NVA (Loudoun) going MLS NEXT?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If Loudoun-NVA wants to be the best like they say they … get MLS NEXT

Ha they will never be the best because they don't have any direction and can't get out of their own way. A too big to fail mentality.

News flash: kick and run coming to MLS Next.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I used to coach at Alexandria. Very organized club with pretty strict adherence to their curriculum plan. On one hand it made sure everyone was training the same way, on the other it limited your ability to tailor your sessions to fit your team's developmental needs. What worked well for the "top" team, didn't necessarily work for the lower teams when it came to addressing their deficiencies.

I felt there was a huge over reliance on pattern and tactical play at the lower ages. Many times I saw 8 and 9 year olds learning how to play out of the back by standing in a shape and passing a ball with no pressure for 20+ minutes for multiple sessions... poor kids were bored out of their minds.

Once you get pass the u-littles it's easy to see that their teams have a system of play engrained into them by the curriculum. Again as a pro, it means players can generally fit into and get used to moving up or down a team within the club fairly easily. However, as a coach I found this play method to be entirely too predictable and lacking in creativity and tactical options. I loved coaching against them as I knew exactly how they were going to approach the game, and they really struggled when forced to play a different way.

As others have mentioned there is 0 emphasis on technical exercises, and while futsal certainly helps and is great for players of any age in my opinion, it's no substitute for dedicated skill practice, which Alexandria expects you to get on your own.

this is great info. can you give an example of how you adjusted your defending against the method? Was it something specific about their build-up or pattern?

Sure. Keep in mind my experience with them is primarily on the girls side, but as far as I know the curriculum is the same.

Their build out pattern is taught the same starting at the very beginning of travel. Even the shapes they are taught to play are generally pretty limited, so I almost always know what I'm about to face. Pushing a high line taking those options away, and just generally making them uncomfortable under pressure does a lot to get them disorganized. They tend to only have a couple, if any, what I would consider very technical players on their teams that can play their way out. You can still get beat athletically, but well that's true of any team. Vision on the field becomes an issue, because they generally aren't used to having to play more direct options or breaking the lines so to speak, so barring some attempts at random long balls over the top or to the corners, mainly due to frustration or clearances, the deliberate build up is pretty easy to break down if you're not completely outmatched athletically/physically/conditionally. Of course you have to know what to look for and what triggers to expect - it's not as easy as I may be making it out to be, and of course your players have to be able to execute as well. Doesn't guarantee you a victory, but I can certainly say I've had teams that I would consider inferior to theirs, player pool wise, that were able to get positive results against them simply due to their hammered in predictability.

Don't get me wrong, the way they try to play looks nice when it works, they certainly have their own identity and they certainly have talent that is good enough on their top teams to be competitive and make it work to a point. Past their top teams, things really start to break down in my opinion and the kids simply don't have the ability to play the way the club would like them to play, which is ironic since they ALSO don't teach them those skills at all. So while they may be tactically more advanced then most kids as several parents here have already alluded to, unless they are putting in some serious time on their own or with a trainer, they eventually fall off pretty hard technically. Given the amount of players and resources that club has, I feel that they should be performing much better than they do. Again, not that it's awful, I just think it can be MUCH better, especially for the non-A teams.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If Loudoun-NVA wants to be the best like they say they … get MLS NEXT

Ha they will never be the best because they don't have any direction and can't get out of their own way. A too big to fail mentality.

Loudoun is not afraid to jump ship. They have done it 2x before and everyone else followed.


I would love to see Loudoun playing with MLS Next and GA next year.

Why would Loudoun leave ECNL for GA? Or more to the point, why would you love for Loudoun to join GA?

Because they care a lot more about the boys programs than the girls....(hint: follow the money).

Most kids and parents care more about the girls than the boys. Much more likely to play college soccer and get scholarships for girls than boys. Boys it is almost all international players except for colleges you have never heard of.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If Loudoun-NVA wants to be the best like they say they … get MLS NEXT

Ha they will never be the best because they don't have any direction and can't get out of their own way. A too big to fail mentality.

Loudoun is not afraid to jump ship. They have done it 2x before and everyone else followed.


I would love to see Loudoun playing with MLS Next and GA next year.

Why would Loudoun leave ECNL for GA? Or more to the point, why would you love for Loudoun to join GA?

Because they care a lot more about the boys programs than the girls....(hint: follow the money).

