Where did McLean go wrong?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:^^You have zero clue.

ok Bobby. And by the way "clue" went out as a derogatory term in 1987.

[Anonymous]

My DD has played for McLean for 5 years now and her teams have been pretty good. I know girls come from all over the DMV to play for McLean. I don't know much about the boys side, but heard they aren't very good. Don't know if it is due to coaching or if the pool selection is weak, but either way haven't heard anything good on the boys side. I think it's probably a combination of both. I'd probably look at other clubs like Arlington or BRYC and MLSNext teams like SYC or Bethesda.

[Anonymous]

To PP, the MYS boys coaches aren't very good, look at their top tier teams records. If they were good coaches they would have better records. MYS thinks winning isn't important at the younger ages but it's just an excuse for their piss poor coaching.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:To PP, the MYS boys coaches aren't very good, look at their top tier teams records. If they were good coaches they would have better records. MYS thinks winning isn't important at the younger ages but it's just an excuse for their piss poor coaching.

The player pool is too small at younger ages to compete against boys teams at bigger clubs.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The player pool is too small at younger ages to compete against boys teams at bigger clubs.

McLean is a big club so why can't they compete in the younger male ages?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The player pool is too small at younger ages to compete against boys teams at bigger clubs.

McLean is a big club so why can't they compete in the younger male ages?

McLean is a “big club” only in terms of results. They are a small-medium club in terms of size for the area. The house program (where the players come from) is slightly smaller than neighboring Vienna. It is WAY smaller than Arlington, Loudoun, Springfield, PWSI, SAC, MSI and many other area clubs, most of which McLean traditionally outperforms.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The player pool is too small at younger ages to compete against boys teams at bigger clubs.

McLean is a big club so why can't they compete in the younger male ages?

McLean is a “big club” only in terms of results. They are a small-medium club in terms of size for the area. The house program (where the players come from) is slightly smaller than neighboring Vienna. It is WAY smaller than Arlington, Loudoun, Springfield, PWSI, SAC, MSI and many other area clubs, most of which McLean traditionally outperforms.

By results, you mean older top girls players getting recruited for college, most of whom came from other clubs. I totally agree that the size and quality of the house pool is a principal driver of results at U9-11, by far the most significant factor. This carries over to ECNL at younger ages on the boys side. McLean and BRYC will continue to have a tough time until they establish a really good relationship with neighbors to get talent feeding into their program.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The player pool is too small at younger ages to compete against boys teams at bigger clubs.

McLean is a big club so why can't they compete in the younger male ages?

McLean is a “big club” only in terms of results. They are a small-medium club in terms of size for the area. The house program (where the players come from) is slightly smaller than neighboring Vienna. It is WAY smaller than Arlington, Loudoun, Springfield, PWSI, SAC, MSI and many other area clubs, most of which McLean traditionally outperforms.

That makes sense and puts it in perspective. So do parents of the McLean younger boys travel teams just have to deal with terrible losing records due to the limited player pool? They must not be able to recruit Academy/ECNL talent cause their boys teams don't seem to get better as they get older. Some of that you gotta blame on the coaches/program and not having any clue as what they're doing for the boys program as it seems to work for the girls program.

When you say "Mclean traditionally outperforms" was that in the 1980's? Cause all the clubs you listed are out performing McLean nowadays.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The player pool is too small at younger ages to compete against boys teams at bigger clubs.

McLean is a big club so why can't they compete in the younger male ages?

McLean is a “big club” only in terms of results. They are a small-medium club in terms of size for the area. The house program (where the players come from) is slightly smaller than neighboring Vienna. It is WAY smaller than Arlington, Loudoun, Springfield, PWSI, SAC, MSI and many other area clubs, most of which McLean traditionally outperforms.

That makes sense and puts it in perspective. So do parents of the McLean younger boys travel teams just have to deal with terrible losing records due to the limited player pool? They must not be able to recruit Academy/ECNL talent cause their boys teams don't seem to get better as they get older. Some of that you gotta blame on the coaches/program and not having any clue as what they're doing for the boys program as it seems to work for the girls program.

When you say "Mclean traditionally outperforms" was that in the 1980's? Cause all the clubs you listed are out performing McLean nowadays.

Definitely getting outperformed on the boys side by all listed clubs at most ages.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The player pool is too small at younger ages to compete against boys teams at bigger clubs.

McLean is a big club so why can't they compete in the younger male ages?

McLean is a “big club” only in terms of results. They are a small-medium club in terms of size for the area. The house program (where the players come from) is slightly smaller than neighboring Vienna. It is WAY smaller than Arlington, Loudoun, Springfield, PWSI, SAC, MSI and many other area clubs, most of which McLean traditionally outperforms.

That makes sense and puts it in perspective. So do parents of the McLean younger boys travel teams just have to deal with terrible losing records due to the limited player pool? They must not be able to recruit Academy/ECNL talent cause their boys teams don't seem to get better as they get older. Some of that you gotta blame on the coaches/program and not having any clue as what they're doing for the boys program as it seems to work for the girls program.

When you say "Mclean traditionally outperforms" was that in the 1980's? Cause all the clubs you listed are out performing McLean nowadays.

Definitely getting outperformed on the boys side by all listed clubs at most ages.

And BRYC has the same issue with respect to all listed clubs.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:USWNT members from McLean = 0

Same for fcv

Pretty sure FCV has a current member.

Meh. One could say that Washington Spirit Academy (now MU) has one in the system ... Jordan Caniff.

Fox has actually played with the 1st team. You are right though on this FCV>Spirit>McLean

[Anonymous]

Mclean really sucks. There are kids practicing on one of the ECNL team's that aren't even part of the club nor have they paid to be part of the team. Not only that but before practices and games a COVID form in the game changer app needs to be filled out for each player and obviously the kids who are practicing with team that aren't officially on the team aren't submitting the form. Also, these kids that aren't part of the team are participating in club scrimmages taking playing time away from actually kids who have paid their dues for the year. I think it's really the coach who should be taking responsibility for this as they are the one who is orchestrating all of this. I'm sure other parents on the team feel the same way but they don't want to speak up cause they're scared the coach will take it out on their child. Something has to be done about this and I'm really pissed that this is being allowed to occur.

[Anonymous]

Boys or girls?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:USWNT members from McLean = 0

Same for fcv

Pretty sure FCV has a current member.

Meh. One could say that Washington Spirit Academy (now MU) has one in the system ... Jordan Caniff.

Not really, but whatever you make right in your own mind

Washington spirit had a va (now metro) and md (now Baltimore armour). Jordan played for md and not va. So nice try on this one.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:USWNT members from McLean = 0

Same for fcv

Pretty sure FCV has a current member.

Meh. One could say that Washington Spirit Academy (now MU) has one in the system ... Jordan Caniff.

Not really, but whatever you make right in your own mind

Washington spirit had a va (now metro) and md (now Baltimore armour). Jordan played for md and not va. So nice try on this one.

Wasn't really trying to claim any glory for any club. Just trying to point out the absurdity of the claim that a club was good based on one great player. Sorry, your club sucks as bad as the rest. Nice try indeed.