Does club or team matter for the littler ones ('34s and '33s and upcoming '35s) and why/why not?
![[Post New]](/jforum/templates/default/images/icon_minipost_new.gif){kind=icon}
Anonymous
|
I guess the arguments in the "it does matter" bucket would look something like:
Playing for a top club.... --Gets your child better coaching (seems arguable and minimally not a given) --Gets your child playing with and amongst and against in practice a higher caliber of player (likely if there are strong teams at the younger levels; but some much much weaker clubs overall can have top young teams) --Gets the club familiar with your kid and gives them a better chance to make future teams (unsure about this; I think it gets impersonal when you get to middle/high school levels but maybe at the young levels a good kid and good family that is familiar and connected with the club get the nod over similarly talented kids coming from the outside; they don't want to cut a kid that's been on the team at these young ages and may inflate the roster 1-2 to not make the cuts but then that may not really help the kid in the long run) --Why not if you can start there do so (as in, what is to gain from not starting there if the kid can make it...maybe travel to practice and maybe playing with friends and maybe 2nd tier clubs have substantially cheaper fees?) What do you think? Does it matter for the young ones? When would you say it matters and why? Hard to think that it would not matter until middle/high school and then all the club kids descend upon the top clubs? Maybe that is what happens. Related question--what do you think of all of the DEVO programs? It's impossible to know if the stars from 2nd, 3rd and 4th grades are going to remain stars. Others' speed may catch up. Size may change. Burn out may fizzle kids' love and spark in others. Right now, in my view, aggressive kids and speedy kids are dominating, with the occasional top stick skills kids in there (and those kids may fade if they have no real speed). |
Anonymous
| It doesn’t really matter honestly. It’s hard to realize when they are young but how they develop depends mostly on their baseline level of size/speed/athleticism along with their individual skill level. The club won’t do anything for the former more important category. It can either be a benefit or not depending circumstances. But at that age I wouldn’t worry about the club so much as whether your kid is getting playing time and having fun. The kids who end up being the stars are the best athletes that keep playing and increasing their skill level. Club is relevant to that but a very small part of it |
Anonymous
| ^this |
Anonymous
| Doesn’t matter. I think the shorter commute has more time to get better at home on the rebounder. The best players are that way because they put on the reps at home. Can’t get the stick out of their hand. |
Anonymous
| Play rec with friends. Clubs at this age typically recruit dads to coach anyway so it is very similar from the development perspective. Most important thing is to have fun while developing skill. Some kids will be ready to play higher level lacrosse in 4th or 5th grade but not many. |
Anonymous
I see that but of course there is more to it. My daughter had a couple of rec lax friends (rising 4th graders) who couldn’t leave the rebounder or put their sticks down. They did get better at much better at cradling but they both got cut from the club tryout, and the club had an A team and B team for the age group. Like the poster above said, I do think they wanted speed and athleticism primarily. Aggressiveness is necessary and they’ll notice if you don’t have much sports IQ. I think all of those things were lacking, despite the girls’ good stick skills. There was another friend who was ridiculously fast (as in uncommonly and exceptionally) and she quit lacrosse to focus on cheerleading, a sport that could not utilize speed less smh. With her speed—and she was generally athletic—I think she could have written her ticket. She went where her heart and passion was, but I do wonder had she been the one who could’ve been really elite. |
Anonymous
Somewhat anecdotal counter experience—Our club (even its developmental program) did a much better job at young kid skill development in my view than what I’ve seen kids get at rec. My kids played rec for several years and I was a rec assistant coach. My head coach was a former D1 college lax player and we both were committed and really tried to give them skills and have it been super fun. My other daughter also had a former D1 lax player as her coach. They understood lax but I don’t think they/we were effective at skill development. One barrier is there are some big variations in skill level, so you could have a girl that can cradle, understands the basics of the game, can get ground balls, can pass/catch and have no one else on the team able to do that. This impacts skill development of all the kids. However, the big thing is that what I’ve seen with the club is that they have tried and true drills and approaches that we really couldn’t replicate for our rec team. |
