VYS Soccer - better or worse?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Arlington has the best boys program. Maybe on the girl’s side as well.

https://www.soccerwire.com/news/soccerwire-top-100-boys-soccer-clubs-february-2021/

Dumb question, but really dumb answers. This is why Arlington is able to have six teams at each age for each gender.

They get a lot of kids trying out. Most years even with 6 teams years the demand is greater vs the supply. If they changed their development program/Philosophy they would be a lot better vs what they are.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Arlington has the best boys program. Maybe on the girl’s side as well.

https://www.soccerwire.com/news/soccerwire-top-100-boys-soccer-clubs-february-2021/

Dumb question, but really dumb answers. This is why Arlington is able to have six teams at each age for each gender.

They get a lot of kids trying out. Most years even with 6 teams years the demand is greater vs the supply. If they changed their development program/Philosophy they would be a lot better vs what they are.

This was true five years ago, but is most definitely not the case today. Arlington's development philosophy at the older ages is second to none - they consistently produce very technical teams that play attractive soccer and successfully compete with DCU for the best kids from Northern VA - who are drawn by the quality of the coaching.

They are also making strides to improve what they do at the younger ages as well, although this is not yet as good as the older ages.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Which club is the best in Virginia?

Arlington or McLean when discussing both girls and boys.

Surely Richmond is in the conversation here?

[Anonymous]

Agree Arlington > McLean. I have 4 kids playing travel soccer and have 1 at Arlington, 2 at McLean. The feedback from coaches and interest in players as individuals is unmatched. I don't feel afraid to talk to any of the Arlington coaches whereas McLean has a system in place where you never approach a coach. Also Arlington older teams practice 4 times a week, McLean only 3. Arlington games are videotaped and coaches go over game film with the kids. At McLean you have to video your own kid. Theres no way the coaches are going to be able to talk to the kids on the team because there are 24 kids on my daughters team and my son has 33 on his. The roster issues are not just a girls side issue.

[Anonymous]

I thought this was a VYS topic. Can someone else start one for McLean and Arlington to fight in? Arlington can say "we are the best because we have normal size rosters and most of our coaches don't yell at the girls". Then McLean can say "no we are the best because 20 years ago we were the only team that sent girls to play D1 soccer. All the clubs that are now sending girls to D1 schools are just lucky. We are the best! We have to have big rosters because so many people want to come and we just can't turn all the talented players away"!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Agree Arlington > McLean. I have 4 kids playing travel soccer and have 1 at Arlington, 2 at McLean. The feedback from coaches and interest in players as individuals is unmatched. I don't feel afraid to talk to any of the Arlington coaches whereas McLean has a system in place where you never approach a coach. Also Arlington older teams practice 4 times a week, McLean only 3. Arlington games are videotaped and coaches go over game film with the kids. At McLean you have to video your own kid. Theres no way the coaches are going to be able to talk to the kids on the team because there are 24 kids on my daughters team and my son has 33 on his. The roster issues are not just a girls side issue.

I just gotta say, as a coach meself, I find it obnoxious to run rosters of more than 18-20 players TOPS.

I choked when I saw you wrote there are 33. I mean, are you serious? That’s 3 full lineups. How is that conducive to any form of development? The only thing getting developed is the club’s bank account. But, you parents are at fault for festering such egregiousness.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Agree Arlington > McLean. I have 4 kids playing travel soccer and have 1 at Arlington, 2 at McLean. The feedback from coaches and interest in players as individuals is unmatched. I don't feel afraid to talk to any of the Arlington coaches whereas McLean has a system in place where you never approach a coach. Also Arlington older teams practice 4 times a week, McLean only 3. Arlington games are videotaped and coaches go over game film with the kids. At McLean you have to video your own kid. Theres no way the coaches are going to be able to talk to the kids on the team because there are 24 kids on my daughters team and my son has 33 on his. The roster issues are not just a girls side issue.

I just gotta say, as a coach meself, I find it obnoxious to run rosters of more than 18-20 players TOPS.

