|
|
Post by faz on Jul 21, 2019 7:42:08 GMT
Is happening this weekend. I’m told only those on the aspire programme were allowed to trial. If true I don’t need to state the bleeding obvious about those who run these things.
Once again players approached from other coaches. Not against the rules mid season but is it Ny wonder coaches don’t promote the event.
|
|
|
|
Post by ko25 on Jul 21, 2019 8:12:43 GMT
That is true but it is also true that clubs are continuously asked to send their players to try out and yet they don't.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 21, 2019 8:58:44 GMT
It's the Aspire tournament. If you wanna play in it, go to Aspire. If a player didn't do Aspire but played in the tournament, they could still get approached. Maybe if a player is getting regular minutes they shouldn't be able to change clubs mid season , but you'll never stop poaching. A blog about the tournament daveballblog.wordpress.com/2019/07/20/beast/ It's pretty well run. |
|
|
|
Post by faz on Jul 21, 2019 9:50:01 GMT
It never used to be. There were open trials for all. I know if one lad who dropped out of the aspire and would have been a gimme for the north west team
No longer allowed to compete. To me it seems like it’s the authorities trying to force people to join their programme rather than advance the best players
|
|
|
|
Post by elbasketo on Jul 21, 2019 9:59:50 GMT
You’re missing the point. It’s about attending the ‘programme’ to ensure players receive the same development process and coaching content. The tournament is then about showcasing the work done during the year. Parachuting players in at the end just to go to the tournament is counter-productive for a development programme
|
|
|
|
Post by faz on Jul 21, 2019 10:02:22 GMT
You’re missing the point. It’s about attending the ‘programme’ to ensure players receive the same development process and coaching content. The tournament is then about showcasing the work done during the year. Parachuting players in at the end just to go to the tournament is counter-productive for a development programme This is the first year that’s been the criteria.It used to be open trials to select a the ‘best’ representative team from the region. From that the England camp is determined, Obviously we arn’t bothered about selecting the best players to represent the regions and potentially Rngkand. |
|
|
|
Post by faz on Jul 21, 2019 10:03:07 GMT
You’re missing the point. It’s about attending the ‘programme’ to ensure players receive the same development process and coaching content. The tournament is then about showcasing the work done during the year. Parachuting players in at the end just to go to the tournament is counter-productive for a development programme This is the first year that’s been the criteria.It used to be open trials to select a the ‘best’ representative team from the region. From that the England camp is determined, Obviously we arn’t bothered about selecting the best players to represent the regions and potentially England |
|
|
|
Post by ko25 on Jul 21, 2019 12:28:38 GMT
You’re missing the point. It’s about attending the ‘programme’ to ensure players receive the same development process and coaching content. The tournament is then about showcasing the work done during the year. Parachuting players in at the end just to go to the tournament is counter-productive for a development programme This is the first year that’s been the criteria.It used to be open trials to select a the ‘best’ representative team from the region. From that the England camp is determined, Obviously we arn’t bothered about selecting the best players to represent the regions and potentially Rngkand. I don't really understand what you're getting at? Why aren't the best players showing up? |
|
|
|
Post by elbasketo on Jul 21, 2019 16:18:59 GMT
You’re missing the point. It’s about attending the ‘programme’ to ensure players receive the same development process and coaching content. The tournament is then about showcasing the work done during the year. Parachuting players in at the end just to go to the tournament is counter-productive for a development programme This is the first year that’s been the criteria.It used to be open trials to select a the ‘best’ representative team from the region. From that the England camp is determined, Obviously we arn’t bothered about selecting the best players to represent the regions and potentially Rngkand. Not entirely true. England players were instructed to attend RPC sessions throughout the year and nominated through that process |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 21, 2019 21:10:43 GMT
You’re missing the point. It’s about attending the ‘programme’ to ensure players receive the same development process and coaching content. The tournament is then about showcasing the work done during the year. Parachuting players in at the end just to go to the tournament is counter-productive for a development programme This is the first year that’s been the criteria.It used to be open trials to select a the ‘best’ representative team from the region. From that the England camp is determined, Obviously we arn’t bothered about selecting the best players to represent the regions and potentially Rngkand. There are trials. They're called Aspire sessions. Maybe we didn't need a rebrand, but it's a pretty clear pathway. It's not much different from "if you don't show up at practice, you don't play at the weekend". I don't say this lightly, but I was pretty impressed with both the East programme and the weekend. |
|
|
|
Post by faz on Jul 22, 2019 5:36:33 GMT
I’ve always thought the tournaments were run well
Did EB communicate that there wouldn’t be trials and if you wanted to try out fir the regionals then it was aspire only
My little mate probably would have tried out if he’d known that
What about the late developers who have improved post aspire try outs.
