Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why does Arlington Soccer post tryout results online? So instead of a caring phone call from a coach role model, young boys and girls find out online that their coach moved them down 1 or 2 teams, and then the family just goes the whole summer with no courtesy call from the coach and starts up in the Fall with the new team/coach??? Wondering how it works from those who have already been through this. I know players moving up get LOTS of contact and feedback pre-tryouts about their potential movement, but do the Arlington coaches really blow off the players moved down and never even five the player feedback or explanation?

Or maybe it is just the bad coaches? Or maybe feedback is only for the players and families that bother to follow up and ask for an explamation , although I imagine most aren't apt to bother doing that for obvious reasons. TIA.

Some have been give no indication they will. E cut. Evaluations don't include any helpful info. In fact, seen praise and then the following week demotion. It's fucking weird.

That's unbelievable to me. You have a coach for an entire year, they say nothing before tryouts, move you down on some Internet public posting, say nothing after tryouts and nothing all summer. Am I missing another point of view here? How is this not outrageous? I would think coaches care about players. There has to be some reason . . .

From my experience in travel soccer, you would be wrong.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Went to U10 boys tryouts last night at LMVSC. They had about 50 kids. I wasnt expecting so many. Is that normal?

Boys at that age group - yes.

OK thanks. It was well run and organized but more than I thought.

I think it was a bigger turnout than usual. The bigger the pool, the better.

Who is LMVSC's competition? (South County? Braddock Road?). How did the competing local clubs for that player pool do in terms of numbers?

Closest clubs would be Alexandria, Gunston, Barca, and SYC. Not sure what numbers they draw.

BRYC had mostly returning players with 4-5 new ones sprinkled in. 25ish
Gunston about 45
Barca maybe 20ish seemed like many returning players. . Some very skilled players there but they seem so disorganized.

Our observation for u10 boys. Agree now with the larger pool the better. Better fit for highly skilled to developing players

Your U10 went to BRYC, Barca and Gunston for tryouts? Are you new to the area or trying to find a better fit for your kid than your current club? Why those 3?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Went to U10 boys tryouts last night at LMVSC. They had about 50 kids. I wasnt expecting so many. Is that normal?

Boys at that age group - yes.

OK thanks. It was well run and organized but more than I thought.

I think it was a bigger turnout than usual. The bigger the pool, the better.

Who is LMVSC's competition? (South County? Braddock Road?). How did the competing local clubs for that player pool do in terms of numbers?

Closest clubs would be Alexandria, Gunston, Barca, and SYC. Not sure what numbers they draw.

BRYC had mostly returning players with 4-5 new ones sprinkled in. 25ish
Gunston about 45
Barca maybe 20ish seemed like many returning players. . Some very skilled players there but they seem so disorganized.

Our observation for u10 boys. Agree now with the larger pool the better. Better fit for highly skilled to developing players

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Went to U10 boys tryouts last night at LMVSC. They had about 50 kids. I wasnt expecting so many. Is that normal?

Boys at that age group - yes.

OK thanks. It was well run and organized but more than I thought.

I think it was a bigger turnout than usual. The bigger the pool, the better.

Who is LMVSC's competition? (South County? Braddock Road?). How did the competing local clubs for that player pool do in terms of numbers?

Closest clubs would be Alexandria, Gunston, Barca, and SYC. Not sure what numbers they draw.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why does Arlington Soccer post tryout results online? So instead of a caring phone call from a coach role model, young boys and girls find out online that their coach moved them down 1 or 2 teams, and then the family just goes the whole summer with no courtesy call from the coach and starts up in the Fall with the new team/coach??? Wondering how it works from those who have already been through this. I know players moving up get LOTS of contact and feedback pre-tryouts about their potential movement, but do the Arlington coaches really blow off the players moved down and never even five the player feedback or explanation?

Or maybe it is just the bad coaches? Or maybe feedback is only for the players and families that bother to follow up and ask for an explamation , although I imagine most aren't apt to bother doing that for obvious reasons. TIA.

Some have been give no indication they will. E cut. Evaluations don't include any helpful info. In fact, seen praise and then the following week demotion. It's fucking weird.

That's unbelievable to me. You have a coach for an entire year, they say nothing before tryouts, move you down on some Internet public posting, say nothing after tryouts and nothing all summer. Am I missing another point of view here? How is this not outrageous? I would think coaches care about players. There has to be some reason . . .

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Went to U10 boys tryouts last night at LMVSC. They had about 50 kids. I wasnt expecting so many. Is that normal?

Boys at that age group - yes.

OK thanks. It was well run and organized but more than I thought.

I think it was a bigger turnout than usual. The bigger the pool, the better.

Who is LMVSC's competition? (South County? Braddock Road?). How did the competing local clubs for that player pool do in terms of numbers?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Went to U10 boys tryouts last night at LMVSC. They had about 50 kids. I wasnt expecting so many. Is that normal?

Boys at that age group - yes.

OK thanks. It was well run and organized but more than I thought.

I think it was a bigger turnout than usual. The bigger the pool, the better.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why does Arlington Soccer post tryout results online? So instead of a caring phone call from a coach role model, young boys and girls find out online that their coach moved them down 1 or 2 teams, and then the family just goes the whole summer with no courtesy call from the coach and starts up in the Fall with the new team/coach??? Wondering how it works from those who have already been through this. I know players moving up get LOTS of contact and feedback pre-tryouts about their potential movement, but do the Arlington coaches really blow off the players moved down and never even five the player feedback or explanation?

