Re: HIGH SCHOOL ball vs. ACADEMY ball, NY Times article

by soccergrinder 10/8/2012, 7:17 pm

Laimport wrote:grinder, I'm aware of the ECNL. Didn't bring it up because it so recent in its creation. 2, 3 years?

I'm sure the question/dilemma raised on the girls side as well.

The gridiron football analogy is just to point out that there is little room for comparing.

The rest of the world is catching up to the US women. Only within the last decade has there even been any support for the womens game on a large scale that the US has had.

Rest of the world to my knowledge doesn't have "Title IX".

I don't think high school soccer is necessarily bad for developing a player.

Fortunately for my son, DA is not really an option (due to geography). He's a freshman and is stoked about playing high school soccer.

And I personally do feel there is some 'developmental value' with scholastic ball. At least his freshman and sophomore years. When you add in the 'intrinsic' stuff, it's even better.

Competition is a good thing. It sharpens the athlete. Problem is, we take competition way too seriously at way too young an age.

Compound that with poor coaching. (Not teaching soccer fundamentals and overly focusing on results. As well as possession, building from the back, etc.)

My philosophy is that coaching is a small but important part of the total equation. The vast majority is up to the individual player.

"Balance" is key. It's okay to be the star of your hs team. But you also have to seek out environments where you aren't the star...in order to improve.

As long as the emphasis is on "team development" we will continue to have the same problems.

And since we don't have the infrastructure in place that exists elsewhere, playing high school soccer in addition to club/DA is not an issue.

Just another turf war within the sport...

Laimp. I agree with your wisdom. From my experience with DA the coaching was not better. The majority of the teams we played against played ugly long ball and little if any developing was going on. The collective of quality players was higher than club and high school. But the coaching was on par across the board from club, DA and high school. My kid chose to leave DA, if you can call being forced to leave a choice. He didn't want to leave, and his coach didn't want him to leave. But once the Academy threatened the coach and club with sanctions, we walked away. DA is not about doing whats best for the players, it is as you suggested, a turf war. Best thing for my kid was when he left DA. Played high school and made it all the way to regional finals. Then was recruited to play the summer up on a U20 USL team that was a step up from the DA. It prepared him better for Big Ten ball. So in the end it all worked out.

by Laimport 10/9/2012, 8:15 am

grinder, I'm glad things worked out with your son. I'm not necessarily 'antiDA'. I'm just not buying into the hype that it is the alpha and omega of youth soccer.

Maybe some of the MLS clubs are doing it right. I don't know.

I think the path you took with your son (playing USL U20) was much more beneficial. I think an exceptional player at 17/18 needs to at least begin looking beyond their own age group in order to sharpen and improve.

I can't seem to find any correlation between being on an 'elite' youth team and future success at higher levels.

I'm beginning to think the opposite may even be true.