DA soccer terminating boys and girls? “Rumors”

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Every now and then I dip into these threads. It funny with folks losing their minds and talking smack etc. even more so in these times. Folks. This is a business decision. It goes far beyond DC metro. Stop being so petty and stupid. I can tell you with fairly good authority this ship has sailed. I know some knucklehead (or several) will dismiss this post etc. I don’t care. But, I can tell you from my contacts in the administration side of DA and ECNL- this is all but done. It won’t matter. The best players will rise to the top. Clubs will lose and win in this change. Your issue is you think this region only. Breathe.....change is coming.

DA is done. You better tell that guy in the other post providing intimate details of his kid’s 06 DA team.

Hey that's me. I'll remain somewhat skeptical until we hear officially.

My recommendation though would still hold good for wherever that particular coach ends up .

I read your summaries... I’m not sure why your preference of preferring style of play over athletes. America forever has wished to get its best athletes playing soccer, and now it’s starting to happen in some parts of country. Who’s to say these U14 kids won’t keep developing? The difference is, their athleticism is nearly entirely predetermined by the genes; development is not. Style of play is important, but it’s also a bit myopic (especially when paying so much for DA), and I bet MLS academies will prefer athletes who can play than non-athletes who can play.

The reason I prefer not to just select the best athletes is because that's not what they do in countries where they develop the best players - in other words other criteria have been proven to work better. Whereas in the US we have been selecting the "best athletes" for years with disappointing results, and I think simply getting even better athletes isn't going to change much.

Let me try and clarify what I'm saying.

1. When I use the word "athlete" I am primarily talking about speed and strength.

2. However there are other qualities important to soccer where there are also significant differences in innate talent: foot-eye coordination, balance, elusiveness, spatial awareness. These qualities result in skills that can be practiced and improved - but the ceiling is not the same for every player in the same way that one can improve one's 5K time significantly by training, but not everyone can compete in the Olympics. That right winger that the poster mentioned on the other thread (and no - he's not my son in case you are wondering) can make people miss by just ducking his shoulder and changing direction without even touching the ball. I doubt he could even explain what he's doing himself and most kids will just never be able to do that (or at least they might pull it off occasionally by accident, but that's not the same thing). So you need to look at things like control with the first touch when running at speed, accuracy of passing, decision making under pressure, one-on-one ability. Think of it like a quarterback if you like - yes the arm is important but every draft bust proves that just because a kid has a strong arm does NOT mean you can teach him the rest.

3. In soccer speed and strength are important, but the greatest players do not physically look like NFL or rugby players and in the rest of the world that's not because the best athletes just don't play soccer - it's because those other attributes I'm talking about are more important.

4. It's also worth noting that coaches don't and can't develop individual skills to the necessary level. It takes thousands of hours of practice to develop these skills and that doesn't come from four hour-and-a-half team practices a week. In fact it doesn't really come from those practices at all. You can go and pay for private indiviudal coaching sessions perhaps, or you can go and sign up for HP Elite classes which focus on individual skills, but - while those might prove enjoyable and perhaps serve to motivate the kid to do more by themselves - there is no substitute for the kid spending time by himself with the ball, and most kids just aren't interested enough to put in the time. There's one kid on our team who goes home every night after practice and works on his skills alone for another 2-3 hours every day of the week, and you can see it in the crispness of his touch, his ball control, the weight of his passes. I don't care how good an athlete another kid is, if he hasn't put in the time to develop his technical ability by the time he's 14 or so, he's probably not going to because he just doesn't love the game enough to do the work. So looking at those skills at 14 is likely to strongly correlate with ability as an adult.

5. The final point is that the differences in speed and strength between the best athletes and the rest tend to diminish over time, and the differences in skill become more important as the player's decision-making improves and he is able to know how and when to use his skill to help the team score goals. As the boys develop physically at different speeds there are huge gaps in size, strength and speed that persist from 8 or 9 through as late as 15 or 16. The differences can be so great that they overwhelm everything else and it's very easy to fall in love with a player who wins every tackle and scores a lot of goals and overlook the fact that his ball skills are not all that great. But then a few years later, as the playing field levels, and the kids with more skill learn how to use it to win games he doesn't look so good any more.

