Travel Soccer teams around NOVA let's discuss

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think if you are torn between two teams, take a long look at the coach. The coach could be a huge difference maker in your child's development.

I agree. Unfortunately, our club has not announced any of the coaches for the coming birth year teams. Additionally, there are 4-6 teams per age group and they usually only name the 1 coach so if you arent on the team--you could be stuck with a dud. Then, sometimes the head is the dud and one of the assistants is much better. You are locked into it for a year if you are unhappy so it blows.

Sounds way too impersonal to me. We are at a big club like that and they suck at development. There is high assistant coach turnover and nobody really gets to know your kid or their strengths/weaknesses. It's a factory.

[Anonymous]

So what's the right answer to all this mess? The big clubs suck. The small clubs don't have the resources.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:So what's the right answer to all this mess? The big clubs suck. The small clubs don't have the resources.

Enter at your own risk

But, in all seriousness, we've watched many kids from K-5th grade. Some of the kids that decided against the travel route or didn't make a team early on---have blossomed. I am amazed at the skill and development of some of the kids that are not in the travel world. A few of them play in the 'in-between' league---the one between rec and travel. I would say 3/4s of these kids are now better than the travel kids on my son's current team. Part of that reason is that the kids on his team were sorted and placed at 8 years old and nobody ever looked at them objectively again. There is really no movement between the teams. The practices haven't changed in content at all and very little emphasis is on developing fundamental skills. You have a situation where some really great players are caught up in a 'caste system'. It becomes--you have to move to a different club in order to have a fresh pair of eyes look at you and get an opportunity to play against stiffer competition. The club puts all its eggs in one basket and doesn't want to lose revenue so they rarely demote or cut players. They have to rely on their initial placements or face the wrath of parents that want to know why Johnny is getting moved down 3 teams. It's a crazy way to train and develop young players. There should be the exact opposite of a caste system in the younger years.

I think the academy style is the way to go. I prefer individual development over the factory.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So what's the right answer to all this mess? The big clubs suck. The small clubs don't have the resources.

Enter at your own risk

But, in all seriousness, we've watched many kids from K-5th grade. Some of the kids that decided against the travel route or didn't make a team early on---have blossomed. I am amazed at the skill and development of some of the kids that are not in the travel world. A few of them play in the 'in-between' league---the one between rec and travel. I would say 3/4s of these kids are now better than the travel kids on my son's current team. Part of that reason is that the kids on his team were sorted and placed at 8 years old and nobody ever looked at them objectively again. There is really no movement between the teams. The practices haven't changed in content at all and very little emphasis is on developing fundamental skills. You have a situation where some really great players are caught up in a 'caste system'. It becomes--you have to move to a different club in order to have a fresh pair of eyes look at you and get an opportunity to play against stiffer competition. The club puts all its eggs in one basket and doesn't want to lose revenue so they rarely demote or cut players. They have to rely on their initial placements or face the wrath of parents that want to know why Johnny is getting moved down 3 teams. It's a crazy way to train and develop young players. There should be the exact opposite of a caste system in the younger years.

I think the academy style is the way to go. I prefer individual development over the factory.

Your above scenario is why "challenge" leagues exist. They offer some training and more importantly keep kids involved in soccer. However, it does not matter where you are, if your kid is not getting good fundamental technical training they will plateau. Clubs will offer some, but much of the training or work the kid has to do on their own. And if they don't get the training by the time they hit 12 or so they are just way to far behind. They will still find a team to play on though.

[Anonymous]

Does it even matter? How far are most of the thousands of kids going to get with soccer? And if they do it because they love to play then again why does it matter? Parental bragging rights?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So what's the right answer to all this mess? The big clubs suck. The small clubs don't have the resources.

Enter at your own risk

But, in all seriousness, we've watched many kids from K-5th grade. Some of the kids that decided against the travel route or didn't make a team early on---have blossomed. I am amazed at the skill and development of some of the kids that are not in the travel world. A few of them play in the 'in-between' league---the one between rec and travel. I would say 3/4s of these kids are now better than the travel kids on my son's current team. Part of that reason is that the kids on his team were sorted and placed at 8 years old and nobody ever looked at them objectively again. There is really no movement between the teams. The practices haven't changed in content at all and very little emphasis is on developing fundamental skills. You have a situation where some really great players are caught up in a 'caste system'. It becomes--you have to move to a different club in order to have a fresh pair of eyes look at you and get an opportunity to play against stiffer competition. The club puts all its eggs in one basket and doesn't want to lose revenue so they rarely demote or cut players. They have to rely on their initial placements or face the wrath of parents that want to know why Johnny is getting moved down 3 teams. It's a crazy way to train and develop young players. There should be the exact opposite of a caste system in the younger years.