Most kids and parents care more about the girls than the boys. Much more likely to play college soccer and get scholarships for girls than boys. Boys it is almost all international players except for colleges you have never heard of.

Most clubs and parents I mean.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I used to coach at Alexandria. Very organized club with pretty strict adherence to their curriculum plan. On one hand it made sure everyone was training the same way, on the other it limited your ability to tailor your sessions to fit your team's developmental needs. What worked well for the "top" team, didn't necessarily work for the lower teams when it came to addressing their deficiencies.

I felt there was a huge over reliance on pattern and tactical play at the lower ages. Many times I saw 8 and 9 year olds learning how to play out of the back by standing in a shape and passing a ball with no pressure for 20+ minutes for multiple sessions... poor kids were bored out of their minds.

Once you get pass the u-littles it's easy to see that their teams have a system of play engrained into them by the curriculum. Again as a pro, it means players can generally fit into and get used to moving up or down a team within the club fairly easily. However, as a coach I found this play method to be entirely too predictable and lacking in creativity and tactical options. I loved coaching against them as I knew exactly how they were going to approach the game, and they really struggled when forced to play a different way.

As others have mentioned there is 0 emphasis on technical exercises, and while futsal certainly helps and is great for players of any age in my opinion, it's no substitute for dedicated skill practice, which Alexandria expects you to get on your own.

this is great info. can you give an example of how you adjusted your defending against the method? Was it something specific about their build-up or pattern?

Sure. Keep in mind my experience with them is primarily on the girls side, but as far as I know the curriculum is the same.

Their build out pattern is taught the same starting at the very beginning of travel. Even the shapes they are taught to play are generally pretty limited, so I almost always know what I'm about to face. Pushing a high line taking those options away, and just generally making them uncomfortable under pressure does a lot to get them disorganized. They tend to only have a couple, if any, what I would consider very technical players on their teams that can play their way out. You can still get beat athletically, but well that's true of any team. Vision on the field becomes an issue, because they generally aren't used to having to play more direct options or breaking the lines so to speak, so barring some attempts at random long balls over the top or to the corners, mainly due to frustration or clearances, the deliberate build up is pretty easy to break down if you're not completely outmatched athletically/physically/conditionally. Of course you have to know what to look for and what triggers to expect - it's not as easy as I may be making it out to be, and of course your players have to be able to execute as well. Doesn't guarantee you a victory, but I can certainly say I've had teams that I would consider inferior to theirs, player pool wise, that were able to get positive results against them simply due to their hammered in predictability.

Don't get me wrong, the way they try to play looks nice when it works, they certainly have their own identity and they certainly have talent that is good enough on their top teams to be competitive and make it work to a point. Past their top teams, things really start to break down in my opinion and the kids simply don't have the ability to play the way the club would like them to play, which is ironic since they ALSO don't teach them those skills at all. So while they may be tactically more advanced then most kids as several parents here have already alluded to, unless they are putting in some serious time on their own or with a trainer, they eventually fall off pretty hard technically. Given the amount of players and resources that club has, I feel that they should be performing much better than they do. Again, not that it's awful, I just think it can be MUCH better, especially for the non-A teams.

Thanks for the thoughtful and detailed reply. We're new to the boys side and unfortunately, I don't see a lot of either individual skill work, or tactical work. I'd love to see them do more of both and think it can be fit into the 4 day schedule. Right now, I see possession games and structured/zonal scrimmaging without a lot of instruction for what players off the ball should be doing. Even if it's not patterns per se, the kids should be moving, as a team, in ways to create openings. They do this in futsal and those principles could be applied to the full field by breaking the field into zones and drilling the movements. My understanding is that pattern play or structured movement shouldn't be predictable. it shouldn't be about the ball goes here, then it goes there, within a shape. It should be patterns of movement that offer multiple options. Thanks to coordinated off the ball movement players should receive the ball in space and then be able to find another player in space or beat one defender if they're isolated. This includes breaking lines by runs into space further up the pitch, players filling space behind runners, etc. It also includes creating options behind the ball, and switching play. The movement should be complex enough that players have short, mid, and long options that are predictable to them, but not the opponent. I understand this is easy to write and tough to coach, especially me not being a coach. If they're going to be a tactical first club, they should lean into it, and as you say, also train the skills needed. And while I appreciate the attempt to have a unified curriculum, the two or three day a week trainings should not be the same as the 4-day a week ones. I think it's OK to expect the kids on lower teams to take their extra time and work on skills while practices are dedicated to team tactical work. But the extra day or two for the top teams should be used in different ways.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I used to coach at Alexandria. Very organized club with pretty strict adherence to their curriculum plan. On one hand it made sure everyone was training the same way, on the other it limited your ability to tailor your sessions to fit your team's developmental needs. What worked well for the "top" team, didn't necessarily work for the lower teams when it came to addressing their deficiencies.