All that said, of course speed and strength are important so they absolutely need to be weighted in the selection process - just not nearly as heavily as they often are in the US today.

Now on to style of play. I talked about style of play for two reasons.

1. It is reflective of the talent level of the players on the team. When you see teams controlling the ball for large portions of a game, stringing passes together and playing one or two touch soccer it's not just an accident and it's not just tactics either. It requires a high level of skill from all the players including the goalkeeper. Many teams - if put under pressure - simply cannot manage to do it, even if the coach attempts to teach them. Even only one or two weaker players cause the play to break down and the team to lose the ball.

2. It also reflects the coach's ability. This is basically what the coaches teach the kids. Firstly have the coaches managed to help the kids learn sufficient skill to play this way? Then secondly have they managed to teach the kids how to play, how to keep their heads up, how to make decisions on the field, the awareness to know what they want to do with the ball before they get it, how to see and think about space, where to make runs, when to make runs, how to pull defneders out of position both with and without the ball, when to go forwards and when to reset. etc.

A good coach both understands the game himself and can teach (all these concepts) well. The result is a team which plays attractive soccer. A good teacher who doesn't understand soccer all that well can get a team to play disciplined soccer. They press hard, fill the midfeild with bodies and win a lot of balls there - play it out quickly down the wing when they win it. They score goals, win quite a few games and the kids have fun but they're not really learning how to play soccer the way it's played at the highest level. A coach who can't teach though - that's not much fun to watch no matter how well he understands the game.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:https://twitter.com/usyntfan126/status/1249160752646311941

Replying to
@MollyH38518568
I can not disclose that information sorry. but they are having a vote on it next week not shutting it down yet. I know this to be 100% accurate multiple academy directors nonmls and mls confirmed after a bunch of people in us soccer told me the same thing.

Is that girls, boys or both?

[Anonymous]

Imagine selecting future golfers based on athleticism.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:About 1/2 the kids playing elite soccer will no longer be playing. Should be a very stressful time. It does not matter how good your kid is if another kid comes in who is better.

These elite teams are usually driven by 2-3 kids. Maybe this will get ride of the kids with little skill but are good athletes.

Another post from someone with no children playing elite sports.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Every now and then I dip into these threads. It funny with folks losing their minds and talking smack etc. even more so in these times. Folks. This is a business decision. It goes far beyond DC metro. Stop being so petty and stupid. I can tell you with fairly good authority this ship has sailed. I know some knucklehead (or several) will dismiss this post etc. I don’t care. But, I can tell you from my contacts in the administration side of DA and ECNL- this is all but done. It won’t matter. The best players will rise to the top. Clubs will lose and win in this change. Your issue is you think this region only. Breathe.....change is coming.

DA is done. You better tell that guy in the other post providing intimate details of his kid’s 06 DA team.

Hey that's me. I'll remain somewhat skeptical until we hear officially.

My recommendation though would still hold good for wherever that particular coach ends up .

I read your summaries... I’m not sure why your preference of preferring style of play over athletes. America forever has wished to get its best athletes playing soccer, and now it’s starting to happen in some parts of country. Who’s to say these U14 kids won’t keep developing? The difference is, their athleticism is nearly entirely predetermined by the genes; development is not. Style of play is important, but it’s also a bit myopic (especially when paying so much for DA), and I bet MLS academies will prefer athletes who can play than non-athletes who can play.

The reason I prefer not to just select the best athletes is because that's not what they do in countries where they develop the best players - in other words other criteria have been proven to work better. Whereas in the US we have been selecting the "best athletes" for years with disappointing results, and I think simply getting even better athletes isn't going to change much.

Let me try and clarify what I'm saying.

1. When I use the word "athlete" I am primarily talking about speed and strength.

2. However there are other qualities important to soccer where there are also significant differences in innate talent: foot-eye coordination, balance, elusiveness, spatial awareness. These qualities result in skills that can be practiced and improved - but the ceiling is not the same for every player in the same way that one can improve one's 5K time significantly by training, but not everyone can compete in the Olympics. That right winger that the poster mentioned on the other thread (and no - he's not my son in case you are wondering) can make people miss by just ducking his shoulder and changing direction without even touching the ball. I doubt he could even explain what he's doing himself and most kids will just never be able to do that (or at least they might pull it off occasionally by accident, but that's not the same thing). So you need to look at things like control with the first touch when running at speed, accuracy of passing, decision making under pressure, one-on-one ability. Think of it like a quarterback if you like - yes the arm is important but every draft bust proves that just because a kid has a strong arm does NOT mean you can teach him the rest.

