'---- which is better next year, ECNL or Girls DA? My DD is a U14 in Arlington. thx

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Can you provide a list of the approximate ODP costs for a female (say 14U) player to go from VYSA northern district pool, to VA state pool, but then fails to make the Reg. 1 pool? My impression is that there are lots of costs that add up over the ~12 month period as you participate in the various ODP camps, friendlies, tryouts, etc. Please be as specific as you can remember, from the district tryout fee, the district training fee, and then to all the costs you pay once you make the state team and participate in all their events, including the camps/tryouts/scrimmages for the Reg. 1 pool. Again, assume the player doesn't make the cut for the Reg. 1 pool and her journey ends there until the next year when district tryouts start all over again.

The ball park is up to $1500

That age group also goes to the international trip, which is another $3000+/- fee

*to add to A3 - over the course of the season it is equal time, not necessarily equal time on a per match or even per tournament basis.

btw localcoach, this course sounds amazing:

http://www.mlssoccer.com/post/2016/09/14/how-french-coaching-course-changing-face-mls-academies

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:When you bench a kid for the whole game and then lose the game do you realize what a waste it was to burn that kids enthusiasm all for naught.

-signed mom of D1 soccer kid who always played the whole game and never understood this mentality

not op but it depends on the age group.

teh age groups that i coach, I would never do this

But if i was an u16 or older coach for a competitive team, I would for two reasons.

1. the subbing rules don't train kids here like the rest of the world to prepare them to manage their energy for 90 minutes with only 3 subs.

2. As a very communicative coach, I always try to let kids and parents know where they stand with their development. At the older ages, if a kid is dissapointed they aren't playing and that bleeds into training (even when I explain why), then it isn't a kid that can realistically be developed for the next level. He/She must love training even if they aren't playing.

Unless you are training for World Cup you are developing kids. When there are 3 games in a weekend for a tournament, you are doing nobody favors by playing certain kids for 3 - 90 minutes sessions and some kids for 0 minutes.

You are taking your U16 way too seriously and the D1 coaches don't think you have given him a capable player, anyway they just know they have an athletic kid who can be developed.

First of you are moving the goalposts. In your initial post, you posited the scenario of a kid being benched the entire game. In your response, you talk about a weekend tournament. I would never play any kid, even if I had andres iniesta for 3x-90 in one weekend. Make up your mind, are you talking about a match or a tournament?

Secondly, you are right - i am developing kids. However, at a top club at the u-16 level, i need to maximize the development of the greatest amount of kids that can make it to the next level rather than focus on eeking out a bit of development in the lower 10th of the squad who probably can't go onto the next level. I'll be judged on the track record of how many I can place at what level going forward.

Thirdly - d1 coaches are now behind club coaches in development. D1 coaches get kids too late in the development curve - especially technically.

1. How do feel about the coach adage: The game is the best teacher.

2. Should a kid who does not play substantive minutes every game pay the same as kids who do play?

3. How do you feel about the idea that if a coach puts a kid on a team then they should play every game. If the coach does not think the kid is capable of playing at that level then why put them on the team?

PP you are quoting.

A1: This is a maxim that I do believe in for the most part but every coach at every level (especially the higher levels) struggles with the right balance. In fact I have a contact who does 3rd party analytic work for some youth set ups at european clubs (household names) and clubs really are trying to get a clearer methodology on the optimum time to loan a young player out to a 'lower level' for in-game development or to keep him with the parent club so he can train with 23 other players who are better consistently even if on match day, said player isn't getting minutes on the pitch.

Because of high turn-over of first-team coaches, sporting directors and club chairmen are trying to nail down their own 'secret sauce' proprietary to the club which takes into account psychosocial testing, technical competence, physical characteristics etc that might better help them ascertain the right balance.

