VYS Soccer - better or worse?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I agree with you that the kids should never be criticized here but I was trying to see it from the TDs perspective and I wouldn't think he would do that that since he's main job is to develop kids. More of a criticism of his peers. Seeing how many on this board are not happy with the direction and coaching at VYS I was reading it in that way. I personally think that VYS with their small town feel and large number of players (maybe not 4k) could be in a lot better situation. I'm an outsider but have heard from many VYS parents who are continuously talking about leaving. I think they should be doing a better job of developing a culture that everyone in the community wants to be a part of and not leave at the competitive level. I think they have it at the Rec level.

Questions to ask:

1. Did this TD ever work at Vienna or have a buddy who did? Any reason for personal animosity?

2. What's different about the girls' teams that have won tons of honors from U13-up?

3. What does "many on this board" mean? We have a lot of posts, but we don't know how many people are posting. Could be 25, could be five. In either case, out of "4,000 people," that's statistically insignificant.

Look, a lot of players on top teams shop around. This area has a lot of options. I know people who've been through it and played in college, and I know people who are looking around now. It's not always a sign of their former club doing something "wrong." Maybe a couple of players want to go to ECNL, the DA, EDP or whatever. Maybe a couple of B-team players find an A team elsewhere. Maybe some players just don't fit with a particular coach and decide to look elsewhere.

I get the feeling a lot of VYS parents think this is all unique to VYS. It's not. Not saying VYS doesn't have its own issues, but all the prophecies here about "everyone leaving" in comparison to regular turnover have been proven false, time and time again.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I agree with you that the kids should never be criticized here but I was trying to see it from the TDs perspective and I wouldn't think he would do that that since he's main job is to develop kids. More of a criticism of his peers. Seeing how many on this board are not happy with the direction and coaching at VYS I was reading it in that way. I personally think that VYS with their small town feel and large number of players (maybe not 4k) could be in a lot better situation. I'm an outsider but have heard from many VYS parents who are continuously talking about leaving. I think they should be doing a better job of developing a culture that everyone in the community wants to be a part of and not leave at the competitive level. I think they have it at the Rec level.

The TDs criticism you quoted was clearly directed at VYS coaches / technical directors - his rivals and peers. I am a VYS parent and did not take it as directed at my kid.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I agree with you that the kids should never be criticized here but I was trying to see it from the TDs perspective and I wouldn't think he would do that that since he's main job is to develop kids. More of a criticism of his peers. Seeing how many on this board are not happy with the direction and coaching at VYS I was reading it in that way. I personally think that VYS with their small town feel and large number of players (maybe not 4k) could be in a lot better situation. I'm an outsider but have heard from many VYS parents who are continuously talking about leaving. I think they should be doing a better job of developing a culture that everyone in the community wants to be a part of and not leave at the competitive level. I think they have it at the Rec level.

The TDs criticism you quoted was clearly directed at VYS coaches / technical directors - his rivals and peers. I am a VYS parent and did not take it as directed at my kid.

But all of the coaches and technical staff (at U9, at least) changed from fall to spring. For this guy to make any comment on the current coaching/technical staff, he'd have to be clairvoyant.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote: The former assistant technical director for that age group was under the impression that U9s and U10s can't pass the ball. He considered 1v1 skills much more important. I disagree rather emphatically, but he's not alone in that -- a lot of McLean coaches have had the same approach. So if you want to come in here and say you're not a fan of that guy's style, OK. That's a legitimate debate.

