Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:BOYS

1) MLS NEXT - because of brand, no legitimate proven track record due brevity of existence. Implementing QoS for U14 and below because we parents are crazy chasing wins and trophies for social media posts over genuine development of players (see DCU, BETHESDA, SYC, ALEXANDRIA)

2) ECNL - because has always been lauded as the top until MLS came and started squashing their club base little by little (see ARLINGTON, FVU, MCLEAN)

3) EDP - because they’ve held their own in the eastern seaboard for years being above NCSL and other glorified rec leagues in their respective states

4) NAL - where clubs that paid to use mls next brand have their so called MLSN-2 teams. No real affiliation to mls but they can in turn dupe unsuspecting parents (see VRSC, TSJ)

4) NCSL - because it’s a glorified rec league that allows all clubs in DMV to make three, four, or five teams per age group to keep the cash coming.

GIRLS

1) ECNL - because there genuinely isn’t a better league for females

2) GA - because they’re essentially two-three years old and if it weren’t for that odd ‘partnership’ with mls nobody would even consider them. They’re like the cheap tacky neighbor to extinct and defunct-due-P2P DA

3) who cares?

On point.

Sort of. MLSN isn’t eating ECNL boys’s lunch little by little. 🤣 they took the whole lunch box and then handed back to ECNL the things they didn’t want. ECNL boys missed the memo from players and parents…kids want the option to climb to the highest ranks OR go to college.

If they don’t catch on, they’re going to lose the girls side too.

Basically nobody but a handful go pro each year and MLSN P2P and ECNL have similar track records for college placements.

This my dad could beat up your stuff over marketing fluff styling as reputations is ridiculous. The kids play on a team not for a club and certainly not for a league.

Yes, and? You’re missing the point of what it offers because you’re too focused on probabilities. Professional athletes, every single one of them, was told “it’s extremely rare”, “basically nobody goes pro”, etc. Yet, every year, some kids do.

MLSN offers that pathway, ECNL doesn’t. And college placement is not similar, MLSN very clearly outperforms ECNL. That isn’t to say ECNL isn’t a good pathway to play college. But college as a pro pathway does not exist anymore for boys, ECNL provides a route with one stop destination, MLSN provides a two stop destination.

You can say it’s unlikely or unrealistic all day long. But the truth is ECNL is just a limited pathway on the boys side, and that is why talent goes to MLSN not ECNL.

MLSN P2P pro path equals ECNL pro path. It's a whatever.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:BOYS

1) MLS NEXT - because of brand, no legitimate proven track record due brevity of existence. Implementing QoS for U14 and below because we parents are crazy chasing wins and trophies for social media posts over genuine development of players (see DCU, BETHESDA, SYC, ALEXANDRIA)

2) ECNL - because has always been lauded as the top until MLS came and started squashing their club base little by little (see ARLINGTON, FVU, MCLEAN)

3) EDP - because they’ve held their own in the eastern seaboard for years being above NCSL and other glorified rec leagues in their respective states

4) NAL - where clubs that paid to use mls next brand have their so called MLSN-2 teams. No real affiliation to mls but they can in turn dupe unsuspecting parents (see VRSC, TSJ)

4) NCSL - because it’s a glorified rec league that allows all clubs in DMV to make three, four, or five teams per age group to keep the cash coming.

GIRLS

1) ECNL - because there genuinely isn’t a better league for females

2) GA - because they’re essentially two-three years old and if it weren’t for that odd ‘partnership’ with mls nobody would even consider them. They’re like the cheap tacky neighbor to extinct and defunct-due-P2P DA

3) who cares?

On point.

Sort of. MLSN isn’t eating ECNL boys’s lunch little by little. 🤣 they took the whole lunch box and then handed back to ECNL the things they didn’t want. ECNL boys missed the memo from players and parents…kids want the option to climb to the highest ranks OR go to college.

If they don’t catch on, they’re going to lose the girls side too.

Basically nobody but a handful go pro each year and MLSN P2P and ECNL have similar track records for college placements.

This my dad could beat up your stuff over marketing fluff styling as reputations is ridiculous. The kids play on a team not for a club and certainly not for a league.

Yes, and? You’re missing the point of what it offers because you’re too focused on probabilities. Professional athletes, every single one of them, was told “it’s extremely rare”, “basically nobody goes pro”, etc. Yet, every year, some kids do.

MLSN offers that pathway, ECNL doesn’t. And college placement is not similar, MLSN very clearly outperforms ECNL. That isn’t to say ECNL isn’t a good pathway to play college. But college as a pro pathway does not exist anymore for boys, ECNL provides a route with one stop destination, MLSN provides a two stop destination.