As our friendly local coach said in one of his/her prior posts - "The player that wants to be the best he can possibly be no matter what... a player who is #20 on a roster of 20 players will improve more by training day in and day out with 19 players that are better than him rather than being the #1 player on the next level down and even getting significant playing time. If a player is mentally tough and can deal with that, it is the right environment. If not, its the wrong environment
"

This ties into the original point 2 i wrote on how i am a very communicative coach (i don't have the same level and experience as our OP, but at the clubs i've coached at (in the pacnw primarily), parents have really been happy with the amount of individualized written feedback i provide consistently to my kids - stems from my time at a MBB-consulting shop probably).

I personally was that player as a kid. We didn't have DA as a kid but I loved the game enough where my singular goal was to be the best footballer I could be. If that meant training with a club I never played for rather than playing a level down and 'coasting', I always picked the first option. I get it if kids don't want to be in taht situation.

A2. I hate pay to play. But that's the system we have for 99% of players in this country unfortunately. You aren't paying for game time - you are paying for development. As a parent if you feel another trainer/club/team can train your child better, take them there. It ties back to the answer of question 1. Do you think your child is developing better training with 15-20 other top top players 3x a week or playing more matches at a lower level. I focus on coaching at a younger age where 'quality x frequency' of sessions is a greater determinant of development than match play so i'm biased towards high quality training with the best players possible is the best environment.

However, it really depends on the team. there are teams where the top players are not supportive of the 'bench' players and there are clubs where the 'top players' are really good kids who create a good environment for the lower 1/4th of the team. I'm very strict on fostering a humble attitude with my players precisely so that slightly weaker players we have stick around to gain high quality training in an inclusive environment.

A3. no. never. even in u10 at strong clubs, the guarantee is over the course of a season everyone gets equal time. at higher age groups in more compteitive teams, that drops for sure. I never said I would freeze out any player under me at u16 or older forever. no way - if they are in the team, it means atleast with one (more like two) of the four pillars (tactical, physical, technical, psychosocial) they are at the level of the competition. That means they can tread water in a match for some period in certain positions. A coach keeps those bench players because he sees the POTENTIAL of possibly growth in the currently sub-standard pillars that could occur with having the so-called weaker player in the squad training with the strong club instead of going back down an age group.

asksoccernova wrote:coach - what was the highest level that you played at and what is your career goal?

Went to college not originally intending to play varsity soccer, happened to be at a school ranked about #30 in division 1 at the time. Decided I would go for it but wasn't going to have a chance to play there.

Transferred to a D3 school which was ranked about #25-30 at the time and trained with the team for 2 spring seasons but didn't officially play on the team. Those two years in college, spent a month training and playing in Santa Cruz, Bolivia at the same academy where Marco Etcheverry (my favorite player) and Jaime Moreno came from. Played in a few games vs reserves of professional teams playing in the 2nd division in Bolivia, and also against "late bloomer" players that were trying to get professional contracts at 18-20 years old. Those were really difficult games.

I also played men's amateur soccer in Baltimore in Maryland Major Soccer League division 1 for a season, which is nothing to write home about but still very competitive. I used to play in a men's league on a team with a handful of former division 3 USL players (whose team folded) who now coach and a french guy who was the best player I've ever played with (he was on the U19 french national team, he was 24 when I played with him, but had an injury that prevented him from playing at a professional level so decided to go into coaching... amazing technique level and athleticism). I enjoyed those experiences and learned a lot which I was able to take with me as I started coaching.



Do you feel just as how the best players should be pushed to go to europe, that more american coaches should explore opportunities and sacrifice to coach abroad?

It is good for US coaches to spend time abroad in a soccer environment, but they don't have to pack up and move or become a coach at a foreign club to bring back valuable insight. The time I spent in Bolivia playing (2 months total) completely changed the way that I see, teach, and understand the game. I took extensive notes when I went because I had already started coaching by then. It is always beneficial for a coach to experience a soccer environment overseas, but not necessary to live there. I think it would be great if we had more college grads or coaches go to Europe or other countries to learn soccer over there, but I think employment at a club is hard unless you can speak the language and have some type of citizenship that works out.

