FCV DA

[Anonymous]

This whole thread started with a poster boasting about his / her club's DA teams and how they "produce". What was the motivation behind the thread? That invites criticism in and of itself. If you can't handle it or fully defend your boasts, then don't start such a thread in the first place.

Meanwhile, we are happy that the existing FCV DA teams are so great and successful. Good job, and thanks for publically patting your own back.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m still struggling with what the actual misinformation supposedly was?

I think you just want to defend FCV at all costs.

If anyone wants to defend FCV it should be the club and its staff. That is not my job. I make the best decisions for my kids - that is my job. I originally came to this forum for information and now that is a laughable concept. I am doing my little part to provide actual INFORMATION to people. Not interested in bashing or promoting any club. I will save that for the crazies.

You provided a link that did not answer any specific questions beyond one age group. Not your fault but not worth defending either.

I provided information and that is somehow less relevant than the original post - which only said that on a DA roster of 18 there are only 1-3 kids that came through FCV while providing zero support for that comment. I provide information to support statement = not relevant. Original post provided nothing to back up a statement (not a question) = relevant. Got it. Thanks for clearing that up. Next time I will just make a statement with no supporting information at all. Clearly that makes it more relevant. SMH.

Except for the fact that other age groups were not represented.

Perhaps the person knows the makeup and history of players on another age group and your link did not refute that possibility.

Lol. You’re funny. This all knowing “person” posts on anonymous board and we are all supposed to believe them without question. The link posts actual facts and you are upset by facts. Lol. You’re funny.

Clearly the all-knowing person didn’t know the makeup and history of the U19 team now did they? But we should just take it as fact girl you that they know everything else to exact detail. Lol. You’re funny.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m still struggling with what the actual misinformation supposedly was?

I think you just want to defend FCV at all costs.

If anyone wants to defend FCV it should be the club and its staff. That is not my job. I make the best decisions for my kids - that is my job. I originally came to this forum for information and now that is a laughable concept. I am doing my little part to provide actual INFORMATION to people. Not interested in bashing or promoting any club. I will save that for the crazies.

You provided a link that did not answer any specific questions beyond one age group. Not your fault but not worth defending either.

I provided information and that is somehow less relevant than the original post - which only said that on a DA roster of 18 there are only 1-3 kids that came through FCV while providing zero support for that comment. I provide information to support statement = not relevant. Original post provided nothing to back up a statement (not a question) = relevant. Got it. Thanks for clearing that up. Next time I will just make a statement with no supporting information at all. Clearly that makes it more relevant. SMH.

Except for the fact that other age groups were not represented.

Perhaps the person knows the makeup and history of players on another age group and your link did not refute that possibility.

Lol. You’re funny. This all knowing “person” posts on anonymous board and we are all supposed to believe them without question. The link posts actual facts and you are upset by facts. Lol. You’re funny.

Clearly the all-knowing person didn’t know the makeup and history of the U19 team now did they? But we should just take it as fact girl you that they know everything else to exact detail. Lol. You’re funny.

It isn’t a matter of if they know the composition of the U19 roster the U19 roster may simply no be relevant to them. The U19 roster may be an outlier but without the same info presented for the other age groups it is really hard to discern how many kids club wide at DA were entirely developed at FCV.

It is unrealistic to expect 100% of rosters to be composed of FCV developed players but if the number club wide is closer to 15-20% that is a lot of recruiting.

If FCV develops properly I’d say 40-50% is a reasonable expectation.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m still struggling with what the actual misinformation supposedly was?

I think you just want to defend FCV at all costs.

If anyone wants to defend FCV it should be the club and its staff. That is not my job. I make the best decisions for my kids - that is my job. I originally came to this forum for information and now that is a laughable concept. I am doing my little part to provide actual INFORMATION to people. Not interested in bashing or promoting any club. I will save that for the crazies.

You provided a link that did not answer any specific questions beyond one age group. Not your fault but not worth defending either.

I provided information and that is somehow less relevant than the original post - which only said that on a DA roster of 18 there are only 1-3 kids that came through FCV while providing zero support for that comment. I provide information to support statement = not relevant. Original post provided nothing to back up a statement (not a question) = relevant. Got it. Thanks for clearing that up. Next time I will just make a statement with no supporting information at all. Clearly that makes it more relevant. SMH.

Except for the fact that other age groups were not represented.

Perhaps the person knows the makeup and history of players on another age group and your link did not refute that possibility.

Lol. You’re funny. This all knowing “person” posts on anonymous board and we are all supposed to believe them without question. The link posts actual facts and you are upset by facts. Lol. You’re funny.

Clearly the all-knowing person didn’t know the makeup and history of the U19 team now did they? But we should just take it as fact girl you that they know everything else to exact detail. Lol. You’re funny.