I felt there was a huge over reliance on pattern and tactical play at the lower ages. Many times I saw 8 and 9 year olds learning how to play out of the back by standing in a shape and passing a ball with no pressure for 20+ minutes for multiple sessions... poor kids were bored out of their minds.

Once you get pass the u-littles it's easy to see that their teams have a system of play engrained into them by the curriculum. Again as a pro, it means players can generally fit into and get used to moving up or down a team within the club fairly easily. However, as a coach I found this play method to be entirely too predictable and lacking in creativity and tactical options. I loved coaching against them as I knew exactly how they were going to approach the game, and they really struggled when forced to play a different way.

As others have mentioned there is 0 emphasis on technical exercises, and while futsal certainly helps and is great for players of any age in my opinion, it's no substitute for dedicated skill practice, which Alexandria expects you to get on your own.

this is great info. can you give an example of how you adjusted your defending against the method? Was it something specific about their build-up or pattern?

Sure. Keep in mind my experience with them is primarily on the girls side, but as far as I know the curriculum is the same.

Their build out pattern is taught the same starting at the very beginning of travel. Even the shapes they are taught to play are generally pretty limited, so I almost always know what I'm about to face. Pushing a high line taking those options away, and just generally making them uncomfortable under pressure does a lot to get them disorganized. They tend to only have a couple, if any, what I would consider very technical players on their teams that can play their way out. You can still get beat athletically, but well that's true of any team. Vision on the field becomes an issue, because they generally aren't used to having to play more direct options or breaking the lines so to speak, so barring some attempts at random long balls over the top or to the corners, mainly due to frustration or clearances, the deliberate build up is pretty easy to break down if you're not completely outmatched athletically/physically/conditionally. Of course you have to know what to look for and what triggers to expect - it's not as easy as I may be making it out to be, and of course your players have to be able to execute as well. Doesn't guarantee you a victory, but I can certainly say I've had teams that I would consider inferior to theirs, player pool wise, that were able to get positive results against them simply due to their hammered in predictability.

Don't get me wrong, the way they try to play looks nice when it works, they certainly have their own identity and they certainly have talent that is good enough on their top teams to be competitive and make it work to a point. Past their top teams, things really start to break down in my opinion and the kids simply don't have the ability to play the way the club would like them to play, which is ironic since they ALSO don't teach them those skills at all. So while they may be tactically more advanced then most kids as several parents here have already alluded to, unless they are putting in some serious time on their own or with a trainer, they eventually fall off pretty hard technically. Given the amount of players and resources that club has, I feel that they should be performing much better than they do. Again, not that it's awful, I just think it can be MUCH better, especially for the non-A teams.

Thanks for the thoughtful and detailed reply. We're new to the boys side and unfortunately, I don't see a lot of either individual skill work, or tactical work. I'd love to see them do more of both and think it can be fit into the 4 day schedule. Right now, I see possession games and structured/zonal scrimmaging without a lot of instruction for what players off the ball should be doing. Even if it's not patterns per se, the kids should be moving, as a team, in ways to create openings. They do this in futsal and those principles could be applied to the full field by breaking the field into zones and drilling the movements. My understanding is that pattern play or structured movement shouldn't be predictable. it shouldn't be about the ball goes here, then it goes there, within a shape. It should be patterns of movement that offer multiple options. Thanks to coordinated off the ball movement players should receive the ball in space and then be able to find another player in space or beat one defender if they're isolated. This includes breaking lines by runs into space further up the pitch, players filling space behind runners, etc. It also includes creating options behind the ball, and switching play. The movement should be complex enough that players have short, mid, and long options that are predictable to them, but not the opponent. I understand this is easy to write and tough to coach, especially me not being a coach. If they're going to be a tactical first club, they should lean into it, and as you say, also train the skills needed. And while I appreciate the attempt to have a unified curriculum, the two or three day a week trainings should not be the same as the 4-day a week ones. I think it's OK to expect the kids on lower teams to take their extra time and work on skills while practices are dedicated to team tactical work. But the extra day or two for the top teams should be used in different ways.