Would a japanese youth baseball coach benefit from coming to the US and spend a month with a very competitive and well organized youth baseball program? Sure. Do they need to manage a MLB team to help Japan be a better baseball country than the US? Unrealistic. We should stop worrying about being better than countries that have 100+ years on us and just try to keep getting better than we were last year. As a country, soccer is improving here from year to year, and I think that's what matters the most. Results of the national team are not really a measure of an entire country's soccer development. Sometimes good teams get unlucky in the world cup and sometimes not-so-good teams get lucky.

even bob bradley struggled with speaking the language "road games" "field". I kid I kid.

i've never used the metric of the USMNT as the bench mark for how the game is developing here.

My benchmark is to have a XI where each player is getting significant minutes for a perennial Champions League qualifying club. I could care less if the US wins the world cup. What I'd rather see is Pulisic and 10+ others like him tearing it up at clubs in europe, earning mega contracts, and subsequently donating 2-5 million to the american academies back home that had a hand in their development since USSF is harming the youth game by not allowing clubs to claim solidarity training payments like every other club in the rest of the world does.

When japan has premier league title starting swinners (okazaki), top buli and serie a players (kagawa, honda) and south korea has minted top level successes (son, ji sung park) - these are not countries with 100+ years of footballing history. The US should be able to consistently put more players at that level in europe than japan and sk.

coach - what was the highest level that you played at and what is your career goal?

Went to college not originally intending to play varsity soccer, happened to be at a school ranked about #30 in division 1 at the time. Decided I would go for it but wasn't going to have a chance to play there.

Transferred to a D3 school which was ranked about #25-30 at the time and trained with the team for 2 spring seasons but didn't officially play on the team. Those two years in college, spent a month training and playing in Santa Cruz, Bolivia at the same academy where Marco Etcheverry (my favorite player) and Jaime Moreno came from. Played in a few games vs reserves of professional teams playing in the 2nd division in Bolivia, and also against "late bloomer" players that were trying to get professional contracts at 18-20 years old. Those were really difficult games.

I also played men's amateur soccer in Baltimore in Maryland Major Soccer League division 1 for a season, which is nothing to write home about but still very competitive. I used to play in a men's league on a team with a handful of former division 3 USL players (whose team folded) who now coach and a french guy who was the best player I've ever played with (he was on the U19 french national team, he was 24 when I played with him, but had an injury that prevented him from playing at a professional level so decided to go into coaching... amazing technique level and athleticism). I enjoyed those experiences and learned a lot which I was able to take with me as I started coaching.



Do you feel just as how the best players should be pushed to go to europe, that more american coaches should explore opportunities and sacrifice to coach abroad?

It is good for US coaches to spend time abroad in a soccer environment, but they don't have to pack up and move or become a coach at a foreign club to bring back valuable insight. The time I spent in Bolivia playing (2 months total) completely changed the way that I see, teach, and understand the game. I took extensive notes when I went because I had already started coaching by then. It is always beneficial for a coach to experience a soccer environment overseas, but not necessary to live there. I think it would be great if we had more college grads or coaches go to Europe or other countries to learn soccer over there, but I think employment at a club is hard unless you can speak the language and have some type of citizenship that works out.

Would a japanese youth baseball coach benefit from coming to the US and spend a month with a very competitive and well organized youth baseball program? Sure. Do they need to manage a MLB team to help Japan be a better baseball country than the US? Unrealistic. We should stop worrying about being better than countries that have 100+ years on us and just try to keep getting better than we were last year. As a country, soccer is improving here from year to year, and I think that's what matters the most. Results of the national team are not really a measure of an entire country's soccer development. Sometimes good teams get unlucky in the world cup and sometimes not-so-good teams get lucky.

Anonymous wrote:Can you provide a list of the approximate ODP costs for a female (say 14U) player to go from VYSA northern district pool, to VA state pool, but then fails to make the Reg. 1 pool? My impression is that there are lots of costs that add up over the ~12 month period as you participate in the various ODP camps, friendlies, tryouts, etc. Please be as specific as you can remember, from the district tryout fee, the district training fee, and then to all the costs you pay once you make the state team and participate in all their events, including the camps/tryouts/scrimmages for the Reg. 1 pool. Again, assume the player doesn't make the cut for the Reg. 1 pool and her journey ends there until the next year when district tryouts start all over again.

