Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why are you comparing player pools. It is literally pre season. Yall are insane

NPL is not playing pre-season!!!!

The NPL games were sanctioned league games. There are standings and everything.

Two things happened.

FCV DA teams played in scrimmages. Scrimmages are pre-season.

FCV NPL teams played in league games over the weekend. Those scores are posted and the standings count. NOT PRE-Season.

They count towards a big nothing burger.

Nobody except parents and players of NPL follow NPL.

The future DA team age groups in NPL matters.

no, not really. things change so much from the U10/U11/U12 and onwards. doesnt mean much in the grand scheme of things. OH SHIT- FCV U10 lost to richmond! They have no chance when they get to DA!!! gtfo

That argument worked 4+ years ago when there were not 3 DA and 4 ECNL clubs in NOVA but teams more than ever have to dance with who they brought. The Loudoun 07 team stayed in tact moving forward to ECNL. Expect that going forward. So posting -20 goal differential over a single weekend in future DA age groups says they have their work cut out for them moving forward.

Thats the exception, not the rule.

What is the exception? A -20 goal differential or 6 other elite club options when there was only two before?

FIFY - What is the exception? A -20 goal differential or 4 other club options when there was only two elite before?

Ok, regardless, -20 GD demonstrates a lack of core talent. Where are the players going to come from?

VSA, GFR, PWSI, Loudoun, McLean all have better teams at those ages. All have ECNL or DA options to feed into. How many of those teams players does FCV really expect to draw from if their teams are performing better?

Not many people leave a starting role on a good team for a starting role on a worse team.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why are you comparing player pools. It is literally pre season. Yall are insane

NPL is not playing pre-season!!!!

The NPL games were sanctioned league games. There are standings and everything.

Two things happened.

FCV DA teams played in scrimmages. Scrimmages are pre-season.

FCV NPL teams played in league games over the weekend. Those scores are posted and the standings count. NOT PRE-Season.

They count towards a big nothing burger.

Nobody except parents and players of NPL follow NPL.

The future DA team age groups in NPL matters.

no, not really. things change so much from the U10/U11/U12 and onwards. doesnt mean much in the grand scheme of things. OH SHIT- FCV U10 lost to richmond! They have no chance when they get to DA!!! gtfo

That argument worked 4+ years ago when there were not 3 DA and 4 ECNL clubs in NOVA but teams more than ever have to dance with who they brought. The Loudoun 07 team stayed in tact moving forward to ECNL. Expect that going forward. So posting -20 goal differential over a single weekend in future DA age groups says they have their work cut out for them moving forward.

Thats the exception, not the rule.

What is the exception? A -20 goal differential or 6 other elite club options when there was only two before?

FIFY - What is the exception? A -20 goal differential or 4 other club options when there was only two elite before?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why are you comparing player pools. It is literally pre season. Yall are insane

NPL is not playing pre-season!!!!

The NPL games were sanctioned league games. There are standings and everything.

Two things happened.

FCV DA teams played in scrimmages. Scrimmages are pre-season.

FCV NPL teams played in league games over the weekend. Those scores are posted and the standings count. NOT PRE-Season.

They count towards a big nothing burger.

Nobody except parents and players of NPL follow NPL.

The future DA team age groups in NPL matters.

no, not really. things change so much from the U10/U11/U12 and onwards. doesnt mean much in the grand scheme of things. OH SHIT- FCV U10 lost to richmond! They have no chance when they get to DA!!! gtfo

That argument worked 4+ years ago when there were not 3 DA and 4 ECNL clubs in NOVA but teams more than ever have to dance with who they brought. The Loudoun 07 team stayed in tact moving forward to ECNL. Expect that going forward. So posting -20 goal differential over a single weekend in future DA age groups says they have their work cut out for them moving forward.

Thats the exception, not the rule.

What is the exception? A -20 goal differential or 6 other elite club options when there was only two before?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why are you comparing player pools. It is literally pre season. Yall are insane

NPL is not playing pre-season!!!!

The NPL games were sanctioned league games. There are standings and everything.

Two things happened.

FCV DA teams played in scrimmages. Scrimmages are pre-season.

FCV NPL teams played in league games over the weekend. Those scores are posted and the standings count. NOT PRE-Season.

They count towards a big nothing burger.

Nobody except parents and players of NPL follow NPL.

The future DA team age groups in NPL matters.

no, not really. things change so much from the U10/U11/U12 and onwards. doesnt mean much in the grand scheme of things. OH SHIT- FCV U10 lost to richmond! They have no chance when they get to DA!!! gtfo

That argument worked 4+ years ago when there were not 3 DA and 4 ECNL clubs in NOVA but teams more than ever have to dance with who they brought. The Loudoun 07 team stayed in tact moving forward to ECNL. Expect that going forward. So posting -20 goal differential over a single weekend in future DA age groups says they have their work cut out for them moving forward.

Thats the exception, not the rule.

Maybe they were losing before the implementation of the new formation.

Maybe the new formation was to fix the issues they were having

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Bobby didn't play to lose and they weren't playing with new formations, etc.

Stop

Actually, they were playing with new formations. They switched at halftime as the club is trying out some new stuff. Girls are adjusting and some are having more trouble than others.

And Richmond wasn't doing the same?

