Virginia Union FC

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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

No. There are different phases of development - under U12, U13-14/15, and U16 and up. If kids show up at a club at u15 and they end up going to a top soccer school, the club has indeed developed young talent. Regardless, young talent and success has more to do with the individual kid and the family support network. Most of the clubs in the area aren’t going to provide anything beyond average training (nor will they likely screw it up too royally.) The only way you might eek out some development above the norm is if there is a qualified, dedicated coach that cares more about the kids than the youth soccer BS. If you have young kids, send them to whatever club is local. If they are indeed above average and they want to pursue the game in college and beyond, move them to a club that has a platform for showcasing those kids.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

No. There are different phases of development - under U12, U13-14/15, and U16 and up. If kids show up at a club at u15 and they end up going to a top soccer school, the club has indeed developed young talent. Regardless, young talent and success has more to do with the individual kid and the family support network. Most of the clubs in the area aren’t going to provide anything beyond average training (nor will they likely screw it up too royally.) The only way you might eek out some development above the norm is if there is a qualified, dedicated coach that cares more about the kids than the youth soccer BS. If you have young kids, send them to whatever club is local. If they are indeed above average and they want to pursue the game in college and beyond, move them to a club that has a platform for showcasing those kids.

Platforms for showcasing kids doesn’t equate to better development and coaching. Try again.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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

You sound knowledgeable enough to see through these misleading tactics. But why do you care so much if other families might be duped? Do you think they won’t figure it out on their own, too? Why does this trigger you so much

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

No. There are different phases of development - under U12, U13-14/15, and U16 and up. If kids show up at a club at u15 and they end up going to a top soccer school, the club has indeed developed young talent. Regardless, young talent and success has more to do with the individual kid and the family support network. Most of the clubs in the area aren’t going to provide anything beyond average training (nor will they likely screw it up too royally.) The only way you might eek out some development above the norm is if there is a qualified, dedicated coach that cares more about the kids than the youth soccer BS. If you have young kids, send them to whatever club is local. If they are indeed above average and they want to pursue the game in college and beyond, move them to a club that has a platform for showcasing those kids.

Platforms for showcasing kids doesn’t equate to better development and coaching. Try again.

If your goal is to land a college roster spot then the platform to showcase is just if not more important. It’s not like the development and coaching are going to be so drastically different from team to team. There is a bigger difference in showcase platforms across teams (eg ECNL vs non-ECNL) than coaching.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

No. There are different phases of development - under U12, U13-14/15, and U16 and up. If kids show up at a club at u15 and they end up going to a top soccer school, the club has indeed developed young talent. Regardless, young talent and success has more to do with the individual kid and the family support network. Most of the clubs in the area aren’t going to provide anything beyond average training (nor will they likely screw it up too royally.) The only way you might eek out some development above the norm is if there is a qualified, dedicated coach that cares more about the kids than the youth soccer BS. If you have young kids, send them to whatever club is local. If they are indeed above average and they want to pursue the game in college and beyond, move them to a club that has a platform for showcasing those kids.

At issue is whether and how many kids a club advertises as its own developed U9-12 at such clubs. So you have avoided the question. And you are wrong in any event. Of course learning occurs at different phases. But a club that has spent one year with a player at U16 has not likely contributed as much to the development of that player as another club that has spent two years, or three years, or four years or more with a U16 player. And you are an idiot not only to think so, but to say so.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
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.

Just because a club takes the best players from a wider area at U15/U16 and consequently drops some of the homegrown kids does not mean that that club does not or cannot develop younger players.

Not every kid will develop into a top player no matter how good a club is at developing them - and inevitably other clubs will also develop kids.

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.

I don't agree that those things have absolutely nothing to do with each other - my guess is you would find a pretty good correlation between quality of development of young talent and sending players to college but I agree that it is not necessarily the case.

However it is even more misleading to claim that a club does NOT develop young players well just because they import some players at older ages.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

No. There are different phases of development - under U12, U13-14/15, and U16 and up. If kids show up at a club at u15 and they end up going to a top soccer school, the club has indeed developed young talent. Regardless, young talent and success has more to do with the individual kid and the family support network. Most of the clubs in the area aren’t going to provide anything beyond average training (nor will they likely screw it up too royally.) The only way you might eek out some development above the norm is if there is a qualified, dedicated coach that cares more about the kids than the youth soccer BS. If you have young kids, send them to whatever club is local. If they are indeed above average and they want to pursue the game in college and beyond, move them to a club that has a platform for showcasing those kids.

