DC United Academy Open Evaluation 2024?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My kid attended, while I sat in the car, sipping coffee and catching up on phone calls to family members, a pleasant 90 minutes. Thus, disclaimer: my information about the tryout itself is all second hand from a tween boy ...

It was mostly scrimmages; kid felt there was not enough space (11v11 on a space appropriate for 7v7) and that few players seemed to have very many touches on the ball; teams seemed unbalanced in terms of talent and in terms of the type of players on a team (e.g., a team with 11 boys and 8 who play defender for their club) and he had no idea how the teams were chosen; within a team, the way the 11 boys decided on positions and formation for the scrimmage was left completely up to them, with the results you'd expect from such an approach with 12/13 year old boys who don't know one another lol ...

But overall he said it was "fine" and that he had fun and is glad he went. So all's well that ends well. We aren't expecting much to come of it but it was an experience.

You used the word teams quite a bit for something that had nothing to do with teams.
All individuals were in the same situation in the same environment it sounds like, so the individuals who adapted and stood out have better recruitment chances.

Yes, you're right - thank you. I forgot soccer is an individual sport and the concept of a "team" or "teamwork" or any sort of organized approach from players thrown onto the pitch with the same pinny color is irrelevant. Done rightly, soccer is a really just a bunch of individuals all running around doing their own thing without regard to any "team" ... my mistake lol

So, DC United U14's next year will be the 11 kids wearing team-orange pinnies

Or maybe it will be the 11 kids from the 3 strong teams who dominated possession against the 6 weaker teams and therefore had far more opportunities to get noticed.

Yes, because scouts look at team possession. Not individual skillsets.

Yes, and playing a scrimmage where Team A is comprised of much more skilled players than Team B has no bearing on whether a skilled player on Team B will even be able to get the ball and have a chance to demonstrate skill. Soccer is an entirely individual sport and strong teammates---oops, sorry, there's that word again---I mean, "strong players wearing the same color pinny as you" have zero effect on your ability to show your skillset.

If you can't touch the ball in a pick-up scrimmage and show skills with (even limited touches) and without the ball, the highest level isn't for you.

I shouldn't respond but alas, I cannot resist.

First, I'm not complaining and I really don't care one way or the other -- my kid liked going to the DCU tryout; I'm not even sure we'd allow him to join DCU if given the chance (logistics, schoolwork, etc.) and he likes his current club.

But you've picked an argument so here's the counterpoint: If I put you on an 11v11 scrimmage squad with ten second graders and put you up against 11 players from the Argentina international team, you would have zero chance to "touch the ball" and "show skills" because your team would be overwhelmed as they toyed with you.

While it's an extreme example, it makes the point that soccer is a team sport and clearly one's teammates in a scrimmage are not meaningless--the more balanced the teams are, the more opportunities you will have to receive the ball and demonstrate skills (both offensively and defensively).

Does that mean players on a weaker side have ZERO opportunities to get touches and demonstrate skills? No, not zero. And I never said zero chances. I was simply conveying what my kid had told me--that in his view (on which I put the secondhand info from a tween disclaimer) the teams were unbalanced, and therefore the opportunities to demonstrate skill were not even roughly equal for players on different scrimmage teams.

I don't know how the scrimmage teams were picked--maybe there was a method to it. I don't know if the scrimmage teams were mixed up in between each scrimmage (I frankly wasn't that interested and didn't even ask my kid). And as I said, this is all second-hand coming from my kid, so he may not have even been correct that the teams were unbalanced. I don't know one way or the other myself. But it's not irrelevant or I wouldn't have mentioned it.

Strong player on the weak team will stand out more than strong players on team of strong players.

I can't believe there are multiple posters arguing against the importance of having a strong team around you to help showcase your talent. It's true of any team sport. Maybe basketball is different. And baseball. The above statement is absurd.

That's because you don't understand the art, skill and expertise of soccer scouting.

Messi with 10 bums still looks like Messi

Oh. good example. didn't think about that. (because it doesn't apply to literally anyone else in the world). I'm sure I don't understand team sports. I'm tired of folks on here acting like soccer is some unknowable realm. I hate to break it to all you posters who have coached, have played Div. 1, or are just from another country where you think your knowledge is superior, solely for that fact.

Team sports, and development within those sports, is not chemical engineering. It's not quantum physics. Just because you played a sport doesn't mean your knowledge is superior to anyone who has taken the time to try to understand it. Or that you know the "right" answers on how to develop a player individually or develop players as a club. This is easily demonstrated by the fact that coaches, and former players, and national football structures have different approaches to development and match play. My son had a coach who refused to talk to parents about soccer development or strategy, unless they had a played at a high level. He specifically exempted two parents. He said, you wouldn't talk to a surgeon about how they do their job, so don't talk to me about how I do mine. It's a laughable comparison.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My kid attended, while I sat in the car, sipping coffee and catching up on phone calls to family members, a pleasant 90 minutes. Thus, disclaimer: my information about the tryout itself is all second hand from a tween boy ...

It was mostly scrimmages; kid felt there was not enough space (11v11 on a space appropriate for 7v7) and that few players seemed to have very many touches on the ball; teams seemed unbalanced in terms of talent and in terms of the type of players on a team (e.g., a team with 11 boys and 8 who play defender for their club) and he had no idea how the teams were chosen; within a team, the way the 11 boys decided on positions and formation for the scrimmage was left completely up to them, with the results you'd expect from such an approach with 12/13 year old boys who don't know one another lol ...

But overall he said it was "fine" and that he had fun and is glad he went. So all's well that ends well. We aren't expecting much to come of it but it was an experience.

You used the word teams quite a bit for something that had nothing to do with teams.
All individuals were in the same situation in the same environment it sounds like, so the individuals who adapted and stood out have better recruitment chances.

Yes, you're right - thank you. I forgot soccer is an individual sport and the concept of a "team" or "teamwork" or any sort of organized approach from players thrown onto the pitch with the same pinny color is irrelevant. Done rightly, soccer is a really just a bunch of individuals all running around doing their own thing without regard to any "team" ... my mistake lol

So, DC United U14's next year will be the 11 kids wearing team-orange pinnies

Or maybe it will be the 11 kids from the 3 strong teams who dominated possession against the 6 weaker teams and therefore had far more opportunities to get noticed.

Yes, because scouts look at team possession. Not individual skillsets.

Yes, and playing a scrimmage where Team A is comprised of much more skilled players than Team B has no bearing on whether a skilled player on Team B will even be able to get the ball and have a chance to demonstrate skill. Soccer is an entirely individual sport and strong teammates---oops, sorry, there's that word again---I mean, "strong players wearing the same color pinny as you" have zero effect on your ability to show your skillset.

If you can't touch the ball in a pick-up scrimmage and show skills with (even limited touches) and without the ball, the highest level isn't for you.

I shouldn't respond but alas, I cannot resist.

First, I'm not complaining and I really don't care one way or the other -- my kid liked going to the DCU tryout; I'm not even sure we'd allow him to join DCU if given the chance (logistics, schoolwork, etc.) and he likes his current club.

But you've picked an argument so here's the counterpoint: If I put you on an 11v11 scrimmage squad with ten second graders and put you up against 11 players from the Argentina international team, you would have zero chance to "touch the ball" and "show skills" because your team would be overwhelmed as they toyed with you.

While it's an extreme example, it makes the point that soccer is a team sport and clearly one's teammates in a scrimmage are not meaningless--the more balanced the teams are, the more opportunities you will have to receive the ball and demonstrate skills (both offensively and defensively).

Does that mean players on a weaker side have ZERO opportunities to get touches and demonstrate skills? No, not zero. And I never said zero chances. I was simply conveying what my kid had told me--that in his view (on which I put the secondhand info from a tween disclaimer) the teams were unbalanced, and therefore the opportunities to demonstrate skill were not even roughly equal for players on different scrimmage teams.

I don't know how the scrimmage teams were picked--maybe there was a method to it. I don't know if the scrimmage teams were mixed up in between each scrimmage (I frankly wasn't that interested and didn't even ask my kid). And as I said, this is all second-hand coming from my kid, so he may not have even been correct that the teams were unbalanced. I don't know one way or the other myself. But it's not irrelevant or I wouldn't have mentioned it.

Strong player on the weak team will stand out more than strong players on team of strong players.

I can't believe there are multiple posters arguing against the importance of having a strong team around you to help showcase your talent. It's true of any team sport. Maybe basketball is different. And baseball. The above statement is absurd.

That's because you don't understand the art, skill and expertise of soccer scouting.

