soccer_dc wrote:

Manodedios wrote:

Pepe wrote:Obviously everyone still must "develop". Even pros still practice and get better... but it's not the supreme goal of a ECNL U16+ coach. These girls are being scouted and competing at the USYNT level! When they see issues, they address them, but we need a coach to coach to win (mostly). Girls are learning nuances for extreme talent, not developing skills they don't already know very well.
I think the difference is developing seems to mean early years vice later. No one stops learning and growing, but certainly done developing.

It still should be. Based on my experience with VDA, it definitely wasn’t even on the radar for the coach and ECNL Director, but hopefully your experience is better.

At the u16+ ages, development becomes somewhat self guided and motivated. Certainly things like development of strength and conditioning and nutrition come mainly from the player and people outside the coaching staff. I do see club coaches working with players at these ages on "classroom" development...pre and post game video analysis, tactical planning for upcoming opponents, mental preparation.

Agree that development is going to be entirely self-motivated and the work done individually, but not primarily self-guided. A player might know some things they need work on, but likely need direction on others. I see where some coaches (not from this area, unfortunately) mark up Veo for the “classroom” development (which is primarily what I’m talking about) but also to point out technical deficiencies/mistakes individual players are making. I don’t think coaches should be expected to have any role in S&C/SAQ training, but the better clubs at least offer some form of general programming for their players…Doesn’t seem that common in the clubs in our area, though.

Manodedios wrote:

Pepe wrote:Obviously everyone still must "develop". Even pros still practice and get better... but it's not the supreme goal of a ECNL U16+ coach. These girls are being scouted and competing at the USYNT level! When they see issues, they address them, but we need a coach to coach to win (mostly). Girls are learning nuances for extreme talent, not developing skills they don't already know very well.
I think the difference is developing seems to mean early years vice later. No one stops learning and growing, but certainly done developing.

It still should be. Based on my experience with VDA, it definitely wasn’t even on the radar for the coach and ECNL Director, but hopefully your experience is better.

At the u16+ ages, development becomes somewhat self guided and motivated. Certainly things like development of strength and conditioning and nutrition come mainly from the player and people outside the coaching staff. I do see club coaches working with players at these ages on "classroom" development...pre and post game video analysis, tactical planning for upcoming opponents, mental preparation.

Pepe wrote:Obviously everyone still must "develop". Even pros still practice and get better... but it's not the supreme goal of a ECNL U16+ coach. These girls are being scouted and competing at the USYNT level! When they see issues, they address them, but we need a coach to coach to win (mostly). Girls are learning nuances for extreme talent, not developing skills they don't already know very well.
I think the difference is developing seems to mean early years vice later. No one stops learning and growing, but certainly done developing.

It still should be. Based on my experience with VDA, it definitely wasn’t even on the radar for the coach and ECNL Director, but hopefully your experience is better.

Obviously everyone still must "develop". Even pros still practice and get better... but it's not the supreme goal of a ECNL U16+ coach. These girls are being scouted and competing at the USYNT level! When they see issues, they address them, but we need a coach to coach to win (mostly). Girls are learning nuances for extreme talent, not developing skills they don't already know very well.
I think the difference is developing seems to mean early years vice later. No one stops learning and growing, but certainly done developing.

retiredref wrote:

novasoccer15324 wrote:Encl and GA are more about selection the development.

I think that's the issue he's trying to point out. If your goal is to play in college fine, but if your goal is to be the best player you can be you shouldn't stop player development at U15 or whenever you sign a letter of intent. Choosing a club/team that will get you in front of the most college coaches could ignore other factors, it's a shame you have to balance development vs visibility instead of finding a club that does both.

Yes, you got it, that’s exactly my point. Its about reaching one’s potential and being as ready as possible for the college game.

novasoccer15324 wrote:Encl and GA are more about selection the development.

I think that's the issue he's trying to point out. If your goal is to play in college fine, but if your goal is to be the best player you can be you shouldn't stop player development at U15 or whenever you sign a letter of intent. Choosing a club/team that will get you in front of the most college coaches could ignore other factors, it's a shame you have to balance development vs visibility instead of finding a club that does both.

Encl and GAv more about selection the development. All the players that end up on these teams were standouts already at u9-u12 and then a few trickle in at u13-u14. It's rare for a player to make the transition after that.

Coaching is more about performance than development. You could stick a bad coach with some of these teams and the players would still play fairly well and get recruited by colleges.

Pepe wrote:

novasoccer15324 wrote:
I won't name names but if you take some of the more successful coaches on this list by measurement of trophies they have won, and you put them with developing players, most of them would struggle. On this list you're going to run into coaches who do not know how to develop players, only know how to crack the whip on them and motivate them to play harder and be more competitive players, but not actually develop them more. That is why they don't work with younger age groups and they don't work with developmental players, only players who have already made it to a very high level. This masks their lack of coaching ability.

How does this relate to college coaches then? Aren't high-level/high-performing teams essentially college-lite teams? I'd argue they are and for our team who have top tier players and those who make ENCL national selection games, they are college players just waiting until they graduate. Never mind the fact some are already verbally committed to D1s. Very little to develop when they are top U17 talent other than now it's about how you USE the players in situations and counter opposing teams formations and style of play. Now they are coaching, not developing... two totally different mindsets.

