Travel Soccer teams around NOVA let's discuss

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Any views on if and how Arlington's recently-announced U12-U14 Academy will impact the elite soccer landscape?

McLean and Loudon got it as well.

Shit in, shit out. The program's only work if the best players are selected without politics. US soccer hasn't had success with these academies.

Mclean only got U12, and I think Loudon as well. US Soccer added over 50 U12s nation-wide to cast a wider net, earlier. I thought it was interesting Arlington got U12-U14. What are the politics involved? Preference for players from home clubs? Necessity of having some kind of connection with the coaches? With four academies in the area, at least in several age groups, will CCL become a bit diluted?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote: Mclean only got U12, and I think Loudon as well. US Soccer added over 50 U12s nation-wide to cast a wider net, earlier. I thought it was interesting Arlington got U12-U14. What are the politics involved? Preference for players from home clubs? Necessity of having some kind of connection with the coaches? With four academies in the area, at least in several age groups, will CCL become a bit diluted?

Think this benefits Virginia NPL to the exclusion of CCL. The NPL is designed to accommodate USDAs, which is why PWSI broke off from CCL and started it up in the first place.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: Mclean only got U12, and I think Loudon as well. US Soccer added over 50 U12s nation-wide to cast a wider net, earlier. I thought it was interesting Arlington got U12-U14. What are the politics involved? Preference for players from home clubs? Necessity of having some kind of connection with the coaches? With four academies in the area, at least in several age groups, will CCL become a bit diluted?

Think this benefits Virginia NPL to the exclusion of CCL. The NPL is designed to accommodate USDAs, which is why PWSI broke off from CCL and started it up in the first place.

And, yet, none of this is a benefit to the actual PLAYERS. Phony, worthless crap. Skill level will not be better.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: Mclean only got U12, and I think Loudon as well. US Soccer added over 50 U12s nation-wide to cast a wider net, earlier. I thought it was interesting Arlington got U12-U14. What are the politics involved? Preference for players from home clubs? Necessity of having some kind of connection with the coaches? With four academies in the area, at least in several age groups, will CCL become a bit diluted?

Think this benefits Virginia NPL to the exclusion of CCL. The NPL is designed to accommodate USDAs, which is why PWSI broke off from CCL and started it up in the first place.

And, yet, none of this is a benefit to the actual PLAYERS. Phony, worthless crap. Skill level will not be better.

Please explain your point.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote: And, yet, none of this is a benefit to the actual PLAYERS. Phony, worthless crap. Skill level will not be better.

If you think playing USDA games and league games is a benefit to players, then NPL would be better (as players can play both like the PWSI model). If more games does not equal better for players, then it is not. It comes down to whether you think more games makes better players or not. I tend to think the opposite is true (as PP seemingly does), but a lot of folks in the area, including many parents of DA-type players, disagree.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: And, yet, none of this is a benefit to the actual PLAYERS. Phony, worthless crap. Skill level will not be better.

If you think playing USDA games and league games is a benefit to players, then NPL would be better (as players can play both like the PWSI model). If more games does not equal better for players, then it is not. It comes down to whether you think more games makes better players or not. I tend to think the opposite is true (as PP seemingly does), but a lot of folks in the area, including many parents of DA-type players, disagree.

Can you elaborate? DA teams practice more often and play fewer games than non-DA club teams of the same age. That's one of the things we liked in moving to DA.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: And, yet, none of this is a benefit to the actual PLAYERS. Phony, worthless crap. Skill level will not be better.

If you think playing USDA games and league games is a benefit to players, then NPL would be better (as players can play both like the PWSI model). If more games does not equal better for players, then it is not. It comes down to whether you think more games makes better players or not. I tend to think the opposite is true (as PP seemingly does), but a lot of folks in the area, including many parents of DA-type players, disagree.

