlotte and should have been a tie. CHeck the game card, the score is wrong.
|
|
|
Post by diceshooter on Sept 11, 2017 10:36:28 GMT -5
U. S. Soccer is following up on their recent "Futures" camp by having selected '02 kids play with '03s and selected '03s play with '04s. This is a U. S. Soccer mandated effort. Technical Advisors are pushing the clubs to do this, and in turn the clubs are pushing certain players. I know 2 kids who went to futures camps who have been pushed to do this. Both kids are being held out of their age group games (minimal time given) but are promised to play the entire game if they play in the lower age group.
My sense is that this is another one of their programs that The Organization (U. S. Soccer) really wants to see implemented, no matter the value to the player or the club.
|
|
|
Post by krazykickers on Sept 11, 2017 12:17:42 GMT -5
Thank you for sharing this article again, I don't know how I missed it the first time. It mentions bio-banding which I am a strong proponent of because players bodies develop so differently. You have your very early bloomers, your late bloomers, those in between and those that require medical intervention by an endocrinologist to jump start puberty/growth. For those athletes who need medical intervention they are at a huge physical disadvantage not just in height but in the ability to convert fat to muscle and build muscle mass. It is like comparing a Yugo car to a monster truck. I do think changing the age mandate really did more damage than it did good. We have a couple of friends who went to one 03 US national camp but were not invited back for other regular camps but were brought back in for the futures camp at the end of the year last year. Very interesting that they are blurring the lines of the age groups for that as well. And yes, I can see where all of this can get abused in games. It's a clear as mud. Edit for this additional thought: does this mean that eventually in the DA world that kids will be competing with 2-3 age groups for small rosters, for playing time? Things that make you go hmmmmm
|
|
|
Post by rifle on Sept 11, 2017 15:17:59 GMT -5
Thank you for sharing this article again, I don't know how I missed it the first time. It mentions bio-banding which I am a strong proponent of because players bodies develop so differently. You have your very early bloomers, your late bloomers, those in between and those that require medical intervention by an endocrinologist to jump start puberty/growth. For those athletes who need medical intervention they are at a huge physical disadvantage not just in height but in the ability to convert fat to muscle and build muscle mass. It is like comparing a Yugo car to a monster truck. I do think changing the age mandate really did more damage than it did good. This is a topic worthy of a separate discussion, so I apologise for the "DA scores" thread-jack... I agree that bio banding seems like a great equalizer. And while I appreciate that a certain Argentine GOAT had successful growth hormone treatment - medical intervention seems like a really slippery slope. A bad idea... For what, really? Fact is, many kids quit the game because they are slower to mature. And it absolutely is like a little boy playing against grown men (girls too, I have to imagine - but I don't have girls). It's hard to watch your own kid be that kid. Just as it's also quite hard to watch your early bloomer have every call made against them (because of physics). So bio banding may be a legit solution. But the reality is, parents need to chill out and maybe even watch their kid play at (gasp!) a lower level until they catch up and get their chance to shine.
|
|
|
Post by cantgetright on Sept 11, 2017 16:25:04 GMT -5
If the kid is a baller, it does not matter what size he is. The best kids play up an age group or 2 anyways. If they are not doing that, then parents need to realize he probably is not the next Messi. Calm down and let the kid play because he enjoys it and find the level where he fits. Parents stroke their own ego by saying my kid is on the top team. After the age mandate, if your kid is getting housed, maybe he should drop a level.
|
|