Travel Soccer teams around NOVA let's discuss

[Anonymous]

The older Cougars can do state cup...that is open to them...if they are that good, that would be a good arena for them to start.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:One basic problem here is that the pyramid is upside-down.

Basic "travel" soccer should be accessible. In a densely populated area like this, we should be able to get good games without piling up travel costs. Imagine if we got all the players who want to play travel -- especially those who have either been priced out or don't have six hours to make a round-trip every Sunday -- and gave them opportunities to play at a level that suits them.

We don't need as much "elite" travel. This is driven by delusional parents and coaches.

Maybe things will settle in a few years. Perhaps an NCSL/ODSL merger or ODSL/SFL merger. Perhaps CCL, EDP and VPL can put egos aside and realize how silly it is to have three "elite" leagues in addition to DA and ECNL.

But frankly, I worry less about the latter. If "elite" players want freedom of choice among five elite leagues, so be it. Just make things more sensible for the rest of us. And come in and scout the rest of us every once in a while -- I certainly hope an enterprising DA or college coach skips the occasional big-money elite-league showcase and checks out a Cougars game or two.

Completely agree with this. When my older boys were growing up playing soccer in MoCo, I think the pyramid was pretty well shaped. Massive numbers of kids play MSI rec (which covers all of MoCo) starting in K or 1st, paying around $80 per season. MSI is not club-based, and is a volunteer-run not-for-profit, so there is not the money motive that drives clubs. Ones who wanted more competition, but didn't have time/money/interest in travel, could play MSI Classic starting in 3rd grade--cost was around $200-$500 per year depending on whether the team wanted to hire a professional coach or trainer, or enter tournaments. If you outgrew Classic or wanted more, then you joined a travel program that played in NCSL, where you and virtually all of the serious teams in the local region fought to reach/stay in the top divisions (or were content to face good completion at the right level in the lower divisions). From there you could move upward to Colonial league or Region 1, then up to the National League, or (later) a DA team, then on to the national team for a few, or college.

CCL entering NoVa really disrupted this model. I don't believe most of the people who worked to expand it here did so because they thought a club-centric model was the answer to helping more kids become better soccer players. It was more a reaction to the threat posed by clubs with DAs (non-DA clubs needed to claim they offered a prestigious product) and squabbles with NCSL and WAGS leadership. (This is not at all to say that some of the member clubs are insincere when they talk about the perceived benefits of the club-centric model) I do think CCL south developed for the right reasons, because those kids didn't have a system in place that guaranteed them good travel competition. And I think NPL serves a similar function in parts of the country where there might be no other decent travel leagues.

I wish we could open the pyramid back up, but there are probably too many clubs now invested in claiming that their product or league are superior. At the end of the day, it won't matter as much if you are a soccer savvy family and know how to seek out the best training and coaches, but unfortunately I don't think the majority of parents fall into that category.

Ugh. All of this is so true. I grew up here playing in the 70s and 80s. I know a history of the leagues in-depth and most of the people that started them.

This is not about the kids or their development. It's not. It's a pissing match between adults. It's disgusting. There is no 'youth soccer's best interest' in mind when starting all of this stuff.

I will get my jab in at CCL (not the CCL guy or the anti-CCL guy)---the Clubs that I am intimately familiar with in CCL (the big 3 so to speak) are about physical traits and a long-ball, punt it and run it down strategy in the selection process in the U9-U12 years. They don't notice the kids that are knowledgeable, play to space, move off the ball or have individual skill. Tryouts are like a cock-fight. They pick the most aggressive rooster that will run round and round the mini-scrimmage with no results. They think they can turn that kid into a soccer player--but I've seen very few finished products come out of these places.

They can win a lot of games with this strategy, but the majority of the kids developing in these Clubs (if they haven't supplemented on their own) are very sorely lacking in technique. Very sorely. BAD first touch. It's key development/skill time lost that they can't get back once they are in middle school and they aren't the toughest rooster on the block anymore.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Ok "CCL guy", don't go bi-polar on us... lol man I hadn't even said anything to you, but you decided to out yourself because you want attention. Do your kids even play anymore? From your last post it seems as of they're teenagers at least. Stay anonymous and noone will talk to you anymore, unless you want attention so bad you're willing to play the role as the "troll"

Personally, I find CCL guy, as you like to inaccurately disparage him, to be much more useful to the board than you, whose only contribute is to insult people.

