ECNL playing minutes

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Every college coach absolutely knows that they can evaluate talent in any scenario.

No they can't. They have to see a player get enough touches where they receive the ball with a chance to do something positive. On a really bad team, playing much stronger opposition that can simply not materialize - especially for attacking players.

The coach at the college where my daughter ended up came to a high school game and stayed 10 minutes. I figured “that’s a big nope” when he and an asst coach left. (Stands aren’t exactly packed.). But, he called her club coach that night to arrange a call (rules at the time required juniors to initiate contact.). He liked how she ran the pregame as the coach was not there yet.

So he saw leadership and was impressed. I assume he had already formed a sufficient opinion of technical ability from gametape, or talking to the coach, or the ten minutes he watched (this is perfectly possible if she received the ball a dozen times in that ten minutes), or maybe he only needed to know enough to invite to her a camp or some other environment where he knew he would be able to judge the technical talent appropriately.

Obviously I cannot speak precisely to your DD's situation, but I absolutely know that a good player, and especially an attacking player needs to be playing on a team which is at least somewhat competitive or they risk not being to display what they can do at all.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:That’s why nobody cares who wins or loses any given youth game - at any level. What everyone cares about is how the players are improving and learning. It is the same at high level u17 and u7 rec.

No body is getting recruited because they played on such and such team. The question is whether the recruiting coach thinks they play well. Period. Oh - the team won xyz tournament. Great. But the question is whether Mary can play up top against good D or not?

Recruiters want to see a winner too. Dont fool yourself

I don't know if I agree with that statement, but I do know that if the team is getting thrashed every week it can be very difficult to evaluate Mary because she likeloy does not touch the ball much. And it's hard to evaluate midfielders if the rest of the midfield is out of position when they receive the ball, and the forwards don't know when/how to make runs. And so on for all other positions.

Unless Mary’s a GK.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:That’s why nobody cares who wins or loses any given youth game - at any level. What everyone cares about is how the players are improving and learning. It is the same at high level u17 and u7 rec.

No body is getting recruited because they played on such and such team. The question is whether the recruiting coach thinks they play well. Period. Oh - the team won xyz tournament. Great. But the question is whether Mary can play up top against good D or not?

Recruiters want to see a winner too. Dont fool yourself

I don't know if I agree with that statement, but I do know that if the team is getting thrashed every week it can be very difficult to evaluate Mary because she likeloy does not touch the ball much. And it's hard to evaluate midfielders if the rest of the midfield is out of position when they receive the ball, and the forwards don't know when/how to make runs. And so on for all other positions.

Unless Mary’s a GK.

If Mary were a GK the question would probably not be "whether Mary can play up top against good D or not". Other than that, I agree that the GK is the position least likely to be affected by this issue.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:That’s why nobody cares who wins or loses any given youth game - at any level. What everyone cares about is how the players are improving and learning. It is the same at high level u17 and u7 rec.

No body is getting recruited because they played on such and such team. The question is whether the recruiting coach thinks they play well. Period. Oh - the team won xyz tournament. Great. But the question is whether Mary can play up top against good D or not?

Recruiters want to see a winner too. Dont fool yourself

I don't know if I agree with that statement, but I do know that if the team is getting thrashed every week it can be very difficult to evaluate Mary because she likeloy does not touch the ball much. And it's hard to evaluate midfielders if the rest of the midfield is out of position when they receive the ball, and the forwards don't know when/how to make runs. And so on for all other positions.

Unless Mary’s a GK.

If Mary were a GK the question would probably not be "whether Mary can play up top against good D or not". Other than that, I agree that the GK is the position least likely to be affected by this issue.

Recruiters want to see competitive matches

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:That’s why nobody cares who wins or loses any given youth game - at any level. What everyone cares about is how the players are improving and learning. It is the same at high level u17 and u7 rec.

No body is getting recruited because they played on such and such team. The question is whether the recruiting coach thinks they play well. Period. Oh - the team won xyz tournament. Great. But the question is whether Mary can play up top against good D or not?

Recruiters want to see a winner too. Dont fool yourself

I don't know if I agree with that statement, but I do know that if the team is getting thrashed every week it can be very difficult to evaluate Mary because she likeloy does not touch the ball much. And it's hard to evaluate midfielders if the rest of the midfield is out of position when they receive the ball, and the forwards don't know when/how to make runs. And so on for all other positions.

Unless Mary’s a GK.

If Mary were a GK the question would probably not be "whether Mary can play up top against good D or not". Other than that, I agree that the GK is the position least likely to be affected by this issue.

Recruiters want to see competitive matches

Mary facing two dozen shots tells them a lot more than Mary getting one save and playing a couple of balls from her defenders in a scoreless draw

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Every college coach absolutely knows that they can evaluate talent in any scenario.

No they can't. They have to see a player get enough touches where they receive the ball with a chance to do something positive. On a really bad team, playing much stronger opposition that can simply not materialize - especially for attacking players.

The coach at the college where my daughter ended up came to a high school game and stayed 10 minutes. I figured “that’s a big nope” when he and an asst coach left. (Stands aren’t exactly packed.). But, he called her club coach that night to arrange a call (rules at the time required juniors to initiate contact.). He liked how she ran the pregame as the coach was not there yet.

