I have no idea about this tourney. Here are the flights for 2005 girls with GotSoccer State Rankings. It really makes no sense at all! We are ranked low because we had no tourney rankings (what GotSoccer uses) for Fall and played our first tourney in AZ just 2 weeks ago. Flight 1 1 15 6 6 33 2 Flight 2 5 2 83 2 27 19 Flight 3 24 10 7 74 36 15 N/A 35 Flight 4 89 35 N/A 101
No idea about that team. I know our 2006 teams is pretty good and our second 05 team is improving well. I started discussions with my kids coach in 2017. Absolutely love the team, coach and club. I have zero complaints and my kid is loving it - her passion for soccer which was nearly destroyed last season is back. Thats all I care about. One thing I noticed is when as a parent, you stop thinking DA/ECNL/free college and start looking at what makes your kid happy - the entire experience is so much better!
https://youthsoccerrankings.us/rankings/National/All/Both/ I think they may take into consideration this site as well that reflects tournaments and regular season results. I think coaches are looking at this a warmup for the regular season either through experimenting against weaker foes or trying to win against tougher teams to get the competitive juices flowing after the winter. I rather win in the preseason tourney much like NCAA teams loading up cupcakes early in Basketball. Also, if you combine the gotsoccer / youth rankings site and let it play out and compare results, you'll get a good sense of where your team stands vs everyone else. Not much to worry about other than seeing good skill, lineup experimentation, and things to improve on. maybe the St louis tourney feels more important in the late fall.
Youth Soccer is way closer then GotSoccer IMO. None of these sites are accurate however but the data matrix for YSR takes account of a lot more then GS.
Right bracket looks a hell of a lot easier then the left. A parent asked me what I think and I said we had better learn to get in the heads of our opponents because it's not going to be easy!
Are those State Cup teams playing under aliases? Perhaps, LG Celtic First XI is really the ECNL team is disguise Also, what is up the FCU have 3 teams in girls u13? Their third team, really? Did they get at group discount? Is that because numbers are down and/or big clubs are growing at the expense of smaller clubs. If you look at IWSL ages U09 to U12 (pre ECNL and DA) for Springs 2019, 14, and 09, the numbers of participating teams are down about 10% drop in last 5 years. Significant but not catastrophic. So, why such disinterest from other clubs? Spring U9 U10 U11 U12 Total 2009 17 18 17 16 68 2014 14 19 20 17 70 2019 12 17 18 17 64
That team is very strong. Would probably beat any eclipse team in the age group. I am sure FCU has state cup as a selling point for certain levels.
Not picking on them, just poking some fun after Volkstradamus. ...and that was the dumbest name in the tournament..
Was told Eclipse are in it to win it. Yeah you can tell the numbers are down across the board. USYouth needs to fix their shit - nod add more national tourney options to bring in more $$$.
https://www.soccernation.com/hello-goodbye-why-crossfire-premier-is-leaving-the-girls-da/ Short article. 'Tis the season for stronger clubs to start announcing their decision to dump GDA.
Warms the heart. DA is just a conveyor belt for standardized play/players that limits creativity which IMO is the core of the game. It's what sets it apart from other team sports. But honesty, we all know that all these girls who go on to play high school are told "Your spot is not gauranteed" when you come back. Which is really fine IMO because if a player is dedicated enough to stay in club during h/s season, they certainly deserve a front row seat.
Why? If the DA goes away on the girls side then there will be one top level club in the Chicago area. No way Eclipse will allow Sockers back or FCU into ECNL. The boys DA has greatly improved the quality of players in the US. Soon almost all the national team players will be products of the academy. Look at the success McKinnie and Adams are having in Germany. Locally Djordje has broken into the national team and the starting lineup for the Fire. I get it that you did not have the experience at Sockers that you expected but their track record is hard to argue with both developing and winning. Plenty of their alums are playing professionally and are creative players. Did you watch Mike Magee or Muelleron Orlando? Pretty creative players. The Richardson girl just got named to the national team so clearly she is sticking out.
Firstly, I highly doubt the GDA will go away. What they need to do is stop being so arrogant and recognize that all the top players are not going to give up High School. If this helps them make adjustments to the program overall, then that's good. I believe they will. if they don't, are they then really a good business at all? This is how business competition works no? ECNL for example needs to reduce the costs for parents - outlined in the article. So neither are perfect.The goal would be for both to make adjustments to better suit the players. My percention does not hail from my experience at Sockers. Winning... lets not ignore the biggest factor here which is reputation. Sockers on the boys side and Eclipse on the girls side have an incredible reputation for producing players. So as a result, the best players flock there. However for the most part, they are a finishing school that promotes the USSF style of play through the DA. Player development on an individual level is based on player pool primarily. The best players get opportunities while the rest get to pay allocations for meaningless tournaments where they are beat often by smaller clubs. It's a numbers game.