3. In soccer speed and strength are important, but the greatest players do not physically look like NFL or rugby players and in the rest of the world that's not because the best athletes just don't play soccer - it's because those other attributes I'm talking about are more important.

4. It's also worth noting that coaches don't and can't develop individual skills to the necessary level. It takes thousands of hours of practice to develop these skills and that doesn't come from four hour-and-a-half team practices a week. In fact it doesn't really come from those practices at all. You can go and pay for private indiviudal coaching sessions perhaps, or you can go and sign up for HP Elite classes which focus on individual skills, but - while those might prove enjoyable and perhaps serve to motivate the kid to do more by themselves - there is no substitute for the kid spending time by himself with the ball, and most kids just aren't interested enough to put in the time. There's one kid on our team who goes home every night after practice and works on his skills alone for another 2-3 hours every day of the week, and you can see it in the crispness of his touch, his ball control, the weight of his passes. I don't care how good an athlete another kid is, if he hasn't put in the time to develop his technical ability by the time he's 14 or so, he's probably not going to because he just doesn't love the game enough to do the work. So looking at those skills at 14 is likely to strongly correlate with ability as an adult.

5. The final point is that the differences in speed and strength between the best athletes and the rest tend to diminish over time, and the differences in skill become more important as the player's decision-making improves and he is able to know how and when to use his skill to help the team score goals. As the boys develop physically at different speeds there are huge gaps in size, strength and speed that persist from 8 or 9 through as late as 15 or 16. The differences can be so great that they overwhelm everything else and it's very easy to fall in love with a player who wins every tackle and scores a lot of goals and overlook the fact that his ball skills are not all that great. But then a few years later, as the playing field levels, and the kids with more skill learn how to use it to win games he doesn't look so good any more.

All that said, of course speed and strength are important so they absolutely need to be weighted in the selection process - just not nearly as heavily as they often are in the US today.

Now on to style of play. I talked about style of play for two reasons.

1. It is reflective of the talent level of the players on the team. When you see teams controlling the ball for large portions of a game, stringing passes together and playing one or two touch soccer it's not just an accident and it's not just tactics either. It requires a high level of skill from all the players including the goalkeeper. Many teams - if put under pressure - simply cannot manage to do it, even if the coach attempts to teach them. Even only one or two weaker players cause the play to break down and the team to lose the ball.

2. It also reflects the coach's ability. This is basically what the coaches teach the kids. Firstly have the coaches managed to help the kids learn sufficient skill to play this way? Then secondly have they managed to teach the kids how to play, how to keep their heads up, how to make decisions on the field, the awareness to know what they want to do with the ball before they get it, how to see and think about space, where to make runs, when to make runs, how to pull defneders out of position both with and without the ball, when to go forwards and when to reset. etc.

A good coach both understands the game himself and can teach (all these concepts) well. The result is a team which plays attractive soccer. A good teacher who doesn't understand soccer all that well can get a team to play disciplined soccer. They press hard, fill the midfeild with bodies and win a lot of balls there - play it out quickly down the wing when they win it. They score goals, win quite a few games and the kids have fun but they're not really learning how to play soccer the way it's played at the highest level. A coach who can't teach though - that's not much fun to watch no matter how well he understands the game.

Hate to agree with an Arlington parent but good points and, as you elude to, most ‘athletic’ kids that are getting selected are getting selected based on speed, size, and physicality, with little regard for body control, agility, balance. Two points on kids with speed (and one of mine has a lot of speed) — 1) kids with speed are generally powerful, but the flip side of that power is that many are not all that agile and light on their feet. It takes my fast kid 2x-3x the training time to gain the foot skills, agility, etc. that my kid who is average in terms of speed needs. The other fast kid on that team takes probably 4x as long and frankly doesn’t look like they belong even though that kid is actually putting in the work 2) Many fast kids get pigeon-holed as a fast kid and it is very hard for them to get opportunities in the middle of the field. Coaches always stick them up top or out wide and they get accustomed to (over) relying on their speed to beat defenders and don’t get the experience of having to play the game with a 360 degree view of the field.

