How much playing time did your U13 (now U14) player get last year if you had a large roster?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Talk to the coach. More kids = more money = lesss play time.

Coaches are paid by the team, not the player.

The Club TD determines roster size. They like them big for $$$.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The only level of soccer here you can call "elite" is DC United's academy. And they are miles beyond other MLS academies.

Not sure what counts as elite but DC United is not miles ahead of others. Locally they do get a good percentage of the best players, but Arlington and Baltimore's rosters are not massively less talented - and there are plenty of players at those clubs who get offers from DC United and choose not to take them. And the game results tend to back that up - DC United does not dominate either of those clubs.

Substitute Bethesda for Arlington and maybe you have a point. I think it’s time you move on from the obsession with trying to project Arlington as being in the same neighborhood as Armour and DCU. Whatever parity may exist for a couple of teams does not exist for others and Arlington is not getting talent now heading to MLSNext and other clubs at younger ages. The coaches are fine and I hope they continue to improve. But they need to fix what they do at earlier ages if they want a better rep, and they are in the wrong league for later ages, though they might feel like the belle of that ball, at least around NoVa.

I would have included Bethesda too, but the talent and performance both seem to have dropped off fairly significantly in the last 2-3 years. And Arlington sends far more kids to DCU than Bethesda - another 10 or 11 moving this year.

[Anonymous]

At what point do they stop rotating wings in and out. In higher level soccer, all players can't be subbed in and out like basketball. Wings and forwards need to build stamina.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The only level of soccer here you can call "elite" is DC United's academy. And they are miles beyond other MLS academies.

Not sure what counts as elite but DC United is not miles ahead of others. Locally they do get a good percentage of the best players, but Arlington and Baltimore's rosters are not massively less talented - and there are plenty of players at those clubs who get offers from DC United and choose not to take them. And the game results tend to back that up - DC United does not dominate either of those clubs.

Substitute Bethesda for Arlington and maybe you have a point. I think it’s time you move on from the obsession with trying to project Arlington as being in the same neighborhood as Armour and DCU. Whatever parity may exist for a couple of teams does not exist for others and Arlington is not getting talent now heading to MLSNext and other clubs at younger ages. The coaches are fine and I hope they continue to improve. But they need to fix what they do at earlier ages if they want a better rep, and they are in the wrong league for later ages, though they might feel like the belle of that ball, at least around NoVa.

I would have included Bethesda too, but the talent and performance both seem to have dropped off fairly significantly in the last 2-3 years. And Arlington sends far more kids to DCU than Bethesda - another 10 or 11 moving this year.

I don’t think kids at Bethesda view themselves as a feeder program to DCU. But ok. So Arlington is in fact losing players to MLS Next. Got it. Despite being on par with DCU.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The only level of soccer here you can call "elite" is DC United's academy. And they are miles beyond other MLS academies.

Not sure what counts as elite but DC United is not miles ahead of others. Locally they do get a good percentage of the best players, but Arlington and Baltimore's rosters are not massively less talented - and there are plenty of players at those clubs who get offers from DC United and choose not to take them. And the game results tend to back that up - DC United does not dominate either of those clubs.

Substitute Bethesda for Arlington and maybe you have a point. I think it’s time you move on from the obsession with trying to project Arlington as being in the same neighborhood as Armour and DCU. Whatever parity may exist for a couple of teams does not exist for others and Arlington is not getting talent now heading to MLSNext and other clubs at younger ages. The coaches are fine and I hope they continue to improve. But they need to fix what they do at earlier ages if they want a better rep, and they are in the wrong league for later ages, though they might feel like the belle of that ball, at least around NoVa.

I would have included Bethesda too, but the talent and performance both seem to have dropped off fairly significantly in the last 2-3 years. And Arlington sends far more kids to DCU than Bethesda - another 10 or 11 moving this year.

I don’t think kids at Bethesda view themselves as a feeder program to DCU. But ok. So Arlington is in fact losing players to MLS Next. Got it. Despite being on par with DCU.

Sour grapes much?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The only level of soccer here you can call "elite" is DC United's academy. And they are miles beyond other MLS academies.

Not sure what counts as elite but DC United is not miles ahead of others. Locally they do get a good percentage of the best players, but Arlington and Baltimore's rosters are not massively less talented - and there are plenty of players at those clubs who get offers from DC United and choose not to take them. And the game results tend to back that up - DC United does not dominate either of those clubs.