You're debate then is with U.S. Soccer, not VYS. U.S. Soccer has consistently emphasized the technical over the tactical at U9 ever since Jurgen/Claudio's arrival and 1v1 attacking has always been one of the highest priorities at U9. VYS has likewise emphasized the same principles. This isn't a new thing. Eddie Lima used to actively discourage U9 players from passing the ball (much to many parents' surprise), instead asking them to challenge themselves to beat players 1v1 and think creatively. The new regime has continued that emphasis - just as all clubs under U.S. Soccer's leadership should. Why? We want our young players to be comfortable on the ball and be able to handle pressure and create for themselves, rather than kicking or passing it away at the first sign of pressure. You need to build a strong foundation to enable more advanced possession/tactical play later. This means that the kids will lose the ball a lot, and will give up a goals, but it is better from a long-term development perspective. The teams that are instead teaching their kids to pass to avoid pressure and "string passes together" at U9 may win more games and score more goals, but they will be doing their kids a disservice in the long run. I cringe when I hear U9 coaches joysticking various tactical demands and emphasizing "shape" over skill. Even more so when it's a parent from a sideline who thinks he is Jose Mourinho and directs the kids accordingly with all he/she learned about tactics from watching that morning's BPL pre-match analysis. It's a U9 game - relax, let the kids play, solve their own problems on the field, and gain confidence on the ball first and foremost. Tiki taka can wait.

That's not to say that you don't teach passing and receiving. Both 1v1 attacking and passing/receiving are "5" priorities at U9 in the U.S. Soccer Curriculum. But the focus is on the proper passing TECHNIQUE in practices, not the tactical elements of passing in games, which comes later at a more appropriate stage of young kids' psychological/developmental curve. Far too many youth coaches in this area emphasize the latter. Thankfully, VYS (and most of the better clubs in the area) do not.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: The former assistant technical director for that age group was under the impression that U9s and U10s can't pass the ball. He considered 1v1 skills much more important. I disagree rather emphatically, but he's not alone in that -- a lot of McLean coaches have had the same approach. So if you want to come in here and say you're not a fan of that guy's style, OK. That's a legitimate debate.

You're debate then is with U.S. Soccer, not VYS. U.S. Soccer has consistently emphasized the technical over the tactical at U9 ever since Jurgen/Claudio's arrival and 1v1 attacking has always been one of the highest priorities at U9. VYS has likewise emphasized the same principles. This isn't a new thing. Eddie Lima used to actively discourage U9 players from passing the ball (much to many parents' surprise), instead asking them to challenge themselves to beat players 1v1 and think creatively. The new regime has continued that emphasis - just as all clubs under U.S. Soccer's leadership should. Why? We want our young players to be comfortable on the ball and be able to handle pressure and create for themselves, rather than kicking or passing it away at the first sign of pressure. You need to build a strong foundation to enable more advanced possession/tactical play later. This means that the kids will lose the ball a lot, and will give up a goals, but it is better from a long-term development perspective. The teams that are instead teaching their kids to pass to avoid pressure and "string passes together" at U9 may win more games and score more goals, but they will be doing their kids a disservice in the long run. I cringe when I hear U9 coaches joysticking various tactical demands and emphasizing "shape" over skill. Even more so when it's a parent from a sideline who thinks he is Jose Mourinho and directs the kids accordingly with all he/she learned about tactics from watching that morning's BPL pre-match analysis. It's a U9 game - relax, let the kids play, solve their own problems on the field, and gain confidence on the ball first and foremost. Tiki taka can wait.

That's not to say that you don't teach passing and receiving. Both 1v1 attacking and passing/receiving are "5" priorities at U9 in the U.S. Soccer Curriculum. But the focus is on the proper passing TECHNIQUE in practices, not the tactical elements of passing in games, which comes later at a more appropriate stage of young kids' psychological/developmental curve. Far too many youth coaches in this area emphasize the latter. Thankfully, VYS (and most of the better clubs in the area) do not.

A lot of truth in this post. Yeah, we've all cringed at U8 parents yelling "Pass it!" at kids who are one good 1v1 move away from scoring.

But the fall 2015 VYS ATD took it to extremes. At the opposite extreme, there's Alexandria, which uses SoccerMeter to track its U9s' passing stats. (They're a lot of fun to watch.)

At some point, if you're not going to pass the ball, why are you even playing 7v7? Why not 3v3?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: The former assistant technical director for that age group was under the impression that U9s and U10s can't pass the ball. He considered 1v1 skills much more important. I disagree rather emphatically, but he's not alone in that -- a lot of McLean coaches have had the same approach. So if you want to come in here and say you're not a fan of that guy's style, OK. That's a legitimate debate.