I've contributed more, in other posts, not in this one. I think you mean the posts were useful. To that I would encourage you to go back in this forum and read several conversations relating to CCL and travel. This guy disparaged, insulted, and mocked everyone who complained about the travel. He may have had a few substantive posts, the problem is that he has repeated those continuously, which is why some other poster called him a "broken record".

I've read everything posted in this thread and have made a lot of the posts myself, but as much as "CCl guy" is a broken record for saying parents can and should join a team where the amount of travel is something they're comfortable with, so too are you a broken record not just on responding to his posts but also bringing him up in discussions where he hasn't made a post. And those posts (calling him out) add nothing to the substance of this discussion.

NP here. I disagree with you. I listened to the two of these gentlemen go at it pages and months ago, and the PP added a lot of useful info and does not beat a dead horse. This CCL guy is mocking and is now boring. He also seems to post from mutliple computers that DCUM can't trace. If he would just end the same diatribe, apologies, etc. and move on, we would all be better off. Dealing with the rants from CCL guy is a real PITA and the price you pay for being able to eventually gather useful info on here. So, I respectfully disagree with you about the PP. And I am not the PP, trust me!!!!

"Non-CCL" guy thinks travel is bad or at least is not necessary. This is certainly true.

"CCL guy" never said travel was good BUT perhaps one should be a educated consumer and look into the obligation before signing up in the first place.

Basically, "Non-CCL Guy" went to a seafood restaurant and complained about their lack of good pizza afterwords on Yelp. Non-CCL guy was also very disparaging of the other clubs and competition by saying that these teams are beneath them and not worth their teams time. Ironically, "CCL Guy" simply wonders why, if the travel is so bad, and the competition so poor, people cling to CCL with such veracity when there are other options?

That is it in a nutshell.

People can go back in the forum and review the posts should they desire. You are either new, have poor memory, or are the CCL sockpuppet. I wasn't involved but did witness the nonsense back and forrh. The non CCL guy made many more points then that that and the CCL Guy just ignored with several non-sequiturs and simply outshouted and outlasted. I will let the old posts speak for themselves. Easy to search the forum.

[Anonymous]

I'm sorry but BRYC is certainly one of the big 3 in CCL and in the games I have seen them play in a number of age groups, they have never struck me as a long ball team. Loudoun maybe, Arlington, depends on the coach, but BRYC, I question your judgment.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I'm sorry but BRYC is certainly one of the big 3 in CCL and in the games I have seen them play in a number of age groups, they have never struck me as a long ball team. Loudoun maybe, Arlington, depends on the coach, but BRYC, I question your judgment.

I give you BRYC. I am a BRYC travel alum (amongst others), btw. I left them out because when my boys were briefly in CCL--BRYC boys were the team always getting crushed by the long ball big 3: Loudoun, McLean and Arlington. I remember commenting to our parents about the very good skill level of the BRYC team and some of the individual players but I don't think they could hear me over the loud cheers for the 15th goal of the game.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Below is a link to a site that has some stats to shed some light on the chances of playing in college and professionally. Are the DA and ECNL folks going to get a return on their investment?


http://scholarshipstats.com/soccer.html

http://scholarshipstats.com/odds-of-going-pro.htm

Why do so many people think it's about going to college and/or going pro? I just want my kid to play in as high as competition as he is able to/wants to and that I am able to afford. Personally, yes, I can probably take my kid to Cougars and make the team, but I don't think he'd be as happy beating the crap out of Vienna's D's team and neither would I. So I am NOT looking for a return on my investment. It's like a car. You buy and enjoy it while it lasts. It's up to you to decide how much money you want to pay. You don't have to tell me that I'm not going to get a return on my investment. Do you chase all the people with BMWs and tell them they should have bought a Kia? and lastly, even if they are able to play in college, it's not like they get full scholarships normally. We know that too.

What makes you think your kid would make the Cougars squad. What makes you think they are happy beating Vienna's D Team. What makes you think they are not looking for better competition. What makes you think their end goal is to beat up on weak competition. If what is said before that they are competitive with other strong teams and if it's true that their fees are low, then wouldn't their return on investment be higher than yours where your paying top dollar for meh results? Maybe their coach is doing more with less than others with big resources. Maybe your kid couldn't hang in practice. Don't assume you are better just because you're at a top club. Maybe their kids could walk into your practice and relegate your kid to the B team. So much for that BMW.

