Discussion in 'Youth National Teams' started by Real Corona, Mar 22, 2012.
Continue to enjoy a rich discussion......
What's left to discuss?
Link to original thread ... http://www.bigsoccer.com/forum/showthread.php?t=675164
How about a preview of this weekend's academy games?
And how about an NCAA commitment from a DA star:
Michael Bajza (Shattuck St. Marys Academy)-NC State
As Todd posted the U15/16 rankings in the previous thread, here are the recently released U17/18 power rankings.
[By the way, I find these rankings beyond silly. Mostly because the clubs have played such a disparate amount of games. FCD in 2nd has played 23 games, Sockers FC in 3rd have played 7.]
3) Sockers FC
4) FC Delco
5) Shattuck-St. Mary's
The newest "Across the Academy" from the USSF.
Continuing from the previous thread . . .
I don't recall the post you are referring to, but the fact that SoCal division just involves two states and the Texas division just involves one is very likely a factor. However I don't think your assumption on distances is accurate. I think that if you look at a map you will see that two of the 3 divisions in the North East are more tightly grouped than the Southern California and Texas divisions. Furthermore if one were going to properly do a test market to see how a concept would work over an entire population it would make far more sense to pick one from a cold climate and one from a warm climate than 2 of the 3 most southern divisions.
This is kind of ironic coming from someone who has written that he bases at least part of his analysis from when he was a High School player decades ago. The reality is that I have radically switched my position on the impact of High School in the past 8 years after realizing that the things I had been hearing and reading were not accurate. At one point I thought the fact that our players played High School soccer was one of the primary reasons the US was falling behind. Obviously anyone who has read my more recent posts can reasonably assume that I do not hold that same opinion. People can come to their own conclusions as to whether I know what I'm writing about.
Re: USSF grading on formation
The fact that a lot of teams do play different formations is not necessarily a reason why they should. It might be a reason why they shouldn't.
I like including formation in the grade, because there's way more good than harm done overall. Looking only for perfect 1:1 correlations would result in having too few metrics to use. And you have to put it in perspective, it's only 20% of the style grade and only 4% of the overall grade.
In the original example Peter was talking about two teams that have a 1-star difference in style. Formation could only be the swing factor if one team was getting a perfect score in formation, and the other team was getting zero credit (it doesn't say that it's an all-or-nothing measure) *and* they weren't making it up anywhere else.
Also, there's a difference between youth and pro--once you slow the game down to youth pace, and you broaden the pyramid a whole bunch, I bet you'd find that Gooch was technically superior to 90% of the other youth prospects out there. He became technically weak because the standards he was being compared to kept going up. (Kurt Morsink was a #10 in youth play, and was known as highly skilled.)
In fact, part of the point (a lot of the point) was to introduce technical challenges like this occur earlier in development, to give the player more time and practice to rise above them. The theory is that if you made it a little harder a little earlier, Gooch might have come out a little better.
The only hesitancy I have with the 4-3-3 is that I think there might be some pure wide midfielders out there who are really excellent, but who simply have no position in that formation. Even there, I note that USSF accords essentially no grading difference between the 4-3-3 and the diamond 4-4-2, where they do have a position.
I am trying to get to up to speed on DA/BNT etc. My kid is 13 (playing Pre-Academy - GK) and has been invited twice (and participated) to US Soccer one-day trainings. With that history, is this most likely an "always a bridesmaid, never a bride" scenario? I see that his birth year has had a week long training in CA this March.
I guess I am sort of asking just how selective these 1-day showings are? Do most kids multiple invites? I guess its good to be invited but really what does it mean? Not up to speed on the politics of the whole process.
Any insight would be helpful.
This was exactly my point when I first saw the game schedules and one of the reasons I started this thread A look at the SoCal division restructuring impact to date . In my opinion it was a significant step backwards for the players in Southern California for the many reasons I listed in that thread.
In order to get some data on whether my initial reaction was correct or not was to get some data which is why I started this thread SoCal USSDA Division Data. As I wrote one of the things I was planning to do was to put together an analysis of drops. For some reason the names are now all scrambled on recent game reports. But just a cursory view shows some dramatic changes since the fall. The Chivas USA U18 team is down to just 17 players on their roster and two of those players have yet to play in a game and a third player is a DP that has only played in 3 games.
Interestingly enough a players that are no longer on that team are Kevin Delatorre and Christian Carrillo. Both are very talented players as Delatorre was at Bradenton and Carrillo was on the U16 best XI for the division last year. I'm sure Chivas would love to have them. But when you have a schedule where if you might not play 3 weeks if you don't make a trip for the weekend, kids are going to get really frustrated, really fast. According to LatinLover who seems to follow them, Carrillo actually quit to play High School (I guess briefly since he's at Pats now). So last year both these players were playing on U18 for Chivas and this year they are now playing U16 for Pats. I frankly can't fathom how people seem to be defending US Soccer handling of their Cal-South academy players.
So, is Raul Mendiola still training with and playing for the Galaxy or is he somewhere in Europe waiting to turn 18 so he can sign?
I think it is a mistake to point fingers at Chivas or Galaxy (which lost a top keeper). According to the data, Chivas has 3, 95s that are among the top scorers in U18. Given the USSF schedule where teams might not have games scheduled 2 weeks out of each month, it would be impossible for teams to keep all these players happy and developing properly.