It isn’t a matter of if they know the composition of the U19 roster the U19 roster may simply no be relevant to them. The U19 roster may be an outlier but without the same info presented for the other age groups it is really hard to discern how many kids club wide at DA were entirely developed at FCV.

It is unrealistic to expect 100% of rosters to be composed of FCV developed players but if the number club wide is closer to 15-20% that is a lot of recruiting.

If FCV develops properly I’d say 40-50% is a reasonable expectation.

Maybe this and maybe that. The poster made a statement with no qualifications whatsoever and covered the club as a whole. It was a misrepresentation based on facts that we have on hand. Not some guess. My goodness.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m still struggling with what the actual misinformation supposedly was?

I think you just want to defend FCV at all costs.

If anyone wants to defend FCV it should be the club and its staff. That is not my job. I make the best decisions for my kids - that is my job. I originally came to this forum for information and now that is a laughable concept. I am doing my little part to provide actual INFORMATION to people. Not interested in bashing or promoting any club. I will save that for the crazies.

You provided a link that did not answer any specific questions beyond one age group. Not your fault but not worth defending either.

I provided information and that is somehow less relevant than the original post - which only said that on a DA roster of 18 there are only 1-3 kids that came through FCV while providing zero support for that comment. I provide information to support statement = not relevant. Original post provided nothing to back up a statement (not a question) = relevant. Got it. Thanks for clearing that up. Next time I will just make a statement with no supporting information at all. Clearly that makes it more relevant. SMH.

Except for the fact that other age groups were not represented.

Perhaps the person knows the makeup and history of players on another age group and your link did not refute that possibility.

Lol. You’re funny. This all knowing “person” posts on anonymous board and we are all supposed to believe them without question. The link posts actual facts and you are upset by facts. Lol. You’re funny.

Clearly the all-knowing person didn’t know the makeup and history of the U19 team now did they? But we should just take it as fact girl you that they know everything else to exact detail. Lol. You’re funny.

It isn’t a matter of if they know the composition of the U19 roster the U19 roster may simply no be relevant to them. The U19 roster may be an outlier but without the same info presented for the other age groups it is really hard to discern how many kids club wide at DA were entirely developed at FCV.

It is unrealistic to expect 100% of rosters to be composed of FCV developed players but if the number club wide is closer to 15-20% that is a lot of recruiting.

If FCV develops properly I’d say 40-50% is a reasonable expectation.

Maybe this and maybe that. The poster made a statement with no qualifications whatsoever and covered the club as a whole. It was a misrepresentation based on facts that we have on hand. Not some guess. My goodness.

Well you didn’t exactly refute the claim with club wide examples so there is that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m still struggling with what the actual misinformation supposedly was?

I think you just want to defend FCV at all costs.

If anyone wants to defend FCV it should be the club and its staff. That is not my job. I make the best decisions for my kids - that is my job. I originally came to this forum for information and now that is a laughable concept. I am doing my little part to provide actual INFORMATION to people. Not interested in bashing or promoting any club. I will save that for the crazies.

You provided a link that did not answer any specific questions beyond one age group. Not your fault but not worth defending either.

I provided information and that is somehow less relevant than the original post - which only said that on a DA roster of 18 there are only 1-3 kids that came through FCV while providing zero support for that comment. I provide information to support statement = not relevant. Original post provided nothing to back up a statement (not a question) = relevant. Got it. Thanks for clearing that up. Next time I will just make a statement with no supporting information at all. Clearly that makes it more relevant. SMH.

Except for the fact that other age groups were not represented.

Perhaps the person knows the makeup and history of players on another age group and your link did not refute that possibility.

Lol. You’re funny. This all knowing “person” posts on anonymous board and we are all supposed to believe them without question. The link posts actual facts and you are upset by facts. Lol. You’re funny.

Clearly the all-knowing person didn’t know the makeup and history of the U19 team now did they? But we should just take it as fact girl you that they know everything else to exact detail. Lol. You’re funny.

It isn’t a matter of if they know the composition of the U19 roster the U19 roster may simply no be relevant to them. The U19 roster may be an outlier but without the same info presented for the other age groups it is really hard to discern how many kids club wide at DA were entirely developed at FCV.

It is unrealistic to expect 100% of rosters to be composed of FCV developed players but if the number club wide is closer to 15-20% that is a lot of recruiting.

If FCV develops properly I’d say 40-50% is a reasonable expectation.

Maybe this and maybe that. The poster made a statement with no qualifications whatsoever and covered the club as a whole. It was a misrepresentation based on facts that we have on hand. Not some guess. My goodness.

Well you didn’t exactly refute the claim with club wide examples so there is that.

