ECNL forcing Brave & Union Partnership

[Anonymous]

Indeed, brave girls were asked to players in completely different positions, McLean players kept same positions as usual. Coincidence?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Also, the second day of tryouts was a setup for failure. You did not noticed that?

How was it set up for failure? By having a scrimmage?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Indeed, brave girls were asked to players in completely different positions, McLean players kept same positions as usual. Coincidence?

We experienced this last year. This is something CW will often ask players to do at ID sessions. I don’t think it was a set up — some of the union players were also asked to do so. The ones with offers already in hand did play their normal positions.

This is done to look for intuitive understanding of other roles on field. Common to see this asked particularly for players where there is an interest in order to understand their capacity. Not a set up for failure but method for a deeper look.

[Anonymous]

I think we need to remember that these coaches are in a bad situation and likely aren’t happy about it either. Where some see conspiracy, others see reasonable explanations. All I can say is that I saw the 2010G session this week and it seemed very fair. Lots of subbing and trying for equal play time. Was it exact? No. But I got the sense that they were trying their best. When there were two fields, they watched both sides. I was impressed with the way it was run.

[Anonymous]

Well was done to only Brave players. A tryout is a place to exhibit your best, no a set up to look your worse . Only one side of players were asked to do this. You can justify it all you want. But done to justify their one side picks. Well played.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Heavily influenced by behind the wall negotiations and pressures by parents (mcl) Really sucky process.

I no don’t think so.

I can’t speak to the 2007/2008/2009 girls but here is what we are seeing for the younger groups:

2010s — hard to know but the union team is exceptional for that age/year. Hopefully this team stays strong and starters don’t drift to other clubs. Already adrift

For the 2011s girls it seemed to be entirely skills/position/player based. Quotas for each team were not part of the equation. There may be more past union players on the final list but it looks like they moved fairly far into both club’s current rosters to build this team. At least three high quality union players are going elsewhere and some of them were clear starters in this year’s team. Only one external player know to have received an offer. Union sucked, dont think adding Brave to this new Union will make much of a difference, CW needs to retire and hand the keys to MV.

Feels like 2012s were a complete selection process from scratch and very much determined at the ID sessions. Hard to make these kinds of decisions with so many available and skilled young players. Maybe true but it was from the scraps SYC left you to evaluate, so you will be 2nd best to a GA for starters, Oh the horror!

[Anonymous]

How many invites now? We closed at 18? Lest move on yes?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Well was done to only Brave players. A tryout is a place to exhibit your best, no a set up to look your worse . Only one side of players were asked to do this. You can justify it all you want. But done to justify their one side picks. Well played.

Union's player pool was/is stronger than Brave's before tryouts ever happend. 08 might be the only exception to this statement. Brave you got a fair look, your girls weren't good enough last year, the year before that or maybe even the year before that, why would they be this year? Get over it and find the club that wants you back

[Anonymous]

Oh. Trust me, top players have options always. No way will stay on this shit show and deal with the ones like you. Sorry to inform you but, McLean was not creating talent, see the 2010 as for example, best players were from SYC. Same in 2011. Enjoy next season

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Heavily influenced by behind the wall negotiations and pressures by parents (mcl) Really sucky process.

I no don’t think so.

I can’t speak to the 2007/2008/2009 girls but here is what we are seeing for the younger groups:

2010s — hard to know but the union team is exceptional for that age/year. Hopefully this team stays strong and starters don’t drift to other clubs.

For the 2011s girls it seemed to be entirely skills/position/player based. Quotas for each team were not part of the equation. There may be more past union players on the final list but it looks like they moved fairly far into both club’s current rosters to build this team. At least three high quality union players are going elsewhere and some of them were clear starters in this year’s team. Only one external player know to have received an offer.

Feels like 2012s were a complete selection process from scratch and very much determined at the ID sessions. Hard to make these kinds of decisions with so many available and skilled young players.

Unfortunately, this is part of the process and parents will do what is best for their kid. For the kids that are leaving that do not have offers in hand, we wish them well and best of luck to them. For the ones that have offers and going elsewhere (including DB's team @ NVA), the grass is not always greener and we wish them well too. There will always be new equivalent or better talent to take their place.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Heavily influenced by behind the wall negotiations and pressures by parents (mcl) Really sucky process.

I no don’t think so.

I can’t speak to the 2007/2008/2009 girls but here is what we are seeing for the younger groups:

2010s — hard to know but the union team is exceptional for that age/year. Hopefully this team stays strong and starters don’t drift to other clubs.

