Travel Soccer teams around NOVA let's discuss

[Anonymous]

Except development of players

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why move someone who is already paying up from a lower team when you can make thousands off bringing new people in?

Yep. It's all about the $. Imagine your fate being set at 8 years old. F@ck them.

To the pp--it's not just the B team. There are a few C & a couple D players that are light years above the duds they are bringing in.

Move clubs like the rest. Or just complain? It's not going to change. More kids more money and no one in the organization loses.

It would be nice not to have to drive. They are shipping in a bunch of duds from Springfield which means local kids that are better now have to commute to a different club. It really isn't necessary to recruit 9/10 year olds from other places mid-season when you have 145 local kids at tryouts each spring. BThe talent is very deep amongst the teams.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why move someone who is already paying up from a lower team when you can make thousands off bringing new people in?

Yep. It's all about the $. Imagine your fate being set at 8 years old. F@ck them.

To the pp--it's not just the B team. There are a few C & a couple D players that are light years above the duds they are bringing in.

Move clubs like the rest. Or just complain? It's not going to change. More kids more money and no one in the organization loses.

It would be nice not to have to drive. They are shipping in a bunch of duds from Springfield which means local kids that are better now have to commute to a different club. It really isn't necessary to recruit 9/10 year olds from other places mid-season when you have 145 local kids at tryouts each spring. BThe talent is very deep amongst the teams.

Deep talent--this is why the lower teams blowout their leagues. They aren't adequately challenged against other clubs lower squads. Yet- the club feels the need to bring in a bunch of mediocre kids from other clubs vs ever watching or looking at kids already here that are more talented.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I coach older kids on a top local team. It is true that most of my players were not on the top team at the young ages.

I attribute this to many factors:
1) Physical development over time
2) Burn out--too much structure and stress early (pressure from Coach and parents)
3) Kids on top teams in the young ages tend to be over-coached and not allowed to develop organically as players
4) Players should be allow to make their own decisions--which will mean mistakes are allowed to happen
5) Kids on top team young- rest on laurels as they age
6) Practice. Kids that practice and play on their own will outpace those that don't.
7) Innate drive, passion and competitiveness; something that can't be taught

Of course, a few of my kids were standouts young and remained that way. However, the vast majority were not or were just not recognized at the younger ages.

Advice--play for fun while young. Don't go for a coach that 'over-coaches, over-directs and focuses solely on a passing game and winning at 9-10.

Too much structure is not good for developing players. The best players developed their own soccer 'brain' and decision-making. They developed flair.

I am not a fan of ranking at the young ages. Kids should be continually challenged. I think we are moving in the wrong direction, personally. Academies at the younger ages are not great, IMO.

Look what happened to the Dutch as they became overly-bureaucratic in their soccer program.

Lastly, I do think that when the clubs get too big, the kids get lost in the system. They can't focus on the kids and provide the best environment. A lot of the reason they can't mix kids is because they are all slotted into field time slots and not even in the same place.

Best post in this thread. Thanks.

+ 1

Need more coaches that think like this.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I coach older kids on a top local team. It is true that most of my players were not on the top team at the young ages.

I attribute this to many factors:
1) Physical development over time
2) Burn out--too much structure and stress early (pressure from Coach and parents)
3) Kids on top teams in the young ages tend to be over-coached and not allowed to develop organically as players
4) Players should be allow to make their own decisions--which will mean mistakes are allowed to happen
5) Kids on top team young- rest on laurels as they age
6) Practice. Kids that practice and play on their own will outpace those that don't.
7) Innate drive, passion and competitiveness; something that can't be taught

Of course, a few of my kids were standouts young and remained that way. However, the vast majority were not or were just not recognized at the younger ages.

Advice--play for fun while young. Don't go for a coach that 'over-coaches, over-directs and focuses solely on a passing game and winning at 9-10.

Too much structure is not good for developing players. The best players developed their own soccer 'brain' and decision-making. They developed flair.

I am not a fan of ranking at the young ages. Kids should be continually challenged. I think we are moving in the wrong direction, personally. Academies at the younger ages are not great, IMO.

Look what happened to the Dutch as they became overly-bureaucratic in their soccer program.