So what are the details of the DA style of play and how is USSF limiting creativity in players? USSF DA emphasizing playing out of the back and playing through the middle. They are not giving detail play by play instructions to clubs saying 'on every goal kick The one must pass to the four who must pass to the eight" They are not instructing clubs/coaches that "no player can dribble". Personally I see no issue with a guideline emphasizing building from the back and even then they are not telling clubs "you must always and only play out back" it is just an emphasis.
I don't mind playing out of the back - it's a good tactic when called for. But 10 years at our DA club I can assure you that the drills my kids participated worked to only support that style. I remember in 2017 when we were stuffed by FCU 5-0. They're play was exceptionally faster. They had more awareness of the field and their one touch game was far better. They are able to jam the ball downfield without needing to use their backfield. For us - it is what we fell back on - regardless of our opponent. IMO when you rely to heavily on that style, players do not get a well rounded experience of the game. That is something I see now because we are at a different club who trains completely different and has a more individual approach. Both are right but it requires a healthy balance. Like I said (IMO) back field play should not be a core but something used when needed.
Playing out of the back requires high level CB/DM who can stretch the field. Most kids at this age don't have that ability (u13 under). So games rely on direct style of play. Playing out of the back actually improves creativity because play is more about possession and triangles which allow for one touch passing, quick runs and box to box movement. Some of your more creative players are now in midfield as a result. The US womens game has for years relied on a direct approach with huge forwards playing up front with amazing aerial ability. Unfortunately, the rest of the world has caught up and teams like England are organized and playing possession games. Someone like a lindsay horan would be wasted wasted in a direct approach as would a tobin heath. They possess, create, attack and still work 1v1 situations. At youth level, teaching possession and triangle/box to box movement is a slow process and requires exceptional backline play with high IQ players. You can then mask some athletic but unskilled forwards and hope your midfield is defensively aware and can create passing lanes/shots. I would hate to be part of a team that plays a direct approach at this age. It stifles their progress later and it's a different game than "what works" in the NCAA. Of course, most colleges are OK with that style and look for players that are rugged and can play multiple positions. It doesn't mean those players are better or more skilled.
Agreed - bit of both is perfect, which is my overall argument when it comes to producing well rounded players. That said (IMO) I do not think either should be a core style. Kids need to know both and when to - for example, open the field up by playing the back field.
I am on board with Regista. In order to play both styles you need to spend a disproportionate amount of time at younger ages practicing playing out of the back and sometimes getting trounced by athletic teams. If you do not put in this time at young ages you will only be able to play 'send it' to the fast forwards as the team gets older. Without working through this at the young ages you will not be able to balance and "play whats available".
Indeed after getting plowed in MRL Prem, our team is moving more towards a back field style but only when they see a need to open the field up or out of options. For our team it does not seem to be much of a learning curve. In the end its a concept that requires repetitiveness. We scrimmage every Saturday and play friendlies where this is encouraged. But I do not necessarily think it needs to be disproportionate. What I see as a result in our old 06/05/07 teams was 60% of players not knowing how to deal with a fast paced and physical game. Even at the u14 and u15 age. They are not able to keep up and parents get frustrated - sometimes players do as well because there has not been sufficient time on individual development (In may/their cases). Some leave and some quit. So maybe everyone else is wrong or does not understand?
i can agree with most of whats said here on both sides. We went to soccers because of the posessin style and defending, compared to our community club. I certainly understand the posession game takes time and patience and I think accuracy. But at u15 I still dont see coaches putting it all together for these boys to get it in the final third and our kids have difficulty with teams that play counter attack ball IMO Sockers success based on reputation. A reputation that continues to attract better players to the DA squads. After a year and a half I see no effort to build up players already in the club, including the best PA1 guys. Development is taking good players that you identify as having potential, and making them great players. I appreciate being able to read posts from you all who have been in this for many years. Thx .
I think the general issue with possession heavy teams is they are full of highly adept foot skill players (futsal). So possibly adequate 1v1, good dribbling, and decent trapping ability. the struggle i see is simply awareness, movement, spacing, and passing. That's coaching. Moving into the final third is much more difficult when you can't see the final run in the box, and can't pass fast enough because mentally things are slow at a younger age. But it catches up at some point if learned. It's painful to watch at times. Great quick, creative passers are rare, it can't be taught! Hence teams stack fast forwards and play long ball early ages. Because it's easier. What then happens is speed is negated by smart and fast defenders at some point and smarter players learn to offside trap. The most dangerous teams and I have not witnessed it at u12, are the ones capable of possession, quick hitting runs and accurate and creative passing. The one who do this and and counter with long balls after a mistake by the opponent are truly rare. So on counters it's a time when a direct approach reaps awards and yes should be taught. I think in general the issue falls back on the club to develop a style early and teach technique/tactics beyond foot skills. I simply think in general only a few players are capable of putting it all together so a great coach will know the strengths of the player and maximize in a possession style. It's the best way to play and the 5'11 Wambachs of the world are rare so why not play to the strengths of your kid. Asking the coach for feedback / strengths/weaknesses and where you see your kid play in the future is telling.