I thought Academy Soccer was more of a competitive environment than recreational soccer yet I still see some players that have a hard time kicking a ball, receiving a pass and generally just running and having general body awareness. I can see that the skills sessions would be helpful but why don't the parents just have some of the kids just do skills and play recreational soccer? Does the quality of players change that much as the players ages or is it the case that some players will improve marginally over the years...if so at what age will we start to see the development level out?

Messifan wrote:I thought Academy Soccer was more of a competitive environment than recreational soccer yet I still see some players that have a hard time kicking a ball, receiving a pass and generally just running and having general body awareness. I can see that the skills sessions would be helpful but why don't the parents just have some of the kids just do skills and play recreational soccer? Does the quality of players change that much as the players ages or is it the case that some players will improve marginally over the years...if so at what age will we start to see the development level out?

You never see development level out.
Quality of players always change as the players age
SKILL SESSIONS ARE THE MOST BENEFICIAL FOR YOUR KID

The banter about Rec vs academny/select it is all about the money for the Select soccer teams. Some parents are going to say that their select soccer teams have great skill coaches/sessions.

For the $2000 - $3000 cost of playing select, that money would make a greater impact if you put your kid in skill sessions and rec games/leagues. At this stage all the way to 13 teen, you want your son to dominate and grow.

Competition while good is not everything.

"For the $2000 - $3000 cost of playing select, that money would make a greater impact if you put your kid in skill sessions and rec games/leagues. At this stage all the way to 13 teen, you want your son to dominate and grow."

this is nonsense. some people have such an axe to grind they will say anything.

now onto your question

there are kids and teams who are a little better than rec but not much better. You have to gauge your son and his soccer ability,passion and your feelings and wallet. playing on a low level academy team and paying a lot is dicey. then there are most teams with kids who were the stars of rec who are wanting to play at a higher level than most rec teams do. . You will generally find much better soccer players than you will see in rec in academy.Your sons skill will grow because he is playing against higher caliber kids, not "dominating" daisy pickers and ball whiffers

lastly you will find elite teams which could beat the average rec team by 10-15 goals.

jus because it says academy does not make it an elite team. you must weigh things and go visit the team and refer to what i said about passion etc. good luck

Rocketeer wrote:

Messifan wrote:I thought Academy Soccer was more of a competitive environment than recreational soccer yet I still see some players that have a hard time kicking a ball, receiving a pass and generally just running and having general body awareness. I can see that the skills sessions would be helpful but why don't the parents just have some of the kids just do skills and play recreational soccer? Does the quality of players change that much as the players ages or is it the case that some players will improve marginally over the years...if so at what age will we start to see the development level out?

You never see development level out.
Quality of players always change as the players age
SKILL SESSIONS ARE THE MOST BENEFICIAL FOR YOUR KID

The banter about Rec vs academny/select it is all about the money for the Select soccer teams. Some parents are going to say that their select soccer teams have great skill coaches/sessions.

For the $2000 - $3000 cost of playing select, that money would make a greater impact if you put your kid in skill sessions and rec games/leagues. At this stage all the way to 13 teen, you want your son to dominate and grow.

Competition while good is not everything.

I've read some of your other post and agree with a lot of what you say but must disagree with your position here. I have seen kids dominate in rec year after year at the younger ages 8, 9 and then get frustarted and bored because their teamates on the rec teams are unskilled and poor. Further, in practice, they are never challenged and easily beat their teamates in drills and scrimmages. In games they run up down scoring at will and are never challenged in one v one situations. They try to take on the whole other team because if they pass, it is a lost cause.

Maybe I am missing something here, but playing against better competition will make your kid better, or he will learn he is really not as good as he thinks he is.

I don't know if this helps...but my oldest daughter played just rec. until middle of her second grade. She started playing at 5. She got better but really didn't seem to enjoy the game that much...she enjoyed the social aspect of playing with her friends from school. I put her in some summer camps and she liked them but didn't really want to practice in the backyard to reinforce what was being taught during the camps. My guideline with her was that if she was middle of the pack with her rec team and didn't have a desire to practice to improve then we stayed with rec. She retired from soccer and she is now playing tennis and swimming and LOVES them.

Messifan wrote:I thought Academy Soccer was more of a competitive environment than recreational soccer yet I still see some players that have a hard time kicking a ball, receiving a pass and generally just running and having general body awareness. I can see that the skills sessions would be helpful but why don't the parents just have some of the kids just do skills and play recreational soccer? Does the quality of players change that much as the players ages or is it the case that some players will improve marginally over the years...if so at what age will we start to see the development level out?

