Anonymous wrote:Is the MLS league the same as the PDA league floating around earlier this week? If so, Baltimore, Arlington, and Bethesda were not included. Only DCU included for this area.
Anonymous wrote:Is the MLS league the same as the PDA league floating around earlier this week? If so, Baltimore, Arlington, and Bethesda were not included. Only DCU included for this area.
Anonymous wrote:So for boys DA teams in the DC area, at the moment:
VDA--ECNL
Richmond--ECNL
Arlington-TBA, leaning MLS
Bethesda-TBA, leaning MLS
Baltimore Armor - TBA
Does that match with what people are hearing?
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Agreed with all you said. But to be clear, the rankings above your post are from youth soccer, not gotsoccer, and include DA teams at appropriate ages. Gotsoccer is absurd. Smaller club first teams may definitely be better for kids under the conditions you described above. We started small and went bigger as our kids talent permitted. It’s quite possible we will go small again when my kid waits for his genetically late growth spurt.
Think youth soccer rankings suffer from similar sorts of problems.
1. The teams just don't play enough games for the algorithm to work properly. It would literally take several years to climb from 200 to 10 in those rankings. But in practice teams change in performance far quicker than that. They get/lose new players and/or a new coach every year. Based on a model with similar flaws, Man United might still be ranked as the world's best soccer team.
2. As with got soccer, clubs swim in separate pools which rarely or never play games between pools. This is a problem for all ranking systems which basically makes it impossible to provide any kind of meaningful comparison between the different pools.
With your kid I would suggest you try and find a coach who values skill over size. It's not a bad thing for a small kid to learn how to play against bigger/faster/stronger players. Then, when the growth catches up, they have more tools in their toolbox. But you need to have a coach who is willing to play kids in that situation and knows how to coach them to be successful.
Thought I would give an example of youth soccer rankings based on the Arlington 06 boys DA team. Last year they weren't especially good, in my view largely because of the coaching which was truly poor (that coach is no longer with the club).
In the fall 2019 season, with a really good coach, they went 9-2-2 and finished with the best record in the DA of the local clubs. Here are the records alphabetically:
Club Record Youthsoccer rank
Arlington 9-2-2 224
Baltimore 7-2-6 290
Bethesda 4-2-9 94
DC United 7-6-5 147
PA Classics 3-6-7 641
Richmond 4-3-8 283
VDA 4-6-6 438
If I had to rank these clubs based on watching them play this year, I would have put them into four tiers
Tier 1: Arlington and DC United
Tier 2: Baltimore
Tier 3: VDA, Richmond
Tier 4: Bethesda, PA Classics
But the youth soccer rankings don't reflect this at all. Bethesda - arguably the worst team in the group - has the highest ranking. Arlington - arguably the best - has a middling ranking.
Anonymous wrote:Bethesda lost several key players from their '06 team. The rankings are usually 12-month so their play in 18-19 affects their rankings for 20-21.
Anonymous wrote:Agreed with all you said. But to be clear, the rankings above your post are from youth soccer, not gotsoccer, and include DA teams at appropriate ages. Gotsoccer is absurd. Smaller club first teams may definitely be better for kids under the conditions you described above. We started small and went bigger as our kids talent permitted. It’s quite possible we will go small again when my kid waits for his genetically late growth spurt.
Think youth soccer rankings suffer from similar sorts of problems.
1. The teams just don't play enough games for the algorithm to work properly. It would literally take several years to climb from 200 to 10 in those rankings. But in practice teams change in performance far quicker than that. They get/lose new players and/or a new coach every year. Based on a model with similar flaws, Man United might still be ranked as the world's best soccer team.
2. As with got soccer, clubs swim in separate pools which rarely or never play games between pools. This is a problem for all ranking systems which basically makes it impossible to provide any kind of meaningful comparison between the different pools.
With your kid I would suggest you try and find a coach who values skill over size. It's not a bad thing for a small kid to learn how to play against bigger/faster/stronger players. Then, when the growth catches up, they have more tools in their toolbox. But you need to have a coach who is willing to play kids in that situation and knows how to coach them to be successful.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Agreed with all you said. But to be clear, the rankings above your post are from youth soccer, not gotsoccer, and include DA teams at appropriate ages. Gotsoccer is absurd. Smaller club first teams may definitely be better for kids under the conditions you described above. We started small and went bigger as our kids talent permitted. It’s quite possible we will go small again when my kid waits for his genetically late growth spurt.
Think youth soccer rankings suffer from similar sorts of problems.
1. The teams just don't play enough games for the algorithm to work properly. It would literally take several years to climb from 200 to 10 in those rankings. But in practice teams change in performance far quicker than that. They get/lose new players and/or a new coach every year. Based on a model with similar flaws, Man United might still be ranked as the world's best soccer team.
2. As with got soccer, clubs swim in separate pools which rarely or never play games between pools. This is a problem for all ranking systems which basically makes it impossible to provide any kind of meaningful comparison between the different pools.
With your kid I would suggest you try and find a coach who values skill over size. It's not a bad thing for a small kid to learn how to play against bigger/faster/stronger players. Then, when the growth catches up, they have more tools in their toolbox. But you need to have a coach who is willing to play kids in that situation and knows how to coach them to be successful.
Thought I would give an example of youth soccer rankings based on the Arlington 06 boys DA team. Last year they weren't especially good, in my view largely because of the coaching which was truly poor (that coach is no longer with the club).
In the fall 2019 season, with a really good coach, they went 9-2-2 and finished with the best record in the DA of the local clubs. Here are the records alphabetically:
Club Record Youthsoccer rank
Arlington 9-2-2 224
Baltimore 7-2-6 290
Bethesda 4-2-9 94
DC United 7-6-5 147
PA Classics 3-6-7 641
Richmond 4-3-8 283
VDA 4-6-6 438
If I had to rank these clubs based on watching them play this year, I would have put them into four tiers
Tier 1: Arlington and DC United
Tier 2: Baltimore
Tier 3: VDA, Richmond
Tier 4: Bethesda, PA Classics
But the youth soccer rankings don't reflect this at all. Bethesda - arguably the worst team in the group - has the highest ranking. Arlington - arguably the best - has a middling ranking.