You're debate then is with U.S. Soccer, not VYS. U.S. Soccer has consistently emphasized the technical over the tactical at U9 ever since Jurgen/Claudio's arrival and 1v1 attacking has always been one of the highest priorities at U9. VYS has likewise emphasized the same principles. This isn't a new thing. Eddie Lima used to actively discourage U9 players from passing the ball (much to many parents' surprise), instead asking them to challenge themselves to beat players 1v1 and think creatively. The new regime has continued that emphasis - just as all clubs under U.S. Soccer's leadership should. Why? We want our young players to be comfortable on the ball and be able to handle pressure and create for themselves, rather than kicking or passing it away at the first sign of pressure. You need to build a strong foundation to enable more advanced possession/tactical play later. This means that the kids will lose the ball a lot, and will give up a goals, but it is better from a long-term development perspective. The teams that are instead teaching their kids to pass to avoid pressure and "string passes together" at U9 may win more games and score more goals, but they will be doing their kids a disservice in the long run. I cringe when I hear U9 coaches joysticking various tactical demands and emphasizing "shape" over skill. Even more so when it's a parent from a sideline who thinks he is Jose Mourinho and directs the kids accordingly with all he/she learned about tactics from watching that morning's BPL pre-match analysis. It's a U9 game - relax, let the kids play, solve their own problems on the field, and gain confidence on the ball first and foremost. Tiki taka can wait.

That's not to say that you don't teach passing and receiving. Both 1v1 attacking and passing/receiving are "5" priorities at U9 in the U.S. Soccer Curriculum. But the focus is on the proper passing TECHNIQUE in practices, not the tactical elements of passing in games, which comes later at a more appropriate stage of young kids' psychological/developmental curve. Far too many youth coaches in this area emphasize the latter. Thankfully, VYS (and most of the better clubs in the area) do not.

+1000

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

You're debate then is with U.S. Soccer, not VYS. U.S. Soccer has consistently emphasized the technical over the tactical at U9 ever since Jurgen/Claudio's arrival and 1v1 attacking has always been one of the highest priorities at U9. VYS has likewise emphasized the same principles. This isn't a new thing. Eddie Lima used to actively discourage U9 players from passing the ball (much to many parents' surprise), instead asking them to challenge themselves to beat players 1v1 and think creatively. The new regime has continued that emphasis - just as all clubs under U.S. Soccer's leadership should. Why? We want our young players to be comfortable on the ball and be able to handle pressure and create for themselves, rather than kicking or passing it away at the first sign of pressure. You need to build a strong foundation to enable more advanced possession/tactical play later. This means that the kids will lose the ball a lot, and will give up a goals, but it is better from a long-term development perspective. The teams that are instead teaching their kids to pass to avoid pressure and "string passes together" at U9 may win more games and score more goals, but they will be doing their kids a disservice in the long run. I cringe when I hear U9 coaches joysticking various tactical demands and emphasizing "shape" over skill. Even more so when it's a parent from a sideline who thinks he is Jose Mourinho and directs the kids accordingly with all he/she learned about tactics from watching that morning's BPL pre-match analysis. It's a U9 game - relax, let the kids play, solve their own problems on the field, and gain confidence on the ball first and foremost. Tiki taka can wait.

That's not to say that you don't teach passing and receiving. Both 1v1 attacking and passing/receiving are "5" priorities at U9 in the U.S. Soccer Curriculum. But the focus is on the proper passing TECHNIQUE in practices, not the tactical elements of passing in games, which comes later at a more appropriate stage of young kids' psychological/developmental curve. Far too many youth coaches in this area emphasize the latter. Thankfully, VYS (and most of the better clubs in the area) do not.

+100

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote: I was talking to a technical director at another club recently about the competitive level of current U9 boys teams and stuff. He asked, "Have you seen Vienna play? (rhetorical) They are Fing pathetic. Sure they score goals and get results but they can't string 3 passes together. They have 4000 kids over there and that's what they are putting on the pitch. I'd be embarrassed."

Said technical director sounds like someone who just got his butt kicked by Vienna's U9 boys. I'd pit their Best XI against anyone in the state.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: I was talking to a technical director at another club recently about the competitive level of current U9 boys teams and stuff. He asked, "Have you seen Vienna play? (rhetorical) They are Fing pathetic. Sure they score goals and get results but they can't string 3 passes together. They have 4000 kids over there and that's what they are putting on the pitch. I'd be embarrassed."