I choked when I saw you wrote there are 33. I mean, are you serious? That’s 3 full lineups. How is that conducive to any form of development? The only thing getting developed is the club’s bank account. But, you parents are at fault for festering such egregiousness.

100% agree although I'm not a coach. Still you don't really need to be a coach to understand this.

17-18 on gameday is more than enough. And that means 19-20 on the roster because of injuries and other absences. Over that and the club is taking you for a ride. McLean is I think the worst offender in this area, although Loudoun has been known to play this game too, but not perhaps to the same extent.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Agree Arlington > McLean. I have 4 kids playing travel soccer and have 1 at Arlington, 2 at McLean. The feedback from coaches and interest in players as individuals is unmatched. I don't feel afraid to talk to any of the Arlington coaches whereas McLean has a system in place where you never approach a coach. Also Arlington older teams practice 4 times a week, McLean only 3. Arlington games are videotaped and coaches go over game film with the kids. At McLean you have to video your own kid. Theres no way the coaches are going to be able to talk to the kids on the team because there are 24 kids on my daughters team and my son has 33 on his. The roster issues are not just a girls side issue.

You are in the right demographic for both clubs. I am pretty certain you don’t have a clue about what good coaching or development actually is, but you have explained very well the differences between two clubs with bloated reputations who cannot develop anybody well at younger ages. My kid could make top team at each of these clubs, and both would be closer, but there is no way my kid would ever want to play for either based on what we have seen from these clubs and top teams over the past five years.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Agree Arlington > McLean. I have 4 kids playing travel soccer and have 1 at Arlington, 2 at McLean. The feedback from coaches and interest in players as individuals is unmatched. I don't feel afraid to talk to any of the Arlington coaches whereas McLean has a system in place where you never approach a coach. Also Arlington older teams practice 4 times a week, McLean only 3. Arlington games are videotaped and coaches go over game film with the kids. At McLean you have to video your own kid. Theres no way the coaches are going to be able to talk to the kids on the team because there are 24 kids on my daughters team and my son has 33 on his. The roster issues are not just a girls side issue.

You are in the right demographic for both clubs. I am pretty certain you don’t have a clue about what good coaching or development actually is, but you have explained very well the differences between two clubs with bloated reputations who cannot develop anybody well at younger ages. My kid could make top team at each of these clubs, and both would be closer, but there is no way my kid would ever want to play for either based on what we have seen from these clubs and top teams over the past five years.

So, instead your kid plays at?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Agree Arlington > McLean. I have 4 kids playing travel soccer and have 1 at Arlington, 2 at McLean. The feedback from coaches and interest in players as individuals is unmatched. I don't feel afraid to talk to any of the Arlington coaches whereas McLean has a system in place where you never approach a coach. Also Arlington older teams practice 4 times a week, McLean only 3. Arlington games are videotaped and coaches go over game film with the kids. At McLean you have to video your own kid. Theres no way the coaches are going to be able to talk to the kids on the team because there are 24 kids on my daughters team and my son has 33 on his. The roster issues are not just a girls side issue.

You are in the right demographic for both clubs. I am pretty certain you don’t have a clue about what good coaching or development actually is, but you have explained very well the differences between two clubs with bloated reputations who cannot develop anybody well at younger ages. My kid could make top team at each of these clubs, and both would be closer, but there is no way my kid would ever want to play for either based on what we have seen from these clubs and top teams over the past five years.

If your kid could make the top team at Arlington and you are denying him that opportunity, you are doing your son a disservice.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Agree Arlington > McLean. I have 4 kids playing travel soccer and have 1 at Arlington, 2 at McLean. The feedback from coaches and interest in players as individuals is unmatched. I don't feel afraid to talk to any of the Arlington coaches whereas McLean has a system in place where you never approach a coach. Also Arlington older teams practice 4 times a week, McLean only 3. Arlington games are videotaped and coaches go over game film with the kids. At McLean you have to video your own kid. Theres no way the coaches are going to be able to talk to the kids on the team because there are 24 kids on my daughters team and my son has 33 on his. The roster issues are not just a girls side issue.