For the 2011s girls it seemed to be entirely skills/position/player based. Quotas for each team were not part of the equation. There may be more past union players on the final list but it looks like they moved fairly far into both club’s current rosters to build this team. At least three high quality union players are going elsewhere and some of them were clear starters in this year’s team. Only one external player know to have received an offer.

Feels like 2012s were a complete selection process from scratch and very much determined at the ID sessions. Hard to make these kinds of decisions with so many available and skilled young players.

Unfortunately, this is part of the process and parents will do what is best for their kid. For the kids that are leaving that do not have offers in hand, we wish them well and best of luck to them. For the ones that have offers and going elsewhere (including DB's team @ NVA), the grass is not always greener and we wish them well too. There will always be new equivalent or better talent to take their place.

You are wrong about the 2012s too.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Heavily influenced by behind the wall negotiations and pressures by parents (mcl) Really sucky process.

I no don’t think so.

I can’t speak to the 2007/2008/2009 girls but here is what we are seeing for the younger groups:

2010s — hard to know but the union team is exceptional for that age/year. Hopefully this team stays strong and starters don’t drift to other clubs.

For the 2011s girls it seemed to be entirely skills/position/player based. Quotas for each team were not part of the equation. There may be more past union players on the final list but it looks like they moved fairly far into both club’s current rosters to build this team. At least three high quality union players are going elsewhere and some of them were clear starters in this year’s team. Only one external player know to have received an offer.

Feels like 2012s were a complete selection process from scratch and very much determined at the ID sessions. Hard to make these kinds of decisions with so many available and skilled young players.

Unfortunately, this is part of the process and parents will do what is best for their kid. For the kids that are leaving that do not have offers in hand, we wish them well and best of luck to them. For the ones that have offers and going elsewhere (including DB's team @ NVA), the grass is not always greener and we wish them well too. There will always be new equivalent or better talent to take their place.

You are wrong about the 2012s too.

I don't think so. That is why there is VEO. I guess we will see in the fall.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Heavily influenced by behind the wall negotiations and pressures by parents (mcl) Really sucky process.

I no don’t think so.

I can’t speak to the 2007/2008/2009 girls but here is what we are seeing for the younger groups:

2010s — hard to know but the union team is exceptional for that age/year. Hopefully this team stays strong and starters don’t drift to other clubs. Already adrift

For the 2011s girls it seemed to be entirely skills/position/player based. Quotas for each team were not part of the equation. There may be more past union players on the final list but it looks like they moved fairly far into both club’s current rosters to build this team. At least three high quality union players are going elsewhere and some of them were clear starters in this year’s team. Only one external player know to have received an offer. Union sucked, dont think adding Brave to this new Union will make much of a difference, CW needs to retire and hand the keys to MV.

Feels like 2012s were a complete selection process from scratch and very much determined at the ID sessions. Hard to make these kinds of decisions with so many available and skilled young players. Maybe true but it was from the scraps SYC left you to evaluate, so you will be 2nd best to a GA for starters, Oh the horror!

Common now. CW is not going anywhere. Evening Trump and Biden are still running for office.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Heavily influenced by behind the wall negotiations and pressures by parents (mcl) Really sucky process.

I no don’t think so.

I can’t speak to the 2007/2008/2009 girls but here is what we are seeing for the younger groups:

2010s — hard to know but the union team is exceptional for that age/year. Hopefully this team stays strong and starters don’t drift to other clubs. Already adrift

For the 2011s girls it seemed to be entirely skills/position/player based. Quotas for each team were not part of the equation. There may be more past union players on the final list but it looks like they moved fairly far into both club’s current rosters to build this team. At least three high quality union players are going elsewhere and some of them were clear starters in this year’s team. Only one external player know to have received an offer. Union sucked, dont think adding Brave to this new Union will make much of a difference, CW needs to retire and hand the keys to MV.

Feels like 2012s were a complete selection process from scratch and very much determined at the ID sessions. Hard to make these kinds of decisions with so many available and skilled young players. Maybe true but it was from the scraps SYC left you to evaluate, so you will be 2nd best to a GA for starters, Oh the horror!

Common now. CW is not going anywhere. Evening Trump and Biden are still running for office.

You want him around ah!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Indeed, brave girls were asked to players in completely different positions, McLean players kept same positions as usual. Coincidence?

We experienced this last year. This is something CW will often ask players to do at ID sessions. I don’t think it was a set up — some of the union players were also asked to do so. The ones with offers already in hand did play their normal positions.

This is done to look for intuitive understanding of other roles on field. Common to see this asked particularly for players where there is an interest in order to understand their capacity. Not a set up for failure but method for a deeper look.

A player that is versatile and can play different positions is more valuable. My teens have played every position on the field and have no problem if coach needs to fill them in somewhere else.