You are right. Maybe my kid couldn't make the team. Maybe that D team would beat my kid's current team. All I'm saying is that I don't care about the return of investment. I care that my kid is enjoying playing at the highest level he can. I used Cougars as an example because apparently they are destroying people and my point was that my son wouldn't be happy on a team that crushed their competition week in and week out even though it cost less money. It's not about the return on investment.

I get you and not trying to sound harsh but that's a scenario that we don't know much about. Yes they have beat teams by a lot in their league but maybe they aren't happy with that. A previous poster mentioned that they were seeking to get into NCSL but couldn't. They played Futsal against strong teams. That tells me they are looking to challenge their players. Maybe they are scrimmaging other teams to get exposure to better competition. Maybe the kids understand that those games don't matter much. Who knows. Unfortunately not many know too much about that specific team but if there was an open system then teams like this would have the opportunity to climb up the pyramid. As previously mentioned by others, not currently possible.

Whoa, this has nothing to do with Cougars. Someone brought up being in DAs NOT being a good return on their investment and I'm sure other "expensive clubs". I just said that being on a very good but inexpensive club (and I apologize if I offended anyone for using Cougars but I thought people were saying they fell into this category) isn't what everyone wants either because they beat the crap out of everyone in season. Based on what I know, Cougars do try to play NCSL. They did play in a strong futsal league. They do play tournaments. I was just saying that I don't expect a return on my "investment" because soccer to me is NOT an investment just like 99.9999999% of cars aren't investments. I did NOT mean to disrespect Cougars. Oh and I know one other thing...their coach was selected as a D-ODP coach in the fall so there is another plug for Cougars. Go Cougars! I'm just saying that I don't understand people scoffing at the parents of kids paying $$$$ because it's not a good investment!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm sorry but BRYC is certainly one of the big 3 in CCL and in the games I have seen them play in a number of age groups, they have never struck me as a long ball team. Loudoun maybe, Arlington, depends on the coach, but BRYC, I question your judgment.

I give you BRYC. I am a BRYC travel alum (amongst others), btw. I left them out because when my boys were briefly in CCL--BRYC boys were the team always getting crushed by the long ball big 3: Loudoun, McLean and Arlington. I remember commenting to our parents about the very good skill level of the BRYC team and some of the individual players but I don't think they could hear me over the loud cheers for the 15th goal of the game.

I'm not sure what people want. I don't see the Arlington U11s Red or White (I saw that at Bethesda Tournament) being a long ball team. They have very good middle fielders (and defenders for that matter). They are also very fast and some are pretty big. They have skills too. Arlington is not the only team like this. Are their footskills INCREDIBLE? maybe not. But I'm not sure what people want to see out there. Do you want to see 7-8 players all standing around while one kid does beckenbauers or whatever until they get the ball stolen and then say...great job. It's all about individual skill? I mean what's the vision? I agree there is way too much punting EVERYWHERE! including BRYC.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Below is a link to a site that has some stats to shed some light on the chances of playing in college and professionally. Are the DA and ECNL folks going to get a return on their investment?


http://scholarshipstats.com/soccer.html

http://scholarshipstats.com/odds-of-going-pro.htm

Why do so many people think it's about going to college and/or going pro? I just want my kid to play in as high as competition as he is able to/wants to and that I am able to afford. Personally, yes, I can probably take my kid to Cougars and make the team, but I don't think he'd be as happy beating the crap out of Vienna's D's team and neither would I. So I am NOT looking for a return on my investment. It's like a car. You buy and enjoy it while it lasts. It's up to you to decide how much money you want to pay. You don't have to tell me that I'm not going to get a return on my investment. Do you chase all the people with BMWs and tell them they should have bought a Kia? and lastly, even if they are able to play in college, it's not like they get full scholarships normally. We know that too.

What makes you think your kid would make the Cougars squad. What makes you think they are happy beating Vienna's D Team. What makes you think they are not looking for better competition. What makes you think their end goal is to beat up on weak competition. If what is said before that they are competitive with other strong teams and if it's true that their fees are low, then wouldn't their return on investment be higher than yours where your paying top dollar for meh results? Maybe their coach is doing more with less than others with big resources. Maybe your kid couldn't hang in practice. Don't assume you are better just because you're at a top club. Maybe their kids could walk into your practice and relegate your kid to the B team. So much for that BMW.

