There’s not really that much difference before puberty
I feel like this was definitely pretty normal growing up playing club football up until the age of like 10? Same as with tennis and other sports I played.
Yeah i think the big case here is PSVs academy is split by gender that early, i think we played with the girls until we were like 11 or so, but that might also be due to the lack of girls-only teams at that age where im from
A lack of girls-only teams was definitely the core of it. I played with girls too but when more and more girls started to play football every club moved to girls-only teams. When I first started playing football my club only had 2 or 3 girls in every year group, when my younger sister started playing football they maybe had about 10-15.
Yeah, except for my last half year of football I always had girls in my team.
At what point in age is co-ed football illegal
This is not true. Roord played together with Reijnders in the FC Twente academy. Weird that they didn’t fact-check it
Good for her.
I played with the boys when I was under 12 as there were no girls’ teams available.
Well now the boys will try to play with even more intensity to impress her. Guess people will see a 8 year old doing bicycle kicks at the academy. Win win for both the boys and girls.
As a guy whose team lost 33-1 or something (forgot the exact scoreline) in a match I played as a CB with the girl I like in the audience… how can I delete someone else’s comment?
forgot the exact scoreline
Ya, when one doesn’t remember by how much they lost it must’ve been bad.
Lmao, talk about being an optimist hahah
Lol, PSV to win Champions League in next 10 years
Up until a certain age it really doesn’t matter if the boys and girls are playing together, so this is a good thing to do. She’s talented enough if they decided this so this will be good for her development. A lot of people have played in teams with girls when they were young kids, who cares.
I call BS here; go read the first chapter of the book Outliers. Early years, physical development matters a LOT. Studies showed pro-athelete’s birthdays are biased heavily towards the beginning of the year. The idea being that at age 4.75 say you have an extra .75 years of physical development over peers born later in the year. This manifests in you seeing more of the play as you’ll be physically dominant. This compounds into more practice, eventually leading to being better (on average), so playing more, so getting better, so getting picked for development teams, so getting better and on & on.
You seem to be arguing a different case/topic to what the OP was talking about.
A January born Male playing with a October (of same year) born girl is fair case for what you wrote.
But a January-born male playing with March-born girl is not really all that significant to be relevant. And that was the point of that comment in general.
Till testosterone hits young teenage boys the Physiological overhead boys have over girls is basically trivial (esp when accounting for selection in social activities like sport which will naturally filter similar physical profiles fitting the relative sports, i.e. taller children will be better at Basketball, even kids version of it).
Post testosterone hitting it’s game over though. No girl/women can compete physically with men (of a given age profile of course since 25-year-old female professional is not going to lose to a 80 year old retired man).
Something else the book argues is that opportunities were very important, and you can also think that it was the opportunities given to those who had more physical development at the earliest stage increased their likelihood to make it. This is sort of like her getting selected for the special team outside the odds.
I would argue that it is mostly about amount of ball involvement while playing. A kid born earlier in the year will on average be physically stronger and therefore have the ball more and therefore develop skills faster, even if players born later in the year plays an equal amount. When the player born later catches up physical the early born players will have better football specific skills which is hard to catch up on.
Something else the book argues is that opportunities were very important, and you can also think that it was the opportunities given to those who had more physical development at the earliest stage increased their likelihood to make it.
Absolutely, I even reference this.
This is sort of like her getting selected for the special team outside the odds.
Yep. She’s the Outlier - geddit!?
They’re looking for outliers and outliers only. Average players in an academy get thrown in the bin. Just look at what TAA said https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/65399672
I don’t think there’s anything inherently bad about talented kids playing with bigger/more physical kids. That’s the intensity what they wanted to give her vs. training with girls her age.
I played hockey with a couple of girls when I was 13-14. They enjoyed the hitting and could take care of themselves on the ice. (No one tried to fight them, of course.)
Yes this is absolutely true, but I don’t see how this applies to coed youth teams. This is a problem because of kids developing fast when they’re young so kids that are almost a year older will be further in their development. I don’t know if there is a difference but this doesn’t say anything about gender differences.
I added this bit to my post to hammer home my point. I’m not saying it’s wrong or can’t be managed, I’m just highlighting that its likely that it would matter from the perspective of development of ability in the general case. A supremely talented/developed female who has a good coaching network (which she’ll surely have at PSV) will be absolutely fine and won’t be worse off for it.
I don’t think it’s far fetched to believe that in typical cases, males will be more physically developed (bigger, stronger, faster) than an equivalent aged female. That’s not to say in specific instances this isn’t a valid thing to do or that I can’t be managed by early years coaching being non-contact/ skill based.
Yeah there might be a difference, I have no clue. My take was large based on my own experience with having the occasional girl in my team as a kid, and up until about 12 they could keep up. The girls that played in coed teams were usually also much better players than the girls that just played in girls teams.
Absolutely not disputing your anecdotal experience, nor that it is beneficial to the women in coeds. I thought I’d chip in with some added information cos frankly the point made in Outliers is a fantastic example of the power of compounding growth. Saying I was calling BS was just a banter-y way of opening.
Not that deep bro. Once they hit 16, she won’t be able to compete with them consistently. That’s the reality of it but she’ll probs develop into a better player than her female teammates.
She’s 9, girls are generally bigger and grow faster than boys until around 13-14
Nah u10 its fine
I don’t think it’s far fetched to believe that in typical cases, males will be more physically developed (bigger, stronger, faster) than an equivalent aged female.
We’re talking before puberty here, though. And girls typically hit puberty earlier than boys, anyway
Ya the tricky part here is will she play enough, if she does then this could help her immensely but if she doesn’t this could hurt her.
At 9 there is a good chance she could body half of the boys on that team. Doubly so if she’s already started puberty (which women often do earlier than men)
Didn’t Alexandra Popp play with the Schalke boys youth team?