That is more or less the typical mindset (regarding development) in US Soccer, and based on my experience w/ VDA, not surprised that would be what you see if you are there. But do you really think a 16 year old junior likely DOESN’T have a lot they still need to develop to have success in 2-3-4 years? I wouldn’t ignore how some of a prior clubs ‘21 and ‘22 players are doing at the next level - e.g. are they getting minutes, etc., especially if they were a highly rated recruit for their school, like the ‘22 VDA players at Wake Forest.

VDA 2024s (06 team) have had three D1 commitments already: NC State, Ohio State, and Virginia Tech.

There are 60-80 (maybe more) scouts at games. Yes, 2006s play very elite teams, so they are there to watch both. Unsure if coaches do a ton, but have schools attend practices regularly and get girls to e-mail colleges often. Winning is the best recipe for 'what can a club do'.

DMVParent wrote:

soccer_dc wrote:

MadridFan wrote:For girls college placement, McLean ECNL is the top club by a fairly large margin.

By what metric do you measure college placement? Not saying McLean isn't the top but I'm curious how do you score it.

Isn't a good part of college placement the players/students/families/high schools you happen to have in your geographic area? I mean, McLean is probably tops in sending students to top colleges outside of sports due to their highly educated, highly affluent parents. Is McLean ECNL doing something different or just benefitting from the players they can land who live near McLean

The clubs all publish their player commitments.

McLean - https://mcleansoccer.org/college-commitments/
Arlington - http://www.arlingtonsoccer.com/programs/travel/college-placement/college-commitments
VDA -
Loudoun - https://www.loudounsoccer.com/Default.aspx?tabid=2666305

They seem like they are all doing pretty well with college placements. Is there something unique that one does over the others? There are more

VDA - https://www.soccerwire.com/news/virginia-development-academy-vda-celebrates-2022-college-commitments/
Bethesda - https://www.bethesdasoccer.org/commitments/
TSJFCV https://www.fcvirginia.com/page/show/3158219-college-commitments

soccer_dc wrote:

MadridFan wrote:For girls college placement, McLean ECNL is the top club by a fairly large margin.

By what metric do you measure college placement? Not saying McLean isn't the top but I'm curious how do you score it.

Isn't a good part of college placement the players/students/families/high schools you happen to have in your geographic area? I mean, McLean is probably tops in sending students to top colleges outside of sports due to their highly educated, highly affluent parents. Is McLean ECNL doing something different or just benefitting from the players they can land who live near McLean

The clubs all publish their player commitments.

McLean - https://mcleansoccer.org/college-commitments/
Arlington - http://www.arlingtonsoccer.com/programs/travel/college-placement/college-commitments
VDA -
Loudoun - https://www.loudounsoccer.com/Default.aspx?tabid=2666305

MadridFan wrote:For girls college placement, McLean ECNL is the top club by a fairly large margin.

By what metric do you measure college placement? Not saying McLean isn't the top but I'm curious how do you score it.

Isn't a good part of college placement the players/students/families/high schools you happen to have in your geographic area? I mean, McLean is probably tops in sending students to top colleges outside of sports due to their highly educated, highly affluent parents. Is McLean ECNL doing something different or just benefitting from the players they can land who live near McLean

For girls college placement, McLean ECNL is the top club by a fairly large margin.

novasoccer15324 wrote:
I won't name names but if you take some of the more successful coaches on this list by measurement of trophies they have won, and you put them with developing players, most of them would struggle. On this list you're going to run into coaches who do not know how to develop players, only know how to crack the whip on them and motivate them to play harder and be more competitive players, but not actually develop them more. That is why they don't work with younger age groups and they don't work with developmental players, only players who have already made it to a very high level. This masks their lack of coaching ability.

How does this relate to college coaches then? Aren't high-level/high-performing teams essentially college-lite teams? I'd argue they are and for our team who have top tier players and those who make ENCL national selection games, they are college players just waiting until they graduate. Never mind the fact some are already verbally committed to D1s. Very little to develop when they are top U17 talent other than now it's about how you USE the players in situations and counter opposing teams formations and style of play. Now they are coaching, not developing... two totally different mindsets.

Here's a disclaimer. About 50% of all these coaches are actually disliked/hated around the area. 25% of them are unproven, and 25% of them are veterans and people have a mix of love-hate relationships with them.

Why do you ask? Well I'll let everyone else respond to that on specific coaches. It's not too hard to list all the coaches by their initials with a little bit of research.

I'll say this. When you're a coach who inherits a team of the clubs best players, it's sometimes hard to see the gaps in coaching ability or the coach's knowledge. They are working with players who are already very talented in their own right and mostly deserve to be there, except for the u13 teams where they grandfather and players who may not really deserve a spot. But they eliminate them by u14 typically.

I won't name names but if you take some of the more successful coaches on this list by measurement of trophies they have won, and you put them with developing players, most of them would struggle. On this list you're going to run into coaches who do not know how to develop players, only know how to crack the whip on them and motivate them to play harder and be more competitive players, but not actually develop them more. That is why they don't work with younger age groups and they don't work with developmental players, only players who have already made it to a very high level. This masks their lack of coaching ability.