So he saw leadership and was impressed. I assume he had already formed a sufficient opinion of technical ability from gametape, or talking to the coach, or the ten minutes he watched (this is perfectly possible if she received the ball a dozen times in that ten minutes), or maybe he only needed to know enough to invite to her a camp or some other environment where he knew he would be able to judge the technical talent appropriately.

Obviously I cannot speak precisely to your DD's situation, but I absolutely know that a good player, and especially an attacking player needs to be playing on a team which is at least somewhat competitive or they risk not being to display what they can do at all.

Lol you do not have a clue.

[Anonymous]

My daughter plays in the GA and plays center back. Has never come out of a game (like NEVER). All of the game play has dramatically improved her soccer IQ and touch and overall toughness. Playing in games is important. If you are not playing then what is the point. My only concern is that when college coaches come to watch her soon, how will she be judged. She does get goal opportunities on set pieces but sometimes I feel like non attacking players dont 'get the love' in regards to recruitment.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:My daughter plays in the GA and plays center back. Has never come out of a game (like NEVER). All of the game play has dramatically improved her soccer IQ and touch and overall toughness. Playing in games is important. If you are not playing then what is the point. My only concern is that when college coaches come to watch her soon, how will she be judged. She does get goal opportunities on set pieces but sometimes I feel like non attacking players dont 'get the love' in regards to recruitment.

US soccer is on the women's side is full of strikers playing defense at higher levels. I think it's just assumed that the best players play striker and those players can be moved once in college.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My daughter plays in the GA and plays center back. Has never come out of a game (like NEVER). All of the game play has dramatically improved her soccer IQ and touch and overall toughness. Playing in games is important. If you are not playing then what is the point. My only concern is that when college coaches come to watch her soon, how will she be judged. She does get goal opportunities on set pieces but sometimes I feel like non attacking players dont 'get the love' in regards to recruitment.

US soccer is on the women's side is full of strikers playing defense at higher levels. I think it's just assumed that the best players play striker and those players can be moved once in college.

Years ago the coach put her at center back because she is the biggest/strongest girl on the team and she is a talker. She doesn't play soft and is the yellow card queen. I think originally if she was groomed to play forward she would be in a better situation. Who knows. She loves playing center back (which seems like a rarity).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Right now, the question we are asking is this - is our DD better off playing 20-30 minutes a game with “great” coaching for an ECNL club or playing 75+ minutes with “good” coaching for an ECNL-RL club? The end goal is not development because, like probably 98% of the people on here, our DD is not going to play in college (lack of size and pace). The end goal is just the enjoyment of playing and being on a team that she’s been on for a long time.

The answer depends on whether she enjoys sitting on the bench. Most kids don't.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My daughter plays in the GA and plays center back. Has never come out of a game (like NEVER). All of the game play has dramatically improved her soccer IQ and touch and overall toughness. Playing in games is important. If you are not playing then what is the point. My only concern is that when college coaches come to watch her soon, how will she be judged. She does get goal opportunities on set pieces but sometimes I feel like non attacking players dont 'get the love' in regards to recruitment.

US soccer is on the women's side is full of strikers playing defense at higher levels. I think it's just assumed that the best players play striker and those players can be moved once in college.

No striker is a position that is usually just about speed in travel. Many coaches hide weaker player there. Specially if they are weak technically. Defense is not really that demanding of positions in terms of technical skill but you need pace. Coaches like having one physical defender and a fast defender. The best players are usually offensive mids.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My daughter plays in the GA and plays center back. Has never come out of a game (like NEVER). All of the game play has dramatically improved her soccer IQ and touch and overall toughness. Playing in games is important. If you are not playing then what is the point. My only concern is that when college coaches come to watch her soon, how will she be judged. She does get goal opportunities on set pieces but sometimes I feel like non attacking players dont 'get the love' in regards to recruitment.

US soccer is on the women's side is full of strikers playing defense at higher levels. I think it's just assumed that the best players play striker and those players can be moved once in college.

No striker is a position that is usually just about speed in travel. Many coaches hide weaker player there. Specially if they are weak technically. Defense is not really that demanding of positions in terms of technical skill but you need pace. Coaches like having one physical defender and a fast defender. The best players are usually offensive mids.

Look at the USWNT roster and you see a lot of strikers and midfielders playing defense and no defenders playing striker

[Anonymous]

It is too bad Dunn doesn’t play up top. She’d be better than most of the USWNT forwards/strikers.

Also I don’t think Sauerbraun or Dahlkemper ever played anything other than center back … then again they are like a sieve back there …

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It is too bad Dunn doesn’t play up top. She’d be better than most of the USWNT forwards/strikers.

Also I don’t think Sauerbraun or Dahlkemper ever played anything other than center back … then again they are like a sieve back there …

Dahlkemper was the California high school player of the year as a goal scoring mid fielder, Sauerbraun was a leading goal scorer in high school.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It is too bad Dunn doesn’t play up top. She’d be better than most of the USWNT forwards/strikers.

Also I don’t think Sauerbraun or Dahlkemper ever played anything other than center back … then again they are like a sieve back there …

Dahlkemper was the California high school player of the year as a goal scoring mid fielder, Sauerbraun was a leading goal scorer in high school.

Sure, our best ECNL defender in our team could become a HS goal scoring player of the year too.