The development does not level out except for physically. Around U15 or U 16 the BSF players had better have learned some skills or they are marginal players at this point in CL if they survive at all. By this point the players have mostly migrated to teams that reflect their skill levels.

anselansel wrote:"For the $2000 - $3000 cost of playing select, that money would make a greater impact if you put your kid in skill sessions and rec games/leagues. At this stage all the way to 13 teen, you want your son to dominate and grow."

this is nonsense. some people have such an axe to grind they will say anything.

now onto your question

there are kids and teams who are a little better than rec but not much better. You have to gauge your son and his soccer ability,passion and your feelings and wallet. playing on a low level academy team and paying a lot is dicey. then there are most teams with kids who were the stars of rec who are wanting to play at a higher level than most rec teams do. . You will generally find much better soccer players than you will see in rec in academy.Your sons skill will grow because he is playing against higher caliber kids, not "dominating" daisy pickers and ball whiffers

lastly you will find elite teams which could beat the average rec team by 10-15 goals.

jus because it says academy does not make it an elite team. you must weigh things and go visit the team and refer to what i said about passion etc. good luck

Anselansel, my son is playing Select and I am paying 2000 - 3000 a year, it sucks, the competition is better : yes it is ,the competition is better. The kids all can play to a certain level , yes they all can. The coaches do nothing and I mean nothing to improve the kids or their skills, they wanna win. It is up to the parent to improve their kids skill level. Call it private tutoring if you must, I rather use the 2000 - 3000 and make my kidinto a soccer player who is technically skilled. Now I have to pay the select team cause we play in DIV I classic, and take him to practices and stuff like that, but I am paying extra for him to get technical skill coaching because the select team does not do a good job.
We (kid and I) are very passionate about soccer, it is the Cup of Life.

Do not knock rec, yes there are lousy players but there are very good rec players because their parents cannot afford the price of select soccer and then some coach watches the kid and gives him a full scholarship so his team can win and he can show off (in our great SELECT).

Select soccer is revenue generation , all about the money, not about the passion about the game. Last but not least, select style of playing sucks, 1v1 blah blah , kids who cannot dribble, do not use creativity, all stifled by USSF coaches who have no idea how to coach creativity and make a kid in to a complete soccer player.

We can talk about carrying an 18 man roster for kids.
You want a kid to improve give him touches touches touches, oh yeah with an 18 man roster can we say some kids will have the title of select soccer but no playing time or skill or touches.

I stand by what I say, your 2000 - 3000 dollars is better spent into directly investing it into your kid than paying select soccer teams. However you have to understand soccer and be passionate about it.

Running wrote:

Rocketeer wrote:

Messifan wrote:I thought Academy Soccer was more of a competitive environment than recreational soccer yet I still see some players that have a hard time kicking a ball, receiving a pass and generally just running and having general body awareness. I can see that the skills sessions would be helpful but why don't the parents just have some of the kids just do skills and play recreational soccer? Does the quality of players change that much as the players ages or is it the case that some players will improve marginally over the years...if so at what age will we start to see the development level out?

You never see development level out.
Quality of players always change as the players age
SKILL SESSIONS ARE THE MOST BENEFICIAL FOR YOUR KID

The banter about Rec vs academny/select it is all about the money for the Select soccer teams. Some parents are going to say that their select soccer teams have great skill coaches/sessions.

For the $2000 - $3000 cost of playing select, that money would make a greater impact if you put your kid in skill sessions and rec games/leagues. At this stage all the way to 13 teen, you want your son to dominate and grow.

Competition while good is not everything.

I've read some of your other post and agree with a lot of what you say but must disagree with your position here. I have seen kids dominate in rec year after year at the younger ages 8, 9 and then get frustarted and bored because their teamates on the rec teams are unskilled and poor. Further, in practice, they are never challenged and easily beat their teamates in drills and scrimmages. In games they run up down scoring at will and are never challenged in one v one situations. They try to take on the whole other team because if they pass, it is a lost cause.

Maybe I am missing something here, but playing against better competition will make your kid better, or he will learn he is really not as good as he thinks he is.

No your not missing anything, it is a struggle when a kid totally dominates, however all the way to 12 one can find quality kids and teams in rec. We are talking about academy and select and then comparing it to REC.

Not all select teams have good players /depth in their team, unless you are like the elite Solar or FC dallas or Texan /lightining andromeda teams.

There is no easy answer, Select is an option and is expensive, and the kid will have a baseline of soccer skils.
However if one plays their kid in rec and pays the money that was supposed to go to the select soccer team into improving the kids skill and conditioning, he will be become a star dominating the game. Confidence / self esteem is not something that can be easily instilled in kids, you have to nurture it slowly, select soccer can kill confidence in kids who are good soccer player but are still in the learning phase, not everyone loves pressure at 10 - 13 yrs of age.