Anonymous
| Not a booster or anything, but my daughter plays on a decently good 2034 club team, and I think tryouts this year will be a challenge for any newcomers unless they are real standouts. Point being -- always better to get on early. |
Anonymous
Yeah. My daughter is also on a 2034 team and I don't think many kids will have success coming over from rec. Generally speaking, I think the competition will be from girls from other clubs who want to switch clubs for whatever reason. NGLL play for '34s is going to be way more competitive than rec games at that age group, again generally speaking. Also, on our club, the young girls are eating up all sorts of extra clinics that are offered (for extra $$) for the team, for the club, or just that they are aware of by being on the club. None of that was on our radar when in rec. That's a whole 'nother issue for sure! The whole FOMO of putting your young kid in every skills clinic under the sun to not lose a step to others. But I digress. |
Anonymous
| This has been asked and answered before. Keep your kid out of club for as long as possible. Tons of clinics and camps daily, weekly, weekend, summer, whatever. They don't need to be on a club to participate and it will be cheaper and your kid will get better coaching and more reps. Maybe in 8th grade, show up to a tryout and the club will gladly sit or cut the kid they've coached for the shiny new object. |
Anonymous
|
If you live in a town with a good rec program, playing in a travel program is a waste of money until 5-6 grade.
And, getting into a "good" travel program like Madlax at a young age means nothing. Starting in middle school they rebuild their teams with stud athletes and holdbacks, and don't think twice about cutting a kid with average ability who has been in the program since first grade. |
Anonymous
I do not think this is in any way a reliable plan. Possible but rare for it to work this way. Shiny new object isn’t going to be a thing but if the kid happens to be more skilled somehow coming out of years of rec and more athletic, okay. Tons of clinics and camps daily, weekly, weekend, summer is not going to be cheaper—in fact it’s likely to be more expensive—or necessarily more reps. |
Anonymous
They will of course cut the average kid and take a better kid and stud athlete. (I was thinking hold backs even out later but that at the younger ages is impactful.) Being with the club is likely only meaningful if an outsider is similarly situated to the club kid, then they keep the club kid. But I think the stud would usually (not always) be a far better player if she had played with the club all along. A good rec program that is at all like the NGLL? Our rec program is fine but not sure where we have such a rec program you speak of in our area. I live in a county that is arguably a top county hotbed of lacrosse in the US. My county has produced countless All Americans and National Champions and is very present in the top echelon of college teams and this is the long legacy here. Yet our rec program is just a regular rec program. Maybe that’s because people here are going early to clubs? Not sure. But to me rec is fun and for all types of kids to participate. Last year, on my oldest daughter’s team (she’s not an athlete or into sports but is agreeable to play in rec because she likes being on a team with her friends and probably the end of year party or end-game snacks), there were several girls who had never played lacrosse or any sport seriously but their friends talked them into trying lacrosse. Her team couldn’t dodge or catch and pass. They barely could mark up and understand the concept of crashing. An okay club team their age, or even a year or two younger, would crush them. That’s gonna be your stud rec kid’s teammate or opponent. |
Anonymous
Nice try Cabell. It's absolutely cheaper deducting out the cost of hotels, gas, meals. You also definitely get more reps rather than the club team watching the same 3 kids play attack and pole and everyone else being slotted into middie. The reason you created DMV/NL Red teams was specifically to push kids down or to build revenue. Stay away from club until 8th grade. All of the camps and clinics will have great game play and if your kid is any good, they can go to a higher level. There are always more than a few plain white helmets at any BIC "showcase." |
Anonymous
I honestly think it would be better if the club teams kept these younger teams practicing but not going to multiple tournaments. they should strictly focus on developing the skills of all the girls and maybe end the season with one tournament until their coach thinks they are ready. Its rough to see some of these kids go out there and not know what to do. |