It's the mafia. This stuff is formed and if you don't do it you don't get a look for ODP, etc...and on and on --BUT top players are defying it by just getting the best training they can and going out on their own. As somebody else mentioned, the system only works when the best players are identified--but US soccer is far too politicized and many of the coaches don't know what the hell they are looking at...

[Anonymous]

so a few pages back I read the 'cream always rises' post and a few others recite that talent will always get noticed? How true is this? I think the other poster's theory of having to actually break out of a losing situation first is valid.

Here are some thoughts on it:

If the next level isn't objectively looking at players but going via word of mouth only from previous coach's, etc. therein lies part of the problem. It's one persons view of somebody that can be the death knell. That is the reason to move clubs--and that's how the cream can rise--find a new organization.

At every step of the way, there needs to be objectivity. Otherwise, you find a player repeatedly smoking players yet at a higher level yet not advancing and remaining status quo. This is what we are seeing...slow players remaining on top, players with no ball skill/moves, etc. never being demoting and retaining their spot like a civil servant. The dads of these players are usually seen yapping with the coaches before every tryout or after every practice. It's a dead-end situation.

This is the problem many see with the DA and ODP, i.e., the shit in, shit out poster. They label a kid well and that will take him far with nothing to back it. They build the player up from coach-to-coach--all hype, no substance to back it. It's as if they all have the wool pulled over their eyes. You see it as high as the National level. It's pathetic.

American Football does not seem to have the same problem. If it were a US Soccer Championship last night instead of the Superbowl---the soccer association would have handed the MVP to Peyton. Soccer has a hard time doing things based solely on performance. You are only as good as your last game...

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Has anyone's club provided real information on how it/the leagues/VYSA plan to approach the age group change? We have heard nothing.

Heard everything is going to be based on the new birth year age groups for 2016-2017 in CCL (and tournaments as well) and the only way around it would be to play up, which our club said they would do on a kid by kid basis. Sounds like many are afraid to put this info out because some clubs in the area are trying to recruit entire teams by promising to keep them together and play everyone up.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Has anyone's club provided real information on how it/the leagues/VYSA plan to approach the age group change? We have heard nothing.

Heard everything is going to be based on the new birth year age groups for 2016-2017 in CCL (and tournaments as well) and the only way around it would be to play up, which our club said they would do on a kid by kid basis. Sounds like many are afraid to put this info out because some clubs in the area are trying to recruit entire teams by promising to keep them together and play everyone up.

Clubs aren't keeping things quiet because they are recruiting teams. Many clubs are just plain bad at communicating. Some clubs posted info to soon and got burned when the matrix changed on them.

Some clubs may not say anything at all and post the age groups at tryouts and keep on keeping on.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:so a few pages back I read the 'cream always rises' post and a few others recite that talent will always get noticed? How true is this? I think the other poster's theory of having to actually break out of a losing situation first is valid.

Here are some thoughts on it:

If the next level isn't objectively looking at players but going via word of mouth only from previous coach's, etc. therein lies part of the problem. It's one persons view of somebody that can be the death knell. That is the reason to move clubs--and that's how the cream can rise--find a new organization.

At every step of the way, there needs to be objectivity. Otherwise, you find a player repeatedly smoking players yet at a higher level yet not advancing and remaining status quo. This is what we are seeing...slow players remaining on top, players with no ball skill/moves, etc. never being demoting and retaining their spot like a civil servant. The dads of these players are usually seen yapping with the coaches before every tryout or after every practice. It's a dead-end situation.

This is the problem many see with the DA and ODP, i.e., the shit in, shit out poster. They label a kid well and that will take him far with nothing to back it. They build the player up from coach-to-coach--all hype, no substance to back it. It's as if they all have the wool pulled over their eyes. You see it as high as the National level. It's pathetic.

American Football does not seem to have the same problem. If it were a US Soccer Championship last night instead of the Superbowl---the soccer association would have handed the MVP to Peyton. Soccer has a hard time doing things based solely on performance. You are only as good as your last game...