[Anonymous]

It’s a failed remedy to attempt to be like Europeans or South Americans; our culture is different and our players are different. An athlete that shows potential and promise with his technical skill will be infinitely better than a “footballer” that can’t hang on the field. Pressing, tackling... these are still important components of the game. It doesn’t matter if your kid can do 30 Cruyffs in a training drill, it matters if he can influence the game.

Stronger and faster people will always have the higher ceiling for development over the weaker and slower people. And the more those athletes play and compete, the more development they get. Regarding the gold analogy, go play golf.

[Anonymous]

It’s Sunday. Did I miss the big announcement?

Bueller? Bueller?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It’s a failed remedy to attempt to be like Europeans or South Americans; our culture is different and our players are different. An athlete that shows potential and promise with his technical skill will be infinitely better than a “footballer” that can’t hang on the field. Pressing, tackling... these are still important components of the game. It doesn’t matter if your kid can do 30 Cruyffs in a training drill, it matters if he can influence the game.

Stronger and faster people will always have the higher ceiling for development over the weaker and slower people. And the more those athletes play and compete, the more development they get. Regarding the gold analogy, go play golf.

Based on what I have seen on the boys side, most “athletes” on soccer fields here in NOVA cannot hang with football or basketball players athletically. That is why many of them are playing soccer. So it’s all relative. So I would tell the speedsters you go run track or play football, but they have already probably come up snake eyes on those. If you don’t believe me, try watching most athletes in soccer try to play those other sports. It is often painful. Not a lot of hand eye coordination and not a lot court speed. There are, of course, exceptions that prove the general rule.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It’s a failed remedy to attempt to be like Europeans or South Americans; our culture is different and our players are different. An athlete that shows potential and promise with his technical skill will be infinitely better than a “footballer” that can’t hang on the field. Pressing, tackling... these are still important components of the game. It doesn’t matter if your kid can do 30 Cruyffs in a training drill, it matters if he can influence the game.

Stronger and faster people will always have the higher ceiling for development over the weaker and slower people. And the more those athletes play and compete, the more development they get. Regarding the gold analogy, go play golf.

Based on what I have seen on the boys side, most “athletes” on soccer fields here in NOVA cannot hang with football or basketball players athletically. That is why many of them are playing soccer. So it’s all relative. So I would tell the speedsters you go run track or play football, but they have already probably come up snake eyes on those. If you don’t believe me, try watching most athletes in soccer try to play those other sports. It is often painful. Not a lot of hand eye coordination and not a lot court speed. There are, of course, exceptions that prove the general rule.

On girls side in Md, I have not seen this as the case. We are also losing girls to lacrosse - and with easier scholarship and / or admissions help,, easier skills to pick up if you are naturally athletic, can see the reason why.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It’s a failed remedy to attempt to be like Europeans or South Americans; our culture is different and our players are different. An athlete that shows potential and promise with his technical skill will be infinitely better than a “footballer” that can’t hang on the field. Pressing, tackling... these are still important components of the game. It doesn’t matter if your kid can do 30 Cruyffs in a training drill, it matters if he can influence the game.

Stronger and faster people will always have the higher ceiling for development over the weaker and slower people. And the more those athletes play and compete, the more development they get. Regarding the gold analogy, go play golf.

Based on what I have seen on the boys side, most “athletes” on soccer fields here in NOVA cannot hang with football or basketball players athletically. That is why many of them are playing soccer. So it’s all relative. So I would tell the speedsters you go run track or play football, but they have already probably come up snake eyes on those. If you don’t believe me, try watching most athletes in soccer try to play those other sports. It is often painful. Not a lot of hand eye coordination and not a lot court speed. There are, of course, exceptions that prove the general rule.