Sorry I don’t buy that this is an improvement and
|
|
|
|
Post by connors on Jul 22, 2019 11:11:23 GMT
I suspect the information flow relating to Aspite differs massively from region to region and also depends on what club you are at and who they know etc.
I know our two Jnr Nat League coaches were only informed very much last minute and had to go looking for the information to pass on to the kids.
In the NE there did seem to be some form of selection process for the ongoing squad but everyone was welcome to "try out".
If the tournament is for kids who have been through that programme that makes perfect sense and if Hersey was impressed then it must have been pretty damn good because he ain't easily impressed!
We know our sport has big infrastructure issues......like many I'm not entirely sure why a rebrand was needed.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 22, 2019 14:48:31 GMT
If the tournament is for kids who have been through that programme that makes perfect sense and if Hersey was impressed then it must have been pretty damn good because he ain't easily impressed!  It was made clear to the East kids that Aspire was the programme that the tournament team would be picked from, and that for the older ones it was the route to the national teams. Obviously I don't know what info was given in other regions. |
|
|
|
Post by tshubrook on Jul 22, 2019 19:58:01 GMT
Playing Devil's advocate the idea of 'talent identification' at U13s level is slightly ridiculous. Kids haven't been through puberty/growth spurts/differing experience levels etc.
If have to do it the tournaments are always well organised and run but, in my opinion, the Premier NL division should be doing the same thing at a national level season round with top 10/12 teams nationwide.
Aspire programme is fine and a good idea in theory but if coach education/ideology was adequately disseminated like we've been promised multiple times by BE/EB/GB then clubs could be doing the same work and then open final selection process for tournament would show players who have massively improved after not making aspire as opposed to those who've not moved on.
Generally all our efforts at this age should be to improving the depth of the talent pool.
|
|
|
|
Post by interestedridersfan on Jul 22, 2019 20:04:59 GMT
Playing Devil's advocate the idea of 'talent identification' at U13s level is slightly ridiculous. Kids haven't been through puberty/growth spurts/differing experience levels etc. If have to do it the tournaments are always well organised and run but, in my opinion, the Premier NL division should be doing the same thing at a national level season round with top 10/12 teams nationwide. Aspire programme is fine and a good idea in theory but if coach education/ideology was adequately disseminated like we've been promised multiple times by BE/EB/GB then clubs could be doing the same work and then open final selection process for tournament would show players who have massively improved after not making aspire as opposed to those who've not moved on. Generally all our efforts at this age should be to improving the depth of the talent pool. At what age are talented kids identified and farmed off to academies or similar to develop for basketball in US? I'm assuming it's younger than under 13? They must identify talent younger than that and do something with it? Puberty or not? |
|
|
|
Post by tshubrook on Jul 22, 2019 20:12:22 GMT
Performance level as defined by USA basketball is 15-18. Most LTAD models for basketball would have similar or probably slightly later age. USA not really ideal comparison as quality of coaching competition much, much deeper. You will struggle to choose the best player in 15 years (peak performance) by looking at them age 11.
