If the 3 months of high school season really stops a player's progress, then why not convert to a 12 month academy season? Wouldn't those 2 months off (with no soccer at all) be just as harmful? Who cares about getting burned out and never having a vacation.
Personally, I don't think the 3 months makes that big of a difference. 2 hour practices a few times a week over 3 months isn't enough to make a drastic difference. I still think that the best players are so good because of how much time they spent by themselves practicing when no one else was without a coach rather than going to team practices.
Someone mentioned Messi moving to Barca at 14. Doesn't the fact he moved there so young prove he was an elite talent? Should we really credit him moving there as the reason he is so good? I think he would be amazing regardless of when he moved. Neymar is another. Lukaku is still in high school and playing professionally. And since the thread has turned into which sport is easiest, doesn't the fact that there are high school aged kids playing professional soccer kind of show it is the easiest? Players like Wilshere, Neymar, Lukaku, C. Ronaldo were all making impacts before graduating HS (assuming they didn't drop out). Can't think of any other sport where that happens, partly because the other sports require more size and athleticism along with skill.
And how big of an impact has the academy had on developing players? Are the teams really good because they just go get the best players, or are they dramatically improving the players skills? Will be years before that is answered, but players like Caleb, Erik Clark, Nestor, Koty, Dunbaker, etc. were all identified as great players years ago. It is only natural as they continued to age, they got better and remained some of the better players. How much of that is due to academy coaching compared to just being gifted?
Players like Messi and Ronaldo were going to be superstars regardless of where they played and who they were coached by as a U18.