You are in the right demographic for both clubs. I am pretty certain you don’t have a clue about what good coaching or development actually is, but you have explained very well the differences between two clubs with bloated reputations who cannot develop anybody well at younger ages. My kid could make top team at each of these clubs, and both would be closer, but there is no way my kid would ever want to play for either based on what we have seen from these clubs and top teams over the past five years.

If your kid could make the top team at Arlington and you are denying him that opportunity, you are doing your son a disservice.

...but then, I'm pretty sure your son wouldn't make the cut

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Agree Arlington > McLean. I have 4 kids playing travel soccer and have 1 at Arlington, 2 at McLean. The feedback from coaches and interest in players as individuals is unmatched. I don't feel afraid to talk to any of the Arlington coaches whereas McLean has a system in place where you never approach a coach. Also Arlington older teams practice 4 times a week, McLean only 3. Arlington games are videotaped and coaches go over game film with the kids. At McLean you have to video your own kid. Theres no way the coaches are going to be able to talk to the kids on the team because there are 24 kids on my daughters team and my son has 33 on his. The roster issues are not just a girls side issue.

You are in the right demographic for both clubs. I am pretty certain you don’t have a clue about what good coaching or development actually is, but you have explained very well the differences between two clubs with bloated reputations who cannot develop anybody well at younger ages. My kid could make top team at each of these clubs, and both would be closer, but there is no way my kid would ever want to play for either based on what we have seen from these clubs and top teams over the past five years.

If your kid could make the top team at Arlington and you are denying him that opportunity, you are doing your son a disservice.

...but then, I'm pretty sure your son wouldn't make the cut

If this poster's son has been playing travel for five years he's at least thirteen. In which case he's looking at the Arlington 06 or 07 academy team. Those are both very strong teams indeed with excellent coaches, and
(a) I completely agree that the poster is doing their kid a disservice
(b) It's a pretty bold statement to suggest that a kid could make either of those teams. An awful lot of very talented kids show up to try and only a couple make it each year. Of course there are kids out there who could make either of those teams - but if a parent is incapable of recognizing how talented the kids already on the teams are, and the excellence of the coaching then I tend to agree they are unlikely to have assessed their own kid's chance correctly.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Agree Arlington > McLean. I have 4 kids playing travel soccer and have 1 at Arlington, 2 at McLean. The feedback from coaches and interest in players as individuals is unmatched. I don't feel afraid to talk to any of the Arlington coaches whereas McLean has a system in place where you never approach a coach. Also Arlington older teams practice 4 times a week, McLean only 3. Arlington games are videotaped and coaches go over game film with the kids. At McLean you have to video your own kid. Theres no way the coaches are going to be able to talk to the kids on the team because there are 24 kids on my daughters team and my son has 33 on his. The roster issues are not just a girls side issue.

You are in the right demographic for both clubs. I am pretty certain you don’t have a clue about what good coaching or development actually is, but you have explained very well the differences between two clubs with bloated reputations who cannot develop anybody well at younger ages. My kid could make top team at each of these clubs, and both would be closer, but there is no way my kid would ever want to play for either based on what we have seen from these clubs and top teams over the past five years.

If your kid could make the top team at Arlington and you are denying him that opportunity, you are doing your son a disservice.

NP: Not necessarily. They had 22 kids on the roster and guest play kids up from the Red team on top of it. My kids wants to play.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I watched a few of the Eagles’ State cup/ tournament games recently.
Compared the the Phoenix teams, the lack of passing creativity was apparent. I think I saw only two “1-2s” passing combos.
Very surprising since my DD’s team lives by these combos.
Though,will add that they did win one of the games.

This is expected at VYS.
Girls have a strong program and boys' program is all over the place.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I watched a few of the Eagles’ State cup/ tournament games recently.
Compared the the Phoenix teams, the lack of passing creativity was apparent. I think I saw only two “1-2s” passing combos.
Very surprising since my DD’s team lives by these combos.
Though,will add that they did win one of the games.

This is expected at VYS.
Girls have a strong program and boys' program is all over the place.

Boys' U14 and up is a true CF.