Bait and Switch - Roster Size

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It’s not a good look for a Club and not fair to kids.
I do want to say I’m on the FVU boys side and no roster is bigger than 23 most 21. We also have the option to play with the RL teams from Vienna or McLean if not rostered a week.
It was all spelled out and handled fairly.
I’m not sure about the girls side and we’ll see how it plays out, but don’t believe all the hype.
I’m curious what Club you are with, if you don’t want to say it now, mention it in the Spring. Clubs should be held accountable for these sort of decisions.

That sucks for the kids on those teams being bumped because your kid isn't good enough to dress for their own team.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is the way it works at the big clubs. Even with teams that aren’t that good.

The coaches are making good money, the clubs also provide different coaching directors etc. the only way to make budget for all that is with more players.

You don’t have to be a brain surgeon to figure this one out.

But yes the only way to get better is to play significant minutes in the games. Consider doublecarding with a lower level team to get those minutes in. This is the way it is.

The only way to get better is not significant minutes in games, it's putting in the extra work outside practice and going hard at practice. How many times does your kid touch the ball if they play the full game, 10? 15? 20 times? Now how many times do they touch the ball in practice? 100? 120? game time doesn't equal development, it's a chance to put what you learned at practice into play against an opponent.

All the kids on team are getting those touches in practice. Only some of the players are getting significant game time on top of the practice time. Which players do you think are getting better development? There are situations that happen only in games when you are playing another opponent on a full field, pressure, tactics, decisions that need to be made that aren't easy to simulate in practice. Of course some player development happens in games. Not just in games, but games are very important for development.

THIS. And for players committed to play in college, game time is key to be ready. The idea that practice is enough is ridiculous and coaches know that. It's a moneygrab.

How you gonna be a college commit and you can't get in the 18 from a 23 local club roster?
Worse you can't start on a local team?

How you going to make a college roster competing against regional, national and international players?

A valid point for most but the DC area and some other metropolitan areas are unique in this regard. Don't know the situation of other clubs, but Bethesda has quite a few second team players who are not only rostered but get significant minutes at major colleges - Johns Hopkins and Princeton are two for sure. Look at the basketball scene in this area as well. Alot of kids who play in the Catholic League are sixth men who are not good enough to start on their high school team but are good enough to start on a D1 college team. It happens. And more frequently than you'd think. Also, one coach's gold is the next coach's trash. Different coaches are looking for different things. And there's no shortage of coaches in club soccer who wouldn't know talent if it hit them in the face. Bottom line...if you have some talent, dedication, and love the game, there's usually a right scenario for everyone.

Just carefully reviewed both the Princeton and Johns Hopkins rosters
You get multiple Pinocchios for the claims of Bethesda 2nd team players

You are hereby fined $1,725 per incident

Were you looking at boys or girls? Talking boys, but I understand you Girl Dads always think it's about you.
https://goprincetontigers.com/sports/mens-soccer/roster/bardia-hormozi/22289
https://hopkinssports.com/sports/mens-soccer/roster/francis-meyer/17518

"Played on team that reached 2021 MLS Next quarterfinals"
"Montgomery County player of the year"

How's that 2nd team?

Fines should be tripled

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Everyone complains about roster size in their journey to get to college soccer.

How many players are on college rosters?

Well now its apparently 28...

I haven't seen one under 30

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is the way it works at the big clubs. Even with teams that aren’t that good.

The coaches are making good money, the clubs also provide different coaching directors etc. the only way to make budget for all that is with more players.

You don’t have to be a brain surgeon to figure this one out.

But yes the only way to get better is to play significant minutes in the games. Consider doublecarding with a lower level team to get those minutes in. This is the way it is.

The only way to get better is not significant minutes in games, it's putting in the extra work outside practice and going hard at practice. How many times does your kid touch the ball if they play the full game, 10? 15? 20 times? Now how many times do they touch the ball in practice? 100? 120? game time doesn't equal development, it's a chance to put what you learned at practice into play against an opponent.

All the kids on team are getting those touches in practice. Only some of the players are getting significant game time on top of the practice time. Which players do you think are getting better development? There are situations that happen only in games when you are playing another opponent on a full field, pressure, tactics, decisions that need to be made that aren't easy to simulate in practice. Of course some player development happens in games. Not just in games, but games are very important for development.

90% of development occurs outside game minutes because that’s when the real work is put in

I say this as the parent of a kid who puts in hours and hours of solo time: it doesn't matter if you don't also have game time.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is the way it works at the big clubs. Even with teams that aren’t that good.

The coaches are making good money, the clubs also provide different coaching directors etc. the only way to make budget for all that is with more players.

You don’t have to be a brain surgeon to figure this one out.

But yes the only way to get better is to play significant minutes in the games. Consider doublecarding with a lower level team to get those minutes in. This is the way it is.