I think the academy style is the way to go. I prefer individual development over the factory.

Your above scenario is why "challenge" leagues exist. They offer some training and more importantly keep kids involved in soccer. However, it does not matter where you are, if your kid is not getting good fundamental technical training they will plateau. Clubs will offer some, but much of the training or work the kid has to do on their own. And if they don't get the training by the time they hit 12 or so they are just way to far behind. They will still find a team to play on though.

Can you explain what you mean by 'challenge' leagues? Thanks!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So what's the right answer to all this mess? The big clubs suck. The small clubs don't have the resources.

Enter at your own risk

But, in all seriousness, we've watched many kids from K-5th grade. Some of the kids that decided against the travel route or didn't make a team early on---have blossomed. I am amazed at the skill and development of some of the kids that are not in the travel world. A few of them play in the 'in-between' league---the one between rec and travel. I would say 3/4s of these kids are now better than the travel kids on my son's current team. Part of that reason is that the kids on his team were sorted and placed at 8 years old and nobody ever looked at them objectively again. There is really no movement between the teams. The practices haven't changed in content at all and very little emphasis is on developing fundamental skills. You have a situation where some really great players are caught up in a 'caste system'. It becomes--you have to move to a different club in order to have a fresh pair of eyes look at you and get an opportunity to play against stiffer competition. The club puts all its eggs in one basket and doesn't want to lose revenue so they rarely demote or cut players. They have to rely on their initial placements or face the wrath of parents that want to know why Johnny is getting moved down 3 teams. It's a crazy way to train and develop young players. There should be the exact opposite of a caste system in the younger years.

I think the academy style is the way to go. I prefer individual development over the factory.

"Challenge" may have many names depending on the club, but it is essentially a house league that sits somewhere between rec and travel. Not all clubs support a "challenge" league though. But it comes with more practice and technical training than your typical run of the mill rec team does.

It is a good bridge for those who just don't want to or can't spend 2k a year and yet still get some soccer development.

Your above scenario is why "challenge" leagues exist. They offer some training and more importantly keep kids involved in soccer. However, it does not matter where you are, if your kid is not getting good fundamental technical training they will plateau. Clubs will offer some, but much of the training or work the kid has to do on their own. And if they don't get the training by the time they hit 12 or so they are just way to far behind. They will still find a team to play on though.

Can you explain what you mean by 'challenge' leagues? Thanks!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So what's the right answer to all this mess? The big clubs suck. The small clubs don't have the resources.

Enter at your own risk

But, in all seriousness, we've watched many kids from K-5th grade. Some of the kids that decided against the travel route or didn't make a team early on---have blossomed. I am amazed at the skill and development of some of the kids that are not in the travel world. A few of them play in the 'in-between' league---the one between rec and travel. I would say 3/4s of these kids are now better than the travel kids on my son's current team. Part of that reason is that the kids on his team were sorted and placed at 8 years old and nobody ever looked at them objectively again. There is really no movement between the teams. The practices haven't changed in content at all and very little emphasis is on developing fundamental skills. You have a situation where some really great players are caught up in a 'caste system'. It becomes--you have to move to a different club in order to have a fresh pair of eyes look at you and get an opportunity to play against stiffer competition. The club puts all its eggs in one basket and doesn't want to lose revenue so they rarely demote or cut players. They have to rely on their initial placements or face the wrath of parents that want to know why Johnny is getting moved down 3 teams. It's a crazy way to train and develop young players. There should be the exact opposite of a caste system in the younger years.

I think the academy style is the way to go. I prefer individual development over the factory.

"Challenge" may have many names depending on the club, but it is essentially a house league that sits somewhere between rec and travel. Not all clubs support a "challenge" league though. But it comes with more practice and technical training than your typical run of the mill rec team does.

It is a good bridge for those who just don't want to or can't spend 2k a year and yet still get some soccer development.

Your above scenario is why "challenge" leagues exist. They offer some training and more importantly keep kids involved in soccer. However, it does not matter where you are, if your kid is not getting good fundamental technical training they will plateau. Clubs will offer some, but much of the training or work the kid has to do on their own. And if they don't get the training by the time they hit 12 or so they are just way to far behind. They will still find a team to play on though.

Can you explain what you mean by 'challenge' leagues? Thanks!

Thanks. I thought you meant 'challenge leagues' as in the clubs that are challenging the big ones. The ones branching off and offering a more personal approach.

