Loudoun Struggles in ECNL

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Different poster, but i don’t get the sarcasm. Steel sharpens steel. I’d rather have a player on a lower performing team in a high performing environment vs being top team. More bang for the buck in their development.

Steel sharpens steel, but a softer material gets destroyed. Loudoun's U16 ECNL team has 11 losses and 0 wins with -31 goal differential. I don't think that this ECNL season is great for their development or confidence. Imagine moving them to even tougher division with stronger ECNL teams. The right thing for the club to do would be to move this team to a more appropriate level of competition and the results indicate that it should not be an upward movement.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Different poster, but i don’t get the sarcasm. Steel sharpens steel. I’d rather have a player on a lower performing team in a high performing environment vs being top team. More bang for the buck in their development.

Steel sharpens steel, but a softer material gets destroyed. Loudoun's U16 ECNL team has 11 losses and 0 wins with -31 goal differential. I don't think that this ECNL season is great for their development or confidence. Imagine moving them to even tougher division with stronger ECNL teams. The right thing for the club to do would be to move this team to a more appropriate level of competition and the results indicate that it should not be an upward movement.

You are completely off your rocker. Individual players get better by facing better competition, even if their teams lose every game 5-0. I'd still rather my player learn on the 0 end of the game than not be challenged on the other end.

[Anonymous]

If you DD needs to win games for confidence or for development she does not belong in ECNL or DA soccer.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:If you DD needs to win games for confidence or for development she does not belong in ECNL or DA soccer.

Different poster. I'm not in total agreement with the PP. However, I think the right answer is in between. I agree that they don't have to win every single game. However, if they are losing every single game by wide margins, at the very least they are playing out of their depth. I'm not commenting on any specific team by the way, but as a concept. I think Loudoun will stabilize in the ECNL and will eventually do better as time goes on. I have faith in the program. That doesn't mean though that I consider losing every single game a developmental experience. It's not. Players lose the confidence that they can win. They can also forget how. If you see a team that does win some, when they do lose, there is a fight in them that doesn't exist in teams that have a habit of losing. To them, losing becomes a culture.

If they are constantly winning and often by wide margins, they are also under-challenged. So both are problems. The best teams are the middle tier teams. They win some and they lose some. They get both ends of the developmental experience.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If you DD needs to win games for confidence or for development she does not belong in ECNL or DA soccer.

Different poster. I'm not in total agreement with the PP. However, I think the right answer is in between. I agree that they don't have to win every single game. However, if they are losing every single game by wide margins, at the very least they are playing out of their depth. I'm not commenting on any specific team by the way, but as a concept. I think Loudoun will stabilize in the ECNL and will eventually do better as time goes on. I have faith in the program. That doesn't mean though that I consider losing every single game a developmental experience. It's not. Players lose the confidence that they can win. They can also forget how. If you see a team that does win some, when they do lose, there is a fight in them that doesn't exist in teams that have a habit of losing. To them, losing becomes a culture.

If they are constantly winning and often by wide margins, they are also under-challenged. So both are problems. The best teams are the middle tier teams. They win some and they lose some. They get both ends of the developmental experience.

I think winning is completely irrelevant to the individual player. What matters is how play is carried and what the individual player can do. A team with a weak midfield might lost every game 0-5 and even in that experience, all players may improve from the beginning of the year. The result is not tied to the development of the payer at all in my experience. The result is more about the total level of talent at all positions, depth of the bench, and sophistication of play. That doesn't mean that the losing players don't develop, even if they are "out of their depth." They just aren't at the level of the other teams. They gain regardless. I do agree with you that the team on the other end, winning every game 5-0 gains much, much less.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If you DD needs to win games for confidence or for development she does not belong in ECNL or DA soccer.

Different poster. I'm not in total agreement with the PP. However, I think the right answer is in between. I agree that they don't have to win every single game. However, if they are losing every single game by wide margins, at the very least they are playing out of their depth. I'm not commenting on any specific team by the way, but as a concept. I think Loudoun will stabilize in the ECNL and will eventually do better as time goes on. I have faith in the program. That doesn't mean though that I consider losing every single game a developmental experience. It's not. Players lose the confidence that they can win. They can also forget how. If you see a team that does win some, when they do lose, there is a fight in them that doesn't exist in teams that have a habit of losing. To them, losing becomes a culture.