You are right. Maybe my kid couldn't make the team. Maybe that D team would beat my kid's current team. All I'm saying is that I don't care about the return of investment. I care that my kid is enjoying playing at the highest level he can. I used Cougars as an example because apparently they are destroying people and my point was that my son wouldn't be happy on a team that crushed their competition week in and week out even though it cost less money. It's not about the return on investment.

I get you and not trying to sound harsh but that's a scenario that we don't know much about. Yes they have beat teams by a lot in their league but maybe they aren't happy with that. A previous poster mentioned that they were seeking to get into NCSL but couldn't. They played Futsal against strong teams. That tells me they are looking to challenge their players. Maybe they are scrimmaging other teams to get exposure to better competition. Maybe the kids understand that those games don't matter much. Who knows. Unfortunately not many know too much about that specific team but if there was an open system then teams like this would have the opportunity to climb up the pyramid. As previously mentioned by others, not currently possible.

Whoa, this has nothing to do with Cougars. Someone brought up being in DAs NOT being a good return on their investment and I'm sure other "expensive clubs". I just said that being on a very good but inexpensive club (and I apologize if I offended anyone for using Cougars but I thought people were saying they fell into this category) isn't what everyone wants either because they beat the crap out of everyone in season. Based on what I know, Cougars do try to play NCSL. They did play in a strong futsal league. They do play tournaments. I was just saying that I don't expect a return on my "investment" because soccer to me is NOT an investment just like 99.9999999% of cars aren't investments. I did NOT mean to disrespect Cougars. Oh and I know one other thing...their coach was selected as a D-ODP coach in the fall so there is another plug for Cougars. Go Cougars! I'm just saying that I don't understand people scoffing at the parents of kids paying $$$$ because it's not a good investment!

Sorry I must have read your comments incorrect. My DS son started at a small club and many of their players including him ended up playing at a higher level down the road. I read your initial comment as them just being Kia vs BMW and the Kia being a waste of time. I don't think you disrespected, I was just trying to say that their players might be trying to eventually become better. Sorry.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm sorry but BRYC is certainly one of the big 3 in CCL and in the games I have seen them play in a number of age groups, they have never struck me as a long ball team. Loudoun maybe, Arlington, depends on the coach, but BRYC, I question your judgment.

I give you BRYC. I am a BRYC travel alum (amongst others), btw. I left them out because when my boys were briefly in CCL--BRYC boys were the team always getting crushed by the long ball big 3: Loudoun, McLean and Arlington. I remember commenting to our parents about the very good skill level of the BRYC team and some of the individual players but I don't think they could hear me over the loud cheers for the 15th goal of the game.

I'm not sure what people want. I don't see the Arlington U11s Red or White (I saw that at Bethesda Tournament) being a long ball team. They have very good middle fielders (and defenders for that matter). They are also very fast and some are pretty big. They have skills too. Arlington is not the only team like this. Are their footskills INCREDIBLE? maybe not. But I'm not sure what people want to see out there. Do you want to see 7-8 players all standing around while one kid does beckenbauers or whatever until they get the ball stolen and then say...great job. It's all about individual skill? I mean what's the vision? I agree there is way too much punting EVERYWHERE! including BRYC.

Interesting--since their white team wasn't in the Bethesda tournament the last 2 years running.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Ok "CCL guy", don't go bi-polar on us... lol man I hadn't even said anything to you, but you decided to out yourself because you want attention. Do your kids even play anymore? From your last post it seems as of they're teenagers at least. Stay anonymous and noone will talk to you anymore, unless you want attention so bad you're willing to play the role as the "troll"

Personally, I find CCL guy, as you like to inaccurately disparage him, to be much more useful to the board than you, whose only contribute is to insult people.

I've contributed more, in other posts, not in this one. I think you mean the posts were useful. To that I would encourage you to go back in this forum and read several conversations relating to CCL and travel. This guy disparaged, insulted, and mocked everyone who complained about the travel. He may have had a few substantive posts, the problem is that he has repeated those continuously, which is why some other poster called him a "broken record".

I've read everything posted in this thread and have made a lot of the posts myself, but as much as "CCl guy" is a broken record for saying parents can and should join a team where the amount of travel is something they're comfortable with, so too are you a broken record not just on responding to his posts but also bringing him up in discussions where he hasn't made a post. And those posts (calling him out) add nothing to the substance of this discussion.

