Virginia Union FC

[Anonymous]

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

Why? Adults change jobs for a variety of reasons.

[Anonymous]

Between 1 and 3 is pretty standard. What are the chances that the team you started on at 8 years old is going to end up being a top 10 or top 15 team in your state?

[Anonymous]

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

youth coaches would have no idea what they're looking at nor what to do with it

[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.

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.

Bruh, no, what's silly is your logic which is to give a pass to clubs that didn't develop the players in those foundational years. How many McLean players that are going to play in college actually were with McLean for those foundational years as well? Y'all are using logic that makes it seem like these kids showed up at McLean not knowing diddly and McLean accelerated their development to the point they were college material but what is silly is you are discounting all the kids who were at McLean before they reached HS age who were then cut by McLean or forced to look elsewhere (because McLean didn't develop them as well as other clubs developed the incoming players).

[Anonymous]

Typically it's players that had a lot of talent already and we're doing a lot of outside training, individual lessons, HP elite clinics coming from a soccer family, and doing all that stuff from ages 9:00 to 12:00. Then they decide at u13 or u14 to make the switch. They were already the best players on their previous teams. Whether or not they had good coaching they were already talented players.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Which coaches are running the show — McLean or SYC?

Who is coaching the boys 18/19. Thought it was Tony Garza.

[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.

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.

Bruh, no, what's silly is your logic which is to give a pass to clubs that didn't develop the players in those foundational years. How many McLean players that are going to play in college actually were with McLean for those foundational years as well? Y'all are using logic that makes it seem like these kids showed up at McLean not knowing diddly and McLean accelerated their development to the point they were college material but what is silly is you are discounting all the kids who were at McLean before they reached HS age who were then cut by McLean or forced to look elsewhere (because McLean didn't develop them as well as other clubs developed the incoming players).

Bruh, you seem to believe that development is an entitlement. Just because your kid starts at McLean at 8 years old because they are close to home doesn’t mean that your kid is going to play D1. There are lots of kids out there, some better and some worse.

What is the magic number of kids on McLean ECNL team that started there at 8 years old that would prove “development” in your eyes? 5? 10? 18?

What would that magic number be for any club? Are kids supposed to stay at their U Little club forever? A talented LMVSC, Great Falls or VYS kid not allowed to explore other pathways? Is a Arlington kid supposed to stay in Arlington forever? Are McLean kids not allowed to do the same? Is a sub not allowed to seek a better playing opportunity elsewhere? Should a player who has been pigeon holed in a particular position not be allowed to change clubs to change positions? Should a keeper who is only getting a half a game not be allowed to move to a team where they’ll get full games?

Do you really think a club is supposed to hit on every 8 year old who shows up to a tryout?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

You apparently possess neither brain, nor logic. My guess is you're unvaccinated too.

show me the aggregate grocery receipts of those that are. here i'll help you out

ag·gre·gate
noun
/ˈaɡriɡət/
1. a whole formed by combining several (typically disparate) elements.

[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.

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.

Bruh, no, what's silly is your logic which is to give a pass to clubs that didn't develop the players in those foundational years. How many McLean players that are going to play in college actually were with McLean for those foundational years as well? Y'all are using logic that makes it seem like these kids showed up at McLean not knowing diddly and McLean accelerated their development to the point they were college material but what is silly is you are discounting all the kids who were at McLean before they reached HS age who were then cut by McLean or forced to look elsewhere (because McLean didn't develop them as well as other clubs developed the incoming players).

Bruh, you seem to believe that development is an entitlement. Just because your kid starts at McLean at 8 years old because they are close to home doesn’t mean that your kid is going to play D1. There are lots of kids out there, some better and some worse.

What is the magic number of kids on McLean ECNL team that started there at 8 years old that would prove “development” in your eyes? 5? 10? 18?

What would that magic number be for any club? Are kids supposed to stay at their U Little club forever? A talented LMVSC, Great Falls or VYS kid not allowed to explore other pathways? Is a Arlington kid supposed to stay in Arlington forever? Are McLean kids not allowed to do the same? Is a sub not allowed to seek a better playing opportunity elsewhere? Should a player who has been pigeon holed in a particular position not be allowed to change clubs to change positions? Should a keeper who is only getting a half a game not be allowed to move to a team where they’ll get full games?

Do you really think a club is supposed to hit on every 8 year old who shows up to a tryout?

You confused, bruh. Your second and third sentences support PP's response.
The only entitlement going on is McLean parents, like yourself, pounding their chests and patting their backs over college commitments when most of those kids didn't start at McLean or many who weren't even there for more than a couple years.
And, no, not every 8yo or even 11yo is going to be a hit at tryouts, but you and other McLean parents frequently are talking about how well the club develops players while now also talking out the other side of the big hole in the front of your head saying, well, but if our club sucks at developing players when they are young we're still amazing at developing players.

You want to take all the credit and not give it to anyone else. That's fine, that's who you are, which is a douche.

[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: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.