When he hits 13 yrs old and hormones kick in , all those skills he learned when he was GRASSHOPPER will come to fruition together, and he will dominate his junior high , his high school , his coach will beg for him to be on this team and he will excel. It is a long term picture as opposed to as short term picture.

I have not mentioned that there are mexican / hispanic/ african leagues around the metroplex where a lot of kids play good soccer and competition can be found at an inexpensive price like 75 a season to 100 dollars a season. The kids in select until 13 yrs of age aint all that.

Kids at 13 become fast , agile, and with skill they look magical with the ball, it comes down to touches, you need to get your kid all the touches you can, so if he does, then select soccer may work, other wise he needs to get it and the parent needs to find a way.

Rocketeer, I understand what you're saying and don't completely disagree, but...

At age 13, "kids become fast...." Around age 13, slower kids become fast; already fast kids become even faster! The slower kid may look fast for a few months to a year, until the fast kid hits puberty, and then he's back off to the races.

Some kids already love the competitive factor and thrive on the pressure, even at age 10. Seems to especially happen in youngest sibling kids; they've grown up keeping up with big guys so it doesn't phase them, and they seem to like the challenge.

Finally, while there are certainly many families that can't afford it, there are tons of families whom can afford to pay select fees and the extra skills coaches; they are forced to choose between the two. Does it make a difference? Do those kids do better overall?

rocketeer, so you play in a league you think is worthless, on a team with a coach that teaches your boy no skills,pay for it which you consider a waste of your money,and don"t follow your own advice? hmm

anselansel wrote:rocketeer, so you play in a league you think is worthless, on a team with a coach that teaches your boy no skills,pay for it which you consider a waste of your money,and don"t follow your own advice? hmm

Anselansel, I don't think you understand Rocketeer's point. It comes down to " you got to do what you got to do". Here in dallas, no matter how you may hate it, you have to drive your car if you want a normal life. Same goes with our soccer; Classic league and select clubs are what I call an obligation if you want to play soccer in Dallas. So regardless of what you think of those 2 , if you can afford it and if you and your son are serious about soccer you have to do with classic league and select clubs.
I don't think it is as bad as what Rocketeer describes though, I am going to say that he is not with the right coach and/or the right club...

i guess i see his point, although i disagree.

anselansel wrote:rocketeer, so you play in a league you think is worthless, on a team with a coach that teaches your boy no skills,pay for it which you consider a waste of your money,and don"t follow your own advice? hmm

Actually that is correct, my son plays in a league that I do not respect, on the coach that teaches my son no skills, it is more that he teaches tactics and not one on one skills to improve the kid (there is a difference), the coach can only do so much. Yes I pay for it because my son want's to try it, it is not about me it is about my son. Yes so far I consider it a waste of money but Classics have not begun and I may change my mind. Yes it seems like I do not follow my own advice, once again I am not the know all and I do make mistakes, I am following the path that everyone preaches for my son and so far I have been disappointed. I guess I am bitching about the costs, and think I can use the 1000 dollars in hiring a private coach to teach my son individual soccer skills, speed and agility and my money is better spent.

However this is for my son, he loves the team, the coach, the teammates,he is having fun, his father (that's me ) be dammed, I want my son to have fun and he is having fun.
I just need to make sure as his dad that he learns and improves along the way, and if I have to hire a private tutor I will and I have.

gababa wrote:

anselansel wrote:rocketeer, so you play in a league you think is worthless, on a team with a coach that teaches your boy no skills,pay for it which you consider a waste of your money,and don"t follow your own advice? hmm

Anselansel, I don't think you understand Rocketeer's point. It comes down to " you got to do what you got to do". Here in dallas, no matter how you may hate it, you have to drive your car if you want a normal life. Same goes with our soccer; Classic league and select clubs are what I call an obligation if you want to play soccer in Dallas. So regardless of what you think of those 2 , if you can afford it and if you and your son are serious about soccer you have to do with classic league and select clubs.
I don't think it is as bad as what Rocketeer describes though, I am going to say that he is not with the right coach and/or the right club...

Point well made, and has a lot of truth to it, the club is a top 5 club in Classic league as far as Classic rankings go, time will tell. Guess I should say that my son is a starter and plays a lot of minutes so I have no complaints. However I wanna see growth, growth of skill confidence and progression. Maybe I do need to see other teams and coaches to see what they do, I have a year to do that and may switch to another team , not sure my son will let me , but it is always a possibility.

I am not that negative on Select soccer as far as soccer goes, I am negative on it costs but I will pay and complain.