At issue is whether and how many kids a club advertises as its own developed U9-12 at such clubs. So you have avoided the question. And you are wrong in any event. Of course learning occurs at different phases. But a club that has spent one year with a player at U16 has not likely contributed as much to the development of that player as another club that has spent two years, or three years, or four years or more with a U16 player. And you are an idiot not only to think so, but to say so.

No, the only idiot in the room is the one who believes u9-u12 club affiliation matters at all. Maybe, once you’ve actually observed enough children who go through the process, you’ll be more educated. Clubs do not matter for pre-pubescent children. Either you’re failing at parenting, or you shouldn’t be anywhere near children.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

No. There are different phases of development - under U12, U13-14/15, and U16 and up. If kids show up at a club at u15 and they end up going to a top soccer school, the club has indeed developed young talent. Regardless, young talent and success has more to do with the individual kid and the family support network. Most of the clubs in the area aren’t going to provide anything beyond average training (nor will they likely screw it up too royally.) The only way you might eek out some development above the norm is if there is a qualified, dedicated coach that cares more about the kids than the youth soccer BS. If you have young kids, send them to whatever club is local. If they are indeed above average and they want to pursue the game in college and beyond, move them to a club that has a platform for showcasing those kids.

At issue is whether and how many kids a club advertises as its own developed U9-12 at such clubs. So you have avoided the question. And you are wrong in any event. Of course learning occurs at different phases. But a club that has spent one year with a player at U16 has not likely contributed as much to the development of that player as another club that has spent two years, or three years, or four years or more with a U16 player. And you are an idiot not only to think so, but to say so.

No, the only idiot in the room is the one who believes u9-u12 club affiliation matters at all. Maybe, once you’ve actually observed enough children who go through the process, you’ll be more educated. Clubs do not matter for pre-pubescent children. Either you’re failing at parenting, or you shouldn’t be anywhere near children.

You’re a clown, or more appropriately an a$$hat.

[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: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

No. There are different phases of development - under U12, U13-14/15, and U16 and up. If kids show up at a club at u15 and they end up going to a top soccer school, the club has indeed developed young talent. Regardless, young talent and success has more to do with the individual kid and the family support network. Most of the clubs in the area aren’t going to provide anything beyond average training (nor will they likely screw it up too royally.) The only way you might eek out some development above the norm is if there is a qualified, dedicated coach that cares more about the kids than the youth soccer BS. If you have young kids, send them to whatever club is local. If they are indeed above average and they want to pursue the game in college and beyond, move them to a club that has a platform for showcasing those kids.

At issue is whether and how many kids a club advertises as its own developed U9-12 at such clubs. So you have avoided the question. And you are wrong in any event. Of course learning occurs at different phases. But a club that has spent one year with a player at U16 has not likely contributed as much to the development of that player as another club that has spent two years, or three years, or four years or more with a U16 player. And you are an idiot not only to think so, but to say so.

No, the only idiot in the room is the one who believes u9-u12 club affiliation matters at all. Maybe, once you’ve actually observed enough children who go through the process, you’ll be more educated. Clubs do not matter for pre-pubescent children. Either you’re failing at parenting, or you shouldn’t be anywhere near children.

You’re a clown, or more appropriately an a$$hat.

That pretty much sums up you’re level of knowledge - thank you. The best takeaway here is avoid Alexandria in order to avoid people like you.

[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: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

No. There are different phases of development - under U12, U13-14/15, and U16 and up. If kids show up at a club at u15 and they end up going to a top soccer school, the club has indeed developed young talent. Regardless, young talent and success has more to do with the individual kid and the family support network. Most of the clubs in the area aren’t going to provide anything beyond average training (nor will they likely screw it up too royally.) The only way you might eek out some development above the norm is if there is a qualified, dedicated coach that cares more about the kids than the youth soccer BS. If you have young kids, send them to whatever club is local. If they are indeed above average and they want to pursue the game in college and beyond, move them to a club that has a platform for showcasing those kids.

At issue is whether and how many kids a club advertises as its own developed U9-12 at such clubs. So you have avoided the question. And you are wrong in any event. Of course learning occurs at different phases. But a club that has spent one year with a player at U16 has not likely contributed as much to the development of that player as another club that has spent two years, or three years, or four years or more with a U16 player. And you are an idiot not only to think so, but to say so.

No, the only idiot in the room is the one who believes u9-u12 club affiliation matters at all. Maybe, once you’ve actually observed enough children who go through the process, you’ll be more educated. Clubs do not matter for pre-pubescent children. Either you’re failing at parenting, or you shouldn’t be anywhere near children.

You’re a clown, or more appropriately an a$$hat.