Yep. The US men's U-19 just lost to a short-handed Canary Islands team . Third loss at the Copa del Alantico.

I can see the wrong picks young at the local level...

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:so a few pages back I read the 'cream always rises' post and a few others recite that talent will always get noticed? How true is this? I think the other poster's theory of having to actually break out of a losing situation first is valid.

Here are some thoughts on it:

If the next level isn't objectively looking at players but going via word of mouth only from previous coach's, etc. therein lies part of the problem. It's one persons view of somebody that can be the death knell. That is the reason to move clubs--and that's how the cream can rise--find a new organization.

At every step of the way, there needs to be objectivity. Otherwise, you find a player repeatedly smoking players yet at a higher level yet not advancing and remaining status quo. This is what we are seeing...slow players remaining on top, players with no ball skill/moves, etc. never being demoting and retaining their spot like a civil servant. The dads of these players are usually seen yapping with the coaches before every tryout or after every practice. It's a dead-end situation.

This is the problem many see with the DA and ODP, i.e., the shit in, shit out poster. They label a kid well and that will take him far with nothing to back it. They build the player up from coach-to-coach--all hype, no substance to back it. It's as if they all have the wool pulled over their eyes. You see it as high as the National level. It's pathetic.

American Football does not seem to have the same problem. If it were a US Soccer Championship last night instead of the Superbowl---the soccer association would have handed the MVP to Peyton. Soccer has a hard time doing things based solely on performance. You are only as good as your last game...

Yep. The US men's U-19 just lost to a short-handed Canary Islands team . Third loss at the Copa del Alantico.

I can see the wrong picks young at the local level...

Politics at the youth clubs around here are ridiculous. The coaches stand around in a circle at tryouts not even watching the play on the fields. Why? Teams are already picked. They just take the same kids from year-to-year even as they get progressively worse. If you aren't on a top team at 8 or 9---your career is over in most clubs. It doesn't matter how good you get---there is a bottle-stopper on your head that prevents any upward movement. It's a system that doesn't reward sheer talent/skill, drive and hard work. Players should have to fight for their spot every single year--not just have it be a given as it is at most clubs in the area. I don't even think kids know the term 'cut' in this area. It doesn't happen. Everyone gets a trophy and nobody gets cut or demoted. This is what kills a player's self-esteem and drives them out of the sport in droves by middle school. You get left with mediocrity.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Yep. The US men's U-19 just lost to a short-handed Canary Islands team . Third loss at the Copa del Alantico.

I can see the wrong picks young at the local level...

That particular US U-19 team was more of an experimental roster than usual. Many of the kids had not been previously called up, the team had never played together before the start of the tournament, and they had a new coach. You can't generalize much from that result.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Yep. The US men's U-19 just lost to a short-handed Canary Islands team . Third loss at the Copa del Alantico.

I can see the wrong picks young at the local level...

That particular US U-19 team was more of an experimental roster than usual. Many of the kids had not been previously called up, the team had never played together before the start of the tournament, and they had a new coach. You can't generalize much from that result.

The experiment failed.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Yep. The US men's U-19 just lost to a short-handed Canary Islands team . Third loss at the Copa del Alantico.

I can see the wrong picks young at the local level...

That particular US U-19 team was more of an experimental roster than usual. Many of the kids had not been previously called up, the team had never played together before the start of the tournament, and they had a new coach. You can't generalize much from that result.

The experiment failed.

How do you know? I imagine the point of the experiment was to see which kids might be prospects for future call-ups. Ten of the 23 players on the roster had zero US National team experience: http://www.ussoccer.com/stories/2016/01/22/20/32/160122-u19-mnt-head-coach-brad-friedel-names-23-player-roster-for-copa-de-atlantico-tournament

I'm pleased that US Soccer is making an effort to broaden the pool at the various ages instead of just calling the same guys up year in and year out.