Bruh, no, what's silly is your logic which is to give a pass to clubs that didn't develop the players in those foundational years. How many McLean players that are going to play in college actually were with McLean for those foundational years as well? Y'all are using logic that makes it seem like these kids showed up at McLean not knowing diddly and McLean accelerated their development to the point they were college material but what is silly is you are discounting all the kids who were at McLean before they reached HS age who were then cut by McLean or forced to look elsewhere (because McLean didn't develop them as well as other clubs developed the incoming players).

Bruh, you seem to believe that development is an entitlement. Just because your kid starts at McLean at 8 years old because they are close to home doesn’t mean that your kid is going to play D1. There are lots of kids out there, some better and some worse.

What is the magic number of kids on McLean ECNL team that started there at 8 years old that would prove “development” in your eyes? 5? 10? 18?

What would that magic number be for any club? Are kids supposed to stay at their U Little club forever? A talented LMVSC, Great Falls or VYS kid not allowed to explore other pathways? Is a Arlington kid supposed to stay in Arlington forever? Are McLean kids not allowed to do the same? Is a sub not allowed to seek a better playing opportunity elsewhere? Should a player who has been pigeon holed in a particular position not be allowed to change clubs to change positions? Should a keeper who is only getting a half a game not be allowed to move to a team where they’ll get full games?

Do you really think a club is supposed to hit on every 8 year old who shows up to a tryout?

You confused, bruh. Your second and third sentences support PP's response.
The only entitlement going on is McLean parents, like yourself, pounding their chests and patting their backs over college commitments when most of those kids didn't start at McLean or many who weren't even there for more than a couple years.
And, no, not every 8yo or even 11yo is going to be a hit at tryouts, but you and other McLean parents frequently are talking about how well the club develops players while now also talking out the other side of the big hole in the front of your head saying, well, but if our club sucks at developing players when they are young we're still amazing at developing players.

You want to take all the credit and not give it to anyone else. That's fine, that's who you are, which is a douche.

Nah, bruh, McLean, FCV, Bethesda and other similar clubs get this argument all the time. Quality kids seek those clubs out. There are lots of kids playing soccer in the area and many simply start at the local club that is easy to get to. When they get older, better and want more they seek out the platform and then the best club for them within the platform.

Entitlement is thinking that because you start out at a club at 8 years old that you are somehow better than other kids at other smaller local clubs. At any particular age group the top 100 kids in a area are filtering into these clubs.

Every club involved with a kids pathway had a development role. How many public Elementary schools are claiming Ivy League admissions for the high school they feed into?

Because a local club coach taught little Mia how to do scissors when she was 8 years old that they can take developmental credit for her going to UNC after leaving the club at 13 or 14?

Development ends at 14 years old in your eyes? Does the little local club have a tremendous college placement history that would have kept Mia there in the first place?

[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: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.

Bruh, no, what's silly is your logic which is to give a pass to clubs that didn't develop the players in those foundational years. How many McLean players that are going to play in college actually were with McLean for those foundational years as well? Y'all are using logic that makes it seem like these kids showed up at McLean not knowing diddly and McLean accelerated their development to the point they were college material but what is silly is you are discounting all the kids who were at McLean before they reached HS age who were then cut by McLean or forced to look elsewhere (because McLean didn't develop them as well as other clubs developed the incoming players).

Bruh, you seem to believe that development is an entitlement. Just because your kid starts at McLean at 8 years old because they are close to home doesn’t mean that your kid is going to play D1. There are lots of kids out there, some better and some worse.

What is the magic number of kids on McLean ECNL team that started there at 8 years old that would prove “development” in your eyes? 5? 10? 18?

What would that magic number be for any club? Are kids supposed to stay at their U Little club forever? A talented LMVSC, Great Falls or VYS kid not allowed to explore other pathways? Is a Arlington kid supposed to stay in Arlington forever? Are McLean kids not allowed to do the same? Is a sub not allowed to seek a better playing opportunity elsewhere? Should a player who has been pigeon holed in a particular position not be allowed to change clubs to change positions? Should a keeper who is only getting a half a game not be allowed to move to a team where they’ll get full games?

Do you really think a club is supposed to hit on every 8 year old who shows up to a tryout?

You confused, bruh. Your second and third sentences support PP's response.
The only entitlement going on is McLean parents, like yourself, pounding their chests and patting their backs over college commitments when most of those kids didn't start at McLean or many who weren't even there for more than a couple years.
And, no, not every 8yo or even 11yo is going to be a hit at tryouts, but you and other McLean parents frequently are talking about how well the club develops players while now also talking out the other side of the big hole in the front of your head saying, well, but if our club sucks at developing players when they are young we're still amazing at developing players.

You want to take all the credit and not give it to anyone else. That's fine, that's who you are, which is a douche.

Nah, bruh, McLean, FCV, Bethesda and other similar clubs get this argument all the time. Quality kids seek those clubs out. There are lots of kids playing soccer in the area and many simply start at the local club that is easy to get to. When they get older, better and want more they seek out the platform and then the best club for them within the platform.

Entitlement is thinking that because you start out at a club at 8 years old that you are somehow better than other kids at other smaller local clubs. At any particular age group the top 100 kids in a area are filtering into these clubs.

Every club involved with a kids pathway had a development role. How many public Elementary schools are claiming Ivy League admissions for the high school they feed into?

