Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’ve seen a few of the Arlington DA teams play and their style wasn’t inconsistent with that I’ve seen of other conference DA teams. They were possession focused and looking to force play forwards when opportunities presented themselves. They took time to reset play when they weren’t. They were very aggressive in pressing when not in possession. There was no “send it” or “forward” commands at the matches I watched, that must have been a different group. To the person who said there was some bad play, I’d attribute that more to talent differences between teams than style. Based on what I’ve seen from many teams, the style these teams are trying to play doesn’t vary too much and is not direct in most cases.

I agree with this. They definitely are possession focused but they do send through balls if they find a weakness in the defense. Of course, the goal is keeping possession, but that is easier said then done.

Yes. As the talent levels rise and are nearly the same, mistakes can increase due to pressure on both sides. Or if one side is more talented and faster than the other, then you typically see the more talented, faster side put a possession clinic on while the other side blunders. This is typically when I might see more direct balls out, from frustration. The same blundering team though, playing against a weaker side, is more able to play possession successfully without the clearances the other poster refers to. It's important to differentiate between rushed, atypical play caused by pressure and what is being taught and applied when these teams have time to execute.

This poster gets it. The single biggest mistake most observers make when trying to evaluate teams (and players for that matter) is failing to take the opposition into account. The technical level, athleticism, and even tactics employed will all make a huge difference in what you see.

That's true. When players are under pressure, bad habits may resurface, such as clearing a ball that could have been played appropriately down the field.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’ve seen a few of the Arlington DA teams play and their style wasn’t inconsistent with that I’ve seen of other conference DA teams. They were possession focused and looking to force play forwards when opportunities presented themselves. They took time to reset play when they weren’t. They were very aggressive in pressing when not in possession. There was no “send it” or “forward” commands at the matches I watched, that must have been a different group. To the person who said there was some bad play, I’d attribute that more to talent differences between teams than style. Based on what I’ve seen from many teams, the style these teams are trying to play doesn’t vary too much and is not direct in most cases.

I agree with this. They definitely are possession focused but they do send through balls if they find a weakness in the defense. Of course, the goal is keeping possession, but that is easier said then done.

Yes. As the talent levels rise and are nearly the same, mistakes can increase due to pressure on both sides. Or if one side is more talented and faster than the other, then you typically see the more talented, faster side put a possession clinic on while the other side blunders. This is typically when I might see more direct balls out, from frustration. The same blundering team though, playing against a weaker side, is more able to play possession successfully without the clearances the other poster refers to. It's important to differentiate between rushed, atypical play caused by pressure and what is being taught and applied when these teams have time to execute.

This poster gets it. The single biggest mistake most observers make when trying to evaluate teams (and players for that matter) is failing to take the opposition into account. The technical level, athleticism, and even tactics employed will all make a huge difference in what you see.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’ve seen a few of the Arlington DA teams play and their style wasn’t inconsistent with that I’ve seen of other conference DA teams. They were possession focused and looking to force play forwards when opportunities presented themselves. They took time to reset play when they weren’t. They were very aggressive in pressing when not in possession. There was no “send it” or “forward” commands at the matches I watched, that must have been a different group. To the person who said there was some bad play, I’d attribute that more to talent differences between teams than style. Based on what I’ve seen from many teams, the style these teams are trying to play doesn’t vary too much and is not direct in most cases.

I agree with this. They definitely are possession focused but they do send through balls if they find a weakness in the defense. Of course, the goal is keeping possession, but that is easier said then done.

Yes. As the talent levels rise and are nearly the same, mistakes can increase due to pressure on both sides. Or if one side is more talented and faster than the other, then you typically see the more talented, faster side put a possession clinic on while the other side blunders. This is typically when I might see more direct balls out, from frustration. The same blundering team though, playing against a weaker side, is more able to play possession successfully without the clearances the other poster refers to. It's important to differentiate between rushed, atypical play caused by pressure and what is being taught and applied when these teams have time to execute.

Count the # of times the backs win a 50/50 ball to space in their defensive 3rd and attempt to pass it out of the back while under maybe slight pressure versus clearing it long to try the direct option. Not talking situations? in the 6 yard box either. Nothing has changed overnight from ironing on the DA patch. Very similar style to most other DA/ECNL clubs, nothing better, nothing worse.

Anonymous wrote:I’ve seen a few of the Arlington DA teams play and their style wasn’t inconsistent with that I’ve seen of other conference DA teams. They were possession focused and looking to force play forwards when opportunities presented themselves. They took time to reset play when they weren’t. They were very aggressive in pressing when not in possession. There was no “send it” or “forward” commands at the matches I watched, that must have been a different group. To the person who said there was some bad play, I’d attribute that more to talent differences between teams than style. Based on what I’ve seen from many teams, the style these teams are trying to play doesn’t vary too much and is not direct in most cases.

I agree with this. They definitely are possession focused but they do send through balls if they find a weakness in the defense. Of course, the goal is keeping possession, but that is easier said then done.

Your daughter is on RED, so you should know. If not, ask her she probably does.

How long has Arlington been in DA?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’ve seen a few of the Arlington DA teams play and their style wasn’t inconsistent with that I’ve seen of other conference DA teams. They were possession focused and looking to force play forwards when opportunities presented themselves. They took time to reset play when they weren’t. They were very aggressive in pressing when not in possession. There was no “send it” or “forward” commands at the matches I watched, that must have been a different group. To the person who said there was some bad play, I’d attribute that more to talent differences between teams than style. Based on what I’ve seen from many teams, the style these teams are trying to play doesn’t vary too much and is not direct in most cases.

My daughter is on RED and I would say we kick it out of the back most of the time.

