BRYC talk

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How are the 07B doing? A few pages back it said they had found a lot of new players that were going to help turn the team around? Is it better than last year?

They lost their best player to SYC MLS next. The new recruits for this year aren't enough to make them any better. and the year behind them are even worse. The bright side is they shouldn't lose anymore players from that team because they aren't good enough to make any better teams.

The team lost a very good player but the new players make the team better overall. Losing one and adding a few makes the team better as a whole. The season is young and yet to see how this team competes against the traditionally stronger teams like Arlington (close 1-2 loss), VDA, Richmond etc. Predicting to finish in the top half of the table guaranteed!

They lost their BEST player. I dont think the philosophy has changed at all either. I think we should expect similar results as the had last year.

Nice attempt at a sophomoric dig but several of the players had offers at other clubs (ECNL and MLSNext).

OK but they lost their best player to SYC MLSNext.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Has BRYC moved away from the "kickball" style of play? I rarely see the teams build and work the ball up. It's mainly the backs booting it up to the fwd's bypassing the midfield. I get you want to win, but it does a dis-service to actually teaching the kids how to play the game correctly. Yes, you might win using the "kickball" style (and I admit it does come in handy when a team needs a goal), but I think if you play that style the whole game it doesn't teach your kids to build the ball up and work together as team which is necessary especially as the kids get older. If they don't learn to build from their own side and work the ball up as a team, they'll be struggling in U15+ games.

Is this a troll post? You are playing gotcha IMO. If the ECNL teams are playing build-up and possession styles but losing yet resort to kickball and start winning you will find somethign to complain about.
And are you referring to Academy teams or Bridge teams? Bridge teams suffer most from kick it style, but that often is because 1) since they are bridge they aren't quite as skilled as most academy team players and b) NCSL-level teams play flat high lines and generaly don't know how to balance their defense and thereforre it's easy to expose that with long through balls either through gaps or over the top.

I thought BRYC was struggling because their Cheap bridge teams with parent coaches were better than their expensive travel teams?

PP is such an over-generalization, it's hard to even know where to start. For one, the Academy teams do not, by default, have better players than the bridge teams. As discussed upthread, the problem is that talent is spread out over many teams with no coordinated strategy to consolidate talent at the club level.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Has BRYC moved away from the "kickball" style of play? I rarely see the teams build and work the ball up. It's mainly the backs booting it up to the fwd's bypassing the midfield. I get you want to win, but it does a dis-service to actually teaching the kids how to play the game correctly. Yes, you might win using the "kickball" style (and I admit it does come in handy when a team needs a goal), but I think if you play that style the whole game it doesn't teach your kids to build the ball up and work together as team which is necessary especially as the kids get older. If they don't learn to build from their own side and work the ball up as a team, they'll be struggling in U15+ games.

Is this a troll post? You are playing gotcha IMO. If the ECNL teams are playing build-up and possession styles but losing yet resort to kickball and start winning you will find somethign to complain about.
And are you referring to Academy teams or Bridge teams? Bridge teams suffer most from kick it style, but that often is because 1) since they are bridge they aren't quite as skilled as most academy team players and b) NCSL-level teams play flat high lines and generaly don't know how to balance their defense and thereforre it's easy to expose that with long through balls either through gaps or over the top.

I thought BRYC was struggling because their Cheap bridge teams with parent coaches were better than their expensive travel teams?

PP is such an over-generalization, it's hard to even know where to start. For one, the Academy teams do not, by default, have better players than the bridge teams. As discussed upthread, the problem is that talent is spread out over many teams with no coordinated strategy to consolidate talent at the club level.

Agreed but even if the talent wasnt spread out doesn't mean enough is there to make them noticeably better.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Has BRYC moved away from the "kickball" style of play? I rarely see the teams build and work the ball up. It's mainly the backs booting it up to the fwd's bypassing the midfield. I get you want to win, but it does a dis-service to actually teaching the kids how to play the game correctly. Yes, you might win using the "kickball" style (and I admit it does come in handy when a team needs a goal), but I think if you play that style the whole game it doesn't teach your kids to build the ball up and work together as team which is necessary especially as the kids get older. If they don't learn to build from their own side and work the ball up as a team, they'll be struggling in U15+ games.