You can say it’s unlikely or unrealistic all day long. But the truth is ECNL is just a limited pathway on the boys side, and that is why talent goes to MLSN not ECNL.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:BOYS

1) MLS NEXT - because of brand, no legitimate proven track record due brevity of existence. Implementing QoS for U14 and below because we parents are crazy chasing wins and trophies for social media posts over genuine development of players (see DCU, BETHESDA, SYC, ALEXANDRIA)

2) ECNL - because has always been lauded as the top until MLS came and started squashing their club base little by little (see ARLINGTON, FVU, MCLEAN)

3) EDP - because they’ve held their own in the eastern seaboard for years being above NCSL and other glorified rec leagues in their respective states

4) NAL - where clubs that paid to use mls next brand have their so called MLSN-2 teams. No real affiliation to mls but they can in turn dupe unsuspecting parents (see VRSC, TSJ)

4) NCSL - because it’s a glorified rec league that allows all clubs in DMV to make three, four, or five teams per age group to keep the cash coming.

GIRLS

1) ECNL - because there genuinely isn’t a better league for females

2) GA - because they’re essentially two-three years old and if it weren’t for that odd ‘partnership’ with mls nobody would even consider them. They’re like the cheap tacky neighbor to extinct and defunct-due-P2P DA

3) who cares?

On point.

Sort of. MLSN isn’t eating ECNL boys’s lunch little by little. 🤣 they took the whole lunch box and then handed back to ECNL the things they didn’t want. ECNL boys missed the memo from players and parents…kids want the option to climb to the highest ranks OR go to college.

If they don’t catch on, they’re going to lose the girls side too.

Basically nobody but a handful go pro each year and MLSN P2P and ECNL have similar track records for college placements.

This my dad could beat up your stuff over marketing fluff styling as reputations is ridiculous. The kids play on a team not for a club and certainly not for a league.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:BOYS

1) MLS NEXT - because of brand, no legitimate proven track record due brevity of existence. Implementing QoS for U14 and below because we parents are crazy chasing wins and trophies for social media posts over genuine development of players (see DCU, BETHESDA, SYC, ALEXANDRIA)

2) ECNL - because has always been lauded as the top until MLS came and started squashing their club base little by little (see ARLINGTON, FVU, MCLEAN)

3) EDP - because they’ve held their own in the eastern seaboard for years being above NCSL and other glorified rec leagues in their respective states

4) NAL - where clubs that paid to use mls next brand have their so called MLSN-2 teams. No real affiliation to mls but they can in turn dupe unsuspecting parents (see VRSC, TSJ)

4) NCSL - because it’s a glorified rec league that allows all clubs in DMV to make three, four, or five teams per age group to keep the cash coming.

GIRLS

1) ECNL - because there genuinely isn’t a better league for females

2) GA - because they’re essentially two-three years old and if it weren’t for that odd ‘partnership’ with mls nobody would even consider them. They’re like the cheap tacky neighbor to extinct and defunct-due-P2P DA

3) who cares?

On point.

Sort of. MLSN isn’t eating ECNL boys’s lunch little by little. 🤣 they took the whole lunch box and then handed back to ECNL the things they didn’t want. ECNL boys missed the memo from players and parents…kids want the option to climb to the highest ranks OR go to college.

If they don’t catch on, they’re going to lose the girls side too.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:All boys parents think boys soccer matters over girls. Yet the reality is, US boys are years behind other nations and US men’s soccer is laughable at best with no chance of catching up any time soon.

So let’s all pretend that any of the leagues that OP spent time typing about will produce anything of quality. Who cares?

The reality of women’s soccer. Let me know when your ready for that…

Please. Joke is on you.

Spot on. Dude is so out of touch, probably sitting at home re-reading his childhood “BoysLife” magazines between posts.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:All boys parents think boys soccer matters over girls. Yet the reality is, US boys are years behind other nations and US men’s soccer is laughable at best with no chance of catching up any time soon.

So let’s all pretend that any of the leagues that OP spent time typing about will produce anything of quality. Who cares?

The reality of women’s soccer. Let me know when your ready for that…

Please. Joke is on you.

Anonymous wrote:BOYS

1) MLS NEXT - because of brand, no legitimate proven track record due brevity of existence. Implementing QoS for U14 and below because we parents are crazy chasing wins and trophies for social media posts over genuine development of players (see DCU, BETHESDA, SYC, ALEXANDRIA)

2) ECNL - because has always been lauded as the top until MLS came and started squashing their club base little by little (see ARLINGTON, FVU, MCLEAN)

3) EDP - because they’ve held their own in the eastern seaboard for years being above NCSL and other glorified rec leagues in their respective states

4) NAL - where clubs that paid to use mls next brand have their so called MLSN-2 teams. No real affiliation to mls but they can in turn dupe unsuspecting parents (see VRSC, TSJ)

4) NCSL - because it’s a glorified rec league that allows all clubs in DMV to make three, four, or five teams per age group to keep the cash coming.