That pretty much sums up you’re level of knowledge - thank you. The best takeaway here is avoid Alexandria in order to avoid people like you.

Not from Alexandria, and I was not the immediate PP. development at those ages matters, not affiliation. You keep missing that point along with missing out on people who understand soccer. Please stay wherever you are. There is already enough ignorance to go around with American football b

[Anonymous]

I love how there are people who think that development stops at U15. Sorry Burke, sorry SYC, sorry VYS, but development continues for quite a while. And that's why McLean's ECNL girls program is one of the best in the nation.

Some coaches and clubs are excellent at teaching technical skills but begin to fail by 9v9. Some are only good before 11v11, and some are only good after 11v11. The true talent migrates to true academies, players and coaches.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

No. There are different phases of development - under U12, U13-14/15, and U16 and up. If kids show up at a club at u15 and they end up going to a top soccer school, the club has indeed developed young talent. Regardless, young talent and success has more to do with the individual kid and the family support network. Most of the clubs in the area aren’t going to provide anything beyond average training (nor will they likely screw it up too royally.) The only way you might eek out some development above the norm is if there is a qualified, dedicated coach that cares more about the kids than the youth soccer BS. If you have young kids, send them to whatever club is local. If they are indeed above average and they want to pursue the game in college and beyond, move them to a club that has a platform for showcasing those kids.

100% agree. If your kid wants to play in college, ya definitely want to be at a club that showcases, has ties to college recruiting and track record to back it up.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

No. There are different phases of development - under U12, U13-14/15, and U16 and up. If kids show up at a club at u15 and they end up going to a top soccer school, the club has indeed developed young talent. Regardless, young talent and success has more to do with the individual kid and the family support network. Most of the clubs in the area aren’t going to provide anything beyond average training (nor will they likely screw it up too royally.) The only way you might eek out some development above the norm is if there is a qualified, dedicated coach that cares more about the kids than the youth soccer BS. If you have young kids, send them to whatever club is local. If they are indeed above average and they want to pursue the game in college and beyond, move them to a club that has a platform for showcasing those kids.

At issue is whether and how many kids a club advertises as its own developed U9-12 at such clubs. So you have avoided the question. And you are wrong in any event. Of course learning occurs at different phases. But a club that has spent one year with a player at U16 has not likely contributed as much to the development of that player as another club that has spent two years, or three years, or four years or more with a U16 player. And you are an idiot not only to think so, but to say so.

A strong training foundation must occur at the younger ages obviously and some clubs are very good with younger ages as well as into middle school. And while those developmental stages are crucial for later success there is still a lot of work that is done beyond U9-U13.

The problem with the attitude of small club had player X until U14 so they developed them is practically saying that the player that left at 14 years old is a finished product. The comparison would be a Middle school trying to claim the developmental success of a graduating senior. And while the elementary and middle school played a significant role it is quite silly to discount the work an effort that went into the HS years.

[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: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

No. There are different phases of development - under U12, U13-14/15, and U16 and up. If kids show up at a club at u15 and they end up going to a top soccer school, the club has indeed developed young talent. Regardless, young talent and success has more to do with the individual kid and the family support network. Most of the clubs in the area aren’t going to provide anything beyond average training (nor will they likely screw it up too royally.) The only way you might eek out some development above the norm is if there is a qualified, dedicated coach that cares more about the kids than the youth soccer BS. If you have young kids, send them to whatever club is local. If they are indeed above average and they want to pursue the game in college and beyond, move them to a club that has a platform for showcasing those kids.

At issue is whether and how many kids a club advertises as its own developed U9-12 at such clubs. So you have avoided the question. And you are wrong in any event. Of course learning occurs at different phases. But a club that has spent one year with a player at U16 has not likely contributed as much to the development of that player as another club that has spent two years, or three years, or four years or more with a U16 player. And you are an idiot not only to think so, but to say so.

No, the only idiot in the room is the one who believes u9-u12 club affiliation matters at all. Maybe, once you’ve actually observed enough children who go through the process, you’ll be more educated. Clubs do not matter for pre-pubescent children. Either you’re failing at parenting, or you shouldn’t be anywhere near children.

You’re a clown, or more appropriately an a$$hat.

That pretty much sums up you’re level of knowledge - thank you. The best takeaway here is avoid Alexandria in order to avoid people like you.

Not the PP - and in general I agree with you in this particualr argument, not the person calling you an a$$hat. But I do think Alexandria is a club which does develop kids well and disagree that it should be avoided.

[Anonymous]

Would be interesting to see statistics of college soccer players and how many times they changed clubs before college.