The only way to get better is not significant minutes in games, it's putting in the extra work outside practice and going hard at practice. How many times does your kid touch the ball if they play the full game, 10? 15? 20 times? Now how many times do they touch the ball in practice? 100? 120? game time doesn't equal development, it's a chance to put what you learned at practice into play against an opponent.

All the kids on team are getting those touches in practice. Only some of the players are getting significant game time on top of the practice time. Which players do you think are getting better development? There are situations that happen only in games when you are playing another opponent on a full field, pressure, tactics, decisions that need to be made that aren't easy to simulate in practice. Of course some player development happens in games. Not just in games, but games are very important for development.

90% of development occurs outside game minutes because that’s when the real work is put in

I say this as the parent of a kid who puts in hours and hours of solo time: it doesn't matter if you don't also have game time.

PP said 90% (in their opinion) not 100%

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It’s not a good look for a Club and not fair to kids.
I do want to say I’m on the FVU boys side and no roster is bigger than 23 most 21. We also have the option to play with the RL teams from Vienna or McLean if not rostered a week.
It was all spelled out and handled fairly.
I’m not sure about the girls side and we’ll see how it plays out, but don’t believe all the hype.
I’m curious what Club you are with, if you don’t want to say it now, mention it in the Spring. Clubs should be held accountable for these sort of decisions.

That sucks for the kids on those teams being bumped because your kid isn't good enough to dress for their own team.

After U13/U14 it always sucks to be bottom of the roster. Dual rostering is hardly unheard of…

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It’s not a good look for a Club and not fair to kids.
I do want to say I’m on the FVU boys side and no roster is bigger than 23 most 21. We also have the option to play with the RL teams from Vienna or McLean if not rostered a week.
It was all spelled out and handled fairly.
I’m not sure about the girls side and we’ll see how it plays out, but don’t believe all the hype.
I’m curious what Club you are with, if you don’t want to say it now, mention it in the Spring. Clubs should be held accountable for these sort of decisions.

That sucks for the kids on those teams being bumped because your kid isn't good enough to dress for their own team.

After U13/U14 it always sucks to be bottom of the roster. Dual rostering is hardly unheard of…

If PP is right about any kid not being rostered for the game playing RL and rosters being 30 kids, that's a whole team's worth bumping the actual team off of the game day roster

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is the way it works at the big clubs. Even with teams that aren’t that good.

The coaches are making good money, the clubs also provide different coaching directors etc. the only way to make budget for all that is with more players.

You don’t have to be a brain surgeon to figure this one out.

But yes the only way to get better is to play significant minutes in the games. Consider doublecarding with a lower level team to get those minutes in. This is the way it is.

The only way to get better is not significant minutes in games, it's putting in the extra work outside practice and going hard at practice. How many times does your kid touch the ball if they play the full game, 10? 15? 20 times? Now how many times do they touch the ball in practice? 100? 120? game time doesn't equal development, it's a chance to put what you learned at practice into play against an opponent.

All the kids on team are getting those touches in practice. Only some of the players are getting significant game time on top of the practice time. Which players do you think are getting better development? There are situations that happen only in games when you are playing another opponent on a full field, pressure, tactics, decisions that need to be made that aren't easy to simulate in practice. Of course some player development happens in games. Not just in games, but games are very important for development.

You keep moving the goal posts...first it's "the only way to get better is to play significant minutes" - which is false and now it's "games are very important for development" - which is it? those are two completely different trains of thought. Keep backtracking maybe eventually you'll put together a coherent thought.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It’s not a good look for a Club and not fair to kids.
I do want to say I’m on the FVU boys side and no roster is bigger than 23 most 21. We also have the option to play with the RL teams from Vienna or McLean if not rostered a week.
It was all spelled out and handled fairly.
I’m not sure about the girls side and we’ll see how it plays out, but don’t believe all the hype.
I’m curious what Club you are with, if you don’t want to say it now, mention it in the Spring. Clubs should be held accountable for these sort of decisions.

That sucks for the kids on those teams being bumped because your kid isn't good enough to dress for their own team.

After U13/U14 it always sucks to be bottom of the roster. Dual rostering is hardly unheard of…

If PP is right about any kid not being rostered for the game playing RL and rosters being 30 kids, that's a whole team's worth bumping the actual team off of the game day roster

I give up. The rosters are mostly 21 and anyone who has been around knows about injuries. There are 2 RL teams, so most weeks it would be 1 possibly 2 kids..
But reality means nothing on this board. Here you go…I heard from my brothers friends sister whose sons best friend was cut from FVU that the rosters are 50 kids!!
Let’s see how long until that becomes the quoted number.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It’s not a good look for a Club and not fair to kids.
I do want to say I’m on the FVU boys side and no roster is bigger than 23 most 21. We also have the option to play with the RL teams from Vienna or McLean if not rostered a week.
It was all spelled out and handled fairly.
I’m not sure about the girls side and we’ll see how it plays out, but don’t believe all the hype.
I’m curious what Club you are with, if you don’t want to say it now, mention it in the Spring. Clubs should be held accountable for these sort of decisions.