We’re going to agree to disagree—it’s measurable and scientifically proven. There’s a reason why so many skillful technical players phase out: it’s their lack of strength and power.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It’s a failed remedy to attempt to be like Europeans or South Americans; our culture is different and our players are different. An athlete that shows potential and promise with his technical skill will be infinitely better than a “footballer” that can’t hang on the field. Pressing, tackling... these are still important components of the game. It doesn’t matter if your kid can do 30 Cruyffs in a training drill, it matters if he can influence the game.

Stronger and faster people will always have the higher ceiling for development over the weaker and slower people. And the more those athletes play and compete, the more development they get. Regarding the gold analogy, go play golf.

Based on what I have seen on the boys side, most “athletes” on soccer fields here in NOVA cannot hang with football or basketball players athletically. That is why many of them are playing soccer. So it’s all relative. So I would tell the speedsters you go run track or play football, but they have already probably come up snake eyes on those. If you don’t believe me, try watching most athletes in soccer try to play those other sports. It is often painful. Not a lot of hand eye coordination and not a lot court speed. There are, of course, exceptions that prove the general rule.

We’re going to agree to disagree—it’s measurable and scientifically proven. There’s a reason why so many skillful technical players phase out: it’s their lack of strength and power.

Well no. If anything it's proven the other way. How do the best teams in the world select and develop players? Not the way you are suggesting.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It’s a failed remedy to attempt to be like Europeans or South Americans; our culture is different and our players are different. An athlete that shows potential and promise with his technical skill will be infinitely better than a “footballer” that can’t hang on the field. Pressing, tackling... these are still important components of the game. It doesn’t matter if your kid can do 30 Cruyffs in a training drill, it matters if he can influence the game.

Stronger and faster people will always have the higher ceiling for development over the weaker and slower people. And the more those athletes play and compete, the more development they get. Regarding the gold analogy, go play golf.

Based on what I have seen on the boys side, most “athletes” on soccer fields here in NOVA cannot hang with football or basketball players athletically. That is why many of them are playing soccer. So it’s all relative. So I would tell the speedsters you go run track or play football, but they have already probably come up snake eyes on those. If you don’t believe me, try watching most athletes in soccer try to play those other sports. It is often painful. Not a lot of hand eye coordination and not a lot court speed. There are, of course, exceptions that prove the general rule.

We’re going to agree to disagree—it’s measurable and scientifically proven. There’s a reason why so many skillful technical players phase out: it’s their lack of strength and power.

I don’t think we disagree. But in the US, the athletes in boys and men’s soccer are not at the upper range of US athletes. Maybe that’s why we are underperforming internationally and relative to the size of our population and athletes. I don’t understand what you mean by measurable. Yes, speed and quickness are literally measurable, and one would expect to see faster players as you ascend the talent ladder. Was there a separate point that you were making?

[Anonymous]

The biggest issue of discussion at this year's US Soccer AGM in February was the USWNT gender discrimination lawsuit, the botched and sexist legal challenge from the Federation, and the overwhelming negative PR backlash for organization from fans and sponsors. A short time later, Carlos Cordeiro abruptly resigned as President. US Soccer quickly installed Cindy Parlow Cone, the first female President, who is a two time Gold Medalist and a member of the fabled 1999 World Cup team.

They only national level soccer organization that has deep pockets, with multiple income streams, and is best positioned to weather this current CV situation--is the US Soccer Federation. In general, US Soccer will continue to have a DA in order to be the driving influence on US youth soccer development, just like it controls the national coaching license curriculum. US Soccer will keep having a DA.

USSF will not give up the girls DA, especially with a new female president. Cindy Parlow Cone, in her first few months as head of USSF, and under the heavy strain of CV on the entire world of soccer right now, will not make any big moves with GDA that would be detrimental to the investment and commitment of USSF to bring the girls side up equal to the boys--the reason for launchng the GDA.

Having an MLS-only boys DA league is a non-starter as being unfeasible. How could teenage boys travel all around the country to play weekly games throughout the year? They can't. It's logistically and financially impossible for so many reasons. There will always be a need for available local/regional competition.