Substitute Bethesda for Arlington and maybe you have a point. I think it’s time you move on from the obsession with trying to project Arlington as being in the same neighborhood as Armour and DCU. Whatever parity may exist for a couple of teams does not exist for others and Arlington is not getting talent now heading to MLSNext and other clubs at younger ages. The coaches are fine and I hope they continue to improve. But they need to fix what they do at earlier ages if they want a better rep, and they are in the wrong league for later ages, though they might feel like the belle of that ball, at least around NoVa.

I would have included Bethesda too, but the talent and performance both seem to have dropped off fairly significantly in the last 2-3 years. And Arlington sends far more kids to DCU than Bethesda - another 10 or 11 moving this year.

I don’t think kids at Bethesda view themselves as a feeder program to DCU. But ok. So Arlington is in fact losing players to MLS Next. Got it. Despite being on par with DCU.

Lol. So Bethesda is more talented because MLS clubs don't want their players? Right. Your logic is up there with the CDC's.

DCU scouts Bethesda too you know. Every now and again they even make an offer to one of your kids - not as often as Arlington obviously but it does happen. Arlington develops talent and sends it to MLS clubs year after year after year and continues to find and develop new talent and remain competitive.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:We had 16 on roster for U13. 6 played entire game. The other 10 rotated. 2 only played about 20 minutes at best. We have 17 now for U14.

Did those two who barely played leave the club?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:At first team at big club. Our roster is 15 for U14 boys. Thrilled.

We left a Club at U13 that was up to 18-19 players by end of Spring. My kid still played 2/3s of game at center mid, but could see some kids getting very little time. Lots of dissatisfaction which bled into everything because of it on sidelines.

I’d rather be short a player and kids play whole game then have 8 sitting full time on the bench.

Kids get better the more game time they have. A good player should be game fit for 90 min—but because travel soccer is now such a $$$ business, most clubs pack rosters way too big and few get the 90 min.

I've seen this problem too. When coaches have grossly unequal playing time for some players -I'm not talking about some kids getting 90 to 100 percent and some getting 50 percent I'm talking about kids who are benched almost the entire game - it can really impact the entire time's performance at this age. They need to build some team spirit and it's hard to do that when everyone fears being those kids and those kids upset and resentful.

The thing is in all the teams DD has been on the benched kids are actually equal in talent and stamina to some of the kids getting the mid range of playing time. They just don't happen to be the coach's favorites for one reason or another.

I've seen it time and time again the ones that leave the club to go somewhere else and you see them at games later and they have gotten really good because they have more playing time and coaches who actually pay attention. DD is one of those middle players who gets okay playing time but not the whole game and she and other teammates are constantly stressed out that they'll lose the coach's favor and it distracts from development and the game.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:At first team at big club. Our roster is 15 for U14 boys. Thrilled.

We left a Club at U13 that was up to 18-19 players by end of Spring. My kid still played 2/3s of game at center mid, but could see some kids getting very little time. Lots of dissatisfaction which bled into everything because of it on sidelines.

I’d rather be short a player and kids play whole game then have 8 sitting full time on the bench.

Kids get better the more game time they have. A good player should be game fit for 90 min—but because travel soccer is now such a $$$ business, most clubs pack rosters way too big and few get the 90 min.

I've seen this problem too. When coaches have grossly unequal playing time for some players -I'm not talking about some kids getting 90 to 100 percent and some getting 50 percent I'm talking about kids who are benched almost the entire game - it can really impact the entire time's performance at this age. They need to build some team spirit and it's hard to do that when everyone fears being those kids and those kids upset and resentful.

The thing is in all the teams DD has been on the benched kids are actually equal in talent and stamina to some of the kids getting the mid range of playing time. They just don't happen to be the coach's favorites for one reason or another.

I've seen it time and time again the ones that leave the club to go somewhere else and you see them at games later and they have gotten really good because they have more playing time and coaches who actually pay attention. DD is one of those middle players who gets okay playing time but not the whole game and she and other teammates are constantly stressed out that they'll lose the coach's favor and it distracts from development and the game.

+1000

This is why it is essential to find the coach whose style is the right fit for your kid. It makes it difficult when clubs change coaching slates or haven’t released them prior to tryouts. If your kid doesn’t fit the coach’s system, move on. Their time to play youth sports is finite- find the club that will develop your child as a player and a competitor. Our kids spend a heckuva a lot of their time with their coaches and team- make sure you help guide your player in choosing that coach/club/team wisely.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:At first team at big club. Our roster is 15 for U14 boys. Thrilled.