That sucks for the kids on those teams being bumped because your kid isn't good enough to dress for their own team.

After U13/U14 it always sucks to be bottom of the roster. Dual rostering is hardly unheard of…

If PP is right about any kid not being rostered for the game playing RL and rosters being 30 kids, that's a whole team's worth bumping the actual team off of the game day roster

I give up. The rosters are mostly 21 and anyone who has been around knows about injuries. There are 2 RL teams, so most weeks it would be 1 possibly 2 kids..
But reality means nothing on this board. Here you go…I heard from my brothers friends sister whose sons best friend was cut from FVU that the rosters are 50 kids!!
Let’s see how long until that becomes the quoted number.

50 kids per roster!!! that's insane. it's just a money grab at that point

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is the way it works at the big clubs. Even with teams that aren’t that good.

The coaches are making good money, the clubs also provide different coaching directors etc. the only way to make budget for all that is with more players.

You don’t have to be a brain surgeon to figure this one out.

But yes the only way to get better is to play significant minutes in the games. Consider doublecarding with a lower level team to get those minutes in. This is the way it is.

The only way to get better is not significant minutes in games, it's putting in the extra work outside practice and going hard at practice. How many times does your kid touch the ball if they play the full game, 10? 15? 20 times? Now how many times do they touch the ball in practice? 100? 120? game time doesn't equal development, it's a chance to put what you learned at practice into play against an opponent.

All the kids on team are getting those touches in practice. Only some of the players are getting significant game time on top of the practice time. Which players do you think are getting better development? There are situations that happen only in games when you are playing another opponent on a full field, pressure, tactics, decisions that need to be made that aren't easy to simulate in practice. Of course some player development happens in games. Not just in games, but games are very important for development.

You keep moving the goal posts...first it's "the only way to get better is to play significant minutes" - which is false and now it's "games are very important for development" - which is it? those are two completely different trains of thought. Keep backtracking maybe eventually you'll put together a coherent thought.

Two different apps. Why do you think the USWNT coach didn’t sub to get ready for that gold medal game? Everyone has skills. Using those skills under pressure and when you are tired is completely different.

[Anonymous]

*PPs

[Anonymous]

I’ve seen plenty of girls with mad skills, but aren’t strong or aggressive enough in games. Those girls will only get better with playing time.

I don’t know if this is the same for boys.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It’s not a good look for a Club and not fair to kids.
I do want to say I’m on the FVU boys side and no roster is bigger than 23 most 21. We also have the option to play with the RL teams from Vienna or McLean if not rostered a week.
It was all spelled out and handled fairly.
I’m not sure about the girls side and we’ll see how it plays out, but don’t believe all the hype.
I’m curious what Club you are with, if you don’t want to say it now, mention it in the Spring. Clubs should be held accountable for these sort of decisions.

That sucks for the kids on those teams being bumped because your kid isn't good enough to dress for their own team.

As a parent of a player that plays for one of those teams, the coach can expect bananas stuck up his exhaust

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is the way it works at the big clubs. Even with teams that aren’t that good.

The coaches are making good money, the clubs also provide different coaching directors etc. the only way to make budget for all that is with more players.

You don’t have to be a brain surgeon to figure this one out.

But yes the only way to get better is to play significant minutes in the games. Consider doublecarding with a lower level team to get those minutes in. This is the way it is.

The only way to get better is not significant minutes in games, it's putting in the extra work outside practice and going hard at practice. How many times does your kid touch the ball if they play the full game, 10? 15? 20 times? Now how many times do they touch the ball in practice? 100? 120? game time doesn't equal development, it's a chance to put what you learned at practice into play against an opponent.

All the kids on team are getting those touches in practice. Only some of the players are getting significant game time on top of the practice time. Which players do you think are getting better development? There are situations that happen only in games when you are playing another opponent on a full field, pressure, tactics, decisions that need to be made that aren't easy to simulate in practice. Of course some player development happens in games. Not just in games, but games are very important for development.

You keep moving the goal posts...first it's "the only way to get better is to play significant minutes" - which is false and now it's "games are very important for development" - which is it? those are two completely different trains of thought. Keep backtracking maybe eventually you'll put together a coherent thought.

Two different apps. Why do you think the USWNT coach didn’t sub to get ready for that gold medal game? Everyone has skills. Using those skills under pressure and when you are tired is completely different.

So we just took a leap from youth/pre-teen/teenager development to playing in the Olympics for the USWNT?