Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am confused. Isn’t it illegal to play down? I thought with the whole birth year change you had to play with your birth year

What am I missing?

MLS Next rules allow for 3 over-age players per team. It is called the "late developers" rule in MLS Next but is also referred to as bio-banding. The idea is to allow smaller kids who are late to puberty to play a year down until they catch up. At these years, there is a huge variability in height and weight and the rule is designed to encourage late developers to stick with the game. But, Bethesda abuses the rule for a competitive advantage by playing larger faster kids down.

Anonymous wrote:Tactics are something this country needs to figure out how to understand, even as a spectator. Hate on that guy all you want but the faster this country understands all the ways to play the game, the faster the country can actually level up the game here in the US and not be okay thinking how the game is played in college is amazing.

Anonymous wrote:I am confused. Isn’t it illegal to play down? I thought with the whole birth year change you had to play with your birth year

What am I missing?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:5 offers DS 2010 ASA MLSN, Achilles MLSN, Arlington ECNL and Bethesda MLSN, rejected SYC MLSN their team standing below locals.

SYC is by far the best 2010B team in the area.

I think this is definitely correct. I'm discounting Bethesda because three of their 2010s are actually 2009s.

But . . . you need to take into consideration the way SYC plays, to know whether it's the best choice for your son. This season, I've seen them play three times. SYC has the best athletes and is the most physical team in the area, outside of DC United, Loudoun (? I can't remember), and maybe Villareal. Their players are excellent, for the most part. They are skilled, aggressive, and fast. they press high man to man and win a lot of battles. Each time they were the dominant team, for sure.

But . . . most of the goals I saw came from corners and crosses. Although they'll occasionally reset through the keeper, but for the most part they play long goal kicks, long diagonal passes to isolate their wings, or individual runs up the sideline. There isn't a lot of play through the middle. It is a very direct style that relies on the superiority of their kids. It works well for them, but a lot of players would get lost in the shuffle.

You know what? I'd like to retract this one. In the interest of fairness and not wanting to have my anonymous self be wrong, I checked out parts of a few of the SYC 2010 youtube videos, and didn't see this as much. Definite attempts at build-ups, switches, etc. All of the matches I had seen previously were from the first month of the season and it looks like maybe the style was a function of it being so early.

NP, I wanted to add that we’ve played their younger teams a few times and they are trying to play down the middle. However, they cannot maintain possession for very long and their goals are still mostly from long goal kicks, fast breaks, etc., and frankly good defending. They will use their athleticism to steal the ball.

It’s a bit hard to gauge the technical skill level of the teams bc they don’t possess the ball for very long. They seem very reliant on a few (maybe 3 kids) who are either fast (striker) or full backs and/or defensive mids who can pounce on the ball.

When the game is close or competitive, they forgo playing possession and revert back to kickball.

And this is different from most every soccer team in what way? LMAO play direct to win a competitive game, crazy talk, alright tatical dad, keep it coming

I swear you must be a frequent poster on here with the same MO, so angry and such an arrogant know-it-all all the time without providing specific or helpful information. And really not even saying anything inconsistent with what I’ve said

I’m sure SYC is similar to many clubs in the way they play. They win a lot and that matters to many parents. But none of those kids are getting better if they can’t play possession under pressure. Are any clubs in the area playing possession and/or indirect AND winning all the time? Bethesda maybe?

But if the goal is to play low level D1 and below college soccer, SYC and most other clubs are fine. And that’s probably the realistic goal of the majority of families in the DMV. But if the goal is beyond that, I wouldn’t put a kid in SYC. Not saying that other MLSNExt clubs are any better, just that SYC would not be it for D1 and above goals.

SYC 2010 got schooled against Bethesda.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:5 offers DS 2010 ASA MLSN, Achilles MLSN, Arlington ECNL and Bethesda MLSN, rejected SYC MLSN their team standing below locals.

SYC is by far the best 2010B team in the area.

I think this is definitely correct. I'm discounting Bethesda because three of their 2010s are actually 2009s.

But . . . you need to take into consideration the way SYC plays, to know whether it's the best choice for your son. This season, I've seen them play three times. SYC has the best athletes and is the most physical team in the area, outside of DC United, Loudoun (? I can't remember), and maybe Villareal. Their players are excellent, for the most part. They are skilled, aggressive, and fast. they press high man to man and win a lot of battles. Each time they were the dominant team, for sure.

