08 Girls

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Arlington 08 does not have true DA level talent. Anyone want to disagree?

Gee, FCV ID sessions must really be a ghost town. Going after Arlington now.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why all the sudden interest in Stoddert and what they are or are not doing?

Because of Metro United.

Apparently they have 3-4 DA players at every age group.

Nobody said that.

08 and going forward on the younger ages they likely do. Nobody claimed there are 06, 05 and 04s out there on CCL, NPL or other similar teams that have not already gone to DA or ECNL. This has been the issue for Spirit/Metro since the beginning as a startup club with no feeder having to find talent that has already moved on to other clubs. But certainly a club like Stoddert at Pre-DA ages has 3-4 kids who are capable of playing DA and ECNL. There always have been they have just simply gone to other clubs in the past.

No. There is one player on Stoddert 08’s who maybe would make Arlington Red but they already have enough of that type of payer. Arlington likes big fast physical players. Mclean and BSC like technical players, Loudoun goes for athleticism, Metro is too early to say...so which DA/ECNL club will take 3-4 08 Stoddert players? Stoddert coaching is not technical so you are not developing skilled players.

Maybe Metro? The other DA/ECNL clubs keep their own- ie you have to be clearly better vs those clubs top players. This is why Metro could succeed in a few years.

Is this a true statement about BSC 2008G Blue (now called Fury)? Are all of their players talented and very technical?

No. When we want to hate on clubs we tell everyone they only have physical and athletic players who play kickball ( but usually win). Clubs we support, although usually losing most of their games, we describe as having small technical kids who play possession. Interestingly, in the Lederman article, one of the major themes is how he is small and technical and that is holding him back. His coaches are quoted as saying he needs to be bigger and stronger to compete...

[Anonymous]

Apologies in advance since I didn't play or watch soccer growing up, but if your not technical then what are you? At the higher levels of any sport don't you have to be absolutely good technically to be able to compete and not just reply on pure speed or strength?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Apologies in advance since I didn't play or watch soccer growing up, but if your not technical then what are you? At the higher levels of any sport don't you have to be absolutely good technically to be able to compete and not just reply on pure speed or strength?

Top players are both not one or the other.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Apologies in advance since I didn't play or watch soccer growing up, but if your not technical then what are you? At the higher levels of any sport don't you have to be absolutely good technically to be able to compete and not just reply on pure speed or strength?

Top players are both not one or the other.

True, but admitting that ruins our narratives. It’s easier for me to see a big kid on a team and immediately label that team as non-technical and focused on big/athletic players who play direct, long ball soccer. That way, when my kid’s team loses I can simply say that the other team is not developing players. I can than look at my kid’s team and see small players and quickly conclude that they are small, technical kids who play ‘good’ possession/tiki-taka, attractive soccer. With this obvious knowledge in hand, I can expertly analyze and characterize every team and club in the region. I can further validate that my choices and cash spend is better than the next guy. If we let people believe early on that most high-level players are both technical and physical, this forum would not have all the lively debate about 11 year olds.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Apologies in advance since I didn't play or watch soccer growing up, but if your not technical then what are you? At the higher levels of any sport don't you have to be absolutely good technically to be able to compete and not just reply on pure speed or strength?

Top players are both not one or the other.

True, but admitting that ruins our narratives. It’s easier for me to see a big kid on a team and immediately label that team as non-technical and focused on big/athletic players who play direct, long ball soccer. That way, when my kid’s team loses I can simply say that the other team is not developing players. I can than look at my kid’s team and see small players and quickly conclude that they are small, technical kids who play ‘good’ possession/tiki-taka, attractive soccer. With this obvious knowledge in hand, I can expertly analyze and characterize every team and club in the region. I can further validate that my choices and cash spend is better than the next guy. If we let people believe early on that most high-level players are both technical and physical, this forum would not have all the lively debate about 11 year olds.

The reality in youth soccer the combination of both is quite rare, but having one or the other can make for a very successful youth soccer player. Having a team full of one or the other can make for a good U11 team.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Apologies in advance since I didn't play or watch soccer growing up, but if your not technical then what are you? At the higher levels of any sport don't you have to be absolutely good technically to be able to compete and not just reply on pure speed or strength?

Top players are both not one or the other.

Agree, but not in the younger years. Size with bad first touch is quite common in the younger years among many top teams. It is easy to get by on solely physical advantages in soccer in the early years. Much harder by age 14 for girls, 16 for boys.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Apologies in advance since I didn't play or watch soccer growing up, but if your not technical then what are you? At the higher levels of any sport don't you have to be absolutely good technically to be able to compete and not just reply on pure speed or strength?

Top players are both not one or the other.