Said technical director sounds like someone who just got his butt kicked by Vienna's U9 boys. I'd pit their Best XI against anyone in the state.

Um, no.

I've been in this thread defending Vienna and its U9 boys. But first of all, results are secondary at this age. Second of all, plenty of other clubs have terrific first teams as well. Alexandria's passing game is brilliant. Herndon's a little more physical but quite skilled. Reston is the other NCSL team that has impressed me. Then add the CCL teams -- I haven't seen Loudoun's top team, but I can't imagine they're pushovers.

Unfortunately, we won't get to see VYS's top U9s against top competition at the Virginian Elite tournament. The top tier has Loudoun, Alexandria, Herndon and FPYC (more physical, less skilled than Herndon), but not VYS. I think the VYS team will have a pretty easy time winning its bracket.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So if your kid is doing well on an A-team, what is there to complain about? Which teams are losing all the players, A-teams, B-teams, or all the teams?

I am not sure who is spreading rumors of VYS losing players. If anything, we are seeing the opposite - players coming back after sampling what other clubs have to offer.

They're not rumors. Our experience with VYS has been abysmally bad. But, I'm coming at it from a completely different perspective. Our daughter tried out last year and made the B-level team. We expected her skills to improve over the course of the year, but they regressed. In fact, the team did not win a SINGLE game after October. Not one. The players are dispirited, lethargic, and have less soccer intelligence than they started the year with.

When tryouts came around this year, our daughter belonged on a team below where she was this year. Oh no, VYS promoted her to the top team. I PROMISE you she is not ready for that level of competition. I know for a fact that 8 of 11 girls on our team are leaving VYS this coming year. We are too.

VYS has NO IDEA what it's doing. They've experienced a substantial talent player and employee talent drain over each of the last 3 years and it only appears to be getting worse.

As opposed to abysmally good?

Also difficult to see how kids can come away with less soccer intelligence than they had going in, unless they're just not that good. My kids always seemed to have sharper instincts the more they played regardless of the quality of the coaching.

VYS has had its problems, certainly. But if the club has experienced a player drain, much of what I've seen is panicked parents thinking their kids are better than they are and using club problems as an excuse. Some "talent" has left, certainly, as has always been the case. But a lot more of the departures have been average players who've bought into the idea that the grass is always greener. We'll see.

I would like to know please if this is in reference to HOUSE or TRAVEL, which age groups, which gender, and if TRAVEL, which league?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: I was talking to a technical director at another club recently about the competitive level of current U9 boys teams and stuff. He asked, "Have you seen Vienna play? (rhetorical) They are Fing pathetic. Sure they score goals and get results but they can't string 3 passes together. They have 4000 kids over there and that's what they are putting on the pitch. I'd be embarrassed."

Said technical director sounds like someone who just got his butt kicked by Vienna's U9 boys. I'd pit their Best XI against anyone in the state.

Um, no.

I've been in this thread defending Vienna and its U9 boys. But first of all, results are secondary at this age. Second of all, plenty of other clubs have terrific first teams as well. Alexandria's passing game is brilliant. Herndon's a little more physical but quite skilled. Reston is the other NCSL team that has impressed me. Then add the CCL teams -- I haven't seen Loudoun's top team, but I can't imagine they're pushovers.

Unfortunately, we won't get to see VYS's top U9s against top competition at the Virginian Elite tournament. The top tier has Loudoun, Alexandria, Herndon and FPYC (more physical, less skilled than Herndon), but not VYS. I think the VYS team will have a pretty easy time winning its bracket.

I've seen the VYS's U9 top team play. They are very athletic and very technical. When they learn to start passing, everyone else better watch out.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: I was talking to a technical director at another club recently about the competitive level of current U9 boys teams and stuff. He asked, "Have you seen Vienna play? (rhetorical) They are Fing pathetic. Sure they score goals and get results but they can't string 3 passes together. They have 4000 kids over there and that's what they are putting on the pitch. I'd be embarrassed."