Messi with 10 bums still looks like Messi

Oh. good example. didn't think about that. (because it doesn't apply to literally anyone else in the world). I'm sure I don't understand team sports. I'm tired of folks on here acting like soccer is some unknowable realm. I hate to break it to all you posters who have coached, have played Div. 1, or are just from another country where you think your knowledge is superior, solely for that fact.

Team sports, and development within those sports, is not chemical engineering. It's not quantum physics. Just because you played a sport doesn't mean your knowledge is superior to anyone who has taken the time to try to understand it. Or that you know the "right" answers on how to develop a player individually or develop players as a club. This is easily demonstrated by the fact that coaches, and former players, and national football structures have different approaches to development and match play. My son had a coach who refused to talk to parents about soccer development or strategy, unless they had a played at a high level. He specifically exempted two parents. He said, you wouldn't talk to a surgeon about how they do their job, so don't talk to me about how I do mine. It's a laughable comparison.

You display ignorance and lack of knowledge whilst claiming the knowledge is rudimentary, at best.

The coach is 100% correct.
People think they have been around electricity for years so they have the same knowledge as the Electrician working on their home, because he didn't go to Oxford and isn't wearing a suit.

Substitute Messi with any exceptional player and they'll show qualities an educated scout or coach will notice in those conditions.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am dying laughing at the one minute difference yesterday in emails received from Trevor of "thanks for your kid attending our session" and "Buy DC United tickets for March games." My kid didn't even show up for the open call (last minute issue). Well played DCU!

Easy.
150 showed up
3 were exceptional
You remove the 3 from the distribution list and send "Thank You" to the rest.

It's a selection process, not an election.

Really? Also a great way to build up their ticket sales marketing list. GMAFB.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My kid attended, while I sat in the car, sipping coffee and catching up on phone calls to family members, a pleasant 90 minutes. Thus, disclaimer: my information about the tryout itself is all second hand from a tween boy ...

It was mostly scrimmages; kid felt there was not enough space (11v11 on a space appropriate for 7v7) and that few players seemed to have very many touches on the ball; teams seemed unbalanced in terms of talent and in terms of the type of players on a team (e.g., a team with 11 boys and 8 who play defender for their club) and he had no idea how the teams were chosen; within a team, the way the 11 boys decided on positions and formation for the scrimmage was left completely up to them, with the results you'd expect from such an approach with 12/13 year old boys who don't know one another lol ...

But overall he said it was "fine" and that he had fun and is glad he went. So all's well that ends well. We aren't expecting much to come of it but it was an experience.

You used the word teams quite a bit for something that had nothing to do with teams.
All individuals were in the same situation in the same environment it sounds like, so the individuals who adapted and stood out have better recruitment chances.

Yes, you're right - thank you. I forgot soccer is an individual sport and the concept of a "team" or "teamwork" or any sort of organized approach from players thrown onto the pitch with the same pinny color is irrelevant. Done rightly, soccer is a really just a bunch of individuals all running around doing their own thing without regard to any "team" ... my mistake lol

So, DC United U14's next year will be the 11 kids wearing team-orange pinnies

Or maybe it will be the 11 kids from the 3 strong teams who dominated possession against the 6 weaker teams and therefore had far more opportunities to get noticed.

Yes, because scouts look at team possession. Not individual skillsets.

Yes, and playing a scrimmage where Team A is comprised of much more skilled players than Team B has no bearing on whether a skilled player on Team B will even be able to get the ball and have a chance to demonstrate skill. Soccer is an entirely individual sport and strong teammates---oops, sorry, there's that word again---I mean, "strong players wearing the same color pinny as you" have zero effect on your ability to show your skillset.

If you can't touch the ball in a pick-up scrimmage and show skills with (even limited touches) and without the ball, the highest level isn't for you.

I shouldn't respond but alas, I cannot resist.

First, I'm not complaining and I really don't care one way or the other -- my kid liked going to the DCU tryout; I'm not even sure we'd allow him to join DCU if given the chance (logistics, schoolwork, etc.) and he likes his current club.

But you've picked an argument so here's the counterpoint: If I put you on an 11v11 scrimmage squad with ten second graders and put you up against 11 players from the Argentina international team, you would have zero chance to "touch the ball" and "show skills" because your team would be overwhelmed as they toyed with you.

While it's an extreme example, it makes the point that soccer is a team sport and clearly one's teammates in a scrimmage are not meaningless--the more balanced the teams are, the more opportunities you will have to receive the ball and demonstrate skills (both offensively and defensively).

Does that mean players on a weaker side have ZERO opportunities to get touches and demonstrate skills? No, not zero. And I never said zero chances. I was simply conveying what my kid had told me--that in his view (on which I put the secondhand info from a tween disclaimer) the teams were unbalanced, and therefore the opportunities to demonstrate skill were not even roughly equal for players on different scrimmage teams.

I don't know how the scrimmage teams were picked--maybe there was a method to it. I don't know if the scrimmage teams were mixed up in between each scrimmage (I frankly wasn't that interested and didn't even ask my kid). And as I said, this is all second-hand coming from my kid, so he may not have even been correct that the teams were unbalanced. I don't know one way or the other myself. But it's not irrelevant or I wouldn't have mentioned it.

Strong player on the weak team will stand out more than strong players on team of strong players.

I can't believe there are multiple posters arguing against the importance of having a strong team around you to help showcase your talent. It's true of any team sport. Maybe basketball is different. And baseball. The above statement is absurd.

That's because you don't understand the art, skill and expertise of soccer scouting.

Messi with 10 bums still looks like Messi

Oh. good example. didn't think about that. (because it doesn't apply to literally anyone else in the world). I'm sure I don't understand team sports. I'm tired of folks on here acting like soccer is some unknowable realm. I hate to break it to all you posters who have coached, have played Div. 1, or are just from another country where you think your knowledge is superior, solely for that fact.

Team sports, and development within those sports, is not chemical engineering. It's not quantum physics. Just because you played a sport doesn't mean your knowledge is superior to anyone who has taken the time to try to understand it. Or that you know the "right" answers on how to develop a player individually or develop players as a club. This is easily demonstrated by the fact that coaches, and former players, and national football structures have different approaches to development and match play. My son had a coach who refused to talk to parents about soccer development or strategy, unless they had a played at a high level. He specifically exempted two parents. He said, you wouldn't talk to a surgeon about how they do their job, so don't talk to me about how I do mine. It's a laughable comparison.

You display ignorance and lack of knowledge whilst claiming the knowledge is rudimentary, at best.

The coach is 100% correct.
People think they have been around electricity for years so they have the same knowledge as the Electrician working on their home, because he didn't go to Oxford and isn't wearing a suit.

Substitute Messi with any exceptional player and they'll show qualities an educated scout or coach will notice in those conditions.

Nope. People correctly think that if they've been through medical school, they could also be an electrician, if they applied themselves to it. It doesn't work the other way. Most soccer coaches weren't deciding between going to Oxford or scrambling around doing summer camps and coaching McLean's 2009 white team. Sorry.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My kid attended, while I sat in the car, sipping coffee and catching up on phone calls to family members, a pleasant 90 minutes. Thus, disclaimer: my information about the tryout itself is all second hand from a tween boy ...

It was mostly scrimmages; kid felt there was not enough space (11v11 on a space appropriate for 7v7) and that few players seemed to have very many touches on the ball; teams seemed unbalanced in terms of talent and in terms of the type of players on a team (e.g., a team with 11 boys and 8 who play defender for their club) and he had no idea how the teams were chosen; within a team, the way the 11 boys decided on positions and formation for the scrimmage was left completely up to them, with the results you'd expect from such an approach with 12/13 year old boys who don't know one another lol ...

But overall he said it was "fine" and that he had fun and is glad he went. So all's well that ends well. We aren't expecting much to come of it but it was an experience.

You used the word teams quite a bit for something that had nothing to do with teams.
All individuals were in the same situation in the same environment it sounds like, so the individuals who adapted and stood out have better recruitment chances.

Yes, you're right - thank you. I forgot soccer is an individual sport and the concept of a "team" or "teamwork" or any sort of organized approach from players thrown onto the pitch with the same pinny color is irrelevant. Done rightly, soccer is a really just a bunch of individuals all running around doing their own thing without regard to any "team" ... my mistake lol

So, DC United U14's next year will be the 11 kids wearing team-orange pinnies

Or maybe it will be the 11 kids from the 3 strong teams who dominated possession against the 6 weaker teams and therefore had far more opportunities to get noticed.

Yes, because scouts look at team possession. Not individual skillsets.

Yes, and playing a scrimmage where Team A is comprised of much more skilled players than Team B has no bearing on whether a skilled player on Team B will even be able to get the ball and have a chance to demonstrate skill. Soccer is an entirely individual sport and strong teammates---oops, sorry, there's that word again---I mean, "strong players wearing the same color pinny as you" have zero effect on your ability to show your skillset.

