Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How did the seeding match up with the results? Any surprises?

For U11s, probably should have put a few second division teams in the first division (and moved some of the first divisions down). Odd to see Richmond Strikers Elite and Arlington White in a second division in a fairly weak field. NLS Ajax also could have been in top division.
Otherwise, top teams were pretty much as predicted. PWSI looked good - that team has looked strong for a few years and they really did well in this particular tourney.

The parents of the U11 Arlington White were griping that Richmond should have been in the top Bracket...which they should have been.
But they weren't complaining when they beat Bethesda's 4th team.

They will complain about anything.

I think they probably should. This weekend, U11 White just beat PWSI 4-3, which beat U11 Red last week 3-0.

Did the U11s lose some players? They had been one of the best teams in the area over the last few years, and seem to be having a lot of trouble this year.

They have a great white team so players are not the problem. Development is an issue. Kick and run is harder in 9 v 9. Throw and run is harder when you lose a goalkeeper with a cannon. All those years spent doing both means your defenders and midfielders have a tough time retaining possession. And playing a lot of weak opponents in the CCL does not help.

Who is weak at that age in CCL?

SYC is not in it right now, which does not help. I am not going to throw specific CCL teams at this age under the bus. Instead, I'll point you to a lot of good boys teams playing outside CCL and of course get heckled for doing so. VPL has a number of really good teams at this age - Richmond Kickers are probably the best team at this age in state, the Strikers are good, PWSI is really good, GFR Napoli is really good, and VYS is not bad at all. SYC is playing EDP against absolutely first rate teams from Maryland, including Pipeline (which destroyed everybody in U11 top bracket at Jeff Cup), Achilles, Bethesda, Total Futbol. The latter four teams are heads and shoulders above anybody in CCL or in VA right now. And there is another team (SAC/Baltimore Armour Pre-DA) which just played top division U12 in EDP. And of course Arlington White is now playing in the NCSL. So perhaps the CCL can improve a little over time, but right now, there are a lot of good teams outside of it.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How did the seeding match up with the results? Any surprises?

For U11s, probably should have put a few second division teams in the first division (and moved some of the first divisions down). Odd to see Richmond Strikers Elite and Arlington White in a second division in a fairly weak field. NLS Ajax also could have been in top division.
Otherwise, top teams were pretty much as predicted. PWSI looked good - that team has looked strong for a few years and they really did well in this particular tourney.

The parents of the U11 Arlington White were griping that Richmond should have been in the top Bracket...which they should have been.
But they weren't complaining when they beat Bethesda's 4th team.

They will complain about anything.

I think they probably should. This weekend, U11 White just beat PWSI 4-3, which beat U11 Red last week 3-0.

Did the U11s lose some players? They had been one of the best teams in the area over the last few years, and seem to be having a lot of trouble this year.

They have a great white team so players are not the problem. Development is an issue. Kick and run is harder in 9 v 9. Throw and run is harder when you lose a goalkeeper with a cannon. All those years spent doing both means your defenders and midfielders have a tough time retaining possession. And playing a lot of weak opponents in the CCL does not help.

Who is weak at that age in CCL?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How did the seeding match up with the results? Any surprises?

For U11s, probably should have put a few second division teams in the first division (and moved some of the first divisions down). Odd to see Richmond Strikers Elite and Arlington White in a second division in a fairly weak field. NLS Ajax also could have been in top division.
Otherwise, top teams were pretty much as predicted. PWSI looked good - that team has looked strong for a few years and they really did well in this particular tourney.

The parents of the U11 Arlington White were griping that Richmond should have been in the top Bracket...which they should have been.
But they weren't complaining when they beat Bethesda's 4th team.

They will complain about anything.

I think they probably should. This weekend, U11 White just beat PWSI 4-3, which beat U11 Red last week 3-0.

Did the U11s lose some players? They had been one of the best teams in the area over the last few years, and seem to be having a lot of trouble this year.

They have a great white team so players are not the problem. Development is an issue. Kick and run is harder in 9 v 9. Throw and run is harder when you lose a goalkeeper with a cannon. All those years spent doing both means your defenders and midfielders have a tough time retaining possession. And playing a lot of weak opponents in the CCL does not help.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How did the seeding match up with the results? Any surprises?

For U11s, probably should have put a few second division teams in the first division (and moved some of the first divisions down). Odd to see Richmond Strikers Elite and Arlington White in a second division in a fairly weak field. NLS Ajax also could have been in top division.
Otherwise, top teams were pretty much as predicted. PWSI looked good - that team has looked strong for a few years and they really did well in this particular tourney.

The parents of the U11 Arlington White were griping that Richmond should have been in the top Bracket...which they should have been.
But they weren't complaining when they beat Bethesda's 4th team.

They will complain about anything.

I think they probably should. This weekend, U11 White just beat PWSI 4-3, which beat U11 Red last week 3-0.

Did the U11s lose some players? They had been one of the best teams in the area over the last few years, and seem to be having a lot of trouble this year.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How did the seeding match up with the results? Any surprises?

