Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:And while I’m asking questions, let me ask this.
Why (does it seem) VDA have higher standings in the higher age groups as opposed to the younger groups? Are they truly better at developing or are they recruiting better players from outside?

No. What happened is BP was at FCV, which was good at developing players. Then STJ bought FCV and burned it to ashes. BP got out before the thing was totally aflame and *took with him* to VDA the kids that FCV had developed. So those kids, now older, are doing well and getting recruited. The younger ages not so much because VDA has no development pipeline as both VSA and PWSI suck. So today VDA remains an “acquirer,” taking the best kids from other clubs once they are developed, and getting them recruited. VDA is essentially a marketing platform for high school players. The younger kids are just there to capitalize the salaries.

So none of the famous 2009 team were at VDA before high school?

Based on the 2014 team that is forming, they are going to be damn good. A combination of homegrown and kids who chose to come over.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:And while I’m asking questions, let me ask this.
Why (does it seem) VDA have higher standings in the higher age groups as opposed to the younger groups? Are they truly better at developing or are they recruiting better players from outside?

No. What happened is BP was at FCV, which was good at developing players. Then STJ bought FCV and burned it to ashes. BP got out before the thing was totally aflame and *took with him* to VDA the kids that FCV had developed. So those kids, now older, are doing well and getting recruited. The younger ages not so much because VDA has no development pipeline as both VSA and PWSI suck. So today VDA remains an “acquirer,” taking the best kids from other clubs once they are developed, and getting them recruited. VDA is essentially a marketing platform for high school players. The younger kids are just there to capitalize the salaries.

So none of the famous 2009 team were at VDA before high school?

Based on the 2014 team that is forming, they are going to be damn good. A combination of homegrown and kids who chose to come over.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Was already posted on a different thread. But here are the standings again for the three ECNL girls clubs in northern Virginia:


ECNL Mid-Atlantic conference:

Arlington
2013: 3
2012: 1
2011: 1
2010: 5
2009: 4
2008/07: 7

FVU
2013: 1
2012: 3
2011: 6
2010: 6
2009: 8
2008/07: 5

VDA
2013: 6
2012: 4
2011: 5
2010: 1
2009: 1
2008/07: 2

https://theecnl.com/sport...35831.aspx (https://theecnl.com/sports/2023/8/8/ECNLG_0808235831.aspx)


Same three clubs according to Soccer Rankings

Arlington
2013: 3
2012: 2
2011: 1
2010: 5
2009: 3
2008/07: 4

FVU
2013: 1
2012: 1
2011: 4
2010: 4
2009: 5
2008/07: 6

VDA
2013: 5
2012: 6
2011: 2
2010: 1
2009: 1
2008/07: 1

Thanks. I was kind of joking. FVU parent only focusing on the first two years. Clearly a drop off as they get older and when it matters most. It would be interesting if you overlayed the boys to see if union is doing well enough as a club to stay ECNL.

I posted the standings without any emotionally charged claims or amateur analyses. So if I’m to be fair to the “FVU parent only focusing on the first two years”, FVU has only been in existence since 2024 (says it right on their logo). So, should we measure anything before 2024? Those who are determined to crap on that club will argue the existence of its predecessor.

Thats like saying schools should only do/ care/ measure SOLs for kids who started (first grade) at that school. Nothing works that way.

Is that what I said?
I posted the standings for all ages. You can do your own assessments on why certain age groups are where they are at. But now you’re stating my question is an assertion?

No, you are implying an item that is irrelevant in the context of this discussion. If FVU was materially different, then that is one thing, but it isnt.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:And while I’m asking questions, let me ask this.
Why (does it seem) VDA have higher standings in the higher age groups as opposed to the younger groups? Are they truly better at developing or are they recruiting better players from outside?

No. What happened is BP was at FCV, which was good at developing players. Then STJ bought FCV and burned it to ashes. BP got out before the thing was totally aflame and *took with him* to VDA the kids that FCV had developed. So those kids, now older, are doing well and getting recruited. The younger ages not so much because VDA has no development pipeline as both VSA and PWSI suck. So today VDA remains an “acquirer,” taking the best kids from other clubs once they are developed, and getting them recruited. VDA is essentially a marketing platform for high school players. The younger kids are just there to capitalize the salaries.

So none of the famous 2009 team were at VDA before high school?

Based on the 2014 team that is forming, they are going to be damn good. A combination of homegrown and kids who chose to come over.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:And while I’m asking questions, let me ask this.
Why (does it seem) VDA have higher standings in the higher age groups as opposed to the younger groups? Are they truly better at developing or are they recruiting better players from outside?