If they are constantly winning and often by wide margins, they are also under-challenged. So both are problems. The best teams are the middle tier teams. They win some and they lose some. They get both ends of the developmental experience.

I think winning is completely irrelevant to the individual player. What matters is how play is carried and what the individual player can do. A team with a weak midfield might lost every game 0-5 and even in that experience, all players may improve from the beginning of the year. The result is not tied to the development of the payer at all in my experience. The result is more about the total level of talent at all positions, depth of the bench, and sophistication of play. That doesn't mean that the losing players don't develop, even if they are "out of their depth." They just aren't at the level of the other teams. They gain regardless. I do agree with you that the team on the other end, winning every game 5-0 gains much, much less.

Then we disagree. I have seen players become so discouraged, they lose the will to keep going when on teams like what you describe. If your kid has so little bonding with a team that winning and losing is all the same, then he/she isn't as invested in the team experience. Which is fine. To each his own, but part of the team experience is sharing in the blame in a loss and the joy in a win. That's the package. So, for most players it does and should matter. It's part of the psychology of a team sport.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If you DD needs to win games for confidence or for development she does not belong in ECNL or DA soccer.

Different poster. I'm not in total agreement with the PP. However, I think the right answer is in between. I agree that they don't have to win every single game. However, if they are losing every single game by wide margins, at the very least they are playing out of their depth. I'm not commenting on any specific team by the way, but as a concept. I think Loudoun will stabilize in the ECNL and will eventually do better as time goes on. I have faith in the program. That doesn't mean though that I consider losing every single game a developmental experience. It's not. Players lose the confidence that they can win. They can also forget how. If you see a team that does win some, when they do lose, there is a fight in them that doesn't exist in teams that have a habit of losing. To them, losing becomes a culture.

If they are constantly winning and often by wide margins, they are also under-challenged. So both are problems. The best teams are the middle tier teams. They win some and they lose some. They get both ends of the developmental experience.

I think winning is completely irrelevant to the individual player. What matters is how play is carried and what the individual player can do. A team with a weak midfield might lost every game 0-5 and even in that experience, all players may improve from the beginning of the year. The result is not tied to the development of the payer at all in my experience. The result is more about the total level of talent at all positions, depth of the bench, and sophistication of play. That doesn't mean that the losing players don't develop, even if they are "out of their depth." They just aren't at the level of the other teams. They gain regardless. I do agree with you that the team on the other end, winning every game 5-0 gains much, much less.

Then we disagree. I have seen players become so discouraged, they lose the will to keep going when on teams like what you describe. If your kid has so little bonding with a team that winning and losing is all the same, then he/she isn't as invested in the team experience. Which is fine. To each his own, but part of the team experience is sharing in the blame in a loss and the joy in a win. That's the package. So, for most players it does and should matter. It's part of the psychology of a team sport.

I think you misunderstand, it's not to say the players don't care about winning or losing. It's about their development. In terms of points scored and winning and losing, there are other ways to motivate a player beyond the scoreboard. A very good coach, faced with a team that might not be at a cohesion or talent level of the competition, can set other goals for individuals and the team. Number of connected passes in a row, forcing play to certain areas of the field, etc. Even though they don't net the win, they win these individual and team battles based on a different metric than score. Sure, there are players out there who can't stand losing and turn off. IMO they do not have the grit to succeed at a higher level anyway, and that kind of thinking leads to players who let down when they get down 0-3 in a match. I'd rather the player working as hard as they can to meet their individual and team goals despite what the scorebaord says.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If you DD needs to win games for confidence or for development she does not belong in ECNL or DA soccer.

Different poster. I'm not in total agreement with the PP. However, I think the right answer is in between. I agree that they don't have to win every single game. However, if they are losing every single game by wide margins, at the very least they are playing out of their depth. I'm not commenting on any specific team by the way, but as a concept. I think Loudoun will stabilize in the ECNL and will eventually do better as time goes on. I have faith in the program. That doesn't mean though that I consider losing every single game a developmental experience. It's not. Players lose the confidence that they can win. They can also forget how. If you see a team that does win some, when they do lose, there is a fight in them that doesn't exist in teams that have a habit of losing. To them, losing becomes a culture.