If you can't touch the ball in a pick-up scrimmage and show skills with (even limited touches) and without the ball, the highest level isn't for you.

I shouldn't respond but alas, I cannot resist.

First, I'm not complaining and I really don't care one way or the other -- my kid liked going to the DCU tryout; I'm not even sure we'd allow him to join DCU if given the chance (logistics, schoolwork, etc.) and he likes his current club.

But you've picked an argument so here's the counterpoint: If I put you on an 11v11 scrimmage squad with ten second graders and put you up against 11 players from the Argentina international team, you would have zero chance to "touch the ball" and "show skills" because your team would be overwhelmed as they toyed with you.

While it's an extreme example, it makes the point that soccer is a team sport and clearly one's teammates in a scrimmage are not meaningless--the more balanced the teams are, the more opportunities you will have to receive the ball and demonstrate skills (both offensively and defensively).

Does that mean players on a weaker side have ZERO opportunities to get touches and demonstrate skills? No, not zero. And I never said zero chances. I was simply conveying what my kid had told me--that in his view (on which I put the secondhand info from a tween disclaimer) the teams were unbalanced, and therefore the opportunities to demonstrate skill were not even roughly equal for players on different scrimmage teams.

I don't know how the scrimmage teams were picked--maybe there was a method to it. I don't know if the scrimmage teams were mixed up in between each scrimmage (I frankly wasn't that interested and didn't even ask my kid). And as I said, this is all second-hand coming from my kid, so he may not have even been correct that the teams were unbalanced. I don't know one way or the other myself. But it's not irrelevant or I wouldn't have mentioned it.

Strong player on the weak team will stand out more than strong players on team of strong players.

I can't believe there are multiple posters arguing against the importance of having a strong team around you to help showcase your talent. It's true of any team sport. Maybe basketball is different. And baseball. The above statement is absurd.

That's because you don't understand the art, skill and expertise of soccer scouting.

Messi with 10 bums still looks like Messi

Oh. good example. didn't think about that. (because it doesn't apply to literally anyone else in the world). I'm sure I don't understand team sports. I'm tired of folks on here acting like soccer is some unknowable realm. I hate to break it to all you posters who have coached, have played Div. 1, or are just from another country where you think your knowledge is superior, solely for that fact.

Team sports, and development within those sports, is not chemical engineering. It's not quantum physics. Just because you played a sport doesn't mean your knowledge is superior to anyone who has taken the time to try to understand it. Or that you know the "right" answers on how to develop a player individually or develop players as a club. This is easily demonstrated by the fact that coaches, and former players, and national football structures have different approaches to development and match play. My son had a coach who refused to talk to parents about soccer development or strategy, unless they had a played at a high level. He specifically exempted two parents. He said, you wouldn't talk to a surgeon about how they do their job, so don't talk to me about how I do mine. It's a laughable comparison.

You display ignorance and lack of knowledge whilst claiming the knowledge is rudimentary, at best.

The coach is 100% correct.
People think they have been around electricity for years so they have the same knowledge as the Electrician working on their home, because he didn't go to Oxford and isn't wearing a suit.

Substitute Messi with any exceptional player and they'll show qualities an educated scout or coach will notice in those conditions.

Nope. People correctly think that if they've been through medical school, they could also be an electrician, if they applied themselves to it. It doesn't work the other way. Most soccer coaches weren't deciding between going to Oxford or scrambling around doing summer camps and coaching McLean's 2009 white team. Sorry.

This wasn't at all meant to be a comment on the coach of that team. Whoever it is. I just used a club name and color. Could have been anything. And I shouldn't have sounded so mean. Coaches have a tough job and I appreciate what they do. So much of it is NOT about superior knowledge of the game. Some is.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My kid attended, while I sat in the car, sipping coffee and catching up on phone calls to family members, a pleasant 90 minutes. Thus, disclaimer: my information about the tryout itself is all second hand from a tween boy ...

It was mostly scrimmages; kid felt there was not enough space (11v11 on a space appropriate for 7v7) and that few players seemed to have very many touches on the ball; teams seemed unbalanced in terms of talent and in terms of the type of players on a team (e.g., a team with 11 boys and 8 who play defender for their club) and he had no idea how the teams were chosen; within a team, the way the 11 boys decided on positions and formation for the scrimmage was left completely up to them, with the results you'd expect from such an approach with 12/13 year old boys who don't know one another lol ...

But overall he said it was "fine" and that he had fun and is glad he went. So all's well that ends well. We aren't expecting much to come of it but it was an experience.

You used the word teams quite a bit for something that had nothing to do with teams.
All individuals were in the same situation in the same environment it sounds like, so the individuals who adapted and stood out have better recruitment chances.

Yes, you're right - thank you. I forgot soccer is an individual sport and the concept of a "team" or "teamwork" or any sort of organized approach from players thrown onto the pitch with the same pinny color is irrelevant. Done rightly, soccer is a really just a bunch of individuals all running around doing their own thing without regard to any "team" ... my mistake lol

So, DC United U14's next year will be the 11 kids wearing team-orange pinnies

Or maybe it will be the 11 kids from the 3 strong teams who dominated possession against the 6 weaker teams and therefore had far more opportunities to get noticed.

Yes, because scouts look at team possession. Not individual skillsets.

Yes, and playing a scrimmage where Team A is comprised of much more skilled players than Team B has no bearing on whether a skilled player on Team B will even be able to get the ball and have a chance to demonstrate skill. Soccer is an entirely individual sport and strong teammates---oops, sorry, there's that word again---I mean, "strong players wearing the same color pinny as you" have zero effect on your ability to show your skillset.

If you can't touch the ball in a pick-up scrimmage and show skills with (even limited touches) and without the ball, the highest level isn't for you.

I shouldn't respond but alas, I cannot resist.

First, I'm not complaining and I really don't care one way or the other -- my kid liked going to the DCU tryout; I'm not even sure we'd allow him to join DCU if given the chance (logistics, schoolwork, etc.) and he likes his current club.

But you've picked an argument so here's the counterpoint: If I put you on an 11v11 scrimmage squad with ten second graders and put you up against 11 players from the Argentina international team, you would have zero chance to "touch the ball" and "show skills" because your team would be overwhelmed as they toyed with you.

While it's an extreme example, it makes the point that soccer is a team sport and clearly one's teammates in a scrimmage are not meaningless--the more balanced the teams are, the more opportunities you will have to receive the ball and demonstrate skills (both offensively and defensively).

Does that mean players on a weaker side have ZERO opportunities to get touches and demonstrate skills? No, not zero. And I never said zero chances. I was simply conveying what my kid had told me--that in his view (on which I put the secondhand info from a tween disclaimer) the teams were unbalanced, and therefore the opportunities to demonstrate skill were not even roughly equal for players on different scrimmage teams.

I don't know how the scrimmage teams were picked--maybe there was a method to it. I don't know if the scrimmage teams were mixed up in between each scrimmage (I frankly wasn't that interested and didn't even ask my kid). And as I said, this is all second-hand coming from my kid, so he may not have even been correct that the teams were unbalanced. I don't know one way or the other myself. But it's not irrelevant or I wouldn't have mentioned it.

Strong player on the weak team will stand out more than strong players on team of strong players.

I can't believe there are multiple posters arguing against the importance of having a strong team around you to help showcase your talent. It's true of any team sport. Maybe basketball is different. And baseball. The above statement is absurd.

That's because you don't understand the art, skill and expertise of soccer scouting.

Messi with 10 bums still looks like Messi

Oh. good example. didn't think about that. (because it doesn't apply to literally anyone else in the world). I'm sure I don't understand team sports. I'm tired of folks on here acting like soccer is some unknowable realm. I hate to break it to all you posters who have coached, have played Div. 1, or are just from another country where you think your knowledge is superior, solely for that fact.

Team sports, and development within those sports, is not chemical engineering. It's not quantum physics. Just because you played a sport doesn't mean your knowledge is superior to anyone who has taken the time to try to understand it. Or that you know the "right" answers on how to develop a player individually or develop players as a club. This is easily demonstrated by the fact that coaches, and former players, and national football structures have different approaches to development and match play. My son had a coach who refused to talk to parents about soccer development or strategy, unless they had a played at a high level. He specifically exempted two parents. He said, you wouldn't talk to a surgeon about how they do their job, so don't talk to me about how I do mine. It's a laughable comparison.

You display ignorance and lack of knowledge whilst claiming the knowledge is rudimentary, at best.

The coach is 100% correct.
People think they have been around electricity for years so they have the same knowledge as the Electrician working on their home, because he didn't go to Oxford and isn't wearing a suit.

