Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So is there anything about Arlington that would justify taking an offer from their top 2013G team over the top teams at McLean, Loudoun, Bethesda, or SYC, when those other teams seem to be stronger?

Is this a joke? I would take Arlington over any McLean team OTHER than the MYS 2013G green team. It’s like the only good McLean team, but it’s so good they are not going to be giving out offers. McLean knows they have one good team and aren’t going to disrupt it with outsiders.

Now for any other team, go with Arlington. It’s honestly the better club. Just not for 2013G.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We got an offer after first tryout and have also been going to practices.

Congrats! Which team/level gave out the offer?

Anonymous wrote:We got an offer after first tryout and have also been going to practices.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Clownshow here talking about rankings for 10 year olds. Its really not indicative of any future success.

You don’t think a team of 10 years olds that is top 10 in the country has a better chance of being a better team 2 years from now (when ECNL starts) than another team of 10 year olds that is outside top 100? Aside from the relative quality of current players (which of course will evolve over time), more success today is going to attract better players from the outside tomorrow, which will make that top 10 team even stronger over time relative to that top 100 team. Just compare quality of outside players at the recent McLean and Arlington 2013G tryouts. I wouldn’t say this about teams within [50] national spots of one another, but top 10 vs top 100, or even top 40 vs top 100, are significant differences that likely will persist if not grow over time.

Top-10 for 10-year olds playing 9v9? That’s a thing? No, it’s not predictive of anything. So much is going to change. And not all of those girls will develop the same way.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Clownshow here talking about rankings for 10 year olds. Its really not indicative of any future success.

You don’t think a team of 10 years olds that is top 10 in the country has a better chance of being a better team 2 years from now (when ECNL starts) than another team of 10 year olds that is outside top 100? Aside from the relative quality of current players (which of course will evolve over time), more success today is going to attract better players from the outside tomorrow, which will make that top 10 team even stronger over time relative to that top 100 team. Just compare quality of outside players at the recent McLean and Arlington 2013G tryouts. I wouldn’t say this about teams within [50] national spots of one another, but top 10 vs top 100, or even top 40 vs top 100, are significant differences that likely will persist if not grow over time.

Anonymous wrote:So is there anything about Arlington that would justify taking an offer from their top 2013G team over the top teams at McLean, Loudoun, Bethesda, or SYC, when those other teams seem to be stronger?

Anonymous wrote:Clownshow here talking about rankings for 10 year olds. Its really not indicative of any future success.

Anonymous wrote:So is there anything about Arlington that would justify taking an offer from their top 2013G team over the top teams at McLean, Loudoun, Bethesda, or SYC, when those other teams seem to be stronger?

Anonymous wrote:So is there anything about Arlington that would justify taking an offer from their top 2013G team over the top teams at McLean, Loudoun, Bethesda, or SYC, when those other teams seem to be stronger?

Anonymous wrote:So is there anything about Arlington that would justify taking an offer from their top 2013G team over the top teams at McLean, Loudoun, Bethesda, or SYC, when those other teams seem to be stronger?