Anonymous wrote:I think Premier AC in Falls Church does a very good job of developing players. From what I have seen (my kid as well as several family friends and neighborhood friends), player growth has been impressive.

There is a cost to foscussing on development, as others have said, and some teams pay it more dearly than others. A handful of PAC's teams are very strong and successful, while others have a wide range of players and are more like what 11:49 described.

I think the size of the club and the consistency in the coaching staff (most of the coaches played for the club president) are part of what makes the coaching so effective. On the other hand, the lack of depth is always a challenge to a small club even on the very strong teams (especially when it comes to tournaments). It sometimes also makes some of the stronger players inclined to leave for neighboring teams (who had originally turned them down) after a few years.

Would totally agree Premier AC has a wide range a few really good teams that could easily hold their own in an ECNL league and few really bad teams that border on ODSL. As for development They are top tier and care about the player first if they think one of their players needs to move to a stronger competition than the can provide the will help the player get to a stronger team. They frequently send players to the DCU academy.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The issue with playing time is that many clubs will carry 12 players or so for 7v7. Then 14 for 9v9. Lots of subs and games aren't very long. I prefer clubs that will only carry players who deserve to be on the top team and if it's only 9 or 10, so be it. At least for 7v7 it will be easier for everyone to get on the field.

I always tell people if you aren't happy with your kid's playing time, start looking elsewhere. Some coaches may value your kid more than others and playing time will increase. Or maybe moving down to a less competitive team within the same club will be beneficial. Plenty of options outside of complaining.

Absolutely. Kid was on a "b" team his early years and got a ton of playing time. I credit those years of continuous play (due to having only 1 sub) for helping him improve so much. He's now "A" team and doing great. I don't know why people stress about A v B in early years. It's about play time.

As you mention Your kid was male. This is huge as the female training and development tend to be much larger in separation between teams.

so you're saying that boys are able to close the gap more easily the girls? Boys are able to hone athletic skills more quickly? I have a daughter, too. A v. B is really not that stark either in early years.

In our experience, it was very stark in early, middle and late years. Maybe not at a specific individual but over the average and the gap to the bottom.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Player development comes with a cost for the team - losses - as it takes time for players to develop.

This is much exaggerated. Good development results in wins that year - not several years down the line. When the coaches are saying that development won't bear fruit for several years then one of the following is true:

1. The kids are not developing.
2. The kids are playing in a league or division which is not appropriate for them, probably because the club is an ECNL/CCL/GA/MLS Next club which plays every team in the same league irrespective of whether it is best for that particular team.

If your kid's team is still losing every game badly by the end of the year, you should move if your kid's goal is to improve.

These top teams in the areas don't want that as it impacts their marketability. Much easier to just recruit rather than develop.

The most successful teams in the area generally do both.

FCV as noted before is great at marketing and recruiting. Player development...not so much.

I cannot comment specifically on FCV.

Every player is different and if you find a situation where your DC is developing, getting playing time and enjoys the team dynamics and teammates. That's all that's important. No coach can singlehandedly provide this.

Agreed. Although a good coach can go a very long way to providing it under a broad range of circumstances.

Within clubs, every age group is different.

I agree that no club can guarantee that every coach and age group is perfect. Nevertheless some clubs are much more committed to a sound philosophy than others, and you are much likelier to have a good experience at such a club.

Winning is most important guy is here. Goodn’t to see you.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The issue with playing time is that many clubs will carry 12 players or so for 7v7. Then 14 for 9v9. Lots of subs and games aren't very long. I prefer clubs that will only carry players who deserve to be on the top team and if it's only 9 or 10, so be it. At least for 7v7 it will be easier for everyone to get on the field.

I always tell people if you aren't happy with your kid's playing time, start looking elsewhere. Some coaches may value your kid more than others and playing time will increase. Or maybe moving down to a less competitive team within the same club will be beneficial. Plenty of options outside of complaining.

Absolutely. Kid was on a "b" team his early years and got a ton of playing time. I credit those years of continuous play (due to having only 1 sub) for helping him improve so much. He's now "A" team and doing great. I don't know why people stress about A v B in early years. It's about play time.

As you mention Your kid was male. This is huge as the female training and development tend to be much larger in separation between teams.

so you're saying that boys are able to close the gap more easily the girls? Boys are able to hone athletic skills more quickly? I have a daughter, too. A v. B is really not that stark either in early years.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The issue with playing time is that many clubs will carry 12 players or so for 7v7. Then 14 for 9v9. Lots of subs and games aren't very long. I prefer clubs that will only carry players who deserve to be on the top team and if it's only 9 or 10, so be it. At least for 7v7 it will be easier for everyone to get on the field.

I always tell people if you aren't happy with your kid's playing time, start looking elsewhere. Some coaches may value your kid more than others and playing time will increase. Or maybe moving down to a less competitive team within the same club will be beneficial. Plenty of options outside of complaining.

Absolutely. Kid was on a "b" team his early years and got a ton of playing time. I credit those years of continuous play (due to having only 1 sub) for helping him improve so much. He's now "A" team and doing great. I don't know why people stress about A v B in early years. It's about play time.

As you mention Your kid was male. This is huge as the female training and development tend to be much larger in separation between teams.

Anonymous wrote:The issue with playing time is that many clubs will carry 12 players or so for 7v7. Then 14 for 9v9. Lots of subs and games aren't very long. I prefer clubs that will only carry players who deserve to be on the top team and if it's only 9 or 10, so be it. At least for 7v7 it will be easier for everyone to get on the field.

I always tell people if you aren't happy with your kid's playing time, start looking elsewhere. Some coaches may value your kid more than others and playing time will increase. Or maybe moving down to a less competitive team within the same club will be beneficial. Plenty of options outside of complaining.

