Virginia Union FC

[Anonymous]

Oh wait, maybe not, I forgot that McLeans like to have 75 girls per age group and break them up because that's how teams form. Forgot.

[Anonymous]

SYC girls are better anyway. And McLean isn’t anything but a club full of players developed at other clubs as it is. Now they can just slap another name (Union) on it to make it more palatable.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Have these teams started play this season? Can find no information on them.

Saw a couple at VDA Friendlies this past weekend (girls). The Union 06 lost VDA and beat Loudoun. Union 07s won both their games (VDA/Loudoun) and the Union 03/04s did the same thing as 07s.

Think you need to check your age groups again.....Union 07s didn't play, for example.....

Probably the 08s playing up then

Actually it was the 06s playing down (against 07s).

Guess that means Union 05 was thumped by VDA 06. Interesting

2-0 isn’t thumped… That’s also one of the top teams in the area at any age.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Have these teams started play this season? Can find no information on them.

Saw a couple at VDA Friendlies this past weekend (girls). The Union 06 lost VDA and beat Loudoun. Union 07s won both their games (VDA/Loudoun) and the Union 03/04s did the same thing as 07s.

Think you need to check your age groups again.....Union 07s didn't play, for example.....

Probably the 08s playing up then

Actually it was the 06s playing down (against 07s).

Guess that means Union 05 was thumped by VDA 06. Interesting

2-0 isn’t thumped… That’s also one of the top teams in the area at any age.

They’re also an age group below. And they beat Loudoun 06 1-0.

Hummm

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Have these teams started play this season? Can find no information on them.

Saw a couple at VDA Friendlies this past weekend (girls). The Union 06 lost VDA and beat Loudoun. Union 07s won both their games (VDA/Loudoun) and the Union 03/04s did the same thing as 07s.

Think you need to check your age groups again.....Union 07s didn't play, for example.....

Probably the 08s playing up then

Actually it was the 06s playing down (against 07s).

Guess that means Union 05 was thumped by VDA 06. Interesting

2-0 isn’t thumped… That’s also one of the top teams in the area at any age.

They’re also an age group below. And they beat Loudoun 06 1-0.

Hummm

Have to imagine playing the best team in an older age group was difficult before playing Loudoun. McLean 05 will win the conference this year

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:SYC girls are better anyway. And McLean isn’t anything but a club full of players developed at other clubs as it is. Now they can just slap another name (Union) on it to make it more palatable.

lol let's count how many SYC girls are on McLean's ECNL team.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:SYC girls are better anyway. And McLean isn’t anything but a club full of players developed at other clubs as it is. Now they can just slap another name (Union) on it to make it more palatable.

lol let's count how many SYC girls are on McLean's ECNL team.

In most age groups, SYC has 0-2 girls who made ECNL team. I believe 08 age group is the only age group with more a significant SYC presence.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:SYC girls are better anyway. And McLean isn’t anything but a club full of players developed at other clubs as it is. Now they can just slap another name (Union) on it to make it more palatable.

lol let's count how many SYC girls are on McLean's ECNL team.

In most age groups, SYC has 0-2 girls who made ECNL team. I believe 08 age group is the only age group with more a significant SYC presence.

Really other clubs developed the players? My kid left a another club because she wanted to play soccer vs kick and run. Believe it or not some kids want to play soccer like they see it played in the highest pro leagues. They are no where close to that level but they are tired of playing the dump down soccer offered at other clubs. Skilled technical players want to play with other skilled and technical players.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:SYC girls are better anyway. And McLean isn’t anything but a club full of players developed at other clubs as it is. Now they can just slap another name (Union) on it to make it more palatable.

lol let's count how many SYC girls are on McLean's ECNL team.

In most age groups, SYC has 0-2 girls who made ECNL team. I believe 08 age group is the only age group with more a significant SYC presence.

Really other clubs developed the players? My kid left a another club because she wanted to play soccer vs kick and run. Believe it or not some kids want to play soccer like they see it played in the highest pro leagues. They are no where close to that level but they are tired of playing the dump down soccer offered at other clubs. Skilled technical players want to play with other skilled and technical players.

yes and 0-2 per age group were able to make it from SYC. and most of those "SYC girls" came from LMVSC.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:SYC girls are better anyway. And McLean isn’t anything but a club full of players developed at other clubs as it is. Now they can just slap another name (Union) on it to make it more palatable.

lol let's count how many SYC girls are on McLean's ECNL team.