NP here. I disagree with you. I listened to the two of these gentlemen go at it pages and months ago, and the PP added a lot of useful info and does not beat a dead horse. This CCL guy is mocking and is now boring. He also seems to post from mutliple computers that DCUM can't trace. If he would just end the same diatribe, apologies, etc. and move on, we would all be better off. Dealing with the rants from CCL guy is a real PITA and the price you pay for being able to eventually gather useful info on here. So, I respectfully disagree with you about the PP. And I am not the PP, trust me!!!!

"Non-CCL" guy thinks travel is bad or at least is not necessary. This is certainly true.

"CCL guy" never said travel was good BUT perhaps one should be a educated consumer and look into the obligation before signing up in the first place.

Basically, "Non-CCL Guy" went to a seafood restaurant and complained about their lack of good pizza afterwords on Yelp. Non-CCL guy was also very disparaging of the other clubs and competition by saying that these teams are beneath them and not worth their teams time. Ironically, "CCL Guy" simply wonders why, if the travel is so bad, and the competition so poor, people cling to CCL with such veracity when there are other options?

That is it in a nutshell.

People can go back in the forum and review the posts should they desire. You are either new, have poor memory, or are the CCL sockpuppet. I wasn't involved but did witness the nonsense back and forrh. The non CCL guy made many more points then that that and the CCL Guy just ignored with several non-sequiturs and simply outshouted and outlasted. I will let the old posts speak for themselves. Easy to search the forum.

What were some of those many points?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm sorry but BRYC is certainly one of the big 3 in CCL and in the games I have seen them play in a number of age groups, they have never struck me as a long ball team. Loudoun maybe, Arlington, depends on the coach, but BRYC, I question your judgment.

I give you BRYC. I am a BRYC travel alum (amongst others), btw. I left them out because when my boys were briefly in CCL--BRYC boys were the team always getting crushed by the long ball big 3: Loudoun, McLean and Arlington. I remember commenting to our parents about the very good skill level of the BRYC team and some of the individual players but I don't think they could hear me over the loud cheers for the 15th goal of the game.

I'm not sure what people want. I don't see the Arlington U11s Red or White (I saw that at Bethesda Tournament) being a long ball team. They have very good middle fielders (and defenders for that matter). They are also very fast and some are pretty big. They have skills too. Arlington is not the only team like this. Are their footskills INCREDIBLE? maybe not. But I'm not sure what people want to see out there. Do you want to see 7-8 players all standing around while one kid does beckenbauers or whatever until they get the ball stolen and then say...great job. It's all about individual skill? I mean what's the vision? I agree there is way too much punting EVERYWHERE! including BRYC.

Interesting--since their white team wasn't in the Bethesda tournament the last 2 years running.

Sorry. I saw Red in the 2nd Division of the Bethesda tournament. I believe it was against a team from Manhattan. It was a warm day and then became very cold, extremely windy and started raining. The U11 White team I saw in a scrimmage. I also saw their u10 Red team play in a scrimmage.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm sorry but BRYC is certainly one of the big 3 in CCL and in the games I have seen them play in a number of age groups, they have never struck me as a long ball team. Loudoun maybe, Arlington, depends on the coach, but BRYC, I question your judgment.

I give you BRYC. I am a BRYC travel alum (amongst others), btw. I left them out because when my boys were briefly in CCL--BRYC boys were the team always getting crushed by the long ball big 3: Loudoun, McLean and Arlington. I remember commenting to our parents about the very good skill level of the BRYC team and some of the individual players but I don't think they could hear me over the loud cheers for the 15th goal of the game.

I'm not sure what people want. I don't see the Arlington U11s Red or White (I saw that at Bethesda Tournament) being a long ball team. They have very good middle fielders (and defenders for that matter). They are also very fast and some are pretty big. They have skills too. Arlington is not the only team like this. Are their footskills INCREDIBLE? maybe not. But I'm not sure what people want to see out there. Do you want to see 7-8 players all standing around while one kid does beckenbauers or whatever until they get the ball stolen and then say...great job. It's all about individual skill? I mean what's the vision? I agree there is way too much punting EVERYWHERE! including BRYC.

Interesting--since their white team wasn't in the Bethesda tournament the last 2 years running.