No, same formation throughout the game, same players in the same positions. RU has played the same style game since my DD was playing them as "strikers" at U12.

So Bobby knew their formations and tried to adjust his formations for success. Got It.

No, they have been working on a couple new formations in practices for 3 weeks or so. They tried them for 1/2 the game, used different personnel, etc.

So does one try new formations if the old formations work for the personnel? Asking for a friend.

Of course! Coaches adapt as the players adapt, or should IMO.

No different than a college football coach changing up an offense to fit a new QB as he gets better.

You can't be a one trick pony!

What was it about the old formations that didn't work?

So such new personnel was added that formations needed to be changed to suit them or because the old formations were unsuccessful?

The old formation worked fine, look at last seasons records. All teams did very well.

You'll have to stop by and watch to see for yourself.

I'm just trying to understand the tinkering?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Bobby didn't play to lose and they weren't playing with new formations, etc.

Stop

Actually, they were playing with new formations. They switched at halftime as the club is trying out some new stuff. Girls are adjusting and some are having more trouble than others.

And Richmond wasn't doing the same?

No, same formation throughout the game, same players in the same positions. RU has played the same style game since my DD was playing them as "strikers" at U12.

So Bobby knew their formations and tried to adjust his formations for success. Got It.

No, they have been working on a couple new formations in practices for 3 weeks or so. They tried them for 1/2 the game, used different personnel, etc.

So does one try new formations if the old formations work for the personnel? Asking for a friend.

Of course! Coaches adapt as the players adapt, or should IMO.

No different than a college football coach changing up an offense to fit a new QB as he gets better.

You can't be a one trick pony!

What was it about the old formations that didn't work?

So such new personnel was added that formations needed to be changed to suit them or because the old formations were unsuccessful?

The old formation worked fine, look at last seasons records. All teams did very well.

You'll have to stop by and watch to see for yourself.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Bobby didn't play to lose and they weren't playing with new formations, etc.

Stop

Actually, they were playing with new formations. They switched at halftime as the club is trying out some new stuff. Girls are adjusting and some are having more trouble than others.

And Richmond wasn't doing the same?

No, same formation throughout the game, same players in the same positions. RU has played the same style game since my DD was playing them as "strikers" at U12.

So Bobby knew their formations and tried to adjust his formations for success. Got It.

No, they have been working on a couple new formations in practices for 3 weeks or so. They tried them for 1/2 the game, used different personnel, etc.

So does one try new formations if the old formations work for the personnel? Asking for a friend.

Of course! Coaches adapt as the players adapt, or should IMO.

No different than a college football coach changing up an offense to fit a new QB as he gets better.

You can't be a one trick pony!

What was it about the old formations that didn't work?

So such new personnel was added that formations needed to be changed to suit them or because the old formations were unsuccessful?

Anonymous wrote:The FCV 01/02 and 05 teams are strong and won. The rest of them are not quite at the same level and did not win. Fair?

Maybe, I don't know the scores for any outside the age groups you mention.

The two you mention were wins and are very strong teams.

Anonymous wrote:Shouldn't you guys be working . Is this what you do at work, check DC anony forums?
Bored at work?

This would be more effective if you posted after 5:00 yourself.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Bobby didn't play to lose and they weren't playing with new formations, etc.

Stop

Actually, they were playing with new formations. They switched at halftime as the club is trying out some new stuff. Girls are adjusting and some are having more trouble than others.

And Richmond wasn't doing the same?

No, same formation throughout the game, same players in the same positions. RU has played the same style game since my DD was playing them as "strikers" at U12.

So Bobby knew their formations and tried to adjust his formations for success. Got It.

No, they have been working on a couple new formations in practices for 3 weeks or so. They tried them for 1/2 the game, used different personnel, etc.

So does one try new formations if the old formations work for the personnel? Asking for a friend.

Of course! Coaches adapt as the players adapt, or should IMO.

No different than a college football coach changing up an offense to fit a new QB as he gets better.

You can't be a one trick pony!

Shouldn't you guys be working . Is this what you do at work, check DC anony forums?
Bored at work?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Bobby didn't play to lose and they weren't playing with new formations, etc.

Stop

Actually, they were playing with new formations. They switched at halftime as the club is trying out some new stuff. Girls are adjusting and some are having more trouble than others.

And Richmond wasn't doing the same?

No, same formation throughout the game, same players in the same positions. RU has played the same style game since my DD was playing them as "strikers" at U12.

So Bobby knew their formations and tried to adjust his formations for success. Got It.

No, they have been working on a couple new formations in practices for 3 weeks or so. They tried them for 1/2 the game, used different personnel, etc.

So does one try new formations if the old formations work for the personnel? Asking for a friend.

The FCV 01/02 and 05 teams are strong and won. The rest of them are not quite at the same level and did not win. Fair?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Bobby didn't play to lose and they weren't playing with new formations, etc.

Stop

Actually, they were playing with new formations. They switched at halftime as the club is trying out some new stuff. Girls are adjusting and some are having more trouble than others.

And Richmond wasn't doing the same?

No, same formation throughout the game, same players in the same positions. RU has played the same style game since my DD was playing them as "strikers" at U12.

So Bobby knew their formations and tried to adjust his formations for success. Got It.

No, they have been working on a couple new formations in practices for 3 weeks or so. They tried them for 1/2 the game, used different personnel, etc.