|
|
|
|
Post by interestedridersfan on Jul 22, 2019 20:29:54 GMT
Performance level as defined by USA basketball is 15-18. Most LTAD models for basketball would have similar or probably slightly later age. USA not really ideal comparison as quality of coaching competition much, much deeper. You will struggle to choose the best player in 15 years (peak performance) by looking at them age 11. Even though it's hard to pick in this day and age of sport I would be amazed if talent isn't identified far far younger and given more time and effort? In UK pro clubs identify kids for football rightly or wrongly from age of 5 and 6 now. And officially are allowed to sign them under 9 I realise the system is different in US but is surprised if no talent identification and extra training etc at young ages? |
|
|
|
Post by tshubrook on Jul 22, 2019 20:42:57 GMT
Performance level as defined by USA basketball is 15-18. Most LTAD models for basketball would have similar or probably slightly later age. USA not really ideal comparison as quality of coaching competition much, much deeper. You will struggle to choose the best player in 15 years (peak performance) by looking at them age 11. Even though it's hard to pick in this day and age of sport I would be amazed if talent isn't identified far far younger and given more time and effort? In UK pro clubs identify kids for football rightly or wrongly from age of 5 and 6 now. And officially are allowed to sign them under 9 I realise the system is different in US but is surprised if no talent identification and extra training etc at young ages? Re football Michael Calvin's book is quite realistic - 'The statistics are really sobering. Out of all the boys who enter an academy at the age of 9, less than half of 1% make it. Or a make a living from the game either. ' Re basketball read the USA Basketball guidelines. Canada ones similar. www.usab.com/youth/development/youth-basketball-guidelines.aspx If you burn through enough kids some will stick and you can then say 'we identified them age xxx'. Human nature to forget all the ones that we fail to identify/misidentify. In my opinion the central authority should stick to growing the sports base and giving the youth National League teams the tools to develop high quality competition all season rather than running, really good, youth tournaments for 2 days a year. If it was that easy to identify talented players young then Leicester Riders, team that most people in basketball identify as the top organisation, would probably not have well over 50% of the kids selected for their academy in Charnwood at age 16 every year come from outside the Leicester system. |
|
|
|
Post by interestedridersfan on Jul 23, 2019 4:36:10 GMT
Even though it's hard to pick in this day and age of sport I would be amazed if talent isn't identified far far younger and given more time and effort? In UK pro clubs identify kids for football rightly or wrongly from age of 5 and 6 now. And officially are allowed to sign them under 9 I realise the system is different in US but is surprised if no talent identification and extra training etc at young ages? Re football Michael Calvin's book is quite realistic - 'The statistics are really sobering. Out of all the boys who enter an academy at the age of 9, less than half of 1% make it. Or a make a living from the game either. Interesting stuff - but that is also competitive sport for you full stop though isn't it? It doesn't mean you cant develop skills and technique in football at that age. Just means it's extremely tough to succeed if being a pro is the target. Either at an academy or at grassroots it's an age to develop technique and skills I guess in US the High Schools and Colleges take care of sport and the draft system stops Pro clubs having incentives to grab the best young players early. Do High Schools compete for sporting talent to join them or not? Edit In US basketball ive just found the apparent odds of a senior high school basketball player being drafted to play NBA is 0.03 per cent |
|
|
|
Post by interestedridersfan on Jul 23, 2019 5:22:02 GMT
Even though it's hard to pick in this day and age of sport I would be amazed if talent isn't identified far far younger and given more time and effort? In UK pro clubs identify kids for football rightly or wrongly from age of 5 and 6 now. And officially are allowed to sign them under 9 I realise the system is different in US but is surprised if no talent identification and extra training etc at young ages? If it was that easy to identify talented players young then Leicester Riders, team that most people in basketball identify as the top organisation, would probably not have well over 50% of the kids selected for their academy in Charnwood at age 16 every year come from outside the Leicester system. I'm actually surprised 50 per cent come from within the system. Big difference between identifying the talent you would like to join the academy and them moving there before they have finished their GCSE education etc ( or whatever it's called now). Having said that - I agree in basketball it makes sense to id talent later. |
|
|
|
Post by interestedridersfan on Jul 23, 2019 5:31:04 GMT
Re football Michael Calvin's book is quite realistic - 'The statistics are really sobering. Out of all the boys who enter an academy at the age of 9, less than half of 1% make it. Or a make a living from the game either. That's competitive sport for you full stop though. It doesn't mean you cant develop skills and technique in football at that age. Just means it's extremely tough to succeed if being a pro is the target. I guess in US the High Schools and Colleges take care of sport and the draft system stops Pro clubs having incentives to grab the best young players early. Do High Schools compete for sporting talent to join them or not? Having googled this - it looks like private and sponsored schools take the best players away from the High School programmes in US now. And the schools they join play in AAU League - the schools sponsored by Nike, Adidas etc. Not ideal either. But this is where elite players go to compete and get scouted for US college And AAU basketball starts at 7 and under age group! The bits ive read make it sounds worse than football in UK! With the best kids being flown in from other states to play for one team in the morning and another in the afternoon! I did suspect something would be happening like this in US akin to talent ID. That's the money in sport now impacting kids from very young ages. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 23, 2019 6:15:45 GMT
I'm not sure there's a lot of point looking at football academy success rates. The big clubs absolutely hoover up any kid who can remotely kick a ball. Cambridge sold a couple of under-16s to Chelsea, they went into the 30-player "elite squad" but there's another 200 at each age, most of whom are signed to prevent anyone else getting them. While I have doubts about many of the "academy" programmes in basketball, we're nowhere near that. Though I do agree with the idea mooted on here before that there should be a limit of how many players can be signed by an academy, depending on how many teams they run - ie an academy needs to run one team per 12 signed player.