Substitute Messi with any exceptional player and they'll show qualities an educated scout or coach will notice in those conditions.

Nope. People correctly think that if they've been through medical school, they could also be an electrician, if they applied themselves to it. It doesn't work the other way. Most soccer coaches weren't deciding between going to Oxford or scrambling around doing summer camps and coaching McLean's 2009 white team. Sorry.

Okay Elitist Snob...

How can you replace years of playing soccer at high levels, experiencing coaching at high levels, being in high level soccer environment/culture, coaching for years, taking coaching courses, getting licenses, going to coaching education development seminars... with medical school? or MBA? or PhD in molecular biology?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My kid attended, while I sat in the car, sipping coffee and catching up on phone calls to family members, a pleasant 90 minutes. Thus, disclaimer: my information about the tryout itself is all second hand from a tween boy ...

It was mostly scrimmages; kid felt there was not enough space (11v11 on a space appropriate for 7v7) and that few players seemed to have very many touches on the ball; teams seemed unbalanced in terms of talent and in terms of the type of players on a team (e.g., a team with 11 boys and 8 who play defender for their club) and he had no idea how the teams were chosen; within a team, the way the 11 boys decided on positions and formation for the scrimmage was left completely up to them, with the results you'd expect from such an approach with 12/13 year old boys who don't know one another lol ...

But overall he said it was "fine" and that he had fun and is glad he went. So all's well that ends well. We aren't expecting much to come of it but it was an experience.

You used the word teams quite a bit for something that had nothing to do with teams.
All individuals were in the same situation in the same environment it sounds like, so the individuals who adapted and stood out have better recruitment chances.

Yes, you're right - thank you. I forgot soccer is an individual sport and the concept of a "team" or "teamwork" or any sort of organized approach from players thrown onto the pitch with the same pinny color is irrelevant. Done rightly, soccer is a really just a bunch of individuals all running around doing their own thing without regard to any "team" ... my mistake lol

So, DC United U14's next year will be the 11 kids wearing team-orange pinnies

Or maybe it will be the 11 kids from the 3 strong teams who dominated possession against the 6 weaker teams and therefore had far more opportunities to get noticed.

Yes, because scouts look at team possession. Not individual skillsets.

Yes, and playing a scrimmage where Team A is comprised of much more skilled players than Team B has no bearing on whether a skilled player on Team B will even be able to get the ball and have a chance to demonstrate skill. Soccer is an entirely individual sport and strong teammates---oops, sorry, there's that word again---I mean, "strong players wearing the same color pinny as you" have zero effect on your ability to show your skillset.

If you can't touch the ball in a pick-up scrimmage and show skills with (even limited touches) and without the ball, the highest level isn't for you.

I shouldn't respond but alas, I cannot resist.

First, I'm not complaining and I really don't care one way or the other -- my kid liked going to the DCU tryout; I'm not even sure we'd allow him to join DCU if given the chance (logistics, schoolwork, etc.) and he likes his current club.

But you've picked an argument so here's the counterpoint: If I put you on an 11v11 scrimmage squad with ten second graders and put you up against 11 players from the Argentina international team, you would have zero chance to "touch the ball" and "show skills" because your team would be overwhelmed as they toyed with you.

While it's an extreme example, it makes the point that soccer is a team sport and clearly one's teammates in a scrimmage are not meaningless--the more balanced the teams are, the more opportunities you will have to receive the ball and demonstrate skills (both offensively and defensively).

Does that mean players on a weaker side have ZERO opportunities to get touches and demonstrate skills? No, not zero. And I never said zero chances. I was simply conveying what my kid had told me--that in his view (on which I put the secondhand info from a tween disclaimer) the teams were unbalanced, and therefore the opportunities to demonstrate skill were not even roughly equal for players on different scrimmage teams.

I don't know how the scrimmage teams were picked--maybe there was a method to it. I don't know if the scrimmage teams were mixed up in between each scrimmage (I frankly wasn't that interested and didn't even ask my kid). And as I said, this is all second-hand coming from my kid, so he may not have even been correct that the teams were unbalanced. I don't know one way or the other myself. But it's not irrelevant or I wouldn't have mentioned it.

Strong player on the weak team will stand out more than strong players on team of strong players.

I can't believe there are multiple posters arguing against the importance of having a strong team around you to help showcase your talent. It's true of any team sport. Maybe basketball is different. And baseball. The above statement is absurd.

That's because you don't understand the art, skill and expertise of soccer scouting.

Messi with 10 bums still looks like Messi

Oh. good example. didn't think about that. (because it doesn't apply to literally anyone else in the world). I'm sure I don't understand team sports. I'm tired of folks on here acting like soccer is some unknowable realm. I hate to break it to all you posters who have coached, have played Div. 1, or are just from another country where you think your knowledge is superior, solely for that fact.

Team sports, and development within those sports, is not chemical engineering. It's not quantum physics. Just because you played a sport doesn't mean your knowledge is superior to anyone who has taken the time to try to understand it. Or that you know the "right" answers on how to develop a player individually or develop players as a club. This is easily demonstrated by the fact that coaches, and former players, and national football structures have different approaches to development and match play. My son had a coach who refused to talk to parents about soccer development or strategy, unless they had a played at a high level. He specifically exempted two parents. He said, you wouldn't talk to a surgeon about how they do their job, so don't talk to me about how I do mine. It's a laughable comparison.

You display ignorance and lack of knowledge whilst claiming the knowledge is rudimentary, at best.

The coach is 100% correct.
People think they have been around electricity for years so they have the same knowledge as the Electrician working on their home, because he didn't go to Oxford and isn't wearing a suit.

Substitute Messi with any exceptional player and they'll show qualities an educated scout or coach will notice in those conditions.

Nope. People correctly think that if they've been through medical school, they could also be an electrician, if they applied themselves to it. It doesn't work the other way. Most soccer coaches weren't deciding between going to Oxford or scrambling around doing summer camps and coaching McLean's 2009 white team. Sorry.

Okay Elitist Snob...

How can you replace years of playing soccer at high levels, experiencing coaching at high levels, being in high level soccer environment/culture, coaching for years, taking coaching courses, getting licenses, going to coaching education development seminars... with medical school? or MBA? or PhD in molecular biology?

I'm not a molecular biologist. I know, from taking chemistry classes, that I do not have the ability to be a molecular biologist. That's OK. I there are lots of things that are above my capacity. Do you honestly believe that youth sports team training and development is comparable in its complexity with an advanced science? And for the purposes of having a discussion about it, you need all those years of experience? It's simply not that advanced.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My kid attended, while I sat in the car, sipping coffee and catching up on phone calls to family members, a pleasant 90 minutes. Thus, disclaimer: my information about the tryout itself is all second hand from a tween boy ...

It was mostly scrimmages; kid felt there was not enough space (11v11 on a space appropriate for 7v7) and that few players seemed to have very many touches on the ball; teams seemed unbalanced in terms of talent and in terms of the type of players on a team (e.g., a team with 11 boys and 8 who play defender for their club) and he had no idea how the teams were chosen; within a team, the way the 11 boys decided on positions and formation for the scrimmage was left completely up to them, with the results you'd expect from such an approach with 12/13 year old boys who don't know one another lol ...

But overall he said it was "fine" and that he had fun and is glad he went. So all's well that ends well. We aren't expecting much to come of it but it was an experience.

You used the word teams quite a bit for something that had nothing to do with teams.
All individuals were in the same situation in the same environment it sounds like, so the individuals who adapted and stood out have better recruitment chances.

Yes, you're right - thank you. I forgot soccer is an individual sport and the concept of a "team" or "teamwork" or any sort of organized approach from players thrown onto the pitch with the same pinny color is irrelevant. Done rightly, soccer is a really just a bunch of individuals all running around doing their own thing without regard to any "team" ... my mistake lol

So, DC United U14's next year will be the 11 kids wearing team-orange pinnies

Or maybe it will be the 11 kids from the 3 strong teams who dominated possession against the 6 weaker teams and therefore had far more opportunities to get noticed.

Yes, because scouts look at team possession. Not individual skillsets.

Yes, and playing a scrimmage where Team A is comprised of much more skilled players than Team B has no bearing on whether a skilled player on Team B will even be able to get the ball and have a chance to demonstrate skill. Soccer is an entirely individual sport and strong teammates---oops, sorry, there's that word again---I mean, "strong players wearing the same color pinny as you" have zero effect on your ability to show your skillset.

If you can't touch the ball in a pick-up scrimmage and show skills with (even limited touches) and without the ball, the highest level isn't for you.

I shouldn't respond but alas, I cannot resist.