Lastly, I do think that when the clubs get too big, the kids get lost in the system. They can't focus on the kids and provide the best environment. A lot of the reason they can't mix kids is because they are all slotted into field time slots and not even in the same place.

Best post in this thread. Thanks.

+ 1

Need more coaches that think like this.

Once travel soccer became a business--things went in the shitter. It became about clubs and organizations making $. If they cut or demote a kid, they have a pissed off 'customer'. So--they don't do the right thing and keep subprime kids on top teams and instead of promoting kids from within (which would cause rumbling in the ranks---why Johnny was moved up and not my kid)--they just bring in unknown players from other Clubs to plug spots on the upper teams. They don't give a crap about the kids or player development. Most are just dialing it in and picking up some extra $ after their day job. They don't know that they are breaking the spirits of kids that took them for their word and went out and practice every night to go from 15 juggles to 350+ in a single summer or scored a hat trick in every game of the season--"sorry, kid--that doesn't matter. You stay where you are in this Club." If you are going to preach to kids what they need to do to move ahead---and they not only do it but exceeds it by spades--then your word is shit and you are responsible for kids leaving the sport in droves in this country by 14.

I think this is why the developmental leagues which have parent coaches and just a travel once a week are so much more successful. You have parents that care about kids. Plus, let's face it, in this area many of the parents are former college soccer players themselves.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Our club says we're going to keep teams together and just have a whole lot of kids play up an age group. Is anyone else doing this? I get the togetherness factor, but I also don't want to get blown out in every game by older kids.

I don't understand this. All kids move up. Some move up 2 yrs. all the kids are moving up 2 yrs? That seems odd. Not a good long term strategy. I know it's not Arlington, McLean or Pac . I'm doubting Herndon or cya.

Well, actually ...

Is it PAC? Of the ones bolded, I think of them as the least ... I don't want to say "competitive." Maybe the least concerned about game results (versus purely player development)? Although, I have to say, I've seen how being wildly overmatched by older/faster kids does nothing in the way of player development in game situations.

What benefit can there be moving up the whole team when only a few are at the older level? Why is it so hard to build up a new team?.?!

Its not PAC

I've got an email saying PAC is keeping all its teams together, even U9s.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Our club says we're going to keep teams together and just have a whole lot of kids play up an age group. Is anyone else doing this? I get the togetherness factor, but I also don't want to get blown out in every game by older kids.

I don't understand this. All kids move up. Some move up 2 yrs. all the kids are moving up 2 yrs? That seems odd. Not a good long term strategy. I know it's not Arlington, McLean or Pac . I'm doubting Herndon or cya.

Well, actually ...

Is it PAC? Of the ones bolded, I think of them as the least ... I don't want to say "competitive." Maybe the least concerned about game results (versus purely player development)? Although, I have to say, I've seen how being wildly overmatched by older/faster kids does nothing in the way of player development in game situations.

What benefit can there be moving up the whole team when only a few are at the older level? Why is it so hard to build up a new team?.?!

Its not PAC

I've got an email saying PAC is keeping all its teams together, even U9s.

What benefit can there be moving up the whole team when only a few are at the older level? Why is it so hard to build up a new team?.?!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Our club says we're going to keep teams together and just have a whole lot of kids play up an age group. Is anyone else doing this? I get the togetherness factor, but I also don't want to get blown out in every game by older kids.

I don't understand this. All kids move up. Some move up 2 yrs. all the kids are moving up 2 yrs? That seems odd. Not a good long term strategy. I know it's not Arlington, McLean or Pac . I'm doubting Herndon or cya.

Well, actually ...

Is it PAC? Of the ones bolded, I think of them as the least ... I don't want to say "competitive." Maybe the least concerned about game results (versus purely player development)? Although, I have to say, I've seen how being wildly overmatched by older/faster kids does nothing in the way of player development in game situations.

What benefit can there be moving up the whole team when only a few are at the older level? Why is it so hard to build up a new team?.?!

Its not PAC

I've got an email saying PAC is keeping all its teams together, even U9s.

PAC U9s are so weak the way it is. Is it good for the kids to get peppered constantly? Maybe move to ODSL if they want to stay together.

[Anonymous]

If PAC is keeping all their teams intact, they are really not serving the needs of their players at all. There may be a kid or two that should play up, but certainly not entire teams in that club. I would guess that it has more to do with the numbers at PAC and wanting to keep the parents happy so they don't jump ship.