I meant senior level professional teams around the world.
I wasn't criticizing "formation in the grade", but the fact that it has to be 4-3-3 or 4-4-2 <>.
re: real life training schedule vs how they drew it up.
Now, here's an intriguing point. The DA was originally formed to ensure a minimum amount of training. It was changed to a 10-month schedule to ensure that minimum took place through a longer proportion of the year.
And yet, the evaluation criteria don't include it, per se.
I understood that. But out of all the teams that play a 5-4-1, the vast majority of them do so for a decent reason in the sense of professional competition, but one that would be a bad reason developmentally.
All one has to do is look at the UCLA roster to see kids will have this choice. Since the inception of the Academy, the many Southern California kids on CSL based DA teams have had to choose between playing for an Academy team or playing High School. Despite the fact that UCLA had two assistant coaches who coached Galaxy Academy teams, about of 1/3 of the Southern California kids on their roster mostly played in High School and many of those never played at all as a full time academy player. Other local D1 rosters are filled with local kids who did not play on DA Academy teams as well as those who did.
I believe you are right. I was asking a player about it and he said he was told it was a mandate. Whether he was actually told this or this was his interpretation, I don’t know. But it certainly looks that way from the player pools. Now whether it is indeed the best way to develop players is a different discussion.
Depends. If you want wingers, then you shouldn't play 5-4-1.
If you want wingers who can break down 5-4-1 then some teams should play 5-4-1 against those wingers.
5-4-1 doens't mean poor development per se. 5-4-1 means no wingers, and based on the chosen philosophy it has some other implications.
The problem is that this is not even close to a professional league nor the right ages. If it were a U21 and a U18 league limited to MLS teams and a very small number of the best non-MLS academy teams you would get almost no argument from me. But to do that you would also need teams playing almost every week and not the completely developmentally deficient schedule the USSF has put out this year for players in this part of the country (notice I don’t have as much of an issue with the more rational schedules for the Texas teams).
I suggest we put this discussion in another thread devoted to academy ratings. But I agree with you and I bet Klinsmann does as well. Soccer is evolving to fluid formations and diverse tactics. This tactical requirement is a combination of trying to follow what the Dutch did along with the past war of so many club coaches using a sweeper because that is the style of play they were used to.
Not a comment to you but a comment in general - From the looks of his play, it seems that his time in High School seemed to hurt him about as much as it hurt the Galaxy U16s last year. Obviously a player of Flores level this year is ready to move onto a playing at top amateur or professional U18 team. But then again, we don’t exactly have a country full of players at his level.
No offense to you or your sons team, but I’m not impressed with what either RSL or Pats have done at the U16 level. As I wrote in the Data thread, 94% of the minutes at that time in RSLs U16 games were given to 95s. Only Arsenal was higher (by 1%).
In complete contrast, last year Chivas had Delatorre and Carrillo playing U18 and mostly played both at the U18 level while they were with the club this year. Chivas gave almost 4 times as many minutes to their 97s and 98s as RSL gave to their 96s. If Chivas were like RSL or Pats and chose to play the 3, 95s they have that were among the leading scorers along players like Delatorre and Carrillo, I don’t think RSL u16s nor Pats would have fared too well. If the Galaxy played all their 95s down I'm sure they would get similar results as well.
I am assuming you're referring to the US Soccer Training Centers. These are for real, several of the players in the U14/U15 pools, and even U17 National Residency, were identified at these training centers. I know of players who have been attending these training centers for nearly two years, some that were there but have been dropped, new faces, some that made it all the way to Nationals. Bottom line: this is a GREAT opportunity for your son, encourage him to work hard and stay positive. The "identified" pool of players (training centers, national camps, residency, etc) goes through tremendous churn over the years as players mature at different rates, some get more serious about soccer later, some lose interest, and some persevere. All in the game.
He hasn't played for the Galaxy since the turn of the year. Beyond that is anyone's guess. One of the great mysteries of the current DA season. If I had to guess I would say injured because he has fallen off the face of the earth.
I know on the old thread there was discussion on whether the Galaxy's Matt Tilley would go pro.
While this doesn't preclude him still doing so, he has signed a letter of intent with UC Irvine.
No offense taken. I dont really worry about that from parents standpoint because my son is a late born 95, November birthday. You are right I believe that he is one of only three sophmores that get much playing time. He does have two years left at RSl and I believe he will be quite dominant his senior year when he is playing against and with players his same grade. In the mean time he is practicing and competing with mainly players a year a head of him. I believe that as time goes on RSL will have to plan out a little bit more the different age groups so that they can have players there four years. As it is right now they bring in the very best they can find in this case of 95s and even the best 96s can fall short when stacked up against that. One thing you dont see is that these 95s scrimmage a ton with the 94s in practice. My son continues to tell me that some of the best games he has been in this year are intra squad scrimmages. But yes one thing I have found is that the u -16 to u-18 number is a little misleading . Most of the best u-16s are Juniors and u-18 seniors. If my son were a Junior 95 I would want him to play up a year if he could like Ben is doing over at Chivas. However it is misleading to say all these guys are playing up when there are many 94s that are Juniors in highschool playing the u-18 division.
Separate names with a comma.