Same coach here. Curious as to what age your boy(s) are? What you describe is probably what should happen, but I find it generally doesn't execute that way. Maybe that's what is intended, but I've only seen a few teams pull it off, and none of the B teams or below. Futsal sort of forces you to do some of these things, which is what is so great about it, but that's only a few months of the yearlong training, and not everyone participates, or at least not back when I was coaching with them. We also didn't practice 4 times a week - I could not imagine running the system that was given to me for 4 training sessions a week, 3 were fairly painful.

I can't speak much about their boys program. My understanding is their top teams were highly ranked, but I didn't ever watch they play much. Although I suppose if they are winning, not many will question their methods.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:A lot of people just don’t want to acknowledging how bad the Alexandria MLS teams currently are. Cant blame them. Hopefully the future is better for that club.

Among MLS Next teams in area (other than DCU), only the following are ranked higher in each group

05/06: Bethesda, Armour (barely)

07: Nobody

08: Armour

09: SYC, Bethesda, Armour

10: SYC, Bethesda, Armour

011: SYC (barely)

So Armour is ahead in 4/6, Bethesda and SYC are ahead in 3/6. I'd say that's pretty solid.

Yeah. I think they hold their own fairly well except in the 2010 and 2009 age groups. I think some of that might be attributed to a young coach working to find his footing. Some of it is talent. And some of it is organizational philosophy. Alexandria's train by playing approach might not be the best fit for a 4-day a week practice schedule. I think they'd do well to incorporate more individual skill work and team conditioning/speed training.

Can you elaborate on this? And any particular years that you know of specifically? Ds is considering trying out there for next year.

Ex-ASA parent here. The traditional Alexandria philosophy was that individual/technical work and fitness were activities that can and should be done outside of practice. I happen to agree with this, strongly. And ASA top players tend to play futsal as well, which enhances technical/individual skill development, at least in the off season. But it is also noticeable that ASA players may be a little less fit or 1 v 1 oriented than players developed at other clubs, with some very notable exceptions among ASA players who have gone to DCU.

Practices are heavy on buildup, shape and positional play. My son learned more at early ages there than the rest of his years in soccer combined. He took care of skills at HP.

The club has a philosophy that goes against 1v1's and focuses primarily on team tactics?

What about dribbling and creativity?

How do you coach creativity?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I used to coach at Alexandria. Very organized club with pretty strict adherence to their curriculum plan. On one hand it made sure everyone was training the same way, on the other it limited your ability to tailor your sessions to fit your team's developmental needs. What worked well for the "top" team, didn't necessarily work for the lower teams when it came to addressing their deficiencies.

I felt there was a huge over reliance on pattern and tactical play at the lower ages. Many times I saw 8 and 9 year olds learning how to play out of the back by standing in a shape and passing a ball with no pressure for 20+ minutes for multiple sessions... poor kids were bored out of their minds.

Once you get pass the u-littles it's easy to see that their teams have a system of play engrained into them by the curriculum. Again as a pro, it means players can generally fit into and get used to moving up or down a team within the club fairly easily. However, as a coach I found this play method to be entirely too predictable and lacking in creativity and tactical options. I loved coaching against them as I knew exactly how they were going to approach the game, and they really struggled when forced to play a different way.

As others have mentioned there is 0 emphasis on technical exercises, and while futsal certainly helps and is great for players of any age in my opinion, it's no substitute for dedicated skill practice, which Alexandria expects you to get on your own.

this is great info. can you give an example of how you adjusted your defending against the method? Was it something specific about their build-up or pattern?

Sure. Keep in mind my experience with them is primarily on the girls side, but as far as I know the curriculum is the same.

Their build out pattern is taught the same starting at the very beginning of travel. Even the shapes they are taught to play are generally pretty limited, so I almost always know what I'm about to face. Pushing a high line taking those options away, and just generally making them uncomfortable under pressure does a lot to get them disorganized. They tend to only have a couple, if any, what I would consider very technical players on their teams that can play their way out. You can still get beat athletically, but well that's true of any team. Vision on the field becomes an issue, because they generally aren't used to having to play more direct options or breaking the lines so to speak, so barring some attempts at random long balls over the top or to the corners, mainly due to frustration or clearances, the deliberate build up is pretty easy to break down if you're not completely outmatched athletically/physically/conditionally. Of course you have to know what to look for and what triggers to expect - it's not as easy as I may be making it out to be, and of course your players have to be able to execute as well. Doesn't guarantee you a victory, but I can certainly say I've had teams that I would consider inferior to theirs, player pool wise, that were able to get positive results against them simply due to their hammered in predictability.