First, I'm not complaining and I really don't care one way or the other -- my kid liked going to the DCU tryout; I'm not even sure we'd allow him to join DCU if given the chance (logistics, schoolwork, etc.) and he likes his current club.

But you've picked an argument so here's the counterpoint: If I put you on an 11v11 scrimmage squad with ten second graders and put you up against 11 players from the Argentina international team, you would have zero chance to "touch the ball" and "show skills" because your team would be overwhelmed as they toyed with you.

While it's an extreme example, it makes the point that soccer is a team sport and clearly one's teammates in a scrimmage are not meaningless--the more balanced the teams are, the more opportunities you will have to receive the ball and demonstrate skills (both offensively and defensively).

Does that mean players on a weaker side have ZERO opportunities to get touches and demonstrate skills? No, not zero. And I never said zero chances. I was simply conveying what my kid had told me--that in his view (on which I put the secondhand info from a tween disclaimer) the teams were unbalanced, and therefore the opportunities to demonstrate skill were not even roughly equal for players on different scrimmage teams.

I don't know how the scrimmage teams were picked--maybe there was a method to it. I don't know if the scrimmage teams were mixed up in between each scrimmage (I frankly wasn't that interested and didn't even ask my kid). And as I said, this is all second-hand coming from my kid, so he may not have even been correct that the teams were unbalanced. I don't know one way or the other myself. But it's not irrelevant or I wouldn't have mentioned it.

Strong player on the weak team will stand out more than strong players on team of strong players.

I can't believe there are multiple posters arguing against the importance of having a strong team around you to help showcase your talent. It's true of any team sport. Maybe basketball is different. And baseball. The above statement is absurd.

That's because you don't understand the art, skill and expertise of soccer scouting.

Messi with 10 bums still looks like Messi

Oh. good example. didn't think about that. (because it doesn't apply to literally anyone else in the world). I'm sure I don't understand team sports. I'm tired of folks on here acting like soccer is some unknowable realm. I hate to break it to all you posters who have coached, have played Div. 1, or are just from another country where you think your knowledge is superior, solely for that fact.

Team sports, and development within those sports, is not chemical engineering. It's not quantum physics. Just because you played a sport doesn't mean your knowledge is superior to anyone who has taken the time to try to understand it. Or that you know the "right" answers on how to develop a player individually or develop players as a club. This is easily demonstrated by the fact that coaches, and former players, and national football structures have different approaches to development and match play. My son had a coach who refused to talk to parents about soccer development or strategy, unless they had a played at a high level. He specifically exempted two parents. He said, you wouldn't talk to a surgeon about how they do their job, so don't talk to me about how I do mine. It's a laughable comparison.

You display ignorance and lack of knowledge whilst claiming the knowledge is rudimentary, at best.

The coach is 100% correct.
People think they have been around electricity for years so they have the same knowledge as the Electrician working on their home, because he didn't go to Oxford and isn't wearing a suit.

Substitute Messi with any exceptional player and they'll show qualities an educated scout or coach will notice in those conditions.

Nope. People correctly think that if they've been through medical school, they could also be an electrician, if they applied themselves to it. It doesn't work the other way. Most soccer coaches weren't deciding between going to Oxford or scrambling around doing summer camps and coaching McLean's 2009 white team. Sorry.

Okay Elitist Snob...

How can you replace years of playing soccer at high levels, experiencing coaching at high levels, being in high level soccer environment/culture, coaching for years, taking coaching courses, getting licenses, going to coaching education development seminars... with medical school? or MBA? or PhD in molecular biology?

I'm not a molecular biologist. I know, from taking chemistry classes, that I do not have the ability to be a molecular biologist. That's OK. I there are lots of things that are above my capacity. Do you honestly believe that youth sports team training and development is comparable in its complexity with an advanced science? And for the purposes of having a discussion about it, you need all those years of experience? It's simply not that advanced.

I know by attempting to belittle the required experience, knowledge and other Qualifications to be a proper youth soccer coach, you're trying to elevate your insecurities.

Your ignorance of the difference between your knowledge and that of a qualified real coach is your achilles heel.
Why do you keep generalizing with "youth sports team" when we're speaking specifically about soccer development?
Though that's just showing your narcissistic arrogance looks down on all youth coaches in all sports.

Should give you a bad news bears team for a season and record training sessions/games for a netflix special as you demonstrate your mastery.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My kid attended, while I sat in the car, sipping coffee and catching up on phone calls to family members, a pleasant 90 minutes. Thus, disclaimer: my information about the tryout itself is all second hand from a tween boy ...

It was mostly scrimmages; kid felt there was not enough space (11v11 on a space appropriate for 7v7) and that few players seemed to have very many touches on the ball; teams seemed unbalanced in terms of talent and in terms of the type of players on a team (e.g., a team with 11 boys and 8 who play defender for their club) and he had no idea how the teams were chosen; within a team, the way the 11 boys decided on positions and formation for the scrimmage was left completely up to them, with the results you'd expect from such an approach with 12/13 year old boys who don't know one another lol ...

But overall he said it was "fine" and that he had fun and is glad he went. So all's well that ends well. We aren't expecting much to come of it but it was an experience.

You used the word teams quite a bit for something that had nothing to do with teams.
All individuals were in the same situation in the same environment it sounds like, so the individuals who adapted and stood out have better recruitment chances.

Yes, you're right - thank you. I forgot soccer is an individual sport and the concept of a "team" or "teamwork" or any sort of organized approach from players thrown onto the pitch with the same pinny color is irrelevant. Done rightly, soccer is a really just a bunch of individuals all running around doing their own thing without regard to any "team" ... my mistake lol

So, DC United U14's next year will be the 11 kids wearing team-orange pinnies

Or maybe it will be the 11 kids from the 3 strong teams who dominated possession against the 6 weaker teams and therefore had far more opportunities to get noticed.

Yes, because scouts look at team possession. Not individual skillsets.

Yes, and playing a scrimmage where Team A is comprised of much more skilled players than Team B has no bearing on whether a skilled player on Team B will even be able to get the ball and have a chance to demonstrate skill. Soccer is an entirely individual sport and strong teammates---oops, sorry, there's that word again---I mean, "strong players wearing the same color pinny as you" have zero effect on your ability to show your skillset.

If you can't touch the ball in a pick-up scrimmage and show skills with (even limited touches) and without the ball, the highest level isn't for you.

I shouldn't respond but alas, I cannot resist.

First, I'm not complaining and I really don't care one way or the other -- my kid liked going to the DCU tryout; I'm not even sure we'd allow him to join DCU if given the chance (logistics, schoolwork, etc.) and he likes his current club.

But you've picked an argument so here's the counterpoint: If I put you on an 11v11 scrimmage squad with ten second graders and put you up against 11 players from the Argentina international team, you would have zero chance to "touch the ball" and "show skills" because your team would be overwhelmed as they toyed with you.

While it's an extreme example, it makes the point that soccer is a team sport and clearly one's teammates in a scrimmage are not meaningless--the more balanced the teams are, the more opportunities you will have to receive the ball and demonstrate skills (both offensively and defensively).

Does that mean players on a weaker side have ZERO opportunities to get touches and demonstrate skills? No, not zero. And I never said zero chances. I was simply conveying what my kid had told me--that in his view (on which I put the secondhand info from a tween disclaimer) the teams were unbalanced, and therefore the opportunities to demonstrate skill were not even roughly equal for players on different scrimmage teams.

I don't know how the scrimmage teams were picked--maybe there was a method to it. I don't know if the scrimmage teams were mixed up in between each scrimmage (I frankly wasn't that interested and didn't even ask my kid). And as I said, this is all second-hand coming from my kid, so he may not have even been correct that the teams were unbalanced. I don't know one way or the other myself. But it's not irrelevant or I wouldn't have mentioned it.

Strong player on the weak team will stand out more than strong players on team of strong players.

I can't believe there are multiple posters arguing against the importance of having a strong team around you to help showcase your talent. It's true of any team sport. Maybe basketball is different. And baseball. The above statement is absurd.

That's because you don't understand the art, skill and expertise of soccer scouting.

Messi with 10 bums still looks like Messi

Oh. good example. didn't think about that. (because it doesn't apply to literally anyone else in the world). I'm sure I don't understand team sports. I'm tired of folks on here acting like soccer is some unknowable realm. I hate to break it to all you posters who have coached, have played Div. 1, or are just from another country where you think your knowledge is superior, solely for that fact.

Team sports, and development within those sports, is not chemical engineering. It's not quantum physics. Just because you played a sport doesn't mean your knowledge is superior to anyone who has taken the time to try to understand it. Or that you know the "right" answers on how to develop a player individually or develop players as a club. This is easily demonstrated by the fact that coaches, and former players, and national football structures have different approaches to development and match play. My son had a coach who refused to talk to parents about soccer development or strategy, unless they had a played at a high level. He specifically exempted two parents. He said, you wouldn't talk to a surgeon about how they do their job, so don't talk to me about how I do mine. It's a laughable comparison.

