Anonymous wrote:That truly prioritizes player development? Gives all kids enough playing time? Switches around the U12s so there are no striker prima donnas and teaches kids to play more than one position? Coaches are firm but kind?

In Maryland, FCGB definitely does this.

I agree that there is no way that any one club can do all of these things. My son played for NPC in the past, and they are very interested in developiong players. However, their teams are uneven in terms of talent, and although I felt like they 100 percent wanted and were helping my son to improve, it got very frustrating for him to lose almost every game. We moved to another club for the time being for that reason, but would definitely consider going back to NPC in the future.

Anonymous wrote:There is just no way a club can be all these things - develop young players, consistent good teams across age groups, win at highest levels - except for maybe the small handful of very large clubs. Most clubs will need to specialize. Some will be good at developing their young players that eventually feed into a club that specializes in recruiting older teams and college placements, or only boys teams. And there is nothing wrong with that! Not every club needs to be good at everything to have a successful club or healthy ecosystem.

I totally agree. And feel that this is a very useful question and discussion.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Player development comes with a cost for the team - losses - as it takes time for players to develop.

This is much exaggerated. Good development results in wins that year - not several years down the line. When the coaches are saying that development won't bear fruit for several years then one of the following is true:

1. The kids are not developing.
2. The kids are playing in a league or division which is not appropriate for them, probably because the club is an ECNL/CCL/GA/MLS Next club which plays every team in the same league irrespective of whether it is best for that particular team.

If your kid's team is still losing every game badly by the end of the year, you should move if your kid's goal is to improve.

These top teams in the areas don't want that as it impacts their marketability. Much easier to just recruit rather than develop.

The most successful teams in the area generally do both.

FCV as noted before is great at marketing and recruiting. Player development...not so much.

I cannot comment specifically on FCV.

Every player is different and if you find a situation where your DC is developing, getting playing time and enjoys the team dynamics and teammates. That's all that's important. No coach can singlehandedly provide this.

Agreed. Although a good coach can go a very long way to providing it under a broad range of circumstances.

Within clubs, every age group is different.

I agree that no club can guarantee that every coach and age group is perfect. Nevertheless some clubs are much more committed to a sound philosophy than others, and you are much likelier to have a good experience at such a club.

Winning is most important guy is here. Goodn’t to see you.

No - I'm not that guy. I don't think that winning is important for its own sake - it's important only because it tends to correlate with how well the kids are developing. BUT I hate the "we're losing because development requires losing for years" folks. They're just bad coaches trying to excuse the fact that their teams consistently lose by telling you it's for a good reason. Yes development does sometimes involve losing a game which you might have been able to win. However it also implies that the players improve and become good enough to win games they previously would have lost - and it should not take more than 2-3 months for this to start happening.

My two cents. Clubs that prioritize development generally spread out playing time across their top, middle and lower range players. This would arguably lead to more losses for the team than if the playing time was skewed towards the top players. Also you have to take into account the baseline level of talent, as there may be a lot of player development at a team but if the players started at a very low level, the team will still lose games. I think that's fine for U15 and younger. After that, a club should prioritize performance.

Anonymous wrote:There is just no way a club can be all these things - develop young players, consistent good teams across age groups, win at highest levels - except for maybe the small handful of very large clubs. Most clubs will need to specialize. Some will be good at developing their young players that eventually feed into a club that specializes in recruiting older teams and college placements, or only boys teams. And there is nothing wrong with that! Not every club needs to be good at everything to have a successful club or healthy ecosystem.

Agree but even the very large clubs fail with majority of the their players. They just have a deeper player pool therefore they have more success stories. That also means they have more failures but nobody ever acknowledges that for good reason.

There is just no way a club can be all these things - develop young players, consistent good teams across age groups, win at highest levels - except for maybe the small handful of very large clubs. Most clubs will need to specialize. Some will be good at developing their young players that eventually feed into a club that specializes in recruiting older teams and college placements, or only boys teams. And there is nothing wrong with that! Not every club needs to be good at everything to have a successful club or healthy ecosystem.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think Premier AC in Falls Church does a very good job of developing players. From what I have seen (my kid as well as several family friends and neighborhood friends), player growth has been impressive.

There is a cost to foscussing on development, as others have said, and some teams pay it more dearly than others. A handful of PAC's teams are very strong and successful, while others have a wide range of players and are more like what 11:49 described.

I think the size of the club and the consistency in the coaching staff (most of the coaches played for the club president) are part of what makes the coaching so effective. On the other hand, the lack of depth is always a challenge to a small club even on the very strong teams (especially when it comes to tournaments). It sometimes also makes some of the stronger players inclined to leave for neighboring teams (who had originally turned them down) after a few years.

Would totally agree Premier AC has a wide range a few really good teams that could easily hold their own in an ECNL league and few really bad teams that border on ODSL. As for development They are top tier and care about the player first if they think one of their players needs to move to a stronger competition than the can provide the will help the player get to a stronger team. They frequently send players to the DCU academy.

You are kidding, right? No disrespect to Premier AC, but their teams will get crushed by ECNL teams. For example, Premier AC 08 girls top team lost to Arlington Silver. To put things in prospective, Arlington's top team will be playing in ECNL next year., their next best team is Red, then White, then Blue, then Black, then Silver. So PAC's best team lost to Arlington's 6th team, but it would hold its own against Arlington's top team and other ECNL clubs?