Agree, but not in the younger years. Size with bad first touch is quite common in the younger years among many top teams. It is easy to get by on solely physical advantages in soccer in the early years. Much harder by age 14 for girls, 16 for boys.

The most interesting part of this athletic/big/technical discussion to me is the comment on when it changes. PP says age 14. I might argue even later, but certainly it hasn't completely changed at U13, which is the age group under discussion. When my DD started playing DA, it didn't offer U13 (still is just technically a pilot). I for one am glad she didn't have the option at that age. Even U14 seems young. The kids are growing and also beginning to navigate the challenges of harder school together with high demand soccer training. It's a lot. It's early. Some of the talented ones will self-select out and some everyone thought weren't good enough will evolve. I do agree though that the system now means kids who don't get in to the DA/ECNL systems as early as they can are at a disadvantage because they miss on higher training intensity and game speed.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Apologies in advance since I didn't play or watch soccer growing up, but if your not technical then what are you? At the higher levels of any sport don't you have to be absolutely good technically to be able to compete and not just reply on pure speed or strength?

Top players are both not one or the other.

True, but admitting that ruins our narratives. It’s easier for me to see a big kid on a team and immediately label that team as non-technical and focused on big/athletic players who play direct, long ball soccer. That way, when my kid’s team loses I can simply say that the other team is not developing players. I can than look at my kid’s team and see small players and quickly conclude that they are small, technical kids who play ‘good’ possession/tiki-taka, attractive soccer. With this obvious knowledge in hand, I can expertly analyze and characterize every team and club in the region. I can further validate that my choices and cash spend is better than the next guy. If we let people believe early on that most high-level players are both technical and physical, this forum would not have all the lively debate about 11 year olds.

LOL sure. Size has nothing to do with technical ability. It is amazing you feel comfortable posting something as stupid as this.

To answer the posters question. Technically ability, speed of play, straight line speed, quickness, soccer IQ, etc all make up a soccer player. DA and ECNL are relatively high levels when compared to the age group but are not as high a level as college(or minor league or pro level which are higher vs college). So a good athlete can lack other soccer attributes and still be a good player specially in the younger years. As they progress, they have to develop other attributes or they are left behind but it is still relative to the level of play. A premier league player who has lost a step or two can still play in the MSL because of the slow speed of play.

A good indicator of technical skill at any level of competition is touch and turnovers. When a player receives a ball do they turn it into a 50/50 ball because of a bad touch? When a player is pressured with the ball do they turn it over or do their passes lead to a turn over?

Very few players in youth soccer are high in more then a one attribute boxes. If you are high in two boxes and average in the rest you will be a good to very good DA/ECNL player.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Apologies in advance since I didn't play or watch soccer growing up, but if your not technical then what are you? At the higher levels of any sport don't you have to be absolutely good technically to be able to compete and not just reply on pure speed or strength?

Top players are both not one or the other.

True, but admitting that ruins our narratives. It’s easier for me to see a big kid on a team and immediately label that team as non-technical and focused on big/athletic players who play direct, long ball soccer. That way, when my kid’s team loses I can simply say that the other team is not developing players. I can than look at my kid’s team and see small players and quickly conclude that they are small, technical kids who play ‘good’ possession/tiki-taka, attractive soccer. With this obvious knowledge in hand, I can expertly analyze and characterize every team and club in the region. I can further validate that my choices and cash spend is better than the next guy. If we let people believe early on that most high-level players are both technical and physical, this forum would not have all the lively debate about 11 year olds.

LOL sure. Size has nothing to do with technical ability. It is amazing you feel comfortable posting something as stupid as this.

To answer the posters question. Technically ability, speed of play, straight line speed, quickness, soccer IQ, etc all make up a soccer player. DA and ECNL are relatively high levels when compared to the age group but are not as high a level as college(or minor league or pro level which are higher vs college). So a good athlete can lack other soccer attributes and still be a good player specially in the younger years. As they progress, they have to develop other attributes or they are left behind but it is still relative to the level of play. A premier league player who has lost a step or two can still play in the MSL because of the slow speed of play.

A good indicator of technical skill at any level of competition is touch and turnovers. When a player receives a ball do they turn it into a 50/50 ball because of a bad touch? When a player is pressured with the ball do they turn it over or do their passes lead to a turn over?

Very few players in youth soccer are high in more then a one attribute boxes. If you are high in two boxes and average in the rest you will be a good to very good DA/ECNL player.

You may want to check on your sarcasm IQ.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Apologies in advance since I didn't play or watch soccer growing up, but if your not technical then what are you? At the higher levels of any sport don't you have to be absolutely good technically to be able to compete and not just reply on pure speed or strength?

Top players are both not one or the other.