Don't get me wrong, the way they try to play looks nice when it works, they certainly have their own identity and they certainly have talent that is good enough on their top teams to be competitive and make it work to a point. Past their top teams, things really start to break down in my opinion and the kids simply don't have the ability to play the way the club would like them to play, which is ironic since they ALSO don't teach them those skills at all. So while they may be tactically more advanced then most kids as several parents here have already alluded to, unless they are putting in some serious time on their own or with a trainer, they eventually fall off pretty hard technically. Given the amount of players and resources that club has, I feel that they should be performing much better than they do. Again, not that it's awful, I just think it can be MUCH better, especially for the non-A teams.

Thanks for the thoughtful and detailed reply. We're new to the boys side and unfortunately, I don't see a lot of either individual skill work, or tactical work. I'd love to see them do more of both and think it can be fit into the 4 day schedule. Right now, I see possession games and structured/zonal scrimmaging without a lot of instruction for what players off the ball should be doing. Even if it's not patterns per se, the kids should be moving, as a team, in ways to create openings. They do this in futsal and those principles could be applied to the full field by breaking the field into zones and drilling the movements. My understanding is that pattern play or structured movement shouldn't be predictable. it shouldn't be about the ball goes here, then it goes there, within a shape. It should be patterns of movement that offer multiple options. Thanks to coordinated off the ball movement players should receive the ball in space and then be able to find another player in space or beat one defender if they're isolated. This includes breaking lines by runs into space further up the pitch, players filling space behind runners, etc. It also includes creating options behind the ball, and switching play. The movement should be complex enough that players have short, mid, and long options that are predictable to them, but not the opponent. I understand this is easy to write and tough to coach, especially me not being a coach. If they're going to be a tactical first club, they should lean into it, and as you say, also train the skills needed. And while I appreciate the attempt to have a unified curriculum, the two or three day a week trainings should not be the same as the 4-day a week ones. I think it's OK to expect the kids on lower teams to take their extra time and work on skills while practices are dedicated to team tactical work. But the extra day or two for the top teams should be used in different ways.

maybe a lot to ask of a local youth soccer coach, but you'll see a lot of this in City v. Spurs today.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I used to coach at Alexandria. Very organized club with pretty strict adherence to their curriculum plan. On one hand it made sure everyone was training the same way, on the other it limited your ability to tailor your sessions to fit your team's developmental needs. What worked well for the "top" team, didn't necessarily work for the lower teams when it came to addressing their deficiencies.

I felt there was a huge over reliance on pattern and tactical play at the lower ages. Many times I saw 8 and 9 year olds learning how to play out of the back by standing in a shape and passing a ball with no pressure for 20+ minutes for multiple sessions... poor kids were bored out of their minds.

Once you get pass the u-littles it's easy to see that their teams have a system of play engrained into them by the curriculum. Again as a pro, it means players can generally fit into and get used to moving up or down a team within the club fairly easily. However, as a coach I found this play method to be entirely too predictable and lacking in creativity and tactical options. I loved coaching against them as I knew exactly how they were going to approach the game, and they really struggled when forced to play a different way.

As others have mentioned there is 0 emphasis on technical exercises, and while futsal certainly helps and is great for players of any age in my opinion, it's no substitute for dedicated skill practice, which Alexandria expects you to get on your own.

this is great info. can you give an example of how you adjusted your defending against the method? Was it something specific about their build-up or pattern?

Sure. Keep in mind my experience with them is primarily on the girls side, but as far as I know the curriculum is the same.

Their build out pattern is taught the same starting at the very beginning of travel. Even the shapes they are taught to play are generally pretty limited, so I almost always know what I'm about to face. Pushing a high line taking those options away, and just generally making them uncomfortable under pressure does a lot to get them disorganized. They tend to only have a couple, if any, what I would consider very technical players on their teams that can play their way out. You can still get beat athletically, but well that's true of any team. Vision on the field becomes an issue, because they generally aren't used to having to play more direct options or breaking the lines so to speak, so barring some attempts at random long balls over the top or to the corners, mainly due to frustration or clearances, the deliberate build up is pretty easy to break down if you're not completely outmatched athletically/physically/conditionally. Of course you have to know what to look for and what triggers to expect - it's not as easy as I may be making it out to be, and of course your players have to be able to execute as well. Doesn't guarantee you a victory, but I can certainly say I've had teams that I would consider inferior to theirs, player pool wise, that were able to get positive results against them simply due to their hammered in predictability.

