Rockford’s GK was injured during that game. I think they played most of it with a field player in goal. That team has a lot of girls out with injuries. 08 Hawks are a really good team. Even without the injury situation, Hawks likely win that game - just not nearly as lopsided.
That gk being out would absolutely cause that game to be lopsided. She's very good. Score makes a lot more sense now.
That'll make for an uneven game. Does Rockford only have 1 GK on the roster? I don't know if it is feasible, I am not a coach, but if that was my roster I would have the most competent girl on the team prepped as an emergency back-up, even have her do some specific training or spend part of each practice in goal. I mean it's an ECNL roster they really should have two goalies.
It should be noted as well that the 08 Michigan Hawks team as of now has 11 college commits and 9 of the 11 are D1. Eclipse has their weekend with Nationals last weekend. 7s and 8s lost. 09s and 10s won.
08 MI Hawks were a ECNL National champion either last year or the year before. Previous classes were just as impressive with D1 offers. It’s a really good club.
Bringing two keepers to every away game is asking a lot of parents. Even if you split Completely agree. On the right day the Hawks are capable of putting a smack down on any of the IL 08's.
Agreed. One of my kids is a GK for a "local" league on East Coast. She had to split games with another GK. It was not ideal for us, but doable. Not too different if she was a field player coming off a bench for part of a game. We also understood that it's for the benefit of the team to have two keepers who can play. However, if she was in NL and we had to travel across multiple states, we would likely move clubs. One other thing to add though, GK is a specialist and even more so than for field players it's important to stay in the "flow" of the game. It's hard to come in for the second half only, that's why mine always preferred to start when she needed to split time. I think ideally, team should have a primary keeper and a backup that trains a little and occasionally plays in less competitive games as a GK and a field player in more important games.
Hasn't been much discussion on this site about the possible birth year --> school year switch for next season; there has been some news. Rumors have flown for months, but a letter just came out today from US Club Soccer, US Youth Soccer, and AYSO about US Soccer's impending decision:
I believe that this change to school year will add more confusion and chaos this upcoming tryout season. I’m sure some parents/players won’t want to change, while others may welcome the opportunity. I’ve heard second hand a well know elite club not in IL has told members when this happens they are moving strictly to this new policy. Personally, I think that this is probably the best way, but I’m sure not all clubs are deep enough in talent or confident enough to draw a firm line. It will be interesting.
I agree. Once it becomes reality (assuming the vote is positive), then I think that anyone wishing or hoping that teams will stay the same and not shift to the new cut-offs, and instead let Aug --> Dec kids play up a year just because they always have, is going to be disappointed. Of course they are going to the new cut-off sooner rather than later, and of course everyone's spot may be at risk as kids shift to the new teams that they are now eligible for.
Hate it for personal reasons while I understand both sides of it. My kids team has four trapped girls on her team. Two of them she's been with for 4 years. So that will not be easy. I'm sure they will just play up though, so I'm actually not too concerned with it.
My DS is against it, but he's like me and hates change. I'm actually for it at this point, though not strongly. DS is in 8th and going to 9th grade next year. He has a couple of 7th graders on the team. In early fall, when the high school season is in session, the then 8th graders will be in a bit of a limbo while the 9th graders are in their school seasons. In contrast, though, I think that birth year simply is easier from a regulatory standpoint.
My only one left in club soccer is a Sept birthday, so has always been one of the youngest on the team. Now he'd be eligible to be one of the oldest on the currently 1 year younger team. Or he could try and stay with same team, and be over a year younger than the older kids on that team. Regardless of one's feelings on the issue, mathematically it pretty much just switches the age advantage to the other half of the year. For seven seasons now, Aug to Dec babies have been the youngest on each team, Dec being youngest. Now, Feb to July babies are the youngest on each team, July being youngest. It isn't hard to understand why some people are naturally for this change, while others are staunchly against, even if they haven't thought it fully through yet. Of course people can try to continue to have their kids play up a year, but it's not sustainable for most - as if it were it means that the club itself is pretty weak with no eligible kids to play on the team from the currently older team.
Just speaking on my kids team. We have four kids who could potentially go down. But we only gain 1 from he older girls. Also the team under us only loses two. So my daughter's team will need to find 3 to fill out her roster, while the team younger will need to cut 2 because their roster is full now. So who knows. If they were all younger I would be more pissed, but next year they will be u17, and only have two seasons left. Which is more reason to have those specific girls ride it out with us. We'll see. Also not 100% sure this passes. U.S. soccer doesn't really have a huge need to change it. We'll know soon enough here.
I disagree. For those young players who have had to play up - they will now have a better path forward because they will be more physically and mentally suited.
As the parent of a multi sport July 2015 kid it's been nice to play birth year because soccer is the only sport where he isn't the youngest kid on the team. Anyone have any insight on how this change will effect the header rules? If the change isn't adopted his older classmates (currently playing 11U) can header next year, but he's still a year away. Will "5th graders" be able to head the ball, or nothing until "6th grade"?
Like any transition, there are both advantages and disadvantages. The change at young ages (U12 & below) will in my opinion be more significant than U13 and above. At most ECNL & GA clubs, the upper 40% or 50% of a team's roster in my opinion probably remains largely unaffected. Those kids could likely already play up a year and still be impact players. Clubs won’t admit it, because they like to handpick one or two players who “play up”, but based on what I’ve seen, many kids could do the exact same. Therefore if a few trapped players show up, I doubt it changes too much for the top players. Lower sections of rosters could certainly be impacted, but many of those players were likely already year-to-year anyway.
I still think that is speculative. While it may even be true that 40 - 50% of the roster *could* play up, it doesn't mean that's what's going to happen, or even what may be best for them. Keep in mind the same percentages apply to the team one year up, as well as one year down. If 5/12ths of the team by birthday is eligible to either move down to the next lower age, or continue to play more than a year younger than older peers - it's certainly possible, or even likely, that there will be significant shifts.
I expect the majority of a club's top team for each birth year is Jan-Aug birthdays. Later in the year birthdays that are on that team already either are solid enough to stay or they drop down and have a bigger role on the younger team. I think clubs will give more leeway to parent/kid preferences for the 2nd, 3rd, etc. teams. I think the most interesting cases are going to be when an older age top team is average for their year and the younger age top team is really good for their year. Those late year birthdays may have the ability to stay with their existing team, but choose to drop down (or get forced down by the club) for the greater glory.
This is an assumption that probably isn't true. There is certainly a preference over large numbers to make early year birthdays more prevalent than later year birthdays - but it's not as strong as people might assume. If you go through player by player on the top team, it may not work out so 5/12ths of them are now eligible (born Aug 1 or later), but it's not likely going to be 1/12th or 2/12th. Sure - some teams might be almost entirely early birthdays - but that's the exception more than the rule.
I agree. The Jan to Jul argument in my opinion focuses more on kids having a likely physical advantage in terms of growth, but likely doesn’t account for kids that may be born a bit later but have just flat out trained more. I know number of September/ October players just technically better than January and March players. Even if they be marginally bigger, it doesn’t translate on the field or at least it hasn’t yet.