Said technical director sounds like someone who just got his butt kicked by Vienna's U9 boys. I'd pit their Best XI against anyone in the state.

Um, no.

I've been in this thread defending Vienna and its U9 boys. But first of all, results are secondary at this age. Second of all, plenty of other clubs have terrific first teams as well. Alexandria's passing game is brilliant. Herndon's a little more physical but quite skilled. Reston is the other NCSL team that has impressed me. Then add the CCL teams -- I haven't seen Loudoun's top team, but I can't imagine they're pushovers.

Unfortunately, we won't get to see VYS's top U9s against top competition at the Virginian Elite tournament. The top tier has Loudoun, Alexandria, Herndon and FPYC (more physical, less skilled than Herndon), but not VYS. I think the VYS team will have a pretty easy time winning its bracket.

How do they not get in the top bracket? They won every tournament they entered so far? That's Loudoun's 3rd team in the top division. I heard that VYS asked to be in the 2nd division of the Arlington tournament. Did we do it again? Doesn't make sense.

[Anonymous]

Other than how well the teams do, are there any other problems seen on Vienna's travel teams? Do all of the kids get a fair amount of play? How many practices are required as the kids get older? Is the burnout rate high or is the level of commitment manageable with school commitments?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: The former assistant technical director for that age group was under the impression that U9s and U10s can't pass the ball. He considered 1v1 skills much more important. I disagree rather emphatically, but he's not alone in that -- a lot of McLean coaches have had the same approach. So if you want to come in here and say you're not a fan of that guy's style, OK. That's a legitimate debate.

You're debate then is with U.S. Soccer, not VYS. U.S. Soccer has consistently emphasized the technical over the tactical at U9 ever since Jurgen/Claudio's arrival and 1v1 attacking has always been one of the highest priorities at U9. VYS has likewise emphasized the same principles. This isn't a new thing. Eddie Lima used to actively discourage U9 players from passing the ball (much to many parents' surprise), instead asking them to challenge themselves to beat players 1v1 and think creatively. The new regime has continued that emphasis - just as all clubs under U.S. Soccer's leadership should. Why? We want our young players to be comfortable on the ball and be able to handle pressure and create for themselves, rather than kicking or passing it away at the first sign of pressure. You need to build a strong foundation to enable more advanced possession/tactical play later. This means that the kids will lose the ball a lot, and will give up a goals, but it is better from a long-term development perspective. The teams that are instead teaching their kids to pass to avoid pressure and "string passes together" at U9 may win more games and score more goals, but they will be doing their kids a disservice in the long run. I cringe when I hear U9 coaches joysticking various tactical demands and emphasizing "shape" over skill. Even more so when it's a parent from a sideline who thinks he is Jose Mourinho and directs the kids accordingly with all he/she learned about tactics from watching that morning's BPL pre-match analysis. It's a U9 game - relax, let the kids play, solve their own problems on the field, and gain confidence on the ball first and foremost. Tiki taka can wait.

That's not to say that you don't teach passing and receiving. Both 1v1 attacking and passing/receiving are "5" priorities at U9 in the U.S. Soccer Curriculum. But the focus is on the proper passing TECHNIQUE in practices, not the tactical elements of passing in games, which comes later at a more appropriate stage of young kids' psychological/developmental curve. Far too many youth coaches in this area emphasize the latter. Thankfully, VYS (and most of the better clubs in the area) do not.

Well said.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Other than how well the teams do, are there any other problems seen on Vienna's travel teams? Do all of the kids get a fair amount of play? How many practices are required as the kids get older? Is the burnout rate high or is the level of commitment manageable with school commitments?

I would say this all has to do with what level/age group the kid is playing, house vs. travel, etc. Also, perspective is relative. Getting fair play for example, is a concern for u9 REC, not so much for U16 travel. Parents of the U9 might see it as a "problem", while parents of a U16 will see it as an indicator the player needs to work harder or develop more, etc. NONE of the aforementioned "problems" are actually "problems" singular to Vienna. Every club is going to have a practice and game commitment. How that commitment is managed and whether burn-out is an issue is up to the individual player and their family. It has nothing to do with the club.