But . . . most of the goals I saw came from corners and crosses. Although they'll occasionally reset through the keeper, but for the most part they play long goal kicks, long diagonal passes to isolate their wings, or individual runs up the sideline. There isn't a lot of play through the middle. It is a very direct style that relies on the superiority of their kids. It works well for them, but a lot of players would get lost in the shuffle.

You know what? I'd like to retract this one. In the interest of fairness and not wanting to have my anonymous self be wrong, I checked out parts of a few of the SYC 2010 youtube videos, and didn't see this as much. Definite attempts at build-ups, switches, etc. All of the matches I had seen previously were from the first month of the season and it looks like maybe the style was a function of it being so early.

NP, I wanted to add that we’ve played their younger teams a few times and they are trying to play down the middle. However, they cannot maintain possession for very long and their goals are still mostly from long goal kicks, fast breaks, etc., and frankly good defending. They will use their athleticism to steal the ball.

It’s a bit hard to gauge the technical skill level of the teams bc they don’t possess the ball for very long. They seem very reliant on a few (maybe 3 kids) who are either fast (striker) or full backs and/or defensive mids who can pounce on the ball.

When the game is close or competitive, they forgo playing possession and revert back to kickball.

And this is different from most every soccer team in what way? LMAO play direct to win a competitive game, crazy talk, alright tatical dad, keep it coming

I swear you must be a frequent poster on here with the same MO, so angry and such an arrogant know-it-all all the time without providing specific or helpful information. And really not even saying anything inconsistent with what I’ve said

I’m sure SYC is similar to many clubs in the way they play. They win a lot and that matters to many parents. But none of those kids are getting better if they can’t play possession under pressure. Are any clubs in the area playing possession and/or indirect AND winning all the time? Bethesda maybe?

But if the goal is to play low level D1 and below college soccer, SYC and most other clubs are fine. And that’s probably the realistic goal of the majority of families in the DMV. But if the goal is beyond that, I wouldn’t put a kid in SYC. Not saying that other MLSNExt clubs are any better, just that SYC would not be it for D1 and above goals.

SYC 2010 got schooled against Bethesda.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:5 offers DS 2010 ASA MLSN, Achilles MLSN, Arlington ECNL and Bethesda MLSN, rejected SYC MLSN their team standing below locals.

SYC is by far the best 2010B team in the area.

I think this is definitely correct. I'm discounting Bethesda because three of their 2010s are actually 2009s.

But . . . you need to take into consideration the way SYC plays, to know whether it's the best choice for your son. This season, I've seen them play three times. SYC has the best athletes and is the most physical team in the area, outside of DC United, Loudoun (? I can't remember), and maybe Villareal. Their players are excellent, for the most part. They are skilled, aggressive, and fast. they press high man to man and win a lot of battles. Each time they were the dominant team, for sure.

But . . . most of the goals I saw came from corners and crosses. Although they'll occasionally reset through the keeper, but for the most part they play long goal kicks, long diagonal passes to isolate their wings, or individual runs up the sideline. There isn't a lot of play through the middle. It is a very direct style that relies on the superiority of their kids. It works well for them, but a lot of players would get lost in the shuffle.

You know what? I'd like to retract this one. In the interest of fairness and not wanting to have my anonymous self be wrong, I checked out parts of a few of the SYC 2010 youtube videos, and didn't see this as much. Definite attempts at build-ups, switches, etc. All of the matches I had seen previously were from the first month of the season and it looks like maybe the style was a function of it being so early.

NP, I wanted to add that we’ve played their younger teams a few times and they are trying to play down the middle. However, they cannot maintain possession for very long and their goals are still mostly from long goal kicks, fast breaks, etc., and frankly good defending. They will use their athleticism to steal the ball.

It’s a bit hard to gauge the technical skill level of the teams bc they don’t possess the ball for very long. They seem very reliant on a few (maybe 3 kids) who are either fast (striker) or full backs and/or defensive mids who can pounce on the ball.

When the game is close or competitive, they forgo playing possession and revert back to kickball.

And this is different from most every soccer team in what way? LMAO play direct to win a competitive game, crazy talk, alright tatical dad, keep it coming

I swear you must be a frequent poster on here with the same MO, so angry and such an arrogant know-it-all all the time without providing specific or helpful information. And really not even saying anything inconsistent with what I’ve said

I’m sure SYC is similar to many clubs in the way they play. They win a lot and that matters to many parents. But none of those kids are getting better if they can’t play possession under pressure. Are any clubs in the area playing possession and/or indirect AND winning all the time? Bethesda maybe?

