Just Curious... how many kids get moved down from a upper level team to a lower level team?

[Anonymous]

To the PP who said Arlington may be one of the only top clubs where players have more fair growth potential -

DC plays at U12 for Arlington and we've been very happy with them. However, I would say that reality of that "skills session" for all practices is really just one day a week where it's a different kind of practice for all. They split the kids up according to their teams and have different coaches work on game play - but here's the thing - everyone's learning different skills - my perspective is it still depends on your team level. I think it's smart but in reality it's not like they are learning SO much more and they aren't learning the same things, so this one day isn't going to make your kid that much better. It's a wonderful thing to shake up the practice cycle so you are working with different coaches and it's a lot of fun for the kids. DC loves it, having come from a different club that was rote scrimmages really for 90 minutes 3x week for practices.

I just would not call this a way for Arlington to develop effectively all their players however. Most of the kids we know, including DC, do private training, which I think has immensely helped my kid grow. Our 2nd season with Arlington and DC has moved up and I was very very surprised, as I had understood that most kids don't move up esp in DS age group, which happens to be extra competitive with more than your average number of teams in any age group.

I think our experience is more in line with the disappointment that unless you are on the top team or 2nd team, your development is SO much more limited. Having come from a top team to Arlington's not top team, DC really missed the level of commitment and focus her old teammates had. The tournament schedule was less frequent and just the skills she was learning was not effective for her. I do wish that there was a bit more enthusiasm and effort into treating kids who may not be on the top team as talent who could absolutely evolve - esp at the young ages. It's not just one day of skills practice that's going to do it but rather a mindset of being competitive.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The national camps don’t do much either.

What has happened to the USWNT is that the rest of the world, with better training and nurturing of players (including rational promotion/demotion criteria, to reflect OP), has surpassed the deeply flawed US club system. The US women are now going to muddle along like the US men at a low level of international play, because they won’t pick and nurture the right kids. I don’t see the USWNT being dominant again for many years.

I think that there are a number of US young players who can compete internationally. I think that long term, the US will still be competitive. This is because their style of game always lends them a chance to win. Having said this, I agree that USWNT doesn't do it right. I agree with PP who suggested that the lack of consistency in development of soccer players is lacking in the US. However, I also think some of that is because soccer is not culturally ingrained in US - we didn't grow up with this game here. We watch Superbowls with football and basketball rule our culture. Of course it does not mean we can't get it together with soccer but we started down the wrong path in terms of having multiple organizations develop the kids (ie ECNL/MLSNext/etc.). We can't really go back because once you make money, well, nobody's gonna stop wanting to continue LOL So.. here we are, we aren't going to have that consistency the way other sports have it whether in swimming, water polo, gymnastics, etc. So what's the reality?

I think that US soccer will stay competitive because let's face it, there's a LOT of girls in the US who do play and love the game. A lot of talent to select to grow. Even if we're not growing the right way v other countries who do, we will stay competitive. And I don't think there's that level of love of the game, the commitment and dedication that other countries have, to make soccer more than it is in the US. I say this having 2 kids in travel and play at a high level. In a lot of countries, they only have soccer. We have a ton of other sports that share the spotlight. I say this as someone who really really loves the beautiful game but it is what it is in the US.

Right, the reality is that the boys will continue to be mediocre but the girls are now headed that way too. The system in the US is not designed to produce and nurture talent. It’s just not.

[Anonymous]

One of my boys plays on the top club team (MLSNext) and has been with that group for a few years.

In our experience, it's normal to see 2-4 players moved down each year, usually replaced with one or two new players and maybe one or two players moved up from the second team.

[Anonymous]

Maybe it’s changed from when we were there but on the girls side at least if you weren’t on the top 2 teams at u littles there seemed to be zero interest in trying to find and develop any of those lower level players for the top team. They seemed more interested in pulling players from other teams then trying to develop from within. I could understand at u14 but a lot of times at u9 the only difference was the amount of soccer the kids had played. Kids on the top team usually had a brother or sister so they had started much younger. Still plenty of time to develop the athletes on the lower teams. Maybe it’s different now just surprised to see Arlington mentioned.