GIRLS

1) ECNL - because there genuinely isn’t a better league for females

2) GA - because they’re essentially two-three years old and if it weren’t for that odd ‘partnership’ with mls nobody would even consider them. They’re like the cheap tacky neighbor to extinct and defunct-due-P2P DA

3) who cares?

On point.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Aren’t we so lucky to have you illuminate this very complex topic with your brilliant observation. I’m sure you have many more things to mansplain but nobody cares, bud.

The ignorance and dismissiveness of the original post is the exact same brand of misogyny that has held women back from playing soccer around the world.

Go back to typing up all the little boys leagues, that’s the work of the expert.

There are plenty of articles on the subject (written by broads, no less) with a similar take. Maybe sit down and let those of us who are less emotional (in general) discuss the issue.

https://sites.bu.edu/wtbu/2023/09/23/all-about-womens-sports-womens-soccer-is-changing/

The only thing that article discusses is expanded resources in different countries. Not that women were not allowed to play in traditional soccer countries before the U.S. Please stop trying to dig yourself out of your hole, you are embarrassing yourself. Maybe if you stop being so emotional, I could find a “broad” to teach you some actual facts and how to do some actual research, or at least teach you how to read accurately the research you find.

'Light years ahead' - Carli Lloyd says USWNT behind European powers such as Spain and England, despite 2024 Olympic gold | Goal.com https://www.goal.com/en/lists/light-years-ahead-carli-lloyd-says-the-uswnt-trails-behind-european-powers-such-as-spain-and-england-despite-2024-olympic-gold/blt867822406801d7bb

Cope and seeth, leftist

Leftist? You think that is an insult I assume?

I assume said PP is stuck in the 90s where Rush informed their world view. Where only NPR nerds, and British sitcom rerun-watching academic types (who tended to be left wing) watched football in the US.

Those folks were fairly insufferable tbh, because they would use their pseudo fandom as a bonafide of their intellectual superiority and tutut everyone else’s fandom. Insufferable even to other lefties.

That would also explain said PP’s hate for the USWNT and perspective of the US sucking.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Aren’t we so lucky to have you illuminate this very complex topic with your brilliant observation. I’m sure you have many more things to mansplain but nobody cares, bud.

The ignorance and dismissiveness of the original post is the exact same brand of misogyny that has held women back from playing soccer around the world.

Go back to typing up all the little boys leagues, that’s the work of the expert.

There are plenty of articles on the subject (written by broads, no less) with a similar take. Maybe sit down and let those of us who are less emotional (in general) discuss the issue.

https://sites.bu.edu/wtbu/2023/09/23/all-about-womens-sports-womens-soccer-is-changing/

The only thing that article discusses is expanded resources in different countries. Not that women were not allowed to play in traditional soccer countries before the U.S. Please stop trying to dig yourself out of your hole, you are embarrassing yourself. Maybe if you stop being so emotional, I could find a “broad” to teach you some actual facts and how to do some actual research, or at least teach you how to read accurately the research you find.

'Light years ahead' - Carli Lloyd says USWNT behind European powers such as Spain and England, despite 2024 Olympic gold | Goal.com https://www.goal.com/en/lists/light-years-ahead-carli-lloyd-says-the-uswnt-trails-behind-european-powers-such-as-spain-and-england-despite-2024-olympic-gold/blt867822406801d7bb

Cope and seeth, leftist

You realize that these people are on TV and in print because they say controversial things? Not because they are correct, smart or insightful, you get that right?

Carli Loyd, like Alexi, have made huge post play careers out of talking S.

She is wrong on this. The USWNT is not behind. The rest of the world is catching up. There is a difference.

But if she said “USWNT still sets the standard, but we have move global competition now that makes our dominance more competitive.” Nobody would click the link. And no dumbdumb would pick fights using her quote as “proof.”

It doesn’t think, it just googles and types things. No reading comprehension, no clue, just trolling.

It doesn’t thing, it just googles and types things.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Aren’t we so lucky to have you illuminate this very complex topic with your brilliant observation. I’m sure you have many more things to mansplain but nobody cares, bud.

The ignorance and dismissiveness of the original post is the exact same brand of misogyny that has held women back from playing soccer around the world.

Go back to typing up all the little boys leagues, that’s the work of the expert.

