Switching clubs

[Anonymous]

Dilute NOVA so Richmond look better....Arlington is in.

[Anonymous]

Except laid staffers and A55 suckers nobody in the community thinks Loudoun or Bryc should be in ECNL. Arlington and McLean have and are better resources than those two wastelands

[Anonymous]

I still find it confusing that the majority of the discussions are about leagues but yet only 10 to 15% of a players time is spend in games and the rest in training. I know more about other sports but the simple math I did based on my DD is that she spends around 15000 minutes a year training and only 1500 minutes playing (she usually plays half a game). What am i missing? Shouldn't people pick where they play based on training quality?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I still find it confusing that the majority of the discussions are about leagues but yet only 10 to 15% of a players time is spend in games and the rest in training. I know more about other sports but the simple math I did based on my DD is that she spends around 15000 minutes a year training and only 1500 minutes playing (she usually plays half a game). What am i missing? Shouldn't people pick where they play based on training quality?

the teams end up attracting players who are competitive in the leagues they play. An ODSL player is not getting the same level of training or team mates challenging them in training that an ENCL player is.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I still find it confusing that the majority of the discussions are about leagues but yet only 10 to 15% of a players time is spend in games and the rest in training. I know more about other sports but the simple math I did based on my DD is that she spends around 15000 minutes a year training and only 1500 minutes playing (she usually plays half a game). What am i missing? Shouldn't people pick where they play based on training quality?

Training quality is important, but I've seen time and time again players who practice well just don't show it games, whether it's "Analysis Paralysis" or just too used to practicing against the same players that when presented opponents who play differently they just can't adjust to.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I still find it confusing that the majority of the discussions are about leagues but yet only 10 to 15% of a players time is spend in games and the rest in training. I know more about other sports but the simple math I did based on my DD is that she spends around 15000 minutes a year training and only 1500 minutes playing (she usually plays half a game). What am i missing? Shouldn't people pick where they play based on training quality?

Training quality is important, but I've seen time and time again players who practice well just don't show it games, whether it's "Analysis Paralysis" or just too used to practicing against the same players that when presented opponents who play differently they just can't adjust to.

Because training in boxes doesn’t equate to games.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I still find it confusing that the majority of the discussions are about leagues but yet only 10 to 15% of a players time is spend in games and the rest in training. I know more about other sports but the simple math I did based on my DD is that she spends around 15000 minutes a year training and only 1500 minutes playing (she usually plays half a game). What am i missing? Shouldn't people pick where they play based on training quality?

Training quality is important, but I've seen time and time again players who practice well just don't show it games, whether it's "Analysis Paralysis" or just too used to practicing against the same players that when presented opponents who play differently they just can't adjust to.

Because training in boxes doesn’t equate to games.

Individual skills training is very important but playing/practicing against real defenders is much different than stationary cones. The question boils down to whether or not a coach allows 1v1 during games or does he/she forces the players to pass the ball after 1-2 touches.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Dilute NOVA so Richmond look better....Arlington is in.

Arlington is really in ECNL? Their girls?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Dilute NOVA so Richmond look better....Arlington is in.

Arlington is really in ECNL? Their girls?

Email just went out, you didn't get it? This is going to be good!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Has anyone ever been stripped of status?

If anyone...let it be Loudoun.

A couple. VA Rush being one back in the day.

Loudoun won’t be. BRYC...ummmmmmm. In years past, no. But with quality clubs trying to get in while others struggle...maybe. I still believe no more clubs being added to girls ECNL in NOVA.

I’m not saying one couldn’t be replaced.

What quality clubs are left in NOVA trying to get in? The bar for "quality" is lowering significantly and that is Pandora's box of ECNL's unchecked expansion.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I still find it confusing that the majority of the discussions are about leagues but yet only 10 to 15% of a players time is spend in games and the rest in training. I know more about other sports but the simple math I did based on my DD is that she spends around 15000 minutes a year training and only 1500 minutes playing (she usually plays half a game). What am i missing? Shouldn't people pick where they play based on training quality?

I agree. The training should be the main focus. All these people here think their DD should be playing at an "elite level" that is more diluted than ever. Most of your daughters don't stand out and belong on at a lower level.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I still find it confusing that the majority of the discussions are about leagues but yet only 10 to 15% of a players time is spend in games and the rest in training. I know more about other sports but the simple math I did based on my DD is that she spends around 15000 minutes a year training and only 1500 minutes playing (she usually plays half a game). What am i missing? Shouldn't people pick where they play based on training quality?

I agree. The training should be the main focus. All these people here think their DD should be playing at an "elite level" that is more diluted than ever. Most of your daughters don't stand out and belong on at a lower level.

Agree, college recruits players not teams. Your player is in a top ECNL team? but doesn’t mean is better than a good player in CCL EDP or other league.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I still find it confusing that the majority of the discussions are about leagues but yet only 10 to 15% of a players time is spend in games and the rest in training. I know more about other sports but the simple math I did based on my DD is that she spends around 15000 minutes a year training and only 1500 minutes playing (she usually plays half a game). What am i missing? Shouldn't people pick where they play based on training quality?

I agree. The training should be the main focus. All these people here think their DD should be playing at an "elite level" that is more diluted than ever. Most of your daughters don't stand out and belong on at a lower level.

Agree, college recruits players not teams. Your player is in a top ECNL team? but doesn’t mean is better than a good player in CCL EDP or other league.

Let the ECNL parents empty their wallets traveling to the Carolines and California for them be beaten badly. Oh and for their kids playing less than 20% of the game. While the CCL parents take their kids to college IDs.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I still find it confusing that the majority of the discussions are about leagues but yet only 10 to 15% of a players time is spend in games and the rest in training. I know more about other sports but the simple math I did based on my DD is that she spends around 15000 minutes a year training and only 1500 minutes playing (she usually plays half a game). What am i missing? Shouldn't people pick where they play based on training quality?

Training quality is important, but I've seen time and time again players who practice well just don't show it games, whether it's "Analysis Paralysis" or just too used to practicing against the same players that when presented opponents who play differently they just can't adjust to.

Because training in boxes doesn’t equate to games.

Individual skills training is very important but playing/practicing against real defenders is much different than stationary cones. The question boils down to whether or not a coach allows 1v1 during games or does he/she forces the players to pass the ball after 1-2 touches. [/quote]

LOL what girls club/coach are talking about? On the girls side the game is so slow because every player has to dribble and most can not play a 1-2 touch game. Pep disagrees with your analysis.

[Anonymous]

Any thoughts on FCV GA? 2006-2008? Most FCV teams rank very well nationally and are well trained compared to other area clubs. But I worry about longevity of GA.