No. What happened is BP was at FCV, which was good at developing players. Then STJ bought FCV and burned it to ashes. BP got out before the thing was totally aflame and *took with him* to VDA the kids that FCV had developed. So those kids, now older, are doing well and getting recruited. The younger ages not so much because VDA has no development pipeline as both VSA and PWSI suck. So today VDA remains an “acquirer,” taking the best kids from other clubs once they are developed, and getting them recruited. VDA is essentially a marketing platform for high school players. The younger kids are just there to capitalize the salaries.

So none of the famous 2009 team were at VDA before high school?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Was already posted on a different thread. But here are the standings again for the three ECNL girls clubs in northern Virginia:


ECNL Mid-Atlantic conference:

Arlington
2013: 3
2012: 1
2011: 1
2010: 5
2009: 4
2008/07: 7

FVU
2013: 1
2012: 3
2011: 6
2010: 6
2009: 8
2008/07: 5

VDA
2013: 6
2012: 4
2011: 5
2010: 1
2009: 1
2008/07: 2

https://theecnl.com/sport...35831.aspx (https://theecnl.com/sports/2023/8/8/ECNLG_0808235831.aspx)


Same three clubs according to Soccer Rankings

Arlington
2013: 3
2012: 2
2011: 1
2010: 5
2009: 3
2008/07: 4

FVU
2013: 1
2012: 1
2011: 4
2010: 4
2009: 5
2008/07: 6

VDA
2013: 5
2012: 6
2011: 2
2010: 1
2009: 1
2008/07: 1

Thanks. I was kind of joking. FVU parent only focusing on the first two years. Clearly a drop off as they get older and when it matters most. It would be interesting if you overlayed the boys to see if union is doing well enough as a club to stay ECNL.

I posted the standings without any emotionally charged claims or amateur analyses. So if I’m to be fair to the “FVU parent only focusing on the first two years”, FVU has only been in existence since 2024 (says it right on their logo). So, should we measure anything before 2024? Those who are determined to crap on that club will argue the existence of its predecessor.

Thats like saying schools should only do/ care/ measure SOLs for kids who started (first grade) at that school. Nothing works that way.

Is that what I said?
I posted the standings for all ages. You can do your own assessments on why certain age groups are where they are at. But now you’re stating my question is an assertion?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:And while I’m asking questions, let me ask this.
Why (does it seem) VDA have higher standings in the higher age groups as opposed to the younger groups? Are they truly better at developing or are they recruiting better players from outside?

No. What happened is BP was at FCV, which was good at developing players. Then STJ bought FCV and burned it to ashes. BP got out before the thing was totally aflame and *took with him* to VDA the kids that FCV had developed. So those kids, now older, are doing well and getting recruited. The younger ages not so much because VDA has no development pipeline as both VSA and PWSI suck. So today VDA remains an “acquirer,” taking the best kids from other clubs once they are developed, and getting them recruited. VDA is essentially a marketing platform for high school players. The younger kids are just there to capitalize the salaries.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:And while I’m asking questions, let me ask this.
Why (does it seem) VDA have higher standings in the higher age groups as opposed to the younger groups? Are they truly better at developing or are they recruiting better players from outside?

VDA is just poaching girls from other clubs. They are good at promoting players they didn’t actually develop. They take already established stars from other clubs and then blast them on social media like they are their own.

Anonymous wrote:And while I’m asking questions, let me ask this.
Why (does it seem) VDA have higher standings in the higher age groups as opposed to the younger groups? Are they truly better at developing or are they recruiting better players from outside?

Anonymous wrote:And while I’m asking questions, let me ask this.
Why (does it seem) VDA have higher standings in the higher age groups as opposed to the younger groups? Are they truly better at developing or are they recruiting better players from outside?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Was already posted on a different thread. But here are the standings again for the three ECNL girls clubs in northern Virginia:


ECNL Mid-Atlantic conference:

Arlington
2013: 3
2012: 1
2011: 1
2010: 5
2009: 4
2008/07: 7

FVU
2013: 1
2012: 3
2011: 6
2010: 6
2009: 8
2008/07: 5

VDA
2013: 6
2012: 4
2011: 5
2010: 1
2009: 1
2008/07: 2

https://theecnl.com/sport...35831.aspx (https://theecnl.com/sports/2023/8/8/ECNLG_0808235831.aspx)


Same three clubs according to Soccer Rankings

Arlington
2013: 3
2012: 2
2011: 1
2010: 5
2009: 3
2008/07: 4

FVU
2013: 1
2012: 1
2011: 4
2010: 4
2009: 5
2008/07: 6

VDA
2013: 5
2012: 6
2011: 2
2010: 1
2009: 1
2008/07: 1

Thanks. I was kind of joking. FVU parent only focusing on the first two years. Clearly a drop off as they get older and when it matters most. It would be interesting if you overlayed the boys to see if union is doing well enough as a club to stay ECNL.

I posted the standings without any emotionally charged claims or amateur analyses. So if I’m to be fair to the “FVU parent only focusing on the first two years”, FVU has only been in existence since 2024 (says it right on their logo). So, should we measure anything before 2024? Those who are determined to crap on that club will argue the existence of its predecessor.