|
|
|
|
Post by interestedridersfan on Jul 23, 2019 6:25:22 GMT
I'm not sure there's a lot of point looking at football academy success rates. The big clubs absolutely hoover up any kid who can remotely kick a ball. Cambridge sold a couple of under-16s to Chelsea, they went into the 30-player "elite squad" but there's another 200 at each age, most of whom are signed to prevent anyone else getting them. While I have doubts about many of the "academy" programmes in basketball, we're nowhere near that. Though I do agree with the idea mooted on here before that there should be a limit of how many players can be signed by an academy, depending on how many teams they run - ie an academy needs to run one team per 12 signed player. Again that's money in sport having an impact I started the day thinking USA had a great system with schools and colleges taking care of sport until it matters professionally when they are older only to discover it's an even bigger money impacted sport than over here. And if you want to get scouted for US college basketball you have to get out of the High School System and into private school system etc. Albeit sports brands sponsor schools and places for those who can't afford it. All sounds very murky and money led. Can imagine there is huge competition from a young age to win full scholarships at these AAU schools. With lots of coaches and mini academies offering pathways up the ladder That's the way of junior sport when big money is involved further up the ladder |
|
|
|
Post by groundcrew on Jul 23, 2019 7:12:04 GMT
Have a listen to this to put a different perspective on focusing kids too early.... It's a BBC pod explaining why it's better to be a generalist than a specialist in sport and life. In this episode, author David Epstein* dispels the 'early specialisation' myth. www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p07h3bw0*David Epstein is an investigative reporter at ProPublica. He is the author of two books: Range: Why Generalists Triumph in a Specialized World (2019); and The Sports Gene: Inside the Science of Extraordinary Athletic Performance (2013). Prior to ProPublica, Epstein was a senior writer at Sports Illustrated, where he specialized in science issues in sports and investigative reporting.[1] With his colleague Selena Roberts, Epstein broke the story that the Yankees' Alex Rodriguez tested positive for steroids in 2003.[2] |
|
|
|
Post by interestedridersfan on Jul 23, 2019 7:52:47 GMT
Have a listen to this to put a different perspective on focusing kids too early.... It's a BBC pod explaining why it's better to be a generalist than a specialist in sport and life. In this episode, author David Epstein* dispels the 'early specialisation' myth. www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p07h3bw0*David Epstein is an investigative reporter at ProPublica. He is the author of two books: Range: Why Generalists Triumph in a Specialized World (2019); and The Sports Gene: Inside the Science of Extraordinary Athletic Performance (2013). Prior to ProPublica, Epstein was a senior writer at Sports Illustrated, where he specialized in science issues in sports and investigative reporting.[1] With his colleague Selena Roberts, Epstein broke the story that the Yankees' Alex Rodriguez tested positive for steroids in 2003.[2] Will take a listen later. I do agree that unless it's an extreme sport where they develop them really young and need huge commitment early on (like gymnastics) then playing more than one sport or multiple sports as long as you can is the best way forward. That's possible as well from experience of my own kids. TBF I think even the sports who want to get kids playing elite from a young age - do actually encourage kids to play other sports at the same time Not til the age of 14 ish do elite sports kids normally have to make a choice on focussing on one sport against another from what I've seen and experienced as a parent I know elite tennis players overseas are encouraged to play basketball alongside tennis funnily enough In elite tennis they set a target number of hours to train each week as kids get older and they actually include other sports as part of the hours they want them to aim for In football they aren't as advanced as that but many footballers at academies also excel at other sports and it's only age 14 they normally ask them to focus on one or the other Gymnastics on the other hand. They identify elite kids age 3 in that sport! And if you join up you aren't really physically capable of doing anything else. That's a brutal sport and very time consuming sport from a very young age I get the impression elite swimming may be similar? But don't have any experience of that to confirm. |
|