The ball park is up to $1500

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:When you bench a kid for the whole game and then lose the game do you realize what a waste it was to burn that kids enthusiasm all for naught.

-signed mom of D1 soccer kid who always played the whole game and never understood this mentality

not op but it depends on the age group.

teh age groups that i coach, I would never do this

But if i was an u16 or older coach for a competitive team, I would for two reasons.

1. the subbing rules don't train kids here like the rest of the world to prepare them to manage their energy for 90 minutes with only 3 subs.

2. As a very communicative coach, I always try to let kids and parents know where they stand with their development. At the older ages, if a kid is dissapointed they aren't playing and that bleeds into training (even when I explain why), then it isn't a kid that can realistically be developed for the next level. He/She must love training even if they aren't playing.

Unless you are training for World Cup you are developing kids. When there are 3 games in a weekend for a tournament, you are doing nobody favors by playing certain kids for 3 - 90 minutes sessions and some kids for 0 minutes.

You are taking your U16 way too seriously and the D1 coaches don't think you have given him a capable player, anyway they just know they have an athletic kid who can be developed.

First of you are moving the goalposts. In your initial post, you posited the scenario of a kid being benched the entire game. In your response, you talk about a weekend tournament. I would never play any kid, even if I had andres iniesta for 3x-90 in one weekend. Make up your mind, are you talking about a match or a tournament?

Secondly, you are right - i am developing kids. However, at a top club at the u-16 level, i need to maximize the development of the greatest amount of kids that can make it to the next level rather than focus on eeking out a bit of development in the lower 10th of the squad who probably can't go onto the next level. I'll be judged on the track record of how many I can place at what level going forward.

Thirdly - d1 coaches are now behind club coaches in development. D1 coaches get kids too late in the development curve - especially technically.

1. How do feel about the coach adage: The game is the best teacher.

2. Should a kid who does not play substantive minutes every game pay the same as kids who do play?

3. How do you feel about the idea that if a coach puts a kid on a team then they should play every game. If the coach does not think the kid is capable of playing at that level then why put them on the team?

coach - what was the highest level that you played at and what is your career goal?

Do you feel just as how the best players should be pushed to go to europe, that more american coaches should explore opportunities and sacrifice to coach abroad?

I think it is crazy that someone liek tom byer blew up in japan and they've minted top technicians that can trace directly back to his influence.

America does a poor job of even supporting its coaches when it has a diamond.

http://www.slideshare.net/MaxRogers2/the-belgium-vision-on-youth-development

for parents who might be interested in what other fa's vision on development is.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:When you bench a kid for the whole game and then lose the game do you realize what a waste it was to burn that kids enthusiasm all for naught.

-signed mom of D1 soccer kid who always played the whole game and never understood this mentality

not op but it depends on the age group.

teh age groups that i coach, I would never do this

But if i was an u16 or older coach for a competitive team, I would for two reasons.

1. the subbing rules don't train kids here like the rest of the world to prepare them to manage their energy for 90 minutes with only 3 subs.

2. As a very communicative coach, I always try to let kids and parents know where they stand with their development. At the older ages, if a kid is dissapointed they aren't playing and that bleeds into training (even when I explain why), then it isn't a kid that can realistically be developed for the next level. He/She must love training even if they aren't playing.

Unless you are training for World Cup you are developing kids. When there are 3 games in a weekend for a tournament, you are doing nobody favors by playing certain kids for 3 - 90 minutes sessions and some kids for 0 minutes.

You are taking your U16 way too seriously and the D1 coaches don't think you have given him a capable player, anyway they just know they have an athletic kid who can be developed.

First of you are moving the goalposts. In your initial post, you posited the scenario of a kid being benched the entire game. In your response, you talk about a weekend tournament. I would never play any kid, even if I had andres iniesta for 3x-90 in one weekend. Make up your mind, are you talking about a match or a tournament?