Because I don’t speculate and make things up when I don’t know the facts. The original poster did just that- made up a story

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m still struggling with what the actual misinformation supposedly was?

I think you just want to defend FCV at all costs.

If anyone wants to defend FCV it should be the club and its staff. That is not my job. I make the best decisions for my kids - that is my job. I originally came to this forum for information and now that is a laughable concept. I am doing my little part to provide actual INFORMATION to people. Not interested in bashing or promoting any club. I will save that for the crazies.

You provided a link that did not answer any specific questions beyond one age group. Not your fault but not worth defending either.

I provided information and that is somehow less relevant than the original post - which only said that on a DA roster of 18 there are only 1-3 kids that came through FCV while providing zero support for that comment. I provide information to support statement = not relevant. Original post provided nothing to back up a statement (not a question) = relevant. Got it. Thanks for clearing that up. Next time I will just make a statement with no supporting information at all. Clearly that makes it more relevant. SMH.

Except for the fact that other age groups were not represented.

Perhaps the person knows the makeup and history of players on another age group and your link did not refute that possibility.

Lol. You’re funny. This all knowing “person” posts on anonymous board and we are all supposed to believe them without question. The link posts actual facts and you are upset by facts. Lol. You’re funny.

Clearly the all-knowing person didn’t know the makeup and history of the U19 team now did they? But we should just take it as fact girl you that they know everything else to exact detail. Lol. You’re funny.

It isn’t a matter of if they know the composition of the U19 roster the U19 roster may simply no be relevant to them. The U19 roster may be an outlier but without the same info presented for the other age groups it is really hard to discern how many kids club wide at DA were entirely developed at FCV.

It is unrealistic to expect 100% of rosters to be composed of FCV developed players but if the number club wide is closer to 15-20% that is a lot of recruiting.

If FCV develops properly I’d say 40-50% is a reasonable expectation.

Maybe this and maybe that. The poster made a statement with no qualifications whatsoever and covered the club as a whole. It was a misrepresentation based on facts that we have on hand. Not some guess. My goodness.

Well you didn’t exactly refute the claim with club wide examples so there is that.

Because I don’t speculate and make things up when I don’t know the facts. The original poster did just that- made up a story

OP here and I’m laughing my rear end off. You really need to talk to other parents on the other teams. Start with 2006, work your way up and report back. I don’t feel like posting roster names and where they played u9-u12. Wouldn’t want to embarrass anyone. Very poor rate of u little FCV girls making their ECNL/DA squads when of age. It’s amazing you are apparently the only guy at the club who doesn’t know this.

[Anonymous]

Or you are the fool who doesn’t know that there weren’t any young teams at fcv before 2013. I have no idea how someone has been with fcv since 2009 since the only teams they had were ECNL teams before 2013. 2013 they started a u9 and u11 team only. A year later they merged with ashburn. So maybe these kids actually played there?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Or you are the fool who doesn’t know that there weren’t any young teams at fcv before 2013. I have no idea how someone has been with fcv since 2009 since the only teams they had were ECNL teams before 2013. 2013 they started a u9 and u11 team only. A year later they merged with ashburn. So maybe these kids actually played there?

Listen buddy, you don’t know what you are talking about. Get out of your world of 18 year olds and talk to the parents of the younger teams. You’ll find all the answers there, including the truth I shared with you but for some bizarre reason you are in denial of.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Or you are the fool who doesn’t know that there weren’t any young teams at fcv before 2013. I have no idea how someone has been with fcv since 2009 since the only teams they had were ECNL teams before 2013. 2013 they started a u9 and u11 team only. A year later they merged with ashburn. So maybe these kids actually played there?

Listen buddy, you don’t know what you are talking about. Get out of your world of 18 year olds and talk to the parents of the younger teams. You’ll find all the answers there, including the truth I shared with you but for some bizarre reason you are in denial of.

My daughter played at Ashburn Soccer back when she was a U-little. When the merge happened, most of the higher level players came from the Ashburn side, complemented by a few that came from the then recently created FCV (aka South County). Many of those players are still playing high level soccer (ECNL and DA) but most are not playing it at FCV. SOME, but definitely not 50%.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Or you are the fool who doesn’t know that there weren’t any young teams at fcv before 2013. I have no idea how someone has been with fcv since 2009 since the only teams they had were ECNL teams before 2013. 2013 they started a u9 and u11 team only. A year later they merged with ashburn. So maybe these kids actually played there?

Listen buddy, you don’t know what you are talking about. Get out of your world of 18 year olds and talk to the parents of the younger teams. You’ll find all the answers there, including the truth I shared with you but for some bizarre reason you are in denial of.