If they are constantly winning and often by wide margins, they are also under-challenged. So both are problems. The best teams are the middle tier teams. They win some and they lose some. They get both ends of the developmental experience.

I think winning is completely irrelevant to the individual player. What matters is how play is carried and what the individual player can do. A team with a weak midfield might lost every game 0-5 and even in that experience, all players may improve from the beginning of the year. The result is not tied to the development of the payer at all in my experience. The result is more about the total level of talent at all positions, depth of the bench, and sophistication of play. That doesn't mean that the losing players don't develop, even if they are "out of their depth." They just aren't at the level of the other teams. They gain regardless. I do agree with you that the team on the other end, winning every game 5-0 gains much, much less.

Then we disagree. I have seen players become so discouraged, they lose the will to keep going when on teams like what you describe. If your kid has so little bonding with a team that winning and losing is all the same, then he/she isn't as invested in the team experience. Which is fine. To each his own, but part of the team experience is sharing in the blame in a loss and the joy in a win. That's the package. So, for most players it does and should matter. It's part of the psychology of a team sport.

I think you misunderstand, it's not to say the players don't care about winning or losing. It's about their development. In terms of points scored and winning and losing, there are other ways to motivate a player beyond the scoreboard. A very good coach, faced with a team that might not be at a cohesion or talent level of the competition, can set other goals for individuals and the team. Number of connected passes in a row, forcing play to certain areas of the field, etc. Even though they don't net the win, they win these individual and team battles based on a different metric than score. Sure, there are players out there who can't stand losing and turn off. IMO they do not have the grit to succeed at a higher level anyway, and that kind of thinking leads to players who let down when they get down 0-3 in a match. I'd rather the player working as hard as they can to meet their individual and team goals despite what the scorebaord says.

I think you misunderstand. I'm disagreeing with you. I think development suffers if they stay on a team that gets its ass handed to it every week. I thought my previous post was clear, but maybe not.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If you DD needs to win games for confidence or for development she does not belong in ECNL or DA soccer.

Different poster. I'm not in total agreement with the PP. However, I think the right answer is in between. I agree that they don't have to win every single game. However, if they are losing every single game by wide margins, at the very least they are playing out of their depth. I'm not commenting on any specific team by the way, but as a concept. I think Loudoun will stabilize in the ECNL and will eventually do better as time goes on. I have faith in the program. That doesn't mean though that I consider losing every single game a developmental experience. It's not. Players lose the confidence that they can win. They can also forget how. If you see a team that does win some, when they do lose, there is a fight in them that doesn't exist in teams that have a habit of losing. To them, losing becomes a culture.

If they are constantly winning and often by wide margins, they are also under-challenged. So both are problems. The best teams are the middle tier teams. They win some and they lose some. They get both ends of the developmental experience.

I think winning is completely irrelevant to the individual player. What matters is how play is carried and what the individual player can do. A team with a weak midfield might lost every game 0-5 and even in that experience, all players may improve from the beginning of the year. The result is not tied to the development of the payer at all in my experience. The result is more about the total level of talent at all positions, depth of the bench, and sophistication of play. That doesn't mean that the losing players don't develop, even if they are "out of their depth." They just aren't at the level of the other teams. They gain regardless. I do agree with you that the team on the other end, winning every game 5-0 gains much, much less.

Then we disagree. I have seen players become so discouraged, they lose the will to keep going when on teams like what you describe. If your kid has so little bonding with a team that winning and losing is all the same, then he/she isn't as invested in the team experience. Which is fine. To each his own, but part of the team experience is sharing in the blame in a loss and the joy in a win. That's the package. So, for most players it does and should matter. It's part of the psychology of a team sport.

I think you misunderstand, it's not to say the players don't care about winning or losing. It's about their development. In terms of points scored and winning and losing, there are other ways to motivate a player beyond the scoreboard. A very good coach, faced with a team that might not be at a cohesion or talent level of the competition, can set other goals for individuals and the team. Number of connected passes in a row, forcing play to certain areas of the field, etc. Even though they don't net the win, they win these individual and team battles based on a different metric than score. Sure, there are players out there who can't stand losing and turn off. IMO they do not have the grit to succeed at a higher level anyway, and that kind of thinking leads to players who let down when they get down 0-3 in a match. I'd rather the player working as hard as they can to meet their individual and team goals despite what the scorebaord says.