Don't get me wrong, the way they try to play looks nice when it works, they certainly have their own identity and they certainly have talent that is good enough on their top teams to be competitive and make it work to a point. Past their top teams, things really start to break down in my opinion and the kids simply don't have the ability to play the way the club would like them to play, which is ironic since they ALSO don't teach them those skills at all. So while they may be tactically more advanced then most kids as several parents here have already alluded to, unless they are putting in some serious time on their own or with a trainer, they eventually fall off pretty hard technically. Given the amount of players and resources that club has, I feel that they should be performing much better than they do. Again, not that it's awful, I just think it can be MUCH better, especially for the non-A teams.

Thanks for the thoughtful and detailed reply. We're new to the boys side and unfortunately, I don't see a lot of either individual skill work, or tactical work. I'd love to see them do more of both and think it can be fit into the 4 day schedule. Right now, I see possession games and structured/zonal scrimmaging without a lot of instruction for what players off the ball should be doing. Even if it's not patterns per se, the kids should be moving, as a team, in ways to create openings. They do this in futsal and those principles could be applied to the full field by breaking the field into zones and drilling the movements. My understanding is that pattern play or structured movement shouldn't be predictable. it shouldn't be about the ball goes here, then it goes there, within a shape. It should be patterns of movement that offer multiple options. Thanks to coordinated off the ball movement players should receive the ball in space and then be able to find another player in space or beat one defender if they're isolated. This includes breaking lines by runs into space further up the pitch, players filling space behind runners, etc. It also includes creating options behind the ball, and switching play. The movement should be complex enough that players have short, mid, and long options that are predictable to them, but not the opponent. I understand this is easy to write and tough to coach, especially me not being a coach. If they're going to be a tactical first club, they should lean into it, and as you say, also train the skills needed. And while I appreciate the attempt to have a unified curriculum, the two or three day a week trainings should not be the same as the 4-day a week ones. I think it's OK to expect the kids on lower teams to take their extra time and work on skills while practices are dedicated to team tactical work. But the extra day or two for the top teams should be used in different ways.

maybe a lot to ask of a local youth soccer coach, but you'll see a lot of this in City v. Spurs today.

let me amend this: also a lot to ask of players. I understand that you can't demand kids play tactically this way if they can't technically play this way.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I used to coach at Alexandria. Very organized club with pretty strict adherence to their curriculum plan. On one hand it made sure everyone was training the same way, on the other it limited your ability to tailor your sessions to fit your team's developmental needs. What worked well for the "top" team, didn't necessarily work for the lower teams when it came to addressing their deficiencies.

I felt there was a huge over reliance on pattern and tactical play at the lower ages. Many times I saw 8 and 9 year olds learning how to play out of the back by standing in a shape and passing a ball with no pressure for 20+ minutes for multiple sessions... poor kids were bored out of their minds.

Once you get pass the u-littles it's easy to see that their teams have a system of play engrained into them by the curriculum. Again as a pro, it means players can generally fit into and get used to moving up or down a team within the club fairly easily. However, as a coach I found this play method to be entirely too predictable and lacking in creativity and tactical options. I loved coaching against them as I knew exactly how they were going to approach the game, and they really struggled when forced to play a different way.

As others have mentioned there is 0 emphasis on technical exercises, and while futsal certainly helps and is great for players of any age in my opinion, it's no substitute for dedicated skill practice, which Alexandria expects you to get on your own.

this is great info. can you give an example of how you adjusted your defending against the method? Was it something specific about their build-up or pattern?

Sure. Keep in mind my experience with them is primarily on the girls side, but as far as I know the curriculum is the same.