Gotcha. Maybe if she tries to play more possession she’ll be able to play with th DA teams someday then

Anonymous wrote:I’ve seen a few of the Arlington DA teams play and their style wasn’t inconsistent with that I’ve seen of other conference DA teams. They were possession focused and looking to force play forwards when opportunities presented themselves. They took time to reset play when they weren’t. They were very aggressive in pressing when not in possession. There was no “send it” or “forward” commands at the matches I watched, that must have been a different group. To the person who said there was some bad play, I’d attribute that more to talent differences between teams than style. Based on what I’ve seen from many teams, the style these teams are trying to play doesn’t vary too much and is not direct in most cases.

My daughter is on RED and I would say we kick it out of the back most of the time.

I’ve seen a few of the Arlington DA teams play and their style wasn’t inconsistent with that I’ve seen of other conference DA teams. They were possession focused and looking to force play forwards when opportunities presented themselves. They took time to reset play when they weren’t. They were very aggressive in pressing when not in possession. There was no “send it” or “forward” commands at the matches I watched, that must have been a different group. To the person who said there was some bad play, I’d attribute that more to talent differences between teams than style. Based on what I’ve seen from many teams, the style these teams are trying to play doesn’t vary too much and is not direct in most cases.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What sort of soccer is being taught at Arlington? Like is it more possession? Are there a lot of through balls? Can you tell?

Coaches encourage players to play ball forwards.

Ahhh, so more through balls then? Are they big on one touch passing, or do they allow players - within reason - to take their space? What's the emphasis?

There is no philosophy.

We found it varies from coach to coach over the years, often contradicting the previous year's coach. In the early years, definitely focus on athleticism and long balls. Their goalies are punting very early and by U11 the goalie punts into the other side's goal box while the striker chases it down.

I don't know about DA. I heard they have a decent older coach working more on tactical. But, if they wanted to play possession in the later years it would serve them better to get the ASA kids started on that early in the program. But, like many Clubs they focus on the wins young so in the later years many of their original players don't have the knowledge/skill set and fade out or get eclipsed by kids developed elsewhere.

DA curriculum is more tightly controlled and audited by US Soccer. So, even with the younger age groups playing different styes based on coach, that should not carry through to the DA. If it does, they won't retain DA status.

Are you sure? I'm not confident that level of oversight exists as of yet in the GDA at least. It's a good idea in theory, but I haven't seen consistently high quality soccer in the GDA. Boys' side may be different. Girls' side, it seems you have to do your best to have your DD play in a strong club with a reliable history and track record that can also place her with talent. I've seen the girls DA have all kinds of levels of play, some teams extremely low level of play and just bad soccer.

I think that's because it's in its infancy, but I'm not confident that the girls DA has gotten enough traction for the federation to start auditing clubs.

If you really want to have a sense of what style Arlington DA is playing, go and attend some games rather than relying on this forum's nonsense. You can find the game schedule on the USDA website.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What sort of soccer is being taught at Arlington? Like is it more possession? Are there a lot of through balls? Can you tell?

Coaches encourage players to play ball forwards.

I have heard very influential parents with DDs on GDA teams yell "forward" and "send it" without correction from the coach. It a very direct style atmosphere. Not too different from USWNT.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Do the same coaches that coach the boys DA coach the girls DA?

No, of course not.

Really? I mean the "of course not" part? I actually liked the idea.

It is just not logistically possible. That is why the "really" part.

Oh! I get it. I was just thinking about the advantages of being with a club that not only has a girls DA (which is new), but has a boys DA so it has experience with the program. That led me to think about the potential bonus of a coach coaching a boys DA team and then also bringing his expertise to the girls' side.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What sort of soccer is being taught at Arlington? Like is it more possession? Are there a lot of through balls? Can you tell?

Coaches encourage players to play ball forwards.

Ahhh, so more through balls then? Are they big on one touch passing, or do they allow players - within reason - to take their space? What's the emphasis?

There is no philosophy.

We found it varies from coach to coach over the years, often contradicting the previous year's coach. In the early years, definitely focus on athleticism and long balls. Their goalies are punting very early and by U11 the goalie punts into the other side's goal box while the striker chases it down.

I don't know about DA. I heard they have a decent older coach working more on tactical. But, if they wanted to play possession in the later years it would serve them better to get the ASA kids started on that early in the program. But, like many Clubs they focus on the wins young so in the later years many of their original players don't have the knowledge/skill set and fade out or get eclipsed by kids developed elsewhere.

DA curriculum is more tightly controlled and audited by US Soccer. So, even with the younger age groups playing different styes based on coach, that should not carry through to the DA. If it does, they won't retain DA status.

That is the goofiness with the DA and US Soccer. The most resources and best infrastructure when compared to its competitors, but struggles to put strong national teams on the field on the boys/men's side. They dictate to coaches in the field what system they must play, removing the ability of coaches nationally to innovate. It is a money and power grab. It started with a claim that the mission was to put a stronger national team on the pitch. But, they could not reconcile that with the fact that a huge percentage of players at 17 and 18 go off to college where they play in the fall where they play 20 games in about 3 months, then reduce playing substantially in the spring semester--and they do not necessarily play the method that the DA was dictating they play. Now I think they are claiming that they provide an elite environment. I do not see a need for the iron fist approach, and it is counterproductive. Look at a sport like swimming, where the US has dominated for decades. That sport's governing body in the US supports coaches across the country but does not dictate the training regiments that they employ--there is a ton of innovation in swimming compared with what we have here in the US in soccer. And, soccer is the most popular youth sport. See the DA for what it is--a tightly controlled system that wants to make sure its people are gainfully employed and have a stranglehold on fees...