|
Post by Soccerhouse on Apr 20, 2016 9:18:10 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by jash on Apr 20, 2016 10:26:35 GMT -5
“If you were to group academy players by height and weight only, you’re creating a fake environment that doesn’t really exist in football,” James Bunce, head of sports science at the Premier League, said. “You’re always going to get bigger and smaller players; you’ll have Wes Morgan and Jamie Vardy.
“If you go and play in the first team within the Premier League, you’ll still have people getting bullied off the ball, people falling over, so that’s not going to change – unless you want all first-team football based on height and weight, which we don’t. It’s got to continue to look and feel real.”
This is the head of sports science, and he's that much of a chowderhead?
This isn't about putting small players in younger age groups just because they are small. It's about grouping people based on their growth age vs their strict calendar age. They aren't doing this to boost short players, they're doing it to prevent discrimination against late bloomers.
Maybe Bunce was quoted talking about another thing entirely, and the fault is the article writer.
|
|
|
Post by Soccerhouse on Apr 20, 2016 14:15:15 GMT -5
Ironically, many assume all the time that teams/clubs are actually doing this anyway, playing older kids on younger teams.....You hear rumors all the time, however that is not being done for development but rather to win games.
Which is the hard part, I guess in youth academy play, you could create a "rule" that each team is allowed 1 to 2 players from the older age group to play with the younger side basically only if they are smaller on the physical side etc.
I wish they had more on how it was implemented for players like Oxlade Chamberlain. I guess if your playing all meaningless games, it really doesn't matter, but take your average meaninless game on a Saturday here in the ATL, I don't think parents would be to happy to hear that the star player is really an age group above, but hes just small, so he needs to play in the lower age group --- meanwhile hes scored 8 goals, 6 assists and is nasty on the ball etc.....
|
|
|
Post by jash on Apr 20, 2016 14:19:48 GMT -5
The only way it would work would be to truly do a bio age test on every player. I don't think it's that hard, but then you'd have people faking those too.
Plus, can you imagine USSF ever agreeing to something like this when they can't even figure out which players go with which birth year without completely reorganizing all of youth soccer?
|
|
|
Post by letissier on Apr 20, 2016 15:34:07 GMT -5
The great news is, the Ox might be coming back to the Saints. COYR
We'll probably put him in the U21s until he fattens out enough to play along side Victor Wanyama.
|
|
|
Post by zizou on Apr 21, 2016 8:16:41 GMT -5
“If you were to group academy players by height and weight only, you’re creating a fake environment that doesn’t really exist in football,” James Bunce, head of sports science at the Premier League, said. “You’re always going to get bigger and smaller players; you’ll have Wes Morgan and Jamie Vardy. “If you go and play in the first team within the Premier League, you’ll still have people getting bullied off the ball, people falling over, so that’s not going to change – unless you want all first-team football based on height and weight, which we don’t. It’s got to continue to look and feel real.” This is the head of sports science, and he's that much of a chowderhead? This isn't about putting small players in younger age groups just because they are small. It's about grouping people based on their growth age vs their strict calendar age. They aren't doing this to boost short players, they're doing it to prevent discrimination against late bloomers. Maybe Bunce was quoted talking about another thing entirely, and the fault is the article writer. It was inelegantly stated but my interpretation of this statement was the following: Bio-banding is not about putting big with big and small with small, it is about grouping based on estimated percentage attainment of full physical maturity. There are going to be adults who are 6'3" and 230 lbs and there are going to be adults who are 5'6" and 140 lbs. They compete against each other in professional life and they compete against each other even with bio-banding because genetics are different between players. Each type of player must figure out what they need to do to succeed with what they have. Bio-banding will keep those differences, it will just keep the small kid at only 80% of their physical maturity from competing against the same aged kid who is at 95% of physical maturity. Anyway, I do not think what he said was not so terrible. I just think it was incomplete.
|
|
|
Post by zizou on Apr 21, 2016 8:19:11 GMT -5
The only way it would work would be to truly do a bio age test on every player. I don't think it's that hard, but then you'd have people faking those too. Plus, can you imagine USSF ever agreeing to something like this when they can't even figure out which players go with which birth year without completely reorganizing all of youth soccer? I don't want the geniuses at USSF anywhere near bio-banding. That would be a total disaster. Can you imagine the tortured logic emanating from Chicago trying to explain how that approach would benefit the NTs in International competition?
|
|
|
Post by jash on Apr 21, 2016 11:19:41 GMT -5
It was inelegantly stated but my interpretation of this statement was the following: Bio-banding is not about putting big with big and small with small, it is about grouping based on estimated percentage attainment of full physical maturity. There are going to be adults who are 6'3" and 230 lbs and there are going to be adults who are 5'6" and 140 lbs. They compete against each other in professional life and they compete against each other even with bio-banding because genetics are different between players. Each type of player must figure out what they need to do to succeed with what they have. Bio-banding will keep those differences, it will just keep the small kid at only 80% of their physical maturity from competing against the same aged kid who is at 95% of physical maturity. Anyway, I do not think what he said was not so terrible. I just think it was incomplete. It sounded to me like he was arguing against the use of bio-banding. I completely agree with your assessment of what bio-banding is and the results. It does NOT eliminate the fact that small players are small. It simply prevents late bloomers (or even normal bloomers) from being overshadowed and eliminated by early bloomers. It opens the playing world up to all players regardless of their age of puberty, essentially. If he was arguing against it based on the fact that the fully adult teams have different sized players, then that's what I think was disingenuous and rather ridiculous. As I say, he may have been talking about something completely different (and the article writer is to blame) or I may have misunderstood.
|
|
|
Post by zizou on Apr 21, 2016 12:53:07 GMT -5
It was inelegantly stated but my interpretation of this statement was the following: Bio-banding is not about putting big with big and small with small, it is about grouping based on estimated percentage attainment of full physical maturity. There are going to be adults who are 6'3" and 230 lbs and there are going to be adults who are 5'6" and 140 lbs. They compete against each other in professional life and they compete against each other even with bio-banding because genetics are different between players. Each type of player must figure out what they need to do to succeed with what they have. Bio-banding will keep those differences, it will just keep the small kid at only 80% of their physical maturity from competing against the same aged kid who is at 95% of physical maturity. Anyway, I do not think what he said was not so terrible. I just think it was incomplete. It sounded to me like he was arguing against the use of bio-banding. I completely agree with your assessment of what bio-banding is and the results. It does NOT eliminate the fact that small players are small. It simply prevents late bloomers (or even normal bloomers) from being overshadowed and eliminated by early bloomers. It opens the playing world up to all players regardless of their age of puberty, essentially. If he was arguing against it based on the fact that the fully adult teams have different sized players, then that's what I think was disingenuous and rather ridiculous. As I say, he may have been talking about something completely different (and the article writer is to blame) or I may have misunderstood. I took him to mean he was opposed to doing grouping solely based on size. I could be wrong also. Regardless, it was inelegantly stated but I gave him benefit of doubt and assumed his head was in the right place.
|
|