Their build out pattern is taught the same starting at the very beginning of travel. Even the shapes they are taught to play are generally pretty limited, so I almost always know what I'm about to face. Pushing a high line taking those options away, and just generally making them uncomfortable under pressure does a lot to get them disorganized. They tend to only have a couple, if any, what I would consider very technical players on their teams that can play their way out. You can still get beat athletically, but well that's true of any team. Vision on the field becomes an issue, because they generally aren't used to having to play more direct options or breaking the lines so to speak, so barring some attempts at random long balls over the top or to the corners, mainly due to frustration or clearances, the deliberate build up is pretty easy to break down if you're not completely outmatched athletically/physically/conditionally. Of course you have to know what to look for and what triggers to expect - it's not as easy as I may be making it out to be, and of course your players have to be able to execute as well. Doesn't guarantee you a victory, but I can certainly say I've had teams that I would consider inferior to theirs, player pool wise, that were able to get positive results against them simply due to their hammered in predictability.

Don't get me wrong, the way they try to play looks nice when it works, they certainly have their own identity and they certainly have talent that is good enough on their top teams to be competitive and make it work to a point. Past their top teams, things really start to break down in my opinion and the kids simply don't have the ability to play the way the club would like them to play, which is ironic since they ALSO don't teach them those skills at all. So while they may be tactically more advanced then most kids as several parents here have already alluded to, unless they are putting in some serious time on their own or with a trainer, they eventually fall off pretty hard technically. Given the amount of players and resources that club has, I feel that they should be performing much better than they do. Again, not that it's awful, I just think it can be MUCH better, especially for the non-A teams.

Thanks for the thoughtful and detailed reply. We're new to the boys side and unfortunately, I don't see a lot of either individual skill work, or tactical work. I'd love to see them do more of both and think it can be fit into the 4 day schedule. Right now, I see possession games and structured/zonal scrimmaging without a lot of instruction for what players off the ball should be doing. Even if it's not patterns per se, the kids should be moving, as a team, in ways to create openings. They do this in futsal and those principles could be applied to the full field by breaking the field into zones and drilling the movements. My understanding is that pattern play or structured movement shouldn't be predictable. it shouldn't be about the ball goes here, then it goes there, within a shape. It should be patterns of movement that offer multiple options. Thanks to coordinated off the ball movement players should receive the ball in space and then be able to find another player in space or beat one defender if they're isolated. This includes breaking lines by runs into space further up the pitch, players filling space behind runners, etc. It also includes creating options behind the ball, and switching play. The movement should be complex enough that players have short, mid, and long options that are predictable to them, but not the opponent. I understand this is easy to write and tough to coach, especially me not being a coach. If they're going to be a tactical first club, they should lean into it, and as you say, also train the skills needed. And while I appreciate the attempt to have a unified curriculum, the two or three day a week trainings should not be the same as the 4-day a week ones. I think it's OK to expect the kids on lower teams to take their extra time and work on skills while practices are dedicated to team tactical work. But the extra day or two for the top teams should be used in different ways.

maybe a lot to ask of a local youth soccer coach, but you'll see a lot of this in City v. Spurs today.

let me amend this: also a lot to ask of players. I understand that you can't demand kids play tactically this way if they can't technically play this way.

Can't do tactically what you can't execute technically

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:A lot of people just don’t want to acknowledging how bad the Alexandria MLS teams currently are. Cant blame them. Hopefully the future is better for that club.

Among MLS Next teams in area (other than DCU), only the following are ranked higher in each group

05/06: Bethesda, Armour (barely)

07: Nobody

08: Armour

09: SYC, Bethesda, Armour

10: SYC, Bethesda, Armour

011: SYC (barely)

So Armour is ahead in 4/6, Bethesda and SYC are ahead in 3/6. I'd say that's pretty solid.

Yeah. I think they hold their own fairly well except in the 2010 and 2009 age groups. I think some of that might be attributed to a young coach working to find his footing. Some of it is talent. And some of it is organizational philosophy. Alexandria's train by playing approach might not be the best fit for a 4-day a week practice schedule. I think they'd do well to incorporate more individual skill work and team conditioning/speed training.

Can you elaborate on this? And any particular years that you know of specifically? Ds is considering trying out there for next year.

Ex-ASA parent here. The traditional Alexandria philosophy was that individual/technical work and fitness were activities that can and should be done outside of practice. I happen to agree with this, strongly. And ASA top players tend to play futsal as well, which enhances technical/individual skill development, at least in the off season. But it is also noticeable that ASA players may be a little less fit or 1 v 1 oriented than players developed at other clubs, with some very notable exceptions among ASA players who have gone to DCU.

Practices are heavy on buildup, shape and positional play. My son learned more at early ages there than the rest of his years in soccer combined. He took care of skills at HP.