Sorry. I saw Red in the 2nd Division of the Bethesda tournament. I believe it was against a team from Manhattan. It was a warm day and then became very cold, extremely windy and started raining. The U11 White team I saw in a scrimmage. I also saw their u10 Red team play in a scrimmage.

I also saw U11 Red scrimmage. So I saw red twice and White once as a matter of fact.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm sorry but BRYC is certainly one of the big 3 in CCL and in the games I have seen them play in a number of age groups, they have never struck me as a long ball team. Loudoun maybe, Arlington, depends on the coach, but BRYC, I question your judgment.

I give you BRYC. I am a BRYC travel alum (amongst others), btw. I left them out because when my boys were briefly in CCL--BRYC boys were the team always getting crushed by the long ball big 3: Loudoun, McLean and Arlington. I remember commenting to our parents about the very good skill level of the BRYC team and some of the individual players but I don't think they could hear me over the loud cheers for the 15th goal of the game.

I'm not sure what people want. I don't see the Arlington U11s Red or White (I saw that at Bethesda Tournament) being a long ball team. They have very good middle fielders (and defenders for that matter). They are also very fast and some are pretty big. They have skills too. Arlington is not the only team like this. Are their footskills INCREDIBLE? maybe not. But I'm not sure what people want to see out there. Do you want to see 7-8 players all standing around while one kid does beckenbauers or whatever until they get the ball stolen and then say...great job. It's all about individual skill? I mean what's the vision? I agree there is way too much punting EVERYWHERE! including BRYC.

Interesting--since their white team wasn't in the Bethesda tournament the last 2 years running.

Sorry. I saw Red in the 2nd Division of the Bethesda tournament. I believe it was against a team from Manhattan. It was a warm day and then became very cold, extremely windy and started raining. The U11 White team I saw in a scrimmage. I also saw their u10 Red team play in a scrimmage.

I also saw U11 Red scrimmage. So I saw red twice and White once as a matter of fact.

We get it. Your kid is on the team.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm sorry but BRYC is certainly one of the big 3 in CCL and in the games I have seen them play in a number of age groups, they have never struck me as a long ball team. Loudoun maybe, Arlington, depends on the coach, but BRYC, I question your judgment.

I give you BRYC. I am a BRYC travel alum (amongst others), btw. I left them out because when my boys were briefly in CCL--BRYC boys were the team always getting crushed by the long ball big 3: Loudoun, McLean and Arlington. I remember commenting to our parents about the very good skill level of the BRYC team and some of the individual players but I don't think they could hear me over the loud cheers for the 15th goal of the game.

I'm not sure what people want. I don't see the Arlington U11s Red or White (I saw that at Bethesda Tournament) being a long ball team. They have very good middle fielders (and defenders for that matter). They are also very fast and some are pretty big. They have skills too. Arlington is not the only team like this. Are their footskills INCREDIBLE? maybe not. But I'm not sure what people want to see out there. Do you want to see 7-8 players all standing around while one kid does beckenbauers or whatever until they get the ball stolen and then say...great job. It's all about individual skill? I mean what's the vision? I agree there is way too much punting EVERYWHERE! including BRYC.

I think what people want is that our clubs best teams be filled with kids who do have the best footwork. The desire to compete and win drives coaches to more often than not take the bigger, faster athlete over the more skilled but smaller or slower kid. Skill and creativity are what should be rewarded in game that requires skill and creativity.

[Anonymous]

Here is the problem in this area.

Somebody mentions a player's technique. The majority of coaches and non-coaches in this area think they are only talking about 'doing moves', 'doing beckenbauers' as a pp mentioned.

Footskills/moves like that are only a tiny portion of what is being referred to under the window of 'technique or technical skill'.

You can't expect your player to learn good soccer technique from somebody that doesn't even know what it is or can identify it.

Passing, trapping, shooting, dribbling, tackling the ball,excellent touch, precise control, a fast work-rate of touches on the ball, and uses all sorts of body surfaces or edges. The ability to work under pressure or in the closest proximity to opponents. These qualities are learned and practiced, often combined and used in unusual ways. They all are from somebody with a good 'first touch'.

I see older players miss shots all the time as they try to swivel to use only their dominant foot. There are many that still pass and receive so sloppily. They can't get it right on somebody's foot, etc.

Yet--if somebody mentions a team has players with poor technique you get those comments like 'well--they aren't standing around doing beckenbauers'. Missing the point completely.