Maybe some of you guys and gals that been around awhile can comment. Do kids that typically are good players at 10u continue to be good players at 14 and up. I know the bigger kids that dominate at 10u may stop growing and everyone else catches up physically. But what about the smaller kids with talent. Do they typically shine when they are older.
does younger talent equal older talent
- Thread starter humpty
- Start date
Welcome to Discuss Fastpitch
Your FREE Account is waiting to the Best Softball Community on the Web.
I'd guess that the best predictors of how they'll develop are desire and opportunity. Kids who really want to get better and those who have access to things like coaches, lessons, supportive parents (ie, available to practice) and even facilities tend to improve the most from my experience.
As for physical size, I don't know if there are any hard and true rules. I've seen tall, gangly kids grow into their bodies and pass people. I've seen kids who didn't grow and got passed a little. I've seen smaller kids who did better in the long run because they had to work so hard in the first place just to compete that they became more well-rounded, better players. You don't have to be big to be very good at this sport, so size is certainly not everything.
I also think some kids have a mental edge that takes them to the top. Can't explain exactly what I mean, but I believe some kids just expect to be good in what they do, sports or otherwsie, and they often live up to their own expectations.
I should caution that I've coached travel ball for only about 5 years. I've followed youth sports up close for many years prior. So take it all for what it's worth.
As for physical size, I don't know if there are any hard and true rules. I've seen tall, gangly kids grow into their bodies and pass people. I've seen kids who didn't grow and got passed a little. I've seen smaller kids who did better in the long run because they had to work so hard in the first place just to compete that they became more well-rounded, better players. You don't have to be big to be very good at this sport, so size is certainly not everything.
I also think some kids have a mental edge that takes them to the top. Can't explain exactly what I mean, but I believe some kids just expect to be good in what they do, sports or otherwsie, and they often live up to their own expectations.
I should caution that I've coached travel ball for only about 5 years. I've followed youth sports up close for many years prior. So take it all for what it's worth.
Last edited:
Every kid is different, but honestly the kids who were dominant at 10 most likely had a parent at home working with them. So, to answer your question... most likely that same kid will have continued to work in the back yard and maybe even some private lessons. As far as a lesser player at 10 they could have gotten a late start and had spent the last 2 years working hard and surpassing everyone else. As long as you and your dd don't loose sight of, practice makes permanent so do your best to practice perfectly. Set realistic goals and study the game from many viewpoints to ensure your practicing at a high level. She will be on top before you know what happened.
There are levels of natural abilities we see in the young. Size and strength are not really what I would look for long term ( as we have no idea how they will look in the teens ), it's the physical movements and mental understanding of the game that shine to me at 10u ( or so ).
Some just have the natural overhand throw, the natural "gate" base running, the natural ability to judge pitches, the early abilities to process where the next play is, the early control of their pitches, etc.
Now, with that said...........
Having natural abilities are a great advantage ONLY if you keep training and expanding those skills. If you get the big head or the mentality of "I'm good enough", yes someone with lesser natural skills can pass you by with a hard work ethic.
Some just have the natural overhand throw, the natural "gate" base running, the natural ability to judge pitches, the early abilities to process where the next play is, the early control of their pitches, etc.
Now, with that said...........
Having natural abilities are a great advantage ONLY if you keep training and expanding those skills. If you get the big head or the mentality of "I'm good enough", yes someone with lesser natural skills can pass you by with a hard work ethic.
- Jul 26, 2010
- 3,553
- 0
No.
-W
-W
DD was above average but not great. She had natural abilities but her hard work and lots of hours made her pretty good.
Best P DD’s Team faced so far was in 10U. She did not pitch at all the year before and decided she wanted to pitch. She worked hard all offseason, showed up and her coaches didn’t know what to do with her.
At 10U work or natural ability can make you a really good player. The trick is to find them both.
I'll add in my DD: she was also above average in coordination, hand-eye and general athletic ability. She was on the small side and has just this year, at 14 1/2, been able to generate the power required to hit the ball to the fence. She has always played on higher level teams, but hasn't really been able to stand out or contribute in a major way until now.
At what age can you tell if they have what it takes? Probably not until age 16. Now, in order to predict if they will play and improve up to age 16 and beyond - they have to love it. With all of their heart.
At what age can you tell if they have what it takes? Probably not until age 16. Now, in order to predict if they will play and improve up to age 16 and beyond - they have to love it. With all of their heart.
Last edited:
Humpty, I'm not sure "great" is the right word. Maybe "better" than others her age, better than some of the competition. I've seen a number of good players, Ive seen a few make great plays/hits/pitches, I've probably seen less than 5 in many years I felt were "great" all around players.
My DD is good, but a far cry from great. I tell her all the time "she will NEVER be half the man I was".
Fielders:
At 10 you look at footwork, body movements. Does she "flow", does it look effortless?
By 12 we really start to see some pull away from the pack with mechanics and "play book" mentalities.
Pitchers:
They are a little harder. You're going to have some early bloomers at 10 who have some heat, if that's all they have at 12 they will fail.
Some early bloomers with heat will pick up movement pitches, some will not. Some at 10 will have "natural" movement. ( tail, run )
At 10 I like a girl who has control ( much as a 10 can ) of her spots. I like "some" heat. I like a "tail". But most of all I like a pitcher who has a "presence" in the circle. Usually a early pitcher who has a mixture of these qualities is going to be better in the long run than a pitcher who has a lot of one dominate quality.
Hitters:
Can be complex too. I'm not too keen on the 4' 200lb batter at 10 who can hit the ball hard 1 out of 10 times, even if it's an in park homerun. Mostly that's due to her size. I'm looking for the girl who makes good solid contact often, who fouls off more than she K's. That way it shows me she has good "eyes" for the pitches and she's just "missing" by a little.
At 12/14 we start to see the leaders in batting more pronounced. Mainly because of the better pitching they're facing, if all you can hit is the fastball.......well you're going to fade.
My DD is good, but a far cry from great. I tell her all the time "she will NEVER be half the man I was".
Fielders:
At 10 you look at footwork, body movements. Does she "flow", does it look effortless?
By 12 we really start to see some pull away from the pack with mechanics and "play book" mentalities.
Pitchers:
They are a little harder. You're going to have some early bloomers at 10 who have some heat, if that's all they have at 12 they will fail.
Some early bloomers with heat will pick up movement pitches, some will not. Some at 10 will have "natural" movement. ( tail, run )
At 10 I like a girl who has control ( much as a 10 can ) of her spots. I like "some" heat. I like a "tail". But most of all I like a pitcher who has a "presence" in the circle. Usually a early pitcher who has a mixture of these qualities is going to be better in the long run than a pitcher who has a lot of one dominate quality.
Hitters:
Can be complex too. I'm not too keen on the 4' 200lb batter at 10 who can hit the ball hard 1 out of 10 times, even if it's an in park homerun. Mostly that's due to her size. I'm looking for the girl who makes good solid contact often, who fouls off more than she K's. That way it shows me she has good "eyes" for the pitches and she's just "missing" by a little.
At 12/14 we start to see the leaders in batting more pronounced. Mainly because of the better pitching they're facing, if all you can hit is the fastball.......well you're going to fade.