The club has a philosophy that goes against 1v1's and focuses primarily on team tactics?

What about dribbling and creativity?

How do you coach creativity?

Every player wants to be creative.

Creativity can be coached out of them by not allowing them to dribble and be imaginative.
Critiquing them for doing ball mastery moves and constantly encouraging them to pass.

If you focus on decision making instead of joystick 🕹 coaching and allow them to make mistakes instead of just Booting It and Sending It.... You're coaching to be creative.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:A lot of people just don’t want to acknowledging how bad the Alexandria MLS teams currently are. Cant blame them. Hopefully the future is better for that club.

Among MLS Next teams in area (other than DCU), only the following are ranked higher in each group

05/06: Bethesda, Armour (barely)

07: Nobody

08: Armour

09: SYC, Bethesda, Armour

10: SYC, Bethesda, Armour

011: SYC (barely)

So Armour is ahead in 4/6, Bethesda and SYC are ahead in 3/6. I'd say that's pretty solid.

Yeah. I think they hold their own fairly well except in the 2010 and 2009 age groups. I think some of that might be attributed to a young coach working to find his footing. Some of it is talent. And some of it is organizational philosophy. Alexandria's train by playing approach might not be the best fit for a 4-day a week practice schedule. I think they'd do well to incorporate more individual skill work and team conditioning/speed training.

Can you elaborate on this? And any particular years that you know of specifically? Ds is considering trying out there for next year.

Ex-ASA parent here. The traditional Alexandria philosophy was that individual/technical work and fitness were activities that can and should be done outside of practice. I happen to agree with this, strongly. And ASA top players tend to play futsal as well, which enhances technical/individual skill development, at least in the off season. But it is also noticeable that ASA players may be a little less fit or 1 v 1 oriented than players developed at other clubs, with some very notable exceptions among ASA players who have gone to DCU.

Practices are heavy on buildup, shape and positional play. My son learned more at early ages there than the rest of his years in soccer combined. He took care of skills at HP.

The club has a philosophy that goes against 1v1's and focuses primarily on team tactics?

What about dribbling and creativity?

How do you coach creativity?

You give them problems to solve on their own, and not just the answers. You can encourage risk taking which increases the options kids will consider.

[Anonymous]

Any updates on Loudoun getting MLS Next? Has the club communicated anything to the families?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Any updates on Loudoun getting MLS Next? Has the club communicated anything to the families?

Urban myth.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:A lot of people just don’t want to acknowledging how bad the Alexandria MLS teams currently are. Cant blame them. Hopefully the future is better for that club.

Among MLS Next teams in area (other than DCU), only the following are ranked higher in each group

05/06: Bethesda, Armour (barely)

07: Nobody

08: Armour

09: SYC, Bethesda, Armour

10: SYC, Bethesda, Armour

011: SYC (barely)

So Armour is ahead in 4/6, Bethesda and SYC are ahead in 3/6. I'd say that's pretty solid.

Yeah. I think they hold their own fairly well except in the 2010 and 2009 age groups. I think some of that might be attributed to a young coach working to find his footing. Some of it is talent. And some of it is organizational philosophy. Alexandria's train by playing approach might not be the best fit for a 4-day a week practice schedule. I think they'd do well to incorporate more individual skill work and team conditioning/speed training.

Can you elaborate on this? And any particular years that you know of specifically? Ds is considering trying out there for next year.

Ex-ASA parent here. The traditional Alexandria philosophy was that individual/technical work and fitness were activities that can and should be done outside of practice. I happen to agree with this, strongly. And ASA top players tend to play futsal as well, which enhances technical/individual skill development, at least in the off season. But it is also noticeable that ASA players may be a little less fit or 1 v 1 oriented than players developed at other clubs, with some very notable exceptions among ASA players who have gone to DCU.

Practices are heavy on buildup, shape and positional play. My son learned more at early ages there than the rest of his years in soccer combined. He took care of skills at HP.

The club has a philosophy that goes against 1v1's and focuses primarily on team tactics?

What about dribbling and creativity?

How do you coach creativity?

Every player wants to be creative.

Creativity can be coached out of them by not allowing them to dribble and be imaginative.
Critiquing them for doing ball mastery moves and constantly encouraging them to pass.

If you focus on decision making instead of joystick 🕹 coaching and allow them to make mistakes instead of just Booting It and Sending It.... You're coaching to be creative.

The question was, how do you coach creativity?