My daughter played at Ashburn Soccer back when she was a U-little. When the merge happened, most of the higher level players came from the Ashburn side, complemented by a few that came from the then recently created FCV (aka South County). Many of those players are still playing high level soccer (ECNL and DA) but most are not playing it at FCV. SOME, but definitely not 50%.

This is exactly right, unlike the FCV u19 parent’s account.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Or you are the fool who doesn’t know that there weren’t any young teams at fcv before 2013. I have no idea how someone has been with fcv since 2009 since the only teams they had were ECNL teams before 2013. 2013 they started a u9 and u11 team only. A year later they merged with ashburn. So maybe these kids actually played there?

Listen buddy, you don’t know what you are talking about. Get out of your world of 18 year olds and talk to the parents of the younger teams. You’ll find all the answers there, including the truth I shared with you but for some bizarre reason you are in denial of.

My daughter played at Ashburn Soccer back when she was a U-little. When the merge happened, most of the higher level players came from the Ashburn side, complemented by a few that came from the then recently created FCV (aka South County). Many of those players are still playing high level soccer (ECNL and DA) but most are not playing it at FCV. SOME, but definitely not 50%.

This is exactly right, unlike the FCV u19 parent’s account.

1-3 players per team is a lie. Period. It is more than that. Regardless, the DA is the top level and should be drawing from all over especially when the team is the best team around in each age group. Why wouldn't players want to come and why wouldn't the team take them? Because you don't like it that way?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Or you are the fool who doesn’t know that there weren’t any young teams at fcv before 2013. I have no idea how someone has been with fcv since 2009 since the only teams they had were ECNL teams before 2013. 2013 they started a u9 and u11 team only. A year later they merged with ashburn. So maybe these kids actually played there?

Listen buddy, you don’t know what you are talking about. Get out of your world of 18 year olds and talk to the parents of the younger teams. You’ll find all the answers there, including the truth I shared with you but for some bizarre reason you are in denial of.

My daughter played at Ashburn Soccer back when she was a U-little. When the merge happened, most of the higher level players came from the Ashburn side, complemented by a few that came from the then recently created FCV (aka South County). Many of those players are still playing high level soccer (ECNL and DA) but most are not playing it at FCV. SOME, but definitely not 50%.

This is exactly right, unlike the FCV u19 parent’s account.

1-3 players per team is a lie. Period. It is more than that. Regardless, the DA is the top level and should be drawing from all over especially when the team is the best team around in each age group. Why wouldn't players want to come and why wouldn't the team take them? Because you don't like it that way?

Well the truth is the landscape has changed and FCV is likely to rely on homegrown players more than ever before going forward. Despite their success, success gained in a very diluted landscape, it will be more difficult than ever to draw players in from the outside. Frankly, there are just to many viable options available to players today. Most savvy parents understand that if their kid is going to be recruited and college is a goal there are more opportunities to be seen now than ever before. And with those opportunities comes meaningful playing time. Playing means fun AND exposure.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Or you are the fool who doesn’t know that there weren’t any young teams at fcv before 2013. I have no idea how someone has been with fcv since 2009 since the only teams they had were ECNL teams before 2013. 2013 they started a u9 and u11 team only. A year later they merged with ashburn. So maybe these kids actually played there?

Listen buddy, you don’t know what you are talking about. Get out of your world of 18 year olds and talk to the parents of the younger teams. You’ll find all the answers there, including the truth I shared with you but for some bizarre reason you are in denial of.

My daughter played at Ashburn Soccer back when she was a U-little. When the merge happened, most of the higher level players came from the Ashburn side, complemented by a few that came from the then recently created FCV (aka South County). Many of those players are still playing high level soccer (ECNL and DA) but most are not playing it at FCV. SOME, but definitely not 50%.

This is exactly right, unlike the FCV u19 parent’s account.

1-3 players per team is a lie. Period. It is more than that. Regardless, the DA is the top level and should be drawing from all over especially when the team is the best team around in each age group. Why wouldn't players want to come and why wouldn't the team take them? Because you don't like it that way?

Well the truth is the landscape has changed and FCV is likely to rely on homegrown players more than ever before going forward. Despite their success, success gained in a very diluted landscape, it will be more difficult than ever to draw players in from the outside. Frankly, there are just to many viable options available to players today. Most savvy parents understand that if their kid is going to be recruited and college is a goal there are more opportunities to be seen now than ever before. And with those opportunities comes meaningful playing time. Playing means fun AND exposure.

To prove the PP's point.... look at the FCV 2007 DA. Almost all the players came from the FCV 2007 team. That is a good team, to be sure, but the fact that so many of them "advanced" suggests there was less interest from players from the outside than the club has seen in previous age groups.

[Anonymous]

I should have added -- the 2007 DA for next year -- I know someone will come and say that age doesn't exist yet.....