From what I see at our club/age group, the 'challenge' league seems to be developing players much better than our travel team. Maybe that is because it is a smaller group of kids at each practice and they are given leeway to develop skill in their own style vs being taught to young technical play to solely win games. The 'challenge league' seems to have consistency in team member and coaches as well.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So what's the right answer to all this mess? The big clubs suck. The small clubs don't have the resources.

Enter at your own risk

But, in all seriousness, we've watched many kids from K-5th grade. Some of the kids that decided against the travel route or didn't make a team early on---have blossomed. I am amazed at the skill and development of some of the kids that are not in the travel world. A few of them play in the 'in-between' league---the one between rec and travel. I would say 3/4s of these kids are now better than the travel kids on my son's current team. Part of that reason is that the kids on his team were sorted and placed at 8 years old and nobody ever looked at them objectively again. There is really no movement between the teams. The practices haven't changed in content at all and very little emphasis is on developing fundamental skills. You have a situation where some really great players are caught up in a 'caste system'. It becomes--you have to move to a different club in order to have a fresh pair of eyes look at you and get an opportunity to play against stiffer competition. The club puts all its eggs in one basket and doesn't want to lose revenue so they rarely demote or cut players. They have to rely on their initial placements or face the wrath of parents that want to know why Johnny is getting moved down 3 teams. It's a crazy way to train and develop young players. There should be the exact opposite of a caste system in the younger years.

I think the academy style is the way to go. I prefer individual development over the factory.

"Challenge" may have many names depending on the club, but it is essentially a house league that sits somewhere between rec and travel. Not all clubs support a "challenge" league though. But it comes with more practice and technical training than your typical run of the mill rec team does.

It is a good bridge for those who just don't want to or can't spend 2k a year and yet still get some soccer development.

Your above scenario is why "challenge" leagues exist. They offer some training and more importantly keep kids involved in soccer. However, it does not matter where you are, if your kid is not getting good fundamental technical training they will plateau. Clubs will offer some, but much of the training or work the kid has to do on their own. And if they don't get the training by the time they hit 12 or so they are just way to far behind. They will still find a team to play on though.

Can you explain what you mean by 'challenge' leagues? Thanks!

Thanks. I thought you meant 'challenge leagues' as in the clubs that are challenging the big ones. The ones branching off and offering a more personal approach.

From what I see at our club/age group, the 'challenge' league seems to be developing players much better than our travel team. Maybe that is because it is a smaller group of kids at each practice and they are given leeway to develop skill in their own style vs being taught to young technical play to solely win games. The 'challenge league' seems to have consistency in team member and coaches as well.

There could be a few things at play that might be the cause.

1. If the kids didn't make travel then their improvement is likely based on "low hanging fruit". Meaning, their shortcomings are easier to coach up so their improvement seems more dramatic.
2. The kids could be attending outside clinics or getting other training on the side. This option becomes more affordable when you are not sinking 2k into travel.
3. The kids were already talented enough to play travel and finances or other priorities kept them from travel.
4. The challenge coach may simply be a very good teacher of the game and focuses on fundamentals more than a traditional travel coach will work on.
5. The kids could also just simply be playing a lot of street ball with any of the combination of the above.

Regardless of the path, remember, the KIDs did the work to improve.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Does it even matter? How far are most of the thousands of kids going to get with soccer? And if they do it because they love to play then again why does it matter? Parental bragging rights?

What does it matter? It does mean a thing to me. I actually wish that my kid would tell me he doesn't want to do travel anymore, so we can all relax a bit more. However, he LOVES it. He loves the competition. He loves training with similar minded kids. He loves wearing a uniform and playing for his club. He takes such pride in it. He trains very hard and wants to improve. The fact that he might not make a development academy team, or a high school team, or a college team, or a pro team. I don't give a s--- about the odds. My son loves it and, if he wants to play travel and progress, I'm going to do my due diligence to get him the best opportunities. I am extremely grateful that I can afford to keep him in travel and get him additional training, etc. But as soon as he doesn't like it, we can go try basket weaving. That's fine. But don't sit there and say...my kid isn't going to be a pro so why even bother. That's a piece of s--- cop out!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Does it even matter? How far are most of the thousands of kids going to get with soccer? And if they do it because they love to play then again why does it matter? Parental bragging rights?