You display ignorance and lack of knowledge whilst claiming the knowledge is rudimentary, at best.

The coach is 100% correct.
People think they have been around electricity for years so they have the same knowledge as the Electrician working on their home, because he didn't go to Oxford and isn't wearing a suit.

Substitute Messi with any exceptional player and they'll show qualities an educated scout or coach will notice in those conditions.

Nope. People correctly think that if they've been through medical school, they could also be an electrician, if they applied themselves to it. It doesn't work the other way. Most soccer coaches weren't deciding between going to Oxford or scrambling around doing summer camps and coaching McLean's 2009 white team. Sorry.

Okay Elitist Snob...

How can you replace years of playing soccer at high levels, experiencing coaching at high levels, being in high level soccer environment/culture, coaching for years, taking coaching courses, getting licenses, going to coaching education development seminars... with medical school? or MBA? or PhD in molecular biology?

I'm not a molecular biologist. I know, from taking chemistry classes, that I do not have the ability to be a molecular biologist. That's OK. I there are lots of things that are above my capacity. Do you honestly believe that youth sports team training and development is comparable in its complexity with an advanced science? And for the purposes of having a discussion about it, you need all those years of experience? It's simply not that advanced.

I know by attempting to belittle the required experience, knowledge and other Qualifications to be a proper youth soccer coach, you're trying to elevate your insecurities.

Your ignorance of the difference between your knowledge and that of a qualified real coach is your achilles heel.
Why do you keep generalizing with "youth sports team" when we're speaking specifically about soccer development?
Though that's just showing your narcissistic arrogance looks down on all youth coaches in all sports.

Should give you a bad news bears team for a season and record training sessions/games for a netflix special as you demonstrate your mastery.

On the contrary, and this is exactly what I'm talking about. A soccer coach could definitely do my job. I'm not insecure at all. I recognize that there are many things I don't have the capacity to understand. Youth sports isn't one of them. And the reason I generalize to youth sports is to point out this mentality in soccer, specifically. There's an exceptionalism among some folks that is inexplicable. It's a team sport. It is not some magical, unknowable enigma. Lots of the same concepts are mirrored in other sports, specifically basketball, lacrosse, hockey, etc. And training for those sports have differences, for sure, but it's not like understanding gravitational waves.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:To the PP, thank you so much for sharing! This is so interesting AND helpful AND kind.

+1 friggin unicorn over here

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My kid attended, while I sat in the car, sipping coffee and catching up on phone calls to family members, a pleasant 90 minutes. Thus, disclaimer: my information about the tryout itself is all second hand from a tween boy ...

It was mostly scrimmages; kid felt there was not enough space (11v11 on a space appropriate for 7v7) and that few players seemed to have very many touches on the ball; teams seemed unbalanced in terms of talent and in terms of the type of players on a team (e.g., a team with 11 boys and 8 who play defender for their club) and he had no idea how the teams were chosen; within a team, the way the 11 boys decided on positions and formation for the scrimmage was left completely up to them, with the results you'd expect from such an approach with 12/13 year old boys who don't know one another lol ...

But overall he said it was "fine" and that he had fun and is glad he went. So all's well that ends well. We aren't expecting much to come of it but it was an experience.

You used the word teams quite a bit for something that had nothing to do with teams.
All individuals were in the same situation in the same environment it sounds like, so the individuals who adapted and stood out have better recruitment chances.

Yes, you're right - thank you. I forgot soccer is an individual sport and the concept of a "team" or "teamwork" or any sort of organized approach from players thrown onto the pitch with the same pinny color is irrelevant. Done rightly, soccer is a really just a bunch of individuals all running around doing their own thing without regard to any "team" ... my mistake lol

So, DC United U14's next year will be the 11 kids wearing team-orange pinnies

Or maybe it will be the 11 kids from the 3 strong teams who dominated possession against the 6 weaker teams and therefore had far more opportunities to get noticed.

Yes, because scouts look at team possession. Not individual skillsets.

Yes, and playing a scrimmage where Team A is comprised of much more skilled players than Team B has no bearing on whether a skilled player on Team B will even be able to get the ball and have a chance to demonstrate skill. Soccer is an entirely individual sport and strong teammates---oops, sorry, there's that word again---I mean, "strong players wearing the same color pinny as you" have zero effect on your ability to show your skillset.

If you can't touch the ball in a pick-up scrimmage and show skills with (even limited touches) and without the ball, the highest level isn't for you.

I shouldn't respond but alas, I cannot resist.

First, I'm not complaining and I really don't care one way or the other -- my kid liked going to the DCU tryout; I'm not even sure we'd allow him to join DCU if given the chance (logistics, schoolwork, etc.) and he likes his current club.

But you've picked an argument so here's the counterpoint: If I put you on an 11v11 scrimmage squad with ten second graders and put you up against 11 players from the Argentina international team, you would have zero chance to "touch the ball" and "show skills" because your team would be overwhelmed as they toyed with you.

While it's an extreme example, it makes the point that soccer is a team sport and clearly one's teammates in a scrimmage are not meaningless--the more balanced the teams are, the more opportunities you will have to receive the ball and demonstrate skills (both offensively and defensively).

Does that mean players on a weaker side have ZERO opportunities to get touches and demonstrate skills? No, not zero. And I never said zero chances. I was simply conveying what my kid had told me--that in his view (on which I put the secondhand info from a tween disclaimer) the teams were unbalanced, and therefore the opportunities to demonstrate skill were not even roughly equal for players on different scrimmage teams.

I don't know how the scrimmage teams were picked--maybe there was a method to it. I don't know if the scrimmage teams were mixed up in between each scrimmage (I frankly wasn't that interested and didn't even ask my kid). And as I said, this is all second-hand coming from my kid, so he may not have even been correct that the teams were unbalanced. I don't know one way or the other myself. But it's not irrelevant or I wouldn't have mentioned it.

Strong player on the weak team will stand out more than strong players on team of strong players.

I can't believe there are multiple posters arguing against the importance of having a strong team around you to help showcase your talent. It's true of any team sport. Maybe basketball is different. And baseball. The above statement is absurd.

That's because you don't understand the art, skill and expertise of soccer scouting.

Messi with 10 bums still looks like Messi

Oh. good example. didn't think about that. (because it doesn't apply to literally anyone else in the world). I'm sure I don't understand team sports. I'm tired of folks on here acting like soccer is some unknowable realm. I hate to break it to all you posters who have coached, have played Div. 1, or are just from another country where you think your knowledge is superior, solely for that fact.

Team sports, and development within those sports, is not chemical engineering. It's not quantum physics. Just because you played a sport doesn't mean your knowledge is superior to anyone who has taken the time to try to understand it. Or that you know the "right" answers on how to develop a player individually or develop players as a club. This is easily demonstrated by the fact that coaches, and former players, and national football structures have different approaches to development and match play. My son had a coach who refused to talk to parents about soccer development or strategy, unless they had a played at a high level. He specifically exempted two parents. He said, you wouldn't talk to a surgeon about how they do their job, so don't talk to me about how I do mine. It's a laughable comparison.

You display ignorance and lack of knowledge whilst claiming the knowledge is rudimentary, at best.

The coach is 100% correct.
People think they have been around electricity for years so they have the same knowledge as the Electrician working on their home, because he didn't go to Oxford and isn't wearing a suit.

Substitute Messi with any exceptional player and they'll show qualities an educated scout or coach will notice in those conditions.

Nope. People correctly think that if they've been through medical school, they could also be an electrician, if they applied themselves to it. It doesn't work the other way. Most soccer coaches weren't deciding between going to Oxford or scrambling around doing summer camps and coaching McLean's 2009 white team. Sorry.

Okay Elitist Snob...

How can you replace years of playing soccer at high levels, experiencing coaching at high levels, being in high level soccer environment/culture, coaching for years, taking coaching courses, getting licenses, going to coaching education development seminars... with medical school? or MBA? or PhD in molecular biology?

I'm not a molecular biologist. I know, from taking chemistry classes, that I do not have the ability to be a molecular biologist. That's OK. I there are lots of things that are above my capacity. Do you honestly believe that youth sports team training and development is comparable in its complexity with an advanced science? And for the purposes of having a discussion about it, you need all those years of experience? It's simply not that advanced.

I know by attempting to belittle the required experience, knowledge and other Qualifications to be a proper youth soccer coach, you're trying to elevate your insecurities.