We left a Club at U13 that was up to 18-19 players by end of Spring. My kid still played 2/3s of game at center mid, but could see some kids getting very little time. Lots of dissatisfaction which bled into everything because of it on sidelines.

I’d rather be short a player and kids play whole game then have 8 sitting full time on the bench.

Kids get better the more game time they have. A good player should be game fit for 90 min—but because travel soccer is now such a $$$ business, most clubs pack rosters way too big and few get the 90 min.

I've seen this problem too. When coaches have grossly unequal playing time for some players -I'm not talking about some kids getting 90 to 100 percent and some getting 50 percent I'm talking about kids who are benched almost the entire game - it can really impact the entire time's performance at this age. They need to build some team spirit and it's hard to do that when everyone fears being those kids and those kids upset and resentful.

The thing is in all the teams DD has been on the benched kids are actually equal in talent and stamina to some of the kids getting the mid range of playing time. They just don't happen to be the coach's favorites for one reason or another.

I've seen it time and time again the ones that leave the club to go somewhere else and you see them at games later and they have gotten really good because they have more playing time and coaches who actually pay attention. DD is one of those middle players who gets okay playing time but not the whole game and she and other teammates are constantly stressed out that they'll lose the coach's favor and it distracts from development and the game.

This scenario happens in all sports at all levels. There has to be a good partnership between player and coach to get the most out of the situation. Its not always going to be at your local club. Rather than complain I suggest you do your own homework and visit other clubs trainings talk to other coaches. Make a list of what your looking for and then your off to visit other places to find your most ideal fit. You must remember your player must be a good fit for them too in order to see the results your looking for
Good Luck

[Anonymous]

Right or wrong, at around U13/14, some coaches start to categorize players into 3 groups: Forwards, Mids and Backs.

As an example, if a player is categorized as a midfielder, they would only substitute in for midfield positions. This holds true unless a position group lacks or doesn’t have adequate number of players for a game.

[Anonymous]

My son is one of the best players on a bad team. He plays the entire game. It is fine. If he were on the next team above, he would not get as much playing time, because he would be towards the middle or botton of the team. So it is better for him to be where he is, so that he can get the experience.

[Anonymous]

I don't mind the best, hardest working players on a team getting more playing time and the bubble players getting much less, this is what you usually see at most clubs and it is a good thing. Reward those putting in a lot of extra work outside of practice and motivate those that are not, that is what competition is all about.

U14 was a tough year for my sons team due to injuries. There were 3 or 4 that had season ending injuries and several more were usually week to week. The roster started at 17 in the fall which seemed like a lot until the injuries started to happen.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:My son is one of the best players on a bad team. He plays the entire game. It is fine. If he were on the next team above, he would not get as much playing time, because he would be towards the middle or botton of the team. So it is better for him to be where he is, so that he can get the experience.

This is not necessarily a goos thing. My ds is also in position and i would somewhat prefer the less playing time on a stronger team. The practices are with better players and the competition is tougher. Its easy to stand out amongst weaker opponents.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The only level of soccer here you can call "elite" is DC United's academy. And they are miles beyond other MLS academies.

Not sure what counts as elite but DC United is not miles ahead of others. Locally they do get a good percentage of the best players, but Arlington and Baltimore's rosters are not massively less talented - and there are plenty of players at those clubs who get offers from DC United and choose not to take them. And the game results tend to back that up - DC United does not dominate either of those clubs.

Substitute Bethesda for Arlington and maybe you have a point. I think it’s time you move on from the obsession with trying to project Arlington as being in the same neighborhood as Armour and DCU. Whatever parity may exist for a couple of teams does not exist for others and Arlington is not getting talent now heading to MLSNext and other clubs at younger ages. The coaches are fine and I hope they continue to improve. But they need to fix what they do at earlier ages if they want a better rep, and they are in the wrong league for later ages, though they might feel like the belle of that ball, at least around NoVa.

I would have included Bethesda too, but the talent and performance both seem to have dropped off fairly significantly in the last 2-3 years. And Arlington sends far more kids to DCU than Bethesda - another 10 or 11 moving this year.

The thing is DC United academy should be developing players for when they are 18-22 not the age group. So you would have to evaluate them on the players after they leave the academy not on who wins one game at u15. A talented u14/15 player has a long way to go to still be playing at 21. There are a lot of promising u14/15 players who just fade away.