I think you misunderstand. I'm disagreeing with you. I think development suffers if they stay on a team that gets its ass handed to it every week. I thought my previous post was clear, but maybe not.

I think you are shortsighted, and wrong, as explained.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If you DD needs to win games for confidence or for development she does not belong in ECNL or DA soccer.

Different poster. I'm not in total agreement with the PP. However, I think the right answer is in between. I agree that they don't have to win every single game. However, if they are losing every single game by wide margins, at the very least they are playing out of their depth. I'm not commenting on any specific team by the way, but as a concept. I think Loudoun will stabilize in the ECNL and will eventually do better as time goes on. I have faith in the program. That doesn't mean though that I consider losing every single game a developmental experience. It's not. Players lose the confidence that they can win. They can also forget how. If you see a team that does win some, when they do lose, there is a fight in them that doesn't exist in teams that have a habit of losing. To them, losing becomes a culture.

If they are constantly winning and often by wide margins, they are also under-challenged. So both are problems. The best teams are the middle tier teams. They win some and they lose some. They get both ends of the developmental experience.

I think winning is completely irrelevant to the individual player. What matters is how play is carried and what the individual player can do. A team with a weak midfield might lost every game 0-5 and even in that experience, all players may improve from the beginning of the year. The result is not tied to the development of the payer at all in my experience. The result is more about the total level of talent at all positions, depth of the bench, and sophistication of play. That doesn't mean that the losing players don't develop, even if they are "out of their depth." They just aren't at the level of the other teams. They gain regardless. I do agree with you that the team on the other end, winning every game 5-0 gains much, much less.

Then we disagree. I have seen players become so discouraged, they lose the will to keep going when on teams like what you describe. If your kid has so little bonding with a team that winning and losing is all the same, then he/she isn't as invested in the team experience. Which is fine. To each his own, but part of the team experience is sharing in the blame in a loss and the joy in a win. That's the package. So, for most players it does and should matter. It's part of the psychology of a team sport.

I think you misunderstand, it's not to say the players don't care about winning or losing. It's about their development. In terms of points scored and winning and losing, there are other ways to motivate a player beyond the scoreboard. A very good coach, faced with a team that might not be at a cohesion or talent level of the competition, can set other goals for individuals and the team. Number of connected passes in a row, forcing play to certain areas of the field, etc. Even though they don't net the win, they win these individual and team battles based on a different metric than score. Sure, there are players out there who can't stand losing and turn off. IMO they do not have the grit to succeed at a higher level anyway, and that kind of thinking leads to players who let down when they get down 0-3 in a match. I'd rather the player working as hard as they can to meet their individual and team goals despite what the scorebaord says.

I think you misunderstand. I'm disagreeing with you. I think development suffers if they stay on a team that gets its ass handed to it every week. I thought my previous post was clear, but maybe not.

I think you are shortsighted, and wrong, as explained.

As I said, we disagree. You presented your argument. I presented mine. Do you think if we go back and forth one of us will get convinced? If so, let's keep going. Otherwise, I figured just telling you I didn't misunderstand, but I totally disagree is sufficient, since I already laid out why. I've seen kids give up. To say they need mental grit rather than also give them the developmental experience of winning some makes no sense to me. I'm not saying always win. They need to know how to lose as well. But to never win? Never even see that outcome? Never be able to make a play that results in a goal? How then do you know the subtle differences? Ask any club in Europe. None of them function that way. Some developmental losses are one thing, but a career of losing? Dear Lord, that's crazy.

[Anonymous]

I also disagree with the poster who claims that getting beat downs in blowout losses week after week is good for player development. It is OK to lose some games and players can learn from the losses, but proper development eventually results in improvement, competitive games and wins. If a team is unable to win a single game in a league, they need to be moved to an appropriate level of competition. Otherwise, the only thing you are developing is the culture of losing.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If you DD needs to win games for confidence or for development she does not belong in ECNL or DA soccer.