You are yet another idiotic parent. PAC has sent players to Arlington and McLean top teams when those clubs could not be bothered to pick or develop them. You are comparing results that occur after importing a bunch of talent with clubs that actually develop talent. And you are exactly why Arlington and McLean have multiple teams but cannot do anything but import talent at older ages to sustain their teams. Absolute idiot.

Newsflash, ECNL teams draw from many clubs and I can assure you that most do not come from PAC. PAC's 08 team did not lose to top Arlington team, it lost to the SIXTH best Arlington team. Arlington has 5 teams that are better than the team that beat PAC.
And the same goes for pre-ECNL ages, PAC does not even have U12 girls team in NCSL and their boys U12 team finished third from the bottom in division FIVE of NCSL. Wake up, division five of NCSL is not a hotbed of talent. I don't look down at PAC or the kids that play for the club, but lets be real their teams are nowhere near of being competitive against the top teams in the area.

PAC is a tiny club that doesn't have teams at every age group on the girls side and the PP said very openly that there is a range of teams. Not sure why you have to pick on an age group that isn't as strong. But just to clarify the top U12 team played in CCL, not NCSL.

The top U12 boys team, that is.

Thanks for clarifying. I see that they finished in the 10th place in CCL. It is not a terrible showing, but the results do not suggest that this is a team that has elite level players. Arlington's B team finished second in the same division and beat PAC 4-1. I just don't see any evidence that PAC team would be competitive against top ECNL teams, which is what the other poster argued.

I am the first person who mentioned Premier and I would never argue that they can compete against ECNL teams. By the time, ECNL teams form they attract and take talent from too many other clubs (including Premier AC!). My point is that Premier AC is pretty good at developing some of that talent. All of the club's strongest teams, including the U12 team you mention, have already lost top players to ECNL and MLS, or pre-ECNL/MLS. And some of these kids started out as totally average players who didn't get selected at other clubs. I have seen it happen a number of times across a lot of different age groups. I think I mentioned in my post some of the downsides of the same positive are a lack of depth. It will reflect in a tiny club with small team's record when they lose a couple of top players, like what you said about the 09s in CCL, though I am not sure their season is over.

Anyway, I think some of the other PPs ran passionately with my post and took it too far. I brought up Premier AC to answer the thread's question and I stand by it. From what I have seen they are good at developing young players.

FCV -> VMI is a proven pathway. I'm not sure towards what though.

Sure there is! The top teams of the large clubs at U9.

When you have a team of already superstar or physically dominant talent, sure you can do all the things you want to develop them without much consequence since they already dominate anyway.

Anonymous wrote:My kids play for Potomac and I think the club does a great job with this. Most coaches have no use for prima donna mentalities from players or parents. Kids work hard and learn.

I agree with this, we have a girl and boy there. Learned the positions during u9 on the bigger field and u10 things really came together.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think Premier AC in Falls Church does a very good job of developing players. From what I have seen (my kid as well as several family friends and neighborhood friends), player growth has been impressive.

There is a cost to foscussing on development, as others have said, and some teams pay it more dearly than others. A handful of PAC's teams are very strong and successful, while others have a wide range of players and are more like what 11:49 described.

I think the size of the club and the consistency in the coaching staff (most of the coaches played for the club president) are part of what makes the coaching so effective. On the other hand, the lack of depth is always a challenge to a small club even on the very strong teams (especially when it comes to tournaments). It sometimes also makes some of the stronger players inclined to leave for neighboring teams (who had originally turned them down) after a few years.

Would totally agree Premier AC has a wide range a few really good teams that could easily hold their own in an ECNL league and few really bad teams that border on ODSL. As for development They are top tier and care about the player first if they think one of their players needs to move to a stronger competition than the can provide the will help the player get to a stronger team. They frequently send players to the DCU academy.

You are kidding, right? No disrespect to Premier AC, but their teams will get crushed by ECNL teams. For example, Premier AC 08 girls top team lost to Arlington Silver. To put things in prospective, Arlington's top team will be playing in ECNL next year., their next best team is Red, then White, then Blue, then Black, then Silver. So PAC's best team lost to Arlington's 6th team, but it would hold its own against Arlington's top team and other ECNL clubs?

You are yet another idiotic parent. PAC has sent players to Arlington and McLean top teams when those clubs could not be bothered to pick or develop them. You are comparing results that occur after importing a bunch of talent with clubs that actually develop talent. And you are exactly why Arlington and McLean have multiple teams but cannot do anything but import talent at older ages to sustain their teams. Absolute idiot.

Newsflash, ECNL teams draw from many clubs and I can assure you that most do not come from PAC. PAC's 08 team did not lose to top Arlington team, it lost to the SIXTH best Arlington team. Arlington has 5 teams that are better than the team that beat PAC.
And the same goes for pre-ECNL ages, PAC does not even have U12 girls team in NCSL and their boys U12 team finished third from the bottom in division FIVE of NCSL. Wake up, division five of NCSL is not a hotbed of talent. I don't look down at PAC or the kids that play for the club, but lets be real their teams are nowhere near of being competitive against the top teams in the area.

PAC is a tiny club that doesn't have teams at every age group on the girls side and the PP said very openly that there is a range of teams. Not sure why you have to pick on an age group that isn't as strong. But just to clarify the top U12 team played in CCL, not NCSL.

The top U12 boys team, that is.

Thanks for clarifying. I see that they finished in the 10th place in CCL. It is not a terrible showing, but the results do not suggest that this is a team that has elite level players. Arlington's B team finished second in the same division and beat PAC 4-1. I just don't see any evidence that PAC team would be competitive against top ECNL teams, which is what the other poster argued.