Secondly, you are right - i am developing kids. However, at a top club at the u-16 level, i need to maximize the development of the greatest amount of kids that can make it to the next level rather than focus on eeking out a bit of development in the lower 10th of the squad who probably can't go onto the next level. I'll be judged on the track record of how many I can place at what level going forward.

Thirdly - d1 coaches are now behind club coaches in development. D1 coaches get kids too late in the development curve - especially technically.

Now the interesting question: Arlington or Alexandria at U9?

First, it would depend on boys or girls, the player's ability level, which team they would be placed on if selected into the program, and who coaches that team.
Are you talking about for a current U8 player that will be trying out for teams this coming spring, or a current U9 player who is looking to join either of these clubs?
Either way, the best thing you can do is to attend tryouts for both clubs.

If you were looking at this year's U9 program, here's the information that's important to start with:

ALEXANDRIA:

2008 | U9 Boys (Red, White, Blue, Black, Silver)

Red is the #1 team, Silver is #5

Red NCSL Lee Clement
White NCSL Jeff Hajek
Blue NCSL Edwin Zelaya
Black ODSL TBD
Silver ODSL Octavian Crismaru

2008 | U9 Girls (Red, White, Blue)

Red WAGS (should say NCSL now) Peja Ilic
White WAGS Chris Hubbard

Coach Bios:
http://alexandria-soccer.org/travel/coaching-staff

ARLINGTON:

2008 Boys (U09)
Red Coach: Arbi Hammami
White Coach: Arbi Hammami
Blue Coach: Lester Calliste
Black Coach: Lester Calliste
Silver Coach: Jesse Phillips
Gold Coach: Jesse Phillips

2008 Girls (U09)
Red Coach: Alexis Koppius
White Coach: Alexis Koppius
Blue Coach: Jillian Maslyn
Black Coach: Jillian Maslyn
Silver Coach: Torey Beiro
Gold Coach: Torey Beiro

Coach Bios:
http://www.arlingtonsoccer.com/travelsoccer/coaching-staff/

Immediate observations:

The big difference is that with Arlington, each coach works with 2 teams. That means training sessions are likely run with about 18 kids (8 year olds), which can be kind of a challenge, even with an assistant (I do not know if Alexandria combines 2 teams for training sessions at the same time). On the flip side, the 2 teams will eventually merge into one team in a few years, and if the same coach has been working with all the players for a few years prior, it's easier than combining two teams with separate coaches.

I think the depth of talent with Arlington is slightly higher at U9 just because of the number of people that live in Arlington (you're talking about all of Arlington county, which includes 22 public elementary schools which players will be drawn from). Alexandria only has 13 public elementary schools according to the Alexandria Public Schools website. I heard that there were 160-180 girls at Arlington's U9 tryouts for girls this year, and I imagine even more than that for boys. On the flip side again, there may be more talent purely because of higher numbers than alexandria, but that means its harder to make one of the teams and there may be more competition from year to year for a player to keep their spot on a particular team.

Beyond those immediate observations, you'd have to look up the bio of the coach who works with the team your player was selected for, and compare/contrast them for each club.

What I would do is attend a training session and just watch the coach the entire time, see how well they are organized, how they communicate with the players, and if the players are learning and having fun at the same time. After watching several different coaches, you will be able to get a feel for who really knows how to teach the game at that age group. Some coaches are better than others with U9s, but you have to watch them in action.

This playlist is very good:
https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLF9C109C07E69540F

U6 model training session
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=auAN7ltYVKo

SoccerInteractive
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCTZ2tifxKnDyv0OW3Ach_TQ



These are so-so but useful

Coaching youth soccer using fun soccer games for the under 6 soccer player
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p-gpKnsOBsI

AFA U8 Informational Video Part 1 of 4 (4 part series)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WDXagEGF7kc

Coach Development Series C.A.T.S. U7 1 of 4
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YRrLQSYuANc

http://www.dcurbanmom.com/jforum/images/transp.gif

yes, that was kinda what I was hoping he would talk about....the difference in the U9 coaches.