But if the goal is to play low level D1 and below college soccer, SYC and most other clubs are fine. And that’s probably the realistic goal of the majority of families in the DMV. But if the goal is beyond that, I wouldn’t put a kid in SYC. Not saying that other MLSNExt clubs are any better, just that SYC would not be it for D1 and above goals.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:5 offers DS 2010 ASA MLSN, Achilles MLSN, Arlington ECNL and Bethesda MLSN, rejected SYC MLSN their team standing below locals.

SYC is by far the best 2010B team in the area.

I think this is definitely correct. I'm discounting Bethesda because three of their 2010s are actually 2009s.

But . . . you need to take into consideration the way SYC plays, to know whether it's the best choice for your son. This season, I've seen them play three times. SYC has the best athletes and is the most physical team in the area, outside of DC United, Loudoun (? I can't remember), and maybe Villareal. Their players are excellent, for the most part. They are skilled, aggressive, and fast. they press high man to man and win a lot of battles. Each time they were the dominant team, for sure.

But . . . most of the goals I saw came from corners and crosses. Although they'll occasionally reset through the keeper, but for the most part they play long goal kicks, long diagonal passes to isolate their wings, or individual runs up the sideline. There isn't a lot of play through the middle. It is a very direct style that relies on the superiority of their kids. It works well for them, but a lot of players would get lost in the shuffle.

You know what? I'd like to retract this one. In the interest of fairness and not wanting to have my anonymous self be wrong, I checked out parts of a few of the SYC 2010 youtube videos, and didn't see this as much. Definite attempts at build-ups, switches, etc. All of the matches I had seen previously were from the first month of the season and it looks like maybe the style was a function of it being so early.

NP, I wanted to add that we’ve played their younger teams a few times and they are trying to play down the middle. However, they cannot maintain possession for very long and their goals are still mostly from long goal kicks, fast breaks, etc., and frankly good defending. They will use their athleticism to steal the ball.

It’s a bit hard to gauge the technical skill level of the teams bc they don’t possess the ball for very long. They seem very reliant on a few (maybe 3 kids) who are either fast (striker) or full backs and/or defensive mids who can pounce on the ball.

When the game is close or competitive, they forgo playing possession and revert back to kickball.

And this is different from most every soccer team in what way? LMAO play direct to win a competitive game, crazy talk, alright tatical dad, keep it coming

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:5 offers DS 2010 ASA MLSN, Achilles MLSN, Arlington ECNL and Bethesda MLSN, rejected SYC MLSN their team standing below locals.

SYC is by far the best 2010B team in the area.

I think this is definitely correct. I'm discounting Bethesda because three of their 2010s are actually 2009s.

But . . . you need to take into consideration the way SYC plays, to know whether it's the best choice for your son. This season, I've seen them play three times. SYC has the best athletes and is the most physical team in the area, outside of DC United, Loudoun (? I can't remember), and maybe Villareal. Their players are excellent, for the most part. They are skilled, aggressive, and fast. they press high man to man and win a lot of battles. Each time they were the dominant team, for sure.

But . . . most of the goals I saw came from corners and crosses. Although they'll occasionally reset through the keeper, but for the most part they play long goal kicks, long diagonal passes to isolate their wings, or individual runs up the sideline. There isn't a lot of play through the middle. It is a very direct style that relies on the superiority of their kids. It works well for them, but a lot of players would get lost in the shuffle.

You know what? I'd like to retract this one. In the interest of fairness and not wanting to have my anonymous self be wrong, I checked out parts of a few of the SYC 2010 youtube videos, and didn't see this as much. Definite attempts at build-ups, switches, etc. All of the matches I had seen previously were from the first month of the season and it looks like maybe the style was a function of it being so early.

NP, I wanted to add that we’ve played their younger teams a few times and they are trying to play down the middle. However, they cannot maintain possession for very long and their goals are still mostly from long goal kicks, fast breaks, etc., and frankly good defending. They will use their athleticism to steal the ball.

It’s a bit hard to gauge the technical skill level of the teams bc they don’t possess the ball for very long. They seem very reliant on a few (maybe 3 kids) who are either fast (striker) or full backs and/or defensive mids who can pounce on the ball.

When the game is close or competitive, they forgo playing possession and revert back to kickball.