Agree, but not in the younger years. Size with bad first touch is quite common in the younger years among many top teams. It is easy to get by on solely physical advantages in soccer in the early years. Much harder by age 14 for girls, 16 for boys.

The most interesting part of this athletic/big/technical discussion to me is the comment on when it changes. PP says age 14. I might argue even later, but certainly it hasn't completely changed at U13, which is the age group under discussion. When my DD started playing DA, it didn't offer U13 (still is just technically a pilot). I for one am glad she didn't have the option at that age. Even U14 seems young. The kids are growing and also beginning to navigate the challenges of harder school together with high demand soccer training. It's a lot. It's early. Some of the talented ones will self-select out and some everyone thought weren't good enough will evolve. I do agree though that the system now means kids who don't get in to the DA/ECNL systems as early as they can are at a disadvantage because they miss on higher training intensity and game speed.

There is also a tendency to just stay with the players you know, even when they may not have progressed as much or be at the level of some at id. It's more an issue at 'club DA' then say MLS DA because they are still trying to keep the parent base happy and appeased, especially when the families have multiple kids in the program.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Apologies in advance since I didn't play or watch soccer growing up, but if your not technical then what are you? At the higher levels of any sport don't you have to be absolutely good technically to be able to compete and not just reply on pure speed or strength?

Top players are both not one or the other.

Agree, but not in the younger years. Size with bad first touch is quite common in the younger years among many top teams. It is easy to get by on solely physical advantages in soccer in the early years. Much harder by age 14 for girls, 16 for boys.

The most interesting part of this athletic/big/technical discussion to me is the comment on when it changes. PP says age 14. I might argue even later, but certainly it hasn't completely changed at U13, which is the age group under discussion. When my DD started playing DA, it didn't offer U13 (still is just technically a pilot). I for one am glad she didn't have the option at that age. Even U14 seems young. The kids are growing and also beginning to navigate the challenges of harder school together with high demand soccer training. It's a lot. It's early. Some of the talented ones will self-select out and some everyone thought weren't good enough will evolve. I do agree though that the system now means kids who don't get in to the DA/ECNL systems as early as they can are at a disadvantage because they miss on higher training intensity and game speed.

There is also a tendency to just stay with the players you know, even when they may not have progressed as much or be at the level of some at id. It's more an issue at 'club DA' then say MLS DA because they are still trying to keep the parent base happy and appeased, especially when the families have multiple kids in the program.

So basically if your girl is not on a DA/ECNL team at u13 she is done?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Apologies in advance since I didn't play or watch soccer growing up, but if your not technical then what are you? At the higher levels of any sport don't you have to be absolutely good technically to be able to compete and not just reply on pure speed or strength?

Top players are both not one or the other.

Agree, but not in the younger years. Size with bad first touch is quite common in the younger years among many top teams. It is easy to get by on solely physical advantages in soccer in the early years. Much harder by age 14 for girls, 16 for boys.

The most interesting part of this athletic/big/technical discussion to me is the comment on when it changes. PP says age 14. I might argue even later, but certainly it hasn't completely changed at U13, which is the age group under discussion. When my DD started playing DA, it didn't offer U13 (still is just technically a pilot). I for one am glad she didn't have the option at that age. Even U14 seems young. The kids are growing and also beginning to navigate the challenges of harder school together with high demand soccer training. It's a lot. It's early. Some of the talented ones will self-select out and some everyone thought weren't good enough will evolve. I do agree though that the system now means kids who don't get in to the DA/ECNL systems as early as they can are at a disadvantage because they miss on higher training intensity and game speed.

There is also a tendency to just stay with the players you know, even when they may not have progressed as much or be at the level of some at id. It's more an issue at 'club DA' then say MLS DA because they are still trying to keep the parent base happy and appeased, especially when the families have multiple kids in the program.

So basically if your girl is not on a DA/ECNL team at u13 she is done?

I'm PP who said I don't like U13/U14 DA/ECNL as I think players aren't fully matured or ready for the training volume, etc., yet. That said, IMO, no your DD is not done if she's not DA/ECNL by U13, but it IS harder to break in after teams are formed. Not only do clubs give the nod to their existing players at times (though many are happy to recruit, don't get me wrong), but more important, practicing more days/week and playing more competitive games at a faster speed of play makes the gap widen. Some players can find ways to improve and bridge it as they get older, but it gets harder for all but the superstars.

[Anonymous]

the team of the future lost to VYS? How? PWSI had one decent season last year and I remember the parents talking about them as if they will all be on the USWNT well what happened?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:the team of the future lost to VYS? How? PWSI had one decent season last year and I remember the parents talking about them as if they will all be on the USWNT well what happened?

I think they meant PWSI and VSA will combine to form VDA 2008 which is the team of the future. Vienna plays VSA today. Let's all see what happens