For U11s, probably should have put a few second division teams in the first division (and moved some of the first divisions down). Odd to see Richmond Strikers Elite and Arlington White in a second division in a fairly weak field. NLS Ajax also could have been in top division.
Otherwise, top teams were pretty much as predicted. PWSI looked good - that team has looked strong for a few years and they really did well in this particular tourney.

The parents of the U11 Arlington White were griping that Richmond should have been in the top Bracket...which they should have been.
But they weren't complaining when they beat Bethesda's 4th team.

They will complain about anything.

I think they probably should. This weekend, U11 White just beat PWSI 4-3, which beat U11 Red last week 3-0.

Brackets for girls weekend are terrible too. There’s a team that won 14-1. Useless for both teams.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Interesting that for all the gripes about Arlington trying to help itself via seeding, their top team only made one final (and didn’t win) of the six age groups. Not sure what that means, but it’s interesting.

Means they didn’t perform

You're an idiot. A good bracket has competitive games across the matches, who wins does not matter.

+1

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Interesting that for all the gripes about Arlington trying to help itself via seeding, their top team only made one final (and didn’t win) of the six age groups. Not sure what that means, but it’s interesting.

Means they didn’t perform

You're an idiot. A good bracket has competitive games across the matches, who wins does not matter.

Agreed. Looks like they are in more appropriate brackets this weekend in Richmond. Good competition but you would expect them to do relatively well in third or fourth division. If they don't, it doesn't mean they underperformed.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How did the seeding match up with the results? Any surprises?

For U11s, probably should have put a few second division teams in the first division (and moved some of the first divisions down). Odd to see Richmond Strikers Elite and Arlington White in a second division in a fairly weak field. NLS Ajax also could have been in top division.
Otherwise, top teams were pretty much as predicted. PWSI looked good - that team has looked strong for a few years and they really did well in this particular tourney.

The parents of the U11 Arlington White were griping that Richmond should have been in the top Bracket...which they should have been.
But they weren't complaining when they beat Bethesda's 4th team.

They will complain about anything.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How did the seeding match up with the results? Any surprises?

For U11s, probably should have put a few second division teams in the first division (and moved some of the first divisions down). Odd to see Richmond Strikers Elite and Arlington White in a second division in a fairly weak field. NLS Ajax also could have been in top division.
Otherwise, top teams were pretty much as predicted. PWSI looked good - that team has looked strong for a few years and they really did well in this particular tourney.

The parents of the U11 Arlington White were griping that Richmond should have been in the top Bracket...which they should have been.
But they weren't complaining when they beat Bethesda's 4th team.

I wouldn't assume Richmond Strikers wanted to be in top bracket. They may have been put where they wanted to be. Arlington White is better than half the first division teams. Arlington Red, SYC and PWSI were the only top tier teams in that bracket. Arlington should play that team in different tournaments than Red so they can play at appropriate levels.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How did the seeding match up with the results? Any surprises?

For U11s, probably should have put a few second division teams in the first division (and moved some of the first divisions down). Odd to see Richmond Strikers Elite and Arlington White in a second division in a fairly weak field. NLS Ajax also could have been in top division.
Otherwise, top teams were pretty much as predicted. PWSI looked good - that team has looked strong for a few years and they really did well in this particular tourney.

The parents of the U11 Arlington White were griping that Richmond should have been in the top Bracket...which they should have been.
But they weren't complaining when they beat Bethesda's 4th team.

Anonymous wrote:Weak field this year in U11B. It's Arlington Red and SYC in the top bracket, the other 6 teams of the top bracket could be interchanged with most of the teams in the second bracket.
http://events.gotsport.com/events/results.aspx?EventID=74605&Gender=Boys&Age=11.
Not sure what the organizers could've done differently, they were dealt a pretty weak hand. Must be some other tourneys pulling the typical MD teams elsewhere.

Looks like the Maryland U11's are playing in Alexandria after the Jefferson Cup. Maybe they didn't want to play three weeks in a row.

http://events.gotsport.com/events/results.aspx?EventID=76934&Gender=Boys&Age=11

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Interesting that for all the gripes about Arlington trying to help itself via seeding, their top team only made one final (and didn’t win) of the six age groups. Not sure what that means, but it’s interesting.

Means they didn’t perform

You're an idiot. A good bracket has competitive games across the matches, who wins does not matter.

Anonymous wrote:Because they suck at soccer. They may get athletes, but they suck at soccer.

I may not like the way most of their teams play, but I am not going to say kids that young suck at soccer, and there are plenty of kids I have seen over there who could be terrific in a different system and environment.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Interesting that for all the gripes about Arlington trying to help itself via seeding, their top team only made one final (and didn’t win) of the six age groups. Not sure what that means, but it’s interesting.

Means they didn’t perform

Nonsense. It could mean the area is more competitive on the boys side than people think. Statistically you would expect maybe one in six or one in eight to win.

Uhu

Maybe they just aren’t as good as you expect them to be given the size of the player pool. That is not underperformance by the teams. It is perhaps underdevelopment by the club. I just don’t know which age group they would have been favored to win. There were better teams in every single one.

Or what they did over the winter break. Some clubs start indoor practice in January 2 or 3 times a week and other practice less.