[Anonymous]

How is the past 150 posts?

No one cares about your kid! Just pay the money and save a headache and stop complaining.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:If PAC is keeping all their teams intact, they are really not serving the needs of their players at all. There may be a kid or two that should play up, but certainly not entire teams in that club. I would guess that it has more to do with the numbers at PAC and wanting to keep the parents happy so they don't jump ship.

And, they would only be serving the parents of the "top kids" on the team and their parents who wish to keep the "status quo". The younger kids who might flourish with kids closer in age will be dragged along by scared parents who wish for nothing more than "keeping the band together" because it maintains their kids position on the team.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:If PAC is keeping all their teams intact, they are really not serving the needs of their players at all. There may be a kid or two that should play up, but certainly not entire teams in that club. I would guess that it has more to do with the numbers at PAC and wanting to keep the parents happy so they don't jump ship.

A lot of PAC parents are realistic. I wouldn't see a lot of parents fleeing because their 2007-birthdate kids won't play U11 next year. Actually, I could see the opposite -- taking those kids elsewhere so they don't get overrun.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If PAC is keeping all their teams intact, they are really not serving the needs of their players at all. There may be a kid or two that should play up, but certainly not entire teams in that club. I would guess that it has more to do with the numbers at PAC and wanting to keep the parents happy so they don't jump ship.

A lot of PAC parents are realistic. I wouldn't see a lot of parents fleeing because their 2007-birthdate kids won't play U11 next year. Actually, I could see the opposite -- taking those kids elsewhere so they don't get overrun.

Every parent is "realistic" until you tell them their kid will either be on a lower team or that they will see a very reduced playing role or both. All parents will act in their kids perceived best interest and that may include encouraging other parents to act against their own kids self interest. These parents will use "friendships, nostalgia and 'team chemistry'" as reasons to stay together.

Playing an entire team up only entrenches the starting kids roles and can make it more difficult for the younger kids on the team that quite probably should have played at age to develop properly at their own rate. It could also stifle the development of the so called starters as well, as they are only challenged in games, but not pushed or challenged in practice as they otherwise would have been.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If PAC is keeping all their teams intact, they are really not serving the needs of their players at all. There may be a kid or two that should play up, but certainly not entire teams in that club. I would guess that it has more to do with the numbers at PAC and wanting to keep the parents happy so they don't jump ship.

A lot of PAC parents are realistic. I wouldn't see a lot of parents fleeing because their 2007-birthdate kids won't play U11 next year. Actually, I could see the opposite -- taking those kids elsewhere so they don't get overrun.

Every parent is "realistic" until you tell them their kid will either be on a lower team or that they will see a very reduced playing role or both. All parents will act in their kids perceived best interest and that may include encouraging other parents to act against their own kids self interest. These parents will use "friendships, nostalgia and 'team chemistry'" as reasons to stay together.

Playing an entire team up only entrenches the starting kids roles and can make it more difficult for the younger kids on the team that quite probably should have played at age to develop properly at their own rate. It could also stifle the development of the so called starters as well, as they are only challenged in games, but not pushed or challenged in practice as they otherwise would have been.

PAC really is different. At least a lot of us are. I'd frankly be just fine if my kid wasn't a "starter" or if his team dropped to ODSL. (Though, actually, ODSL has now collected a few teams that could be in a high NCSL division but, either through bureaucracy or just the sheer joy of obliterating other clubs' fourth and fifth teams, stay in ODSL.)

A lot of these kids were overlooked in their "home" clubs and came to PAC because they just love to play. A lot of House leagues, sadly, aren't full of kids who love to play.

I've seen the thinly veiled knife fights in other clubs. That's not PAC.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote: Once travel soccer became a business--things went in the shitter. It became about clubs and organizations making $. ... I think this is why the developmental leagues which have parent coaches and just a travel once a week are so much more successful. You have parents that care about kids. Plus, let's face it, in this area many of the parents are former college soccer players themselves.

+1. The burgeoning soccer industrial complex is ruining U.S. youth soccer and, until we realize that bureaucracy and $$$ is not what makes players great, we will continue to lag behind the rest of the world. In fact, it tends to be the opposite that makes players great.