Your ignorance of the difference between your knowledge and that of a qualified real coach is your achilles heel.
Why do you keep generalizing with "youth sports team" when we're speaking specifically about soccer development?
Though that's just showing your narcissistic arrogance looks down on all youth coaches in all sports.

Should give you a bad news bears team for a season and record training sessions/games for a netflix special as you demonstrate your mastery.

On the contrary, and this is exactly what I'm talking about. A soccer coach could definitely do my job. I'm not insecure at all. I recognize that there are many things I don't have the capacity to understand. Youth sports isn't one of them. And the reason I generalize to youth sports is to point out this mentality in soccer, specifically. There's an exceptionalism among some folks that is inexplicable. It's a team sport. It is not some magical, unknowable enigma. Lots of the same concepts are mirrored in other sports, specifically basketball, lacrosse, hockey, etc. And training for those sports have differences, for sure, but it's not like understanding gravitational waves.

We can all go out there and 'coach' a bunch of kids.
Doesn't mean we'll be any bloody good at it. Though some of us think so.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My kid attended, while I sat in the car, sipping coffee and catching up on phone calls to family members, a pleasant 90 minutes. Thus, disclaimer: my information about the tryout itself is all second hand from a tween boy ...

It was mostly scrimmages; kid felt there was not enough space (11v11 on a space appropriate for 7v7) and that few players seemed to have very many touches on the ball; teams seemed unbalanced in terms of talent and in terms of the type of players on a team (e.g., a team with 11 boys and 8 who play defender for their club) and he had no idea how the teams were chosen; within a team, the way the 11 boys decided on positions and formation for the scrimmage was left completely up to them, with the results you'd expect from such an approach with 12/13 year old boys who don't know one another lol ...

But overall he said it was "fine" and that he had fun and is glad he went. So all's well that ends well. We aren't expecting much to come of it but it was an experience.

You used the word teams quite a bit for something that had nothing to do with teams.
All individuals were in the same situation in the same environment it sounds like, so the individuals who adapted and stood out have better recruitment chances.

Yes, you're right - thank you. I forgot soccer is an individual sport and the concept of a "team" or "teamwork" or any sort of organized approach from players thrown onto the pitch with the same pinny color is irrelevant. Done rightly, soccer is a really just a bunch of individuals all running around doing their own thing without regard to any "team" ... my mistake lol

So, DC United U14's next year will be the 11 kids wearing team-orange pinnies

Or maybe it will be the 11 kids from the 3 strong teams who dominated possession against the 6 weaker teams and therefore had far more opportunities to get noticed.

Yes, because scouts look at team possession. Not individual skillsets.

Yes, and playing a scrimmage where Team A is comprised of much more skilled players than Team B has no bearing on whether a skilled player on Team B will even be able to get the ball and have a chance to demonstrate skill. Soccer is an entirely individual sport and strong teammates---oops, sorry, there's that word again---I mean, "strong players wearing the same color pinny as you" have zero effect on your ability to show your skillset.

If you can't touch the ball in a pick-up scrimmage and show skills with (even limited touches) and without the ball, the highest level isn't for you.

I shouldn't respond but alas, I cannot resist.

First, I'm not complaining and I really don't care one way or the other -- my kid liked going to the DCU tryout; I'm not even sure we'd allow him to join DCU if given the chance (logistics, schoolwork, etc.) and he likes his current club.

But you've picked an argument so here's the counterpoint: If I put you on an 11v11 scrimmage squad with ten second graders and put you up against 11 players from the Argentina international team, you would have zero chance to "touch the ball" and "show skills" because your team would be overwhelmed as they toyed with you.

While it's an extreme example, it makes the point that soccer is a team sport and clearly one's teammates in a scrimmage are not meaningless--the more balanced the teams are, the more opportunities you will have to receive the ball and demonstrate skills (both offensively and defensively).

Does that mean players on a weaker side have ZERO opportunities to get touches and demonstrate skills? No, not zero. And I never said zero chances. I was simply conveying what my kid had told me--that in his view (on which I put the secondhand info from a tween disclaimer) the teams were unbalanced, and therefore the opportunities to demonstrate skill were not even roughly equal for players on different scrimmage teams.

I don't know how the scrimmage teams were picked--maybe there was a method to it. I don't know if the scrimmage teams were mixed up in between each scrimmage (I frankly wasn't that interested and didn't even ask my kid). And as I said, this is all second-hand coming from my kid, so he may not have even been correct that the teams were unbalanced. I don't know one way or the other myself. But it's not irrelevant or I wouldn't have mentioned it.

Strong player on the weak team will stand out more than strong players on team of strong players.

I can't believe there are multiple posters arguing against the importance of having a strong team around you to help showcase your talent. It's true of any team sport. Maybe basketball is different. And baseball. The above statement is absurd.

That's because you don't understand the art, skill and expertise of soccer scouting.

Messi with 10 bums still looks like Messi

Oh. good example. didn't think about that. (because it doesn't apply to literally anyone else in the world). I'm sure I don't understand team sports. I'm tired of folks on here acting like soccer is some unknowable realm. I hate to break it to all you posters who have coached, have played Div. 1, or are just from another country where you think your knowledge is superior, solely for that fact.

Team sports, and development within those sports, is not chemical engineering. It's not quantum physics. Just because you played a sport doesn't mean your knowledge is superior to anyone who has taken the time to try to understand it. Or that you know the "right" answers on how to develop a player individually or develop players as a club. This is easily demonstrated by the fact that coaches, and former players, and national football structures have different approaches to development and match play. My son had a coach who refused to talk to parents about soccer development or strategy, unless they had a played at a high level. He specifically exempted two parents. He said, you wouldn't talk to a surgeon about how they do their job, so don't talk to me about how I do mine. It's a laughable comparison.

You display ignorance and lack of knowledge whilst claiming the knowledge is rudimentary, at best.

The coach is 100% correct.
People think they have been around electricity for years so they have the same knowledge as the Electrician working on their home, because he didn't go to Oxford and isn't wearing a suit.

Substitute Messi with any exceptional player and they'll show qualities an educated scout or coach will notice in those conditions.

Nope. People correctly think that if they've been through medical school, they could also be an electrician, if they applied themselves to it. It doesn't work the other way. Most soccer coaches weren't deciding between going to Oxford or scrambling around doing summer camps and coaching McLean's 2009 white team. Sorry.

Okay Elitist Snob...

How can you replace years of playing soccer at high levels, experiencing coaching at high levels, being in high level soccer environment/culture, coaching for years, taking coaching courses, getting licenses, going to coaching education development seminars... with medical school? or MBA? or PhD in molecular biology?

I'm not a molecular biologist. I know, from taking chemistry classes, that I do not have the ability to be a molecular biologist. That's OK. I there are lots of things that are above my capacity. Do you honestly believe that youth sports team training and development is comparable in its complexity with an advanced science? And for the purposes of having a discussion about it, you need all those years of experience? It's simply not that advanced.

I know by attempting to belittle the required experience, knowledge and other Qualifications to be a proper youth soccer coach, you're trying to elevate your insecurities.

Your ignorance of the difference between your knowledge and that of a qualified real coach is your achilles heel.
Why do you keep generalizing with "youth sports team" when we're speaking specifically about soccer development?
Though that's just showing your narcissistic arrogance looks down on all youth coaches in all sports.

Should give you a bad news bears team for a season and record training sessions/games for a netflix special as you demonstrate your mastery.

On the contrary, and this is exactly what I'm talking about. A soccer coach could definitely do my job. I'm not insecure at all. I recognize that there are many things I don't have the capacity to understand. Youth sports isn't one of them. And the reason I generalize to youth sports is to point out this mentality in soccer, specifically. There's an exceptionalism among some folks that is inexplicable. It's a team sport. It is not some magical, unknowable enigma. Lots of the same concepts are mirrored in other sports, specifically basketball, lacrosse, hockey, etc. And training for those sports have differences, for sure, but it's not like understanding gravitational waves.

We can all go out there and 'coach' a bunch of kids.
Doesn't mean we'll be any bloody good at it. Though some of us think so.

Nobody said anything about being good at coaching. The point was supposed to have been that people who haven't played or coached at a high level can have valid, constructive, and insightful opinions about youth soccer. The elitism is among the people who think that all Americans, or people who are new to the sport, can't understand it enough to have a discussion about it. Soccer is understandable. I'm not talking about making a suggestion to Pep Guardiola about how best to use Phil Foden when both DeBruyne and Haaland are on the pitch. But I think it's fair to have an opinion about whether stacking a team at a scrimmage is the best way to evaluate players. Or talk to a youth soccer coach about whether my son or daughter is being played out of position to the detriment of their development. Or question a coaches training sessions, especially when you know there are other coaches that do it differently.