In most age groups, SYC has 0-2 girls who made ECNL team. I believe 08 age group is the only age group with more a significant SYC presence.

Really other clubs developed the players? My kid left a another club because she wanted to play soccer vs kick and run. Believe it or not some kids want to play soccer like they see it played in the highest pro leagues. They are no where close to that level but they are tired of playing the dump down soccer offered at other clubs. Skilled technical players want to play with other skilled and technical players.

I have no skin in this game - but I agree that the "XYZ club doesn't develop kids, other clubs developed the kids and they just moved to XYZ" argument is a really bad one no matter which club it is applied to.

The kids develop all over the place at varying paces and for varying causes. They then make a choice about where they wish to continue their development. The fact they choose to move to XYZ (in this case McLean) shows that they consider that XYZ offers the best development environment for them going forwards (or possibly that they no longer care about development, but I doubt this).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:SYC girls are better anyway. And McLean isn’t anything but a club full of players developed at other clubs as it is. Now they can just slap another name (Union) on it to make it more palatable.

lol let's count how many SYC girls are on McLean's ECNL team.

In most age groups, SYC has 0-2 girls who made ECNL team. I believe 08 age group is the only age group with more a significant SYC presence.

Really other clubs developed the players? My kid left a another club because she wanted to play soccer vs kick and run. Believe it or not some kids want to play soccer like they see it played in the highest pro leagues. They are no where close to that level but they are tired of playing the dump down soccer offered at other clubs. Skilled technical players want to play with other skilled and technical players.

I have no skin in this game - but I agree that the "XYZ club doesn't develop kids, other clubs developed the kids and they just moved to XYZ" argument is a really bad one no matter which club it is applied to.

The kids develop all over the place at varying paces and for varying causes. They then make a choice about where they wish to continue their development. The fact they choose to move to XYZ (in this case McLean) shows that they consider that XYZ offers the best development environment for them going forwards (or possibly that they no longer care about development, but I doubt this).

+1000. I just never understood "not developed there" as a knock. Why is it bad for a club to specialize in one particular area of development (e.g. younger ages, high school years, boys or girls, college recruiting, etc). Do we really expect one club to be one size fits all and good at everything? If a club is assembling high school age kids into highly competitive teams and developing them into college recruits, how is that a bad thing? I'd say they are succeeding. At the same time, if a club with a huge rec program is able to field great teams at the young ages, and their players move on to other clubs as they get older and become successful, then I'd say this club is also successful.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:SYC girls are better anyway. And McLean isn’t anything but a club full of players developed at other clubs as it is. Now they can just slap another name (Union) on it to make it more palatable.

lol let's count how many SYC girls are on McLean's ECNL team.

In most age groups, SYC has 0-2 girls who made ECNL team. I believe 08 age group is the only age group with more a significant SYC presence.

Really other clubs developed the players? My kid left a another club because she wanted to play soccer vs kick and run. Believe it or not some kids want to play soccer like they see it played in the highest pro leagues. They are no where close to that level but they are tired of playing the dump down soccer offered at other clubs. Skilled technical players want to play with other skilled and technical players.

I have no skin in this game - but I agree that the "XYZ club doesn't develop kids, other clubs developed the kids and they just moved to XYZ" argument is a really bad one no matter which club it is applied to.

The kids develop all over the place at varying paces and for varying causes. They then make a choice about where they wish to continue their development. The fact they choose to move to XYZ (in this case McLean) shows that they consider that XYZ offers the best development environment for them going forwards (or possibly that they no longer care about development, but I doubt this).

+1000. I just never understood "not developed there" as a knock. Why is it bad for a club to specialize in one particular area of development (e.g. younger ages, high school years, boys or girls, college recruiting, etc). Do we really expect one club to be one size fits all and good at everything? If a club is assembling high school age kids into highly competitive teams and developing them into college recruits, how is that a bad thing? I'd say they are succeeding. At the same time, if a club with a huge rec program is able to field great teams at the young ages, and their players move on to other clubs as they get older and become successful, then I'd say this club is also successful.

Because when people are evaluating where to place younger players, they should be aware that those players are often not developed sufficiently well to retain, and that other clubs with a demonstrable record of player development at younger ages are good choices. That’s why. It’s not bad to import players. But it is misleading to claim that sending players to college who arrived at a club at u15 or u16 shows that the club develops young talent well. Those things have absolutely nothing to do with each other.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:SYC girls are better anyway. And McLean isn’t anything but a club full of players developed at other clubs as it is. Now they can just slap another name (Union) on it to make it more palatable.

lol let's count how many SYC girls are on McLean's ECNL team.