Or maybe it is just the bad coaches? Or maybe feedback is only for the players and families that bother to follow up and ask for an explamation , although I imagine most aren't apt to bother doing that for obvious reasons. TIA.

Some have been give no indication they will. E cut. Evaluations don't include any helpful info. In fact, seen praise and then the following week demotion. It's fucking weird.

Anonymous wrote:Why does Arlington Soccer post tryout results online? So instead of a caring phone call from a coach role model, young boys and girls find out online that their coach moved them down 1 or 2 teams, and then the family just goes the whole summer with no courtesy call from the coach and starts up in the Fall with the new team/coach??? Wondering how it works from those who have already been through this. I know players moving up get LOTS of contact and feedback pre-tryouts about their potential movement, but do the Arlington coaches really blow off the players moved down and never even five the player feedback or explanation?

Or maybe it is just the bad coaches? Or maybe feedback is only for the players and families that bother to follow up and ask for an explamation , although I imagine most aren't apt to bother doing that for obvious reasons. TIA.

Anonymous wrote:Why does Arlington Soccer post tryout results online? So instead of a caring phone call from a coach role model, young boys and girls find out online that their coach moved them down 1 or 2 teams, and then the family just goes the whole summer with no courtesy call from the coach and starts up in the Fall with the new team/coach??? Wondering how it works from those who have already been through this. I know players moving up get LOTS of contact and feedback pre-tryouts about their potential movement, but do the Arlington coaches really blow off the players moved down and never even five the player feedback or explanation?

Or maybe it is just the bad coaches? Or maybe feedback is only for the players and families that bother to follow up and ask for an explamation , although I imagine most aren't apt to bother doing that for obvious reasons. TIA.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'd be curious to hear how many kids from "outside the system" are making U13 DA teams for next year. That is, kids who did not play U12 DA this year. The sales pitch for the U12 teams is that you need to get your kid in sooner, rather than later, or he may have trouble breaking in.

There were spots for rising U13s from outside the DA but that's really the wrong question this year. Because of the way the DA s phased in the age group change, this year's U12s (04s) will be next year's U14s.

U12 DAs are 2 x 9v9 teams (24-26 players) then they cut it down to one 11v11 team (16-18) players for U13 & above. The cut isn't as sharp for clubs which mixed in a lot of 05s with their 04 groups (or next year will have a lot of 07s with their 06s), but for clubs which didn't do that, Arlington for example, they are going to be dropping a lot of their existing U12s anyway. On top of that you have all of the McLean current U12 DA players (mostly 04s) looking to move to another DA. The advantage those players have by being "in the system" is that they already have had multiple opportunities to try out during matches against the other DA clubs throughout the year.

So yeah, with so many 04s being cut lose, it was hard for 04s from outside the system to break in this year, just as it will be hard for 06s next year (and 04s again, since they will age out Arl and Loud DAs, unless they get expanded).

It's an extremely competitive process, as it's designed to be.

Hopefully the cream will rise to the top, rather than just the early developers, but that comes down to the individual clubs.

That is very informative. Thank you for the response. I always forget that US Soccer didn't adopt the birth year mandate for the DAs yet. Don't even get me started on that.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Went to U10 boys tryouts last night at LMVSC. They had about 50 kids. I wasnt expecting so many. Is that normal?

Boys at that age group - yes.

OK thanks. It was well run and organized but more than I thought.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'd be curious to hear how many kids from "outside the system" are making U13 DA teams for next year. That is, kids who did not play U12 DA this year. The sales pitch for the U12 teams is that you need to get your kid in sooner, rather than later, or he may have trouble breaking in.

There were spots for rising U13s from outside the DA but that's really the wrong question this year. Because of the way the DA s phased in the age group change, this year's U12s (04s) will be next year's U14s.

U12 DAs are 2 x 9v9 teams (24-26 players) then they cut it down to one 11v11 team (16-18) players for U13 & above. The cut isn't as sharp for clubs which mixed in a lot of 05s with their 04 groups (or next year will have a lot of 07s with their 06s), but for clubs which didn't do that, Arlington for example, they are going to be dropping a lot of their existing U12s anyway. On top of that you have all of the McLean current U12 DA players (mostly 04s) looking to move to another DA. The advantage those players have by being "in the system" is that they already have had multiple opportunities to try out during matches against the other DA clubs throughout the year.

So yeah, with so many 04s being cut lose, it was hard for 04s from outside the system to break in this year, just as it will be hard for 06s next year (and 04s again, since they will age out Arl and Loud DAs, unless they get expanded).

It's an extremely competitive process, as it's designed to be.

Hopefully the cream will rise to the top, rather than just the early developers, but that comes down to the individual clubs.

This happens so less frequently in the U.S. these days. For the cream to make it, it needs a strong advocate with history in the sport that will protect it the entire way. A lot of the cream with this type of advocate isn't even doing DA.

It seems odd to me that people would write off every single DA program without having spent any time in the system. My thinking is that if it's good enough for Gio Reyna and Efrain Alvarez, it's good enough for my kid.

Dude, people are talking about U12-U14 pre-academy run by travel soccer coaches at Clubs (essentially club soccer). This (the mls clubs) is not equivalent. People are fooling themselves if they think playing pre-academy at Loudoun, arl, mclean will create a superstar.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Went to U10 boys tryouts last night at LMVSC. They had about 50 kids. I wasnt expecting so many. Is that normal?

Boys at that age group - yes.