Different poster. I'm not in total agreement with the PP. However, I think the right answer is in between. I agree that they don't have to win every single game. However, if they are losing every single game by wide margins, at the very least they are playing out of their depth. I'm not commenting on any specific team by the way, but as a concept. I think Loudoun will stabilize in the ECNL and will eventually do better as time goes on. I have faith in the program. That doesn't mean though that I consider losing every single game a developmental experience. It's not. Players lose the confidence that they can win. They can also forget how. If you see a team that does win some, when they do lose, there is a fight in them that doesn't exist in teams that have a habit of losing. To them, losing becomes a culture.

If they are constantly winning and often by wide margins, they are also under-challenged. So both are problems. The best teams are the middle tier teams. They win some and they lose some. They get both ends of the developmental experience.

I think winning is completely irrelevant to the individual player. What matters is how play is carried and what the individual player can do. A team with a weak midfield might lost every game 0-5 and even in that experience, all players may improve from the beginning of the year. The result is not tied to the development of the payer at all in my experience. The result is more about the total level of talent at all positions, depth of the bench, and sophistication of play. That doesn't mean that the losing players don't develop, even if they are "out of their depth." They just aren't at the level of the other teams. They gain regardless. I do agree with you that the team on the other end, winning every game 5-0 gains much, much less.

Then we disagree. I have seen players become so discouraged, they lose the will to keep going when on teams like what you describe. If your kid has so little bonding with a team that winning and losing is all the same, then he/she isn't as invested in the team experience. Which is fine. To each his own, but part of the team experience is sharing in the blame in a loss and the joy in a win. That's the package. So, for most players it does and should matter. It's part of the psychology of a team sport.

I think you misunderstand, it's not to say the players don't care about winning or losing. It's about their development. In terms of points scored and winning and losing, there are other ways to motivate a player beyond the scoreboard. A very good coach, faced with a team that might not be at a cohesion or talent level of the competition, can set other goals for individuals and the team. Number of connected passes in a row, forcing play to certain areas of the field, etc. Even though they don't net the win, they win these individual and team battles based on a different metric than score. Sure, there are players out there who can't stand losing and turn off. IMO they do not have the grit to succeed at a higher level anyway, and that kind of thinking leads to players who let down when they get down 0-3 in a match. I'd rather the player working as hard as they can to meet their individual and team goals despite what the scorebaord says.

I think you misunderstand. I'm disagreeing with you. I think development suffers if they stay on a team that gets its ass handed to it every week. I thought my previous post was clear, but maybe not.

I think you are shortsighted, and wrong, as explained.

As I said, we disagree. You presented your argument. I presented mine. Do you think if we go back and forth one of us will get convinced? If so, let's keep going. Otherwise, I figured just telling you I didn't misunderstand, but I totally disagree is sufficient, since I already laid out why. I've seen kids give up. To say they need mental grit rather than also give them the developmental experience of winning some makes no sense to me. I'm not saying always win. They need to know how to lose as well. But to never win? Never even see that outcome? Never be able to make a play that results in a goal? How then do you know the subtle differences? Ask any club in Europe. None of them function that way. Some developmental losses are one thing, but a career of losing? Dear Lord, that's crazy.

NP here. Your posts do not seem sincere. The fact that you are trying to get the last post in is becoming clownish. You don’t win on this forum by getting the last word in. Also your obsession with Loudoun soccer is weird.

[Anonymous]

He is also picking on one specific team at Loudoun that has no wins. The rest of the ECNL teams have won at least one game. So the majority of team have tasted the precious win that seems to mean everything to him.

[Anonymous]

This individual is on this forum to bash clubs and teams in general. He/she is simply a troll. You can tell by the platitudes such as “culture of losing,” “never score a goal,” etc which dont exist in reality. The pattern of needing to get the last word in and sock puppet agreement with his/her arguments is a pattern you can see in multiple threads. This individual never reveals their child’s club affiliation, but is sure to attack others. It doesn’t add anything of value to this forum to turn every thread into a show, but that’s what happens. You can see it in this thread and other threads as well.

[Anonymous]

I actually apologize, as I had no intention at all of picking on this team. I even stated I believe in Loudoun's ECNL. Please excuse the misunderstanding. I was talking about the concept and meant to state that clearly.

My apologies. I never meant to offend anyone. I also am not the only one who posted and I did not personally say "culture of losing."