There are plenty of articles on the subject (written by broads, no less) with a similar take. Maybe sit down and let those of us who are less emotional (in general) discuss the issue.

https://sites.bu.edu/wtbu/2023/09/23/all-about-womens-sports-womens-soccer-is-changing/

The only thing that article discusses is expanded resources in different countries. Not that women were not allowed to play in traditional soccer countries before the U.S. Please stop trying to dig yourself out of your hole, you are embarrassing yourself. Maybe if you stop being so emotional, I could find a “broad” to teach you some actual facts and how to do some actual research, or at least teach you how to read accurately the research you find.

'Light years ahead' - Carli Lloyd says USWNT behind European powers such as Spain and England, despite 2024 Olympic gold | Goal.com https://www.goal.com/en/lists/light-years-ahead-carli-lloyd-says-the-uswnt-trails-behind-european-powers-such-as-spain-and-england-despite-2024-olympic-gold/blt867822406801d7bb

Cope and seeth, leftist

Leftist? You think that is an insult I assume?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Aren’t we so lucky to have you illuminate this very complex topic with your brilliant observation. I’m sure you have many more things to mansplain but nobody cares, bud.

The ignorance and dismissiveness of the original post is the exact same brand of misogyny that has held women back from playing soccer around the world.

Go back to typing up all the little boys leagues, that’s the work of the expert.

There are plenty of articles on the subject (written by broads, no less) with a similar take. Maybe sit down and let those of us who are less emotional (in general) discuss the issue.

https://sites.bu.edu/wtbu/2023/09/23/all-about-womens-sports-womens-soccer-is-changing/

The only thing that article discusses is expanded resources in different countries. Not that women were not allowed to play in traditional soccer countries before the U.S. Please stop trying to dig yourself out of your hole, you are embarrassing yourself. Maybe if you stop being so emotional, I could find a “broad” to teach you some actual facts and how to do some actual research, or at least teach you how to read accurately the research you find.

'Light years ahead' - Carli Lloyd says USWNT behind European powers such as Spain and England, despite 2024 Olympic gold | Goal.com https://www.goal.com/en/lists/light-years-ahead-carli-lloyd-says-the-uswnt-trails-behind-european-powers-such-as-spain-and-england-despite-2024-olympic-gold/blt867822406801d7bb

Cope and seeth, leftist

She said Light years ahead as far as playing style - if she expounded on that in her quote, it wasn't included in the article and that's what would be interesting to hear. I agree with that for the most part - don't know if it's light years, but it's ahead. It's an interesting topic, in my opinion. What has Spain been able to do? In my opinion, it's consolidating their top talent at the younger ages at a few academies. If you look at their rosters, many of their players are coming from only a few places - Barca, Real Marid being two that are pushing the most forward to their senior teams. Meanwhile, you have here in the US players at younger ages playing all over the place from P2P clubs, to college and even professionally in some cases. Spain has a clear style of play and it works through their top academies to their senior team. We here in the US, play direct college ball with unlimited subs and run, run in many cases.

I respect what Emma Hayes is trying to do - I like the fact that they have really expanded the player pool at the younger ages and are trying to get more players exposed to their philosophy. It can only help in the long run, I just hope that she is able to get the supports that is needed and is able to continue to develop players at younger ages and pull them into the senior team.

Interesting topic for sure.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Aren’t we so lucky to have you illuminate this very complex topic with your brilliant observation. I’m sure you have many more things to mansplain but nobody cares, bud.

The ignorance and dismissiveness of the original post is the exact same brand of misogyny that has held women back from playing soccer around the world.

Go back to typing up all the little boys leagues, that’s the work of the expert.

There are plenty of articles on the subject (written by broads, no less) with a similar take. Maybe sit down and let those of us who are less emotional (in general) discuss the issue.

https://sites.bu.edu/wtbu/2023/09/23/all-about-womens-sports-womens-soccer-is-changing/

The only thing that article discusses is expanded resources in different countries. Not that women were not allowed to play in traditional soccer countries before the U.S. Please stop trying to dig yourself out of your hole, you are embarrassing yourself. Maybe if you stop being so emotional, I could find a “broad” to teach you some actual facts and how to do some actual research, or at least teach you how to read accurately the research you find.

'Light years ahead' - Carli Lloyd says USWNT behind European powers such as Spain and England, despite 2024 Olympic gold | Goal.com https://www.goal.com/en/lists/light-years-ahead-carli-lloyd-says-the-uswnt-trails-behind-european-powers-such-as-spain-and-england-despite-2024-olympic-gold/blt867822406801d7bb

Cope and seeth, leftist

haha here goes the sexist again. sit down and let the less emotional discuss - you are so easy to draw.

yes, sweetie pie, everyone has read those articles and are aware that the competition is rising and that US Women soccer will have to adapt to it. So why don't you sit your mouth and hush your butt with the old news and outdated social tropes. Nobody cares.