70 — Ref and former player

Just a quick thought, from a fellow (An)drew…

I’m a college ref, watch lots of soccer on TV and manage a men’s team (& have run tryouts a few times) — so I’m used to making snap judgements on a player’s talent. Sometimes a single touch can give you a pretty good idea. And in other cases (like when you’re playing a weak opponent), it’s much harder — which appears to be the case in the men’s academy video I just watched.

But my bigger qualm is your rating scale. Unless you have some objective I don’t see, if you’re truly trying to rank talent you need to give much more guidance. If you’re ranking talent, you’re probably NOT evaluating who’s truly “bad” (or “worst” in your 1–5 ranking). I would suggest 1=”average/typical for this age” 3= likely to play in college, 4= likely to play D1 in college and 5= exceptional (likely to earn a D1 scholarship).

Without more grounding/guidance to your rankings like this, it won’t be terribly helpful.

For that U17 video I just watched (which was short — 3 clips — vs. much weaker competition), clearly the player is good. But if 1=”worst”, as in weak for a 17 year old, 3 = average and 5 = great/best — then he’s a 5, hands down.

But if you wanted a more meaningful evaluation of talent, like I suggested above:

Based on those limited clips, I’d rate him 3–4. Likely to play in college, maybe even D1. But I can’t call him exceptional (5) from destroying a weak team.

Hope those thoughts are helpful,