ECNL forcing Brave & Union Partnership

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:16 is plenty to run a season with. Leaving two spots keeps things open for players seeking opportunity.

100% agree. The Union 2010G team was 15 or 16. Look where there are now - won the Jeff cup top bracket.

Well, a lot of that team came from SYC where JO brought some from LMV with him and then sought out additional talent. This is more of an unusual situation than the norm. Let’s just see how many go back to SYC with LG who took over when JO left.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It is mostly based on skill 70% but then which coach is going to push for their bubble players 30% in this year of sausage making. That's where VA Union people are upset if CW is not pushing but LO is.

The other unknown is roster size. If they go larger then may have 3-4 players not dressing along with 7 subs. Nobody wants to be that player.

A lot of unknowns in this sausage!

I hope not. This only works for teams that do not play everyone (i.e. Bethesda). There was enough talent yesterday. If they do the right thing and select based on merit to avoid drop off in play when the subs come in. This has been the issue with Union 2011 this year and have resulted in very bad losses (0-4, 0-5, etc.).

This makes no sense 0-4 and 0-5 losses aren’t due to subs. Even if you’re telling me that goals against only happened when subs are on, it also means the starters couldn’t score.

Ding ding ding!!

[Anonymous]

200!

[Anonymous]

Think the pp meant the record was 0-4 or 0-5 after the subs came on. In all 4-5 of those losses, Union was up a goal or 2 or even 3 when the starters came out that all resulted in losses.

[Anonymous]

And a few of those required in ties, not all were losses.

[Anonymous]

Resulted in ties….

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Think the pp meant the record was 0-4 or 0-5 after the subs came on. In all 4-5 of those losses, Union was up a goal or 2 or even 3 when the starters came out that all resulted in losses.

I think the pp meant the 0-4 and 0-5 losses to Richmond and Courage in the fall season.

[Anonymous]

200 pages.. and the teams are still going to mostly suck next year… go team

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It is mostly based on skill 70% but then which coach is going to push for their bubble players 30% in this year of sausage making. That's where VA Union people are upset if CW is not pushing but LO is.

The other unknown is roster size. If they go larger then may have 3-4 players not dressing along with 7 subs. Nobody wants to be that player.

A lot of unknowns in this sausage!

I hope not. This only works for teams that do not play everyone (i.e. Bethesda). There was enough talent yesterday. If they do the right thing and select based on merit to avoid drop off in play when the subs come in. This has been the issue with Union 2011 this year and have resulted in very bad losses (0-4, 0-5, etc.).

This makes no sense 0-4 and 0-5 losses aren’t due to subs. Even if you’re telling me that goals against only happened when subs are on, it also means the starters couldn’t score.

Ding ding ding!!

Ding ding ding for what. You are clueless. Even if the starters could not score, this should have resulted in a tie not a loss.

When the subs come in, they cannot keep up with the intensity of the game and at that point a lot of defending in union's half of the field.

With this, sooner or later goals.will get in .

[Anonymous]

Is it Union parents hating on their own teams subs now? Wow that is savage. And telling. Brave parents look out. Your kid must be a joy to play with on the field if they hear all this at home.

According to the schedule this team also recently beat NC Courage and Richmond which are good teams. Did the subs not play in those games?

[Anonymous]

If you go from getting blanked by two good teams in the fall to beating them in the spring then that’s growth and dev right? Isn’t that what we all should want?

[Anonymous]

Now that’s worth a ding ding ding 🤞

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:200!

confirmed✅

[Anonymous]

My 2011 boy has just been offered spots at both FVU and VDA. After going through what each academy offers, we're gravitating towards VDA, primarily due to their training schedule. From what we understand, VDA is quite rigorous, holding training sessions 4 days a week for 1.5 hours each, with a relatively short break of just 2 weeks over winter.

However, I've been hearing some chatter from parents with kids at Brave, suggesting a different story there. They've mentioned that Brave's schedule is less demanding, with training only 3 days a week and a significantly longer break during winter. Moreover, it seems Brave participates in fewer tournaments compared to VDA, yet, interestingly, charges more for their program.

Is there any truth to these claims? I'd love to hear from anyone who's had experience with either (or both) of these academies.

[Anonymous]

Prince William vs Fairfax premium it’s not about success, it’s about what you suckers will pay