Since FVU started in “2024” the massive failure that was BRAVE and mediocrity that was VA Union should be ignored? They stole a 2013 from McLean, the 2012s play MV Kickball with early physical developers, high school age teams range from okay to bad. This is all to be ignored?

Pepperidge Farm remembers…

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Was already posted on a different thread. But here are the standings again for the three ECNL girls clubs in northern Virginia:


ECNL Mid-Atlantic conference:

Arlington
2013: 3
2012: 1
2011: 1
2010: 5
2009: 4
2008/07: 7

FVU
2013: 1
2012: 3
2011: 6
2010: 6
2009: 8
2008/07: 5

VDA
2013: 6
2012: 4
2011: 5
2010: 1
2009: 1
2008/07: 2

https://theecnl.com/sport...35831.aspx (https://theecnl.com/sports/2023/8/8/ECNLG_0808235831.aspx)


Same three clubs according to Soccer Rankings

Arlington
2013: 3
2012: 2
2011: 1
2010: 5
2009: 3
2008/07: 4

FVU
2013: 1
2012: 1
2011: 4
2010: 4
2009: 5
2008/07: 6

VDA
2013: 5
2012: 6
2011: 2
2010: 1
2009: 1
2008/07: 1

Thanks. I was kind of joking. FVU parent only focusing on the first two years. Clearly a drop off as they get older and when it matters most. It would be interesting if you overlayed the boys to see if union is doing well enough as a club to stay ECNL.

I posted the standings without any emotionally charged claims or amateur analyses. So if I’m to be fair to the “FVU parent only focusing on the first two years”, FVU has only been in existence since 2024 (says it right on their logo). So, should we measure anything before 2024? Those who are determined to crap on that club will argue the existence of its predecessor.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Was already posted on a different thread. But here are the standings again for the three ECNL girls clubs in northern Virginia:


ECNL Mid-Atlantic conference:

Arlington
2013: 3
2012: 1
2011: 1
2010: 5
2009: 4
2008/07: 7

FVU
2013: 1
2012: 3
2011: 6
2010: 6
2009: 8
2008/07: 5

VDA
2013: 6
2012: 4
2011: 5
2010: 1
2009: 1
2008/07: 2

https://theecnl.com/sport...35831.aspx (https://theecnl.com/sports/2023/8/8/ECNLG_0808235831.aspx)


Same three clubs according to Soccer Rankings

Arlington
2013: 3
2012: 2
2011: 1
2010: 5
2009: 3
2008/07: 4

FVU
2013: 1
2012: 1
2011: 4
2010: 4
2009: 5
2008/07: 6

VDA
2013: 5
2012: 6
2011: 2
2010: 1
2009: 1
2008/07: 1

Thanks. I was kind of joking. FVU parent only focusing on the first two years. Clearly a drop off as they get older and when it matters most. It would be interesting if you overlayed the boys to see if union is doing well enough as a club to stay ECNL.

I posted the standings without any emotionally charged claims or amateur analyses. So if I’m to be fair to the “FVU parent only focusing on the first two years”, FVU has only been in existence since 2024 (says it right on their logo). So, should we measure anything before 2024? Those who are determined to crap on that club will argue the existence of its predecessor.

Thats like saying schools should only do/ care/ measure SOLs for kids who started (first grade) at that school. Nothing works that way.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Was already posted on a different thread. But here are the standings again for the three ECNL girls clubs in northern Virginia:


ECNL Mid-Atlantic conference:

Arlington
2013: 3
2012: 1
2011: 1
2010: 5
2009: 4
2008/07: 7

FVU
2013: 1
2012: 3
2011: 6
2010: 6
2009: 8
2008/07: 5

VDA
2013: 6
2012: 4
2011: 5
2010: 1
2009: 1
2008/07: 2

https://theecnl.com/sport...35831.aspx (https://theecnl.com/sports/2023/8/8/ECNLG_0808235831.aspx)


Same three clubs according to Soccer Rankings

Arlington
2013: 3
2012: 2
2011: 1
2010: 5
2009: 3
2008/07: 4

FVU
2013: 1
2012: 1
2011: 4
2010: 4
2009: 5
2008/07: 6

VDA
2013: 5
2012: 6
2011: 2
2010: 1
2009: 1
2008/07: 1

Thanks. I was kind of joking. FVU parent only focusing on the first two years. Clearly a drop off as they get older and when it matters most. It would be interesting if you overlayed the boys to see if union is doing well enough as a club to stay ECNL.

I posted the standings without any emotionally charged claims or amateur analyses. So if I’m to be fair to the “FVU parent only focusing on the first two years”, FVU has only been in existence since 2024 (says it right on their logo). So, should we measure anything before 2024? Those who are determined to crap on that club will argue the existence of its predecessor.