[Anonymous]

Just be a fan its way easier guys, hug it out?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My kid attended, while I sat in the car, sipping coffee and catching up on phone calls to family members, a pleasant 90 minutes. Thus, disclaimer: my information about the tryout itself is all second hand from a tween boy ...

It was mostly scrimmages; kid felt there was not enough space (11v11 on a space appropriate for 7v7) and that few players seemed to have very many touches on the ball; teams seemed unbalanced in terms of talent and in terms of the type of players on a team (e.g., a team with 11 boys and 8 who play defender for their club) and he had no idea how the teams were chosen; within a team, the way the 11 boys decided on positions and formation for the scrimmage was left completely up to them, with the results you'd expect from such an approach with 12/13 year old boys who don't know one another lol ...

But overall he said it was "fine" and that he had fun and is glad he went. So all's well that ends well. We aren't expecting much to come of it but it was an experience.

You used the word teams quite a bit for something that had nothing to do with teams.
All individuals were in the same situation in the same environment it sounds like, so the individuals who adapted and stood out have better recruitment chances.

Yes, you're right - thank you. I forgot soccer is an individual sport and the concept of a "team" or "teamwork" or any sort of organized approach from players thrown onto the pitch with the same pinny color is irrelevant. Done rightly, soccer is a really just a bunch of individuals all running around doing their own thing without regard to any "team" ... my mistake lol

So, DC United U14's next year will be the 11 kids wearing team-orange pinnies

Or maybe it will be the 11 kids from the 3 strong teams who dominated possession against the 6 weaker teams and therefore had far more opportunities to get noticed.

Yes, because scouts look at team possession. Not individual skillsets.

Yes, and playing a scrimmage where Team A is comprised of much more skilled players than Team B has no bearing on whether a skilled player on Team B will even be able to get the ball and have a chance to demonstrate skill. Soccer is an entirely individual sport and strong teammates---oops, sorry, there's that word again---I mean, "strong players wearing the same color pinny as you" have zero effect on your ability to show your skillset.

If you can't touch the ball in a pick-up scrimmage and show skills with (even limited touches) and without the ball, the highest level isn't for you.

I shouldn't respond but alas, I cannot resist.

First, I'm not complaining and I really don't care one way or the other -- my kid liked going to the DCU tryout; I'm not even sure we'd allow him to join DCU if given the chance (logistics, schoolwork, etc.) and he likes his current club.

But you've picked an argument so here's the counterpoint: If I put you on an 11v11 scrimmage squad with ten second graders and put you up against 11 players from the Argentina international team, you would have zero chance to "touch the ball" and "show skills" because your team would be overwhelmed as they toyed with you.

While it's an extreme example, it makes the point that soccer is a team sport and clearly one's teammates in a scrimmage are not meaningless--the more balanced the teams are, the more opportunities you will have to receive the ball and demonstrate skills (both offensively and defensively).

Does that mean players on a weaker side have ZERO opportunities to get touches and demonstrate skills? No, not zero. And I never said zero chances. I was simply conveying what my kid had told me--that in his view (on which I put the secondhand info from a tween disclaimer) the teams were unbalanced, and therefore the opportunities to demonstrate skill were not even roughly equal for players on different scrimmage teams.

I don't know how the scrimmage teams were picked--maybe there was a method to it. I don't know if the scrimmage teams were mixed up in between each scrimmage (I frankly wasn't that interested and didn't even ask my kid). And as I said, this is all second-hand coming from my kid, so he may not have even been correct that the teams were unbalanced. I don't know one way or the other myself. But it's not irrelevant or I wouldn't have mentioned it.

Strong player on the weak team will stand out more than strong players on team of strong players.

I can't believe there are multiple posters arguing against the importance of having a strong team around you to help showcase your talent. It's true of any team sport. Maybe basketball is different. And baseball. The above statement is absurd.

That's because you don't understand the art, skill and expertise of soccer scouting.

Messi with 10 bums still looks like Messi

Oh. good example. didn't think about that. (because it doesn't apply to literally anyone else in the world). I'm sure I don't understand team sports. I'm tired of folks on here acting like soccer is some unknowable realm. I hate to break it to all you posters who have coached, have played Div. 1, or are just from another country where you think your knowledge is superior, solely for that fact.

Team sports, and development within those sports, is not chemical engineering. It's not quantum physics. Just because you played a sport doesn't mean your knowledge is superior to anyone who has taken the time to try to understand it. Or that you know the "right" answers on how to develop a player individually or develop players as a club. This is easily demonstrated by the fact that coaches, and former players, and national football structures have different approaches to development and match play. My son had a coach who refused to talk to parents about soccer development or strategy, unless they had a played at a high level. He specifically exempted two parents. He said, you wouldn't talk to a surgeon about how they do their job, so don't talk to me about how I do mine. It's a laughable comparison.

You display ignorance and lack of knowledge whilst claiming the knowledge is rudimentary, at best.

The coach is 100% correct.
People think they have been around electricity for years so they have the same knowledge as the Electrician working on their home, because he didn't go to Oxford and isn't wearing a suit.

Substitute Messi with any exceptional player and they'll show qualities an educated scout or coach will notice in those conditions.

Nope. People correctly think that if they've been through medical school, they could also be an electrician, if they applied themselves to it. It doesn't work the other way. Most soccer coaches weren't deciding between going to Oxford or scrambling around doing summer camps and coaching McLean's 2009 white team. Sorry.

Okay Elitist Snob...

How can you replace years of playing soccer at high levels, experiencing coaching at high levels, being in high level soccer environment/culture, coaching for years, taking coaching courses, getting licenses, going to coaching education development seminars... with medical school? or MBA? or PhD in molecular biology?

I'm not a molecular biologist. I know, from taking chemistry classes, that I do not have the ability to be a molecular biologist. That's OK. I there are lots of things that are above my capacity. Do you honestly believe that youth sports team training and development is comparable in its complexity with an advanced science? And for the purposes of having a discussion about it, you need all those years of experience? It's simply not that advanced.

I know by attempting to belittle the required experience, knowledge and other Qualifications to be a proper youth soccer coach, you're trying to elevate your insecurities.

Your ignorance of the difference between your knowledge and that of a qualified real coach is your achilles heel.
Why do you keep generalizing with "youth sports team" when we're speaking specifically about soccer development?
Though that's just showing your narcissistic arrogance looks down on all youth coaches in all sports.

Should give you a bad news bears team for a season and record training sessions/games for a netflix special as you demonstrate your mastery.

On the contrary, and this is exactly what I'm talking about. A soccer coach could definitely do my job. I'm not insecure at all. I recognize that there are many things I don't have the capacity to understand. Youth sports isn't one of them. And the reason I generalize to youth sports is to point out this mentality in soccer, specifically. There's an exceptionalism among some folks that is inexplicable. It's a team sport. It is not some magical, unknowable enigma. Lots of the same concepts are mirrored in other sports, specifically basketball, lacrosse, hockey, etc. And training for those sports have differences, for sure, but it's not like understanding gravitational waves.

We can all go out there and 'coach' a bunch of kids.
Doesn't mean we'll be any bloody good at it. Though some of us think so.

Nobody said anything about being good at coaching. The point was supposed to have been that people who haven't played or coached at a high level can have valid, constructive, and insightful opinions about youth soccer. The elitism is among the people who think that all Americans, or people who are new to the sport, can't understand it enough to have a discussion about it. Soccer is understandable. I'm not talking about making a suggestion to Pep Guardiola about how best to use Phil Foden when both DeBruyne and Haaland are on the pitch. But I think it's fair to have an opinion about whether stacking a team at a scrimmage is the best way to evaluate players. Or talk to a youth soccer coach about whether my son or daughter is being played out of position to the detriment of their development. Or question a coaches training sessions, especially when you know there are other coaches that do it differently.

So basically you're projecting the personal issues you had with your kid's U11 coach because you didn't agree or value his opinion on your DC's performance.

No need to use hyperbole to bolster your argument. Let's stick the the levels of this particular discussion.

Lay on the couch and tell us how this mean coach made you feel inferior and insecure about your soccer youth development knowledge. Allegedly

[Anonymous]

People think they have been around electricity for years so they have the same knowledge as the Electrician working on their

Don’t know which universe you live in where the average person thinks this.

Also, if you’re in the US, you absolutely should be asking questions of your surgeon (within reason). It’s not like the NHS where there’s some unified system (which Brits love to rag on until you mention you’re American). Your kidney extraction will go swimmingly here, just make sure it’s the correct kidney.

But back to youth soccer, what if you have two coaches from the same club and age group , one who thinks your kid is mediocre and the other who has them starting center mid every game? The “experts” don’t agree. Now what?