In most age groups, SYC has 0-2 girls who made ECNL team. I believe 08 age group is the only age group with more a significant SYC presence.

Really other clubs developed the players? My kid left a another club because she wanted to play soccer vs kick and run. Believe it or not some kids want to play soccer like they see it played in the highest pro leagues. They are no where close to that level but they are tired of playing the dump down soccer offered at other clubs. Skilled technical players want to play with other skilled and technical players.

I have no skin in this game - but I agree that the "XYZ club doesn't develop kids, other clubs developed the kids and they just moved to XYZ" argument is a really bad one no matter which club it is applied to.

The kids develop all over the place at varying paces and for varying causes. They then make a choice about where they wish to continue their development. The fact they choose to move to XYZ (in this case McLean) shows that they consider that XYZ offers the best development environment for them going forwards (or possibly that they no longer care about development, but I doubt this).

+1000. I just never understood "not developed there" as a knock. Why is it bad for a club to specialize in one particular area of development (e.g. younger ages, high school years, boys or girls, college recruiting, etc). Do we really expect one club to be one size fits all and good at everything? If a club is assembling high school age kids into highly competitive teams and developing them into college recruits, how is that a bad thing? I'd say they are succeeding. At the same time, if a club with a huge rec program is able to field great teams at the young ages, and their players move on to other clubs as they get older and become successful, then I'd say this club is also successful.

People have a hard time accepting this truth. Higher leagues are filters and lots of parents tend to believe that if they start their kid a ECNL club XYZ that their kid should have preference to make their ECNL team years later. If the kid doesn't make the team then it is because the club "didn't develop" their player when an outsider comes in and takes the spot. It sucks but there is also no guarantee.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:SYC girls are better anyway. And McLean isn’t anything but a club full of players developed at other clubs as it is. Now they can just slap another name (Union) on it to make it more palatable.

lol let's count how many SYC girls are on McLean's ECNL team.

In most age groups, SYC has 0-2 girls who made ECNL team. I believe 08 age group is the only age group with more a significant SYC presence.

Really other clubs developed the players? My kid left a another club because she wanted to play soccer vs kick and run. Believe it or not some kids want to play soccer like they see it played in the highest pro leagues. They are no where close to that level but they are tired of playing the dump down soccer offered at other clubs. Skilled technical players want to play with other skilled and technical players.

List to yourself--you are admitting your DD (and others) developed at other clubs before moving onto MrClean

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:SYC girls are better anyway. And McLean isn’t anything but a club full of players developed at other clubs as it is. Now they can just slap another name (Union) on it to make it more palatable.

lol let's count how many SYC girls are on McLean's ECNL team.

In most age groups, SYC has 0-2 girls who made ECNL team. I believe 08 age group is the only age group with more a significant SYC presence.

Really other clubs developed the players? My kid left a another club because she wanted to play soccer vs kick and run. Believe it or not some kids want to play soccer like they see it played in the highest pro leagues. They are no where close to that level but they are tired of playing the dump down soccer offered at other clubs. Skilled technical players want to play with other skilled and technical players.

I have no skin in this game - but I agree that the "XYZ club doesn't develop kids, other clubs developed the kids and they just moved to XYZ" argument is a really bad one no matter which club it is applied to.

The kids develop all over the place at varying paces and for varying causes. They then make a choice about where they wish to continue their development. The fact they choose to move to XYZ (in this case McLean) shows that they consider that XYZ offers the best development environment for them going forwards (or possibly that they no longer care about development, but I doubt this).

+1000. I just never understood "not developed there" as a knock. Why is it bad for a club to specialize in one particular area of development (e.g. younger ages, high school years, boys or girls, college recruiting, etc). Do we really expect one club to be one size fits all and good at everything? If a club is assembling high school age kids into highly competitive teams and developing them into college recruits, how is that a bad thing? I'd say they are succeeding. At the same time, if a club with a huge rec program is able to field great teams at the young ages, and their players move on to other clubs as they get older and become successful, then I'd say this club is also successful.

Because when people are evaluating where to place younger players, they should be aware that those players are often not developed sufficiently well to retain, and that other clubs with a demonstrable record of player development at younger ages are good choices. That’s why. It’s not bad to import players. But it is misleading to claim that sending players to college who arrived at a club at u15 or u16 shows that the club develops young talent well. Those things have absolutely nothing to do with each other.

+1