What does it matter? It does mean a thing to me. I actually wish that my kid would tell me he doesn't want to do travel anymore, so we can all relax a bit more. However, he LOVES it. He loves the competition. He loves training with similar minded kids. He loves wearing a uniform and playing for his club. He takes such pride in it. He trains very hard and wants to improve. The fact that he might not make a development academy team, or a high school team, or a college team, or a pro team. I don't give a s--- about the odds. My son loves it and, if he wants to play travel and progress, I'm going to do my due diligence to get him the best opportunities. I am extremely grateful that I can afford to keep him in travel and get him additional training, etc. But as soon as he doesn't like it, we can go try basket weaving. That's fine. But don't sit there and say...my kid isn't going to be a pro so why even bother. That's a piece of s--- cop out!

Do parents like this really exist? Sometimes I meet one parent like this but never both of them. Every travel parent in any sport I've met have always wanted their kid to be competitive and most have helped make it possible. They would all be disappointed if junior gave it up.

[Anonymous]

Haha if he's that competitive put him in wrestling

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Does it even matter? How far are most of the thousands of kids going to get with soccer? And if they do it because they love to play then again why does it matter? Parental bragging rights?

What does it matter? It does mean a thing to me. I actually wish that my kid would tell me he doesn't want to do travel anymore, so we can all relax a bit more. However, he LOVES it. He loves the competition. He loves training with similar minded kids. He loves wearing a uniform and playing for his club. He takes such pride in it. He trains very hard and wants to improve. The fact that he might not make a development academy team, or a high school team, or a college team, or a pro team. I don't give a s--- about the odds. My son loves it and, if he wants to play travel and progress, I'm going to do my due diligence to get him the best opportunities. I am extremely grateful that I can afford to keep him in travel and get him additional training, etc. But as soon as he doesn't like it, we can go try basket weaving. That's fine. But don't sit there and say...my kid isn't going to be a pro so why even bother. That's a piece of s--- cop out!

Do parents like this really exist? Sometimes I meet one parent like this but never both of them. Every travel parent in any sport I've met have always wanted their kid to be competitive and most have helped make it possible. They would all be disappointed if junior gave it up.

Yes, they exist. I coached for over a decade as a paid coach at a large club. Some of the most laid back parents were those that played at the highest level (college, professional). The most competitive were often those that didn't play beyond hs. I expect that people who feel they lived up to their own potential don't feel as much of a need to live it through their kids. There were many families with kids that played for fun - academics were far more important. The kids wanted to play, wanted to compete, because done correctly soccer is a lot of fun, both training and competition.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote: Some of the most laid back parents were those that played at the highest level (college, professional). The most competitive were often those that didn't play beyond hs. I expect that people who feel they lived up to their own potential don't feel as much of a need to live it through their kids.

This has been my experience as well. The top level former parent players are super relaxed, often because they know what college soccer is really like and also know that true natural talent always seems to rise to the top as you get older. They have also seen how well-intentioned parents can actually end up doing things that are counter-productive to their kids development, like having them in mandatory year-round soccer training at a very young age.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Does it even matter? How far are most of the thousands of kids going to get with soccer? And if they do it because they love to play then again why does it matter? Parental bragging rights?

What does it matter? It does mean a thing to me. I actually wish that my kid would tell me he doesn't want to do travel anymore, so we can all relax a bit more. However, he LOVES it. He loves the competition. He loves training with similar minded kids. He loves wearing a uniform and playing for his club. He takes such pride in it. He trains very hard and wants to improve. The fact that he might not make a development academy team, or a high school team, or a college team, or a pro team. I don't give a s--- about the odds. My son loves it and, if he wants to play travel and progress, I'm going to do my due diligence to get him the best opportunities. I am extremely grateful that I can afford to keep him in travel and get him additional training, etc. But as soon as he doesn't like it, we can go try basket weaving. That's fine. But don't sit there and say...my kid isn't going to be a pro so why even bother. That's a piece of s--- cop out!

Do parents like this really exist? Sometimes I meet one parent like this but never both of them. Every travel parent in any sport I've met have always wanted their kid to be competitive and most have helped make it possible. They would all be disappointed if junior gave it up.

Yes, they exist. I coached for over a decade as a paid coach at a large club. Some of the most laid back parents were those that played at the highest level (college, professional). The most competitive were often those that didn't play beyond hs. I expect that people who feel they lived up to their own potential don't feel as much of a need to live it through their kids. There were many families with kids that played for fun - academics were far more important. The kids wanted to play, wanted to compete, because done correctly soccer is a lot of fun, both training and competition.

So you've actually seen parents who played in college let their child leave the sport and either try a different sport they've never tried before or leave sports entirely to try basketweaving or something? That's what I'm asking. Not asking which ones appear more competitive during a game.