Absolutely. Kid was on a "b" team his early years and got a ton of playing time. I credit those years of continuous play (due to having only 1 sub) for helping him improve so much. He's now "A" team and doing great. I don't know why people stress about A v B in early years. It's about play time.

The issue with playing time is that many clubs will carry 12 players or so for 7v7. Then 14 for 9v9. Lots of subs and games aren't very long. I prefer clubs that will only carry players who deserve to be on the top team and if it's only 9 or 10, so be it. At least for 7v7 it will be easier for everyone to get on the field.

I always tell people if you aren't happy with your kid's playing time, start looking elsewhere. Some coaches may value your kid more than others and playing time will increase. Or maybe moving down to a less competitive team within the same club will be beneficial. Plenty of options outside of complaining.

My kids play for Potomac and I think the club does a great job with this. Most coaches have no use for prima donna mentalities from players or parents. Kids work hard and learn.

Anonymous wrote:Player development comes with a cost for the team - losses - as it takes time for players to develop.

This is much exaggerated. Good development results in wins that year - not several years down the line. When the coaches are saying that development won't bear fruit for several years then one of the following is true:

1. The kids are not developing.
2. The kids are playing in a league or division which is not appropriate for them, probably because the club is an ECNL/CCL/GA/MLS Next club which plays every team in the same league irrespective of whether it is best for that particular team.

If your kid's team is still losing every game badly by the end of the year, you should move if your kid's goal is to improve.

These top teams in the areas don't want that as it impacts their marketability. Much easier to just recruit rather than develop.

The most successful teams in the area generally do both.

FCV as noted before is great at marketing and recruiting. Player development...not so much.

I cannot comment specifically on FCV.

Every player is different and if you find a situation where your DC is developing, getting playing time and enjoys the team dynamics and teammates. That's all that's important. No coach can singlehandedly provide this.

Agreed. Although a good coach can go a very long way to providing it under a broad range of circumstances.

Within clubs, every age group is different.

I agree that no club can guarantee that every coach and age group is perfect. Nevertheless some clubs are much more committed to a sound philosophy than others, and you are much likelier to have a good experience at such a club.

I think Premier AC in Falls Church does a very good job of developing players. From what I have seen (my kid as well as several family friends and neighborhood friends), player growth has been impressive.

There is a cost to foscussing on development, as others have said, and some teams pay it more dearly than others. A handful of PAC's teams are very strong and successful, while others have a wide range of players and are more like what 11:49 described.

I think the size of the club and the consistency in the coaching staff (most of the coaches played for the club president) are part of what makes the coaching so effective. On the other hand, the lack of depth is always a challenge to a small club even on the very strong teams (especially when it comes to tournaments). It sometimes also makes some of the stronger players inclined to leave for neighboring teams (who had originally turned them down) after a few years.

Player development comes with a cost for the team - losses - as it takes time for players to develop. These top teams in the areas don't want that as it impacts their marketability. Much easier to just recruit rather than develop. FCV as noted before is great at marketing and recruiting. Player development...not so much.

Every player is different and if you find a situation where your DC is developing, getting playing time and enjoys the team dynamics and teammates. That's all that's important. No coach can singlehandedly provide this. Within clubs, every age group is different.

No. None.

My player's current club does many of the things that would be considered player development. Academy style player pools, close to equal playing time, frequent rotation of players across coaches, positions, teams, age groups, even genders to find them the most challenging environment. Players don't need to tryout every year.
But with this comes some very real downsides and we are leaving the club after this year. There is a huge variation in player talent even within teams. There are a few really good players, some average, but then some really bad players. It makes development difficult because the team cannot execute what the coaches are teaching because the players on a team are of such different capabilities. Especially at the younger ages, coaches truly don't care about the score, only applying what is taught to a game situation. But little kids do care about the score. Getting blown out week after week is demoralizing and telling them it will help their development down the road in a few years doesn't help them want to keep playing.
So it's a balance. Player development is important. But there are other competing aspects which must also be considered to have a healthy club, and good experiences for players.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:That truly prioritizes player development? Gives all kids enough playing time? Switches around the U12s so there are no striker prima donnas and teaches kids to play more than one position? Coaches are firm but kind?

Look no further

FCV

FCV parent here (who's leaning more and more towards leaving and going elsewhere). BULLSHIT.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm sure there is some coaches that do some of this. It might also have to do with the parents attitude. You would probably have to find a club that is not trying to be in ECNL or MLS next and they might be doing this.

I disagree. I think this is more common in the top level clubs than the lower level ones, although you can certianly find good coaches in both situations.

Maybe an underperforming club might be prioritizing development, which explains why they are losing.

Now I know you are trolling. Underperforming is the result of bad coaching, not good.

Underperforming or not winning could be the result of not having talent.

Many of the goals and values of player development are at odds with winning and being a top club. We aren't talking about professional clubs here that have the resources and their pick from a large player pool. These are clubs that often are struggling to survive financially, and fighting hard to find enough players to fill rosters. Winning games helps recruit players and coaches. And coaches are often stuck working with whatever talent they are able to recruit. Unless you believe anyone could be developed into a good soccer player, regardless of even having basic talents, and the only thing that matters is the coaching.

This is very true...especially around here. It's hard to be a club that prioritizes developing over winning because everyone wants their little super star to be on the best team and if you get crushed every week doing the things necessary to develop each kid then the players and their parents will look to a winning team. I see it all the time. In our experience, and as others have alluded, there aren't many programs that do this holistically. It is more case by case depending on the individual team/coach.

And when the better players get benched or sidelines for the sake of developing weaker or budding players, they often leave to look for greener pastures. It's a lose-lose.

Too big rosters, not enough fields, not enough good coaches, too expensive, etc. Is it time too burn it all down and start again?