Because a local club coach taught little Mia how to do scissors when she was 8 years old that they can take developmental credit for her going to UNC after leaving the club at 13 or 14?

Development ends at 14 years old in your eyes? Does the little local club have a tremendous college placement history that would have kept Mia there in the first place?

You are missing the point, again. No elementary schools or high schools should be claiming credit for Ivy School admissions, only students and their families should, but elementary schools probably had a lot more to do with it than where you spend your junior and senior year of college. Development doesn't end. Ever. But formative years are formative years for a reason, and they occur early.

[Anonymous]

Playing with better players has a bigger impact on development than any club.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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

Why? Adults change jobs for a variety of reasons.

It would help to answer the question if a player was developed by a club and stayed or if they left.

[Anonymous]

Look at one of the posts on this thread -- it includes an example of a player comimit for a club where that player is only playing their last year with said club.
https://www.dcurbanmom.com/jforum/posts/list/30/1000156.page

[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: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.

Bruh, no, what's silly is your logic which is to give a pass to clubs that didn't develop the players in those foundational years. How many McLean players that are going to play in college actually were with McLean for those foundational years as well? Y'all are using logic that makes it seem like these kids showed up at McLean not knowing diddly and McLean accelerated their development to the point they were college material but what is silly is you are discounting all the kids who were at McLean before they reached HS age who were then cut by McLean or forced to look elsewhere (because McLean didn't develop them as well as other clubs developed the incoming players).

Bruh, you seem to believe that development is an entitlement. Just because your kid starts at McLean at 8 years old because they are close to home doesn’t mean that your kid is going to play D1. There are lots of kids out there, some better and some worse.

What is the magic number of kids on McLean ECNL team that started there at 8 years old that would prove “development” in your eyes? 5? 10? 18?

What would that magic number be for any club? Are kids supposed to stay at their U Little club forever? A talented LMVSC, Great Falls or VYS kid not allowed to explore other pathways? Is a Arlington kid supposed to stay in Arlington forever? Are McLean kids not allowed to do the same? Is a sub not allowed to seek a better playing opportunity elsewhere? Should a player who has been pigeon holed in a particular position not be allowed to change clubs to change positions? Should a keeper who is only getting a half a game not be allowed to move to a team where they’ll get full games?

Do you really think a club is supposed to hit on every 8 year old who shows up to a tryout?

You confused, bruh. Your second and third sentences support PP's response.
The only entitlement going on is McLean parents, like yourself, pounding their chests and patting their backs over college commitments when most of those kids didn't start at McLean or many who weren't even there for more than a couple years.
And, no, not every 8yo or even 11yo is going to be a hit at tryouts, but you and other McLean parents frequently are talking about how well the club develops players while now also talking out the other side of the big hole in the front of your head saying, well, but if our club sucks at developing players when they are young we're still amazing at developing players.

You want to take all the credit and not give it to anyone else. That's fine, that's who you are, which is a douche.

Nah, bruh, McLean, FCV, Bethesda and other similar clubs get this argument all the time. Quality kids seek those clubs out. There are lots of kids playing soccer in the area and many simply start at the local club that is easy to get to. When they get older, better and want more they seek out the platform and then the best club for them within the platform.

Entitlement is thinking that because you start out at a club at 8 years old that you are somehow better than other kids at other smaller local clubs. At any particular age group the top 100 kids in a area are filtering into these clubs.

Every club involved with a kids pathway had a development role. How many public Elementary schools are claiming Ivy League admissions for the high school they feed into?

Because a local club coach taught little Mia how to do scissors when she was 8 years old that they can take developmental credit for her going to UNC after leaving the club at 13 or 14?

Development ends at 14 years old in your eyes? Does the little local club have a tremendous college placement history that would have kept Mia there in the first place?

You are missing the point, again. No elementary schools or high schools should be claiming credit for Ivy School admissions, only students and their families should, but elementary schools probably had a lot more to do with it than where you spend your junior and senior year of college. Development doesn't end. Ever. But formative years are formative years for a reason, and they occur early.

And when the player gets their commitment and on their College Bio page they are free to list her U8 team called The Sparkle Cheetahs' if she wants and feels they were instrumental in the process. The last club the player was at is also free to list the commitment as well as any other club that feel they had a role in the players development. But c'mon, get real here sorry but over the years thread after thread have told U little parents that your U10 tourney wins and 15-0 thumping's during league games don't matter. This is the exact how they don't matter. No college coach is going going to call up your DD's U10 coach to talk about her as a player. They won't ask about her 6 game consecutive hat trick streak in rec either.

You are actually quite dismissive of the work and continued development that players continue to put in during their HS years.

And the reality is, when kids leave a top team at FCV, Bethesda, McLean they usually end up on another team at the same level. This is often more about fit than it is anything else. Perhaps a kid didn't fit the a particular coaches vision at one team but that same kid moves across the street and plays just fine there. The kids who are no longer at these clubs didn't just vanish into the vapors, most of them moved laterally and developed and played just fine. It is a free and open market and player movement is more side to side than up or down. That's just how sports work.