So the legitimacy of this so-called anonymous and unsourced "rumor"--no matter how many times repeated--has no merit and does not make it true. There are a lot of ECNL'ers that will perpetuate this "rumor" ad infinitum, with desperate hopes of trying to will the DA out of existence. The only credible "rumor" people should be talking about is US Soccer buying out ECNL and folding it into the DA program. ECNL'ers can only hope that the ECNL mothership will advocate for no current ECNL club to be left behind by US Soccer in the merger.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It’s a failed remedy to attempt to be like Europeans or South Americans; our culture is different and our players are different. An athlete that shows potential and promise with his technical skill will be infinitely better than a “footballer” that can’t hang on the field. Pressing, tackling... these are still important components of the game. It doesn’t matter if your kid can do 30 Cruyffs in a training drill, it matters if he can influence the game.

Stronger and faster people will always have the higher ceiling for development over the weaker and slower people. And the more those athletes play and compete, the more development they get. Regarding the gold analogy, go play golf.

Based on what I have seen on the boys side, most “athletes” on soccer fields here in NOVA cannot hang with football or basketball players athletically. That is why many of them are playing soccer. So it’s all relative. So I would tell the speedsters you go run track or play football, but they have already probably come up snake eyes on those. If you don’t believe me, try watching most athletes in soccer try to play those other sports. It is often painful. Not a lot of hand eye coordination and not a lot court speed. There are, of course, exceptions that prove the general rule.

We’re going to agree to disagree—it’s measurable and scientifically proven. There’s a reason why so many skillful technical players phase out: it’s their lack of strength and power.

I don’t think we disagree. But in the US, the athletes in boys and men’s soccer are not at the upper range of US athletes. Maybe that’s why we are underperforming internationally and relative to the size of our population and athletes. I don’t understand what you mean by measurable. Yes, speed and quickness are literally measurable, and one would expect to see faster players as you ascend the talent ladder. Was there a separate point that you were making?

“ Maybe that’s why we are underperforming internationally”... if you really mean that, no I don’t think we disagree. We are starting to get best athletes onto soccer field (and stay on it). I believe the age brought up was 2006 boys, meaning U14 this seasonal year. If coaches are rewarding athletes more playing time because they’re able to compete (2-2, being man down was the example), it will eventually not matter just how skilled a unathletic player and their style of play. Style of play is temporary. Yes, a clinical touch is needed but the U14 better athlete with horse hooves should be playing more, especially if more competitive than the unathletic kid. Get faster and stronger, but the genes dictate that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The biggest issue of discussion at this year's US Soccer AGM in February was the USWNT gender discrimination lawsuit, the botched and sexist legal challenge from the Federation, and the overwhelming negative PR backlash for organization from fans and sponsors. A short time later, Carlos Cordeiro abruptly resigned as President. US Soccer quickly installed Cindy Parlow Cone, the first female President, who is a two time Gold Medalist and a member of the fabled 1999 World Cup team.

They only national level soccer organization that has deep pockets, with multiple income streams, and is best positioned to weather this current CV situation--is the US Soccer Federation. In general, US Soccer will continue to have a DA in order to be the driving influence on US youth soccer development, just like it controls the national coaching license curriculum. US Soccer will keep having a DA.

USSF will not give up the girls DA, especially with a new female president. Cindy Parlow Cone, in her first few months as head of USSF, and under the heavy strain of CV on the entire world of soccer right now, will not make any big moves with GDA that would be detrimental to the investment and commitment of USSF to bring the girls side up equal to the boys--the reason for launchng the GDA.

Having an MLS-only boys DA league is a non-starter as being unfeasible. How could teenage boys travel all around the country to play weekly games throughout the year? They can't. It's logistically and financially impossible for so many reasons. There will always be a need for available local/regional competition.

So the legitimacy of this so-called anonymous and unsourced "rumor"--no matter how many times repeated--has no merit and does not make it true. There are a lot of ECNL'ers that will perpetuate this "rumor" ad infinitum, with desperate hopes of trying to will the DA out of existence. The only credible "rumor" people should be talking about is US Soccer buying out ECNL and folding it into the DA program. ECNL'ers can only hope that the ECNL mothership will advocate for no current ECNL club to be left behind by US Soccer in the merger.

Is that why DA clubs sent emails to our teams about the possible dismantling (in particular on the girls side)? Because they were just playing an April Fools joke on us?