Is this a troll post? You are playing gotcha IMO. If the ECNL teams are playing build-up and possession styles but losing yet resort to kickball and start winning you will find somethign to complain about.
And are you referring to Academy teams or Bridge teams? Bridge teams suffer most from kick it style, but that often is because 1) since they are bridge they aren't quite as skilled as most academy team players and b) NCSL-level teams play flat high lines and generaly don't know how to balance their defense and thereforre it's easy to expose that with long through balls either through gaps or over the top.

I thought BRYC was struggling because their Cheap bridge teams with parent coaches were better than their expensive travel teams?

PP is such an over-generalization, it's hard to even know where to start. For one, the Academy teams do not, by default, have better players than the bridge teams. As discussed upthread, the problem is that talent is spread out over many teams with no coordinated strategy to consolidate talent at the club level.

Sure there's a strategy it's called try outs. If Bridge players don't try out it's a moot point. No one is turning away players who could make an impact.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Has BRYC moved away from the "kickball" style of play? I rarely see the teams build and work the ball up. It's mainly the backs booting it up to the fwd's bypassing the midfield. I get you want to win, but it does a dis-service to actually teaching the kids how to play the game correctly. Yes, you might win using the "kickball" style (and I admit it does come in handy when a team needs a goal), but I think if you play that style the whole game it doesn't teach your kids to build the ball up and work together as team which is necessary especially as the kids get older. If they don't learn to build from their own side and work the ball up as a team, they'll be struggling in U15+ games.

Is this a troll post? You are playing gotcha IMO. If the ECNL teams are playing build-up and possession styles but losing yet resort to kickball and start winning you will find somethign to complain about.
And are you referring to Academy teams or Bridge teams? Bridge teams suffer most from kick it style, but that often is because 1) since they are bridge they aren't quite as skilled as most academy team players and b) NCSL-level teams play flat high lines and generaly don't know how to balance their defense and thereforre it's easy to expose that with long through balls either through gaps or over the top.

I thought BRYC was struggling because their Cheap bridge teams with parent coaches were better than their expensive travel teams?

PP is such an over-generalization, it's hard to even know where to start. For one, the Academy teams do not, by default, have better players than the bridge teams. As discussed upthread, the problem is that talent is spread out over many teams with no coordinated strategy to consolidate talent at the club level.

Sure there's a strategy it's called try outs. If Bridge players don't try out it's a moot point. No one is turning away players who could make an impact.

Bro they dont even cut players who tryout. Its the triple price of academy over bridge bridge for the same level of play that keeps players away

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Has BRYC moved away from the "kickball" style of play? I rarely see the teams build and work the ball up. It's mainly the backs booting it up to the fwd's bypassing the midfield. I get you want to win, but it does a dis-service to actually teaching the kids how to play the game correctly. Yes, you might win using the "kickball" style (and I admit it does come in handy when a team needs a goal), but I think if you play that style the whole game it doesn't teach your kids to build the ball up and work together as team which is necessary especially as the kids get older. If they don't learn to build from their own side and work the ball up as a team, they'll be struggling in U15+ games.

Is this a troll post? You are playing gotcha IMO. If the ECNL teams are playing build-up and possession styles but losing yet resort to kickball and start winning you will find somethign to complain about.
And are you referring to Academy teams or Bridge teams? Bridge teams suffer most from kick it style, but that often is because 1) since they are bridge they aren't quite as skilled as most academy team players and b) NCSL-level teams play flat high lines and generaly don't know how to balance their defense and thereforre it's easy to expose that with long through balls either through gaps or over the top.

I thought BRYC was struggling because their Cheap bridge teams with parent coaches were better than their expensive travel teams?

PP is such an over-generalization, it's hard to even know where to start. For one, the Academy teams do not, by default, have better players than the bridge teams. As discussed upthread, the problem is that talent is spread out over many teams with no coordinated strategy to consolidate talent at the club level.

Sure there's a strategy it's called try outs. If Bridge players don't try out it's a moot point. No one is turning away players who could make an impact.

Bro they dont even cut players who tryout. Its the triple price of academy over bridge bridge for the same level of play that keeps players away

Some kids just keep paying the fee and coming back every year even if they do not play much. It is more of the social aspect than looking to better their soccer skills. But who am I to judge how they spend their time and money?

[Anonymous]

At least the Bridge teams win some games! The ECNL teams scrape the bottom of the league every year.

[Anonymous]

Have you met TM and GM? That explains it all

[Anonymous]

#ThefutureisFCV

That’s why so many bryc players come to FCV. Better coaching. Better league and college placement.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Have you met TM and GM? That explains it all

......Team Manager and General Manager?