GDA Year in Review

[Unregistered]

I'll only comment on my behalf. I'm trying to keep this anon but I'm sure someone if they really want can figure it out.... oh well, nothing I will say I haven't said in person.

I will again reiterate this is our experience only. I know there are wildly different opinions out there so feel free to comment with your first-hand experiences as well. I think it's important to get all sides so everyone can make their own decisions based on the most available information out there. With that being said...

Pros:

* Training was fantastic. While I understand the GDA coaches are long-timers, I only had a little experience with CS previously (which was positive). This year was beyond expectations. I've come across several coaches over the years, and there's maybe 2 that have really stood out for me. Ours topped that. Honest, great communicator, will be positive but will also be negative if necessary. Feedback from USSoccer, the regimen, and also the support provided by the medical staff was excellent. Training sessions included weight/fitness along with some futsal for touches which supplemented typical outdoor trainings. Hugely impressed.

* Team quality. Pretty good, not great. A little thin in some places, which is to be expected. Got much better for the most part over the year (i.e. most improved a lot, some a little, some not at all). We were difficult to play against. Overheard one comment from a parent on another team - "This is the best defensive team we've played all year".

* Game competitiveness. Quite good. A few bumps, a few blowouts, but about 75% of our games were ties or one-goal games. The blow-out losses were all ties/one-goal affairs in the second half (see note about thin roster above). This is an improvement over previous years where too many games were just long travel against poor competition.

* Results. Good. About a .500 team which probably should've been higher. Some early learnings cost a game or two, and again some of the lack of resources cost a little as well. But, no complaints as mistakes happen and the effort was there from everyone. Kids will, and did, learn and it got much better as the year went along.

* Gameday experience: Good. Refs were almost always very good, conditions were good, "professional" atmosphere, etc.



Cons:

* Roster depth. Mentioned above, but the reality is SUSC can't compete with some other clubs in MA. Mid-year additions helped, and so will additions for next year. But, there won't be 400 kids showing up for 20 spots, that's the reality of where we are.

* Travel. Can't deny that the multiple trips to NJ/NY were a drag. Would prefer a combined effort between ECNL/GDA within New England, but that won't happen. We worked it out best we could, but not easy to spin this as anything but a negative.

Mixed

* DA "Philosophy". Specifically, subbing/rostering. I'll drift from my original comment about keeping this my own opinion here. Because, my kid wasn't directly affected very often and played all (or virtually all) of every game. But, I also saw some kids not getting enough time and I can totally understand if they were disenfranchised. It's a competitive environment and everything needs to be earned. That's a change for all of us, and not everyone is cut out for it. I would say for some who maybe aren't happy, to look internally to see what they could've done differently...

* Costs. Also a mixed bag. My costs actually went down from previous years. By eliminating extra training (specifically futsal and some camps), and tournaments, there was quite a bit of savings. That was offset with the added travel for the NY/NJ games and the showcases. Showcases are optional for parents, so keep that in mind you don't need to go vs. in other leagues where it was pretty much a requirement (unless you send your kid along with someone else). We went to two, using points for one which we likely couldn't do next year. But, not sure if we will go again...two trips to Colorado over the past year is enough for me. So, this could go up or down depending on each individual's decision.

* Missed school. Had a few days missed that weren't present in other years. Grades didn't suffer and her teachers were very understanding. But, it did mean some pre-work and post-work to catch up which takes away from down- or free-time. I guess it's no different than families taking their kids out for a vacation, but it's something I've never done so it took some acceptance on my part.


OK, now for everyone's favorite topic...HS. Well, we were younger so there was no effect...yet. It's my understanding almost everyone is coming back for next year. I doubt that will be the case as it progresses through HS as the draw is there. For now, we'll take it Y2Y as though my D is adamant she doesn't want to play (and her HS is very good) the coach has put a lot of pressure on her. She may succumb later on. We'll see.

I personally look at the HS as a "nice to have" not a "have to have". Speaking for her, she does enough around the school that she gets enough of the social activity without needing it through the game. She likes that she has her school friends and her club friends...a few of which as close if not closer to her school friends. Again, that may change.



Sorry for the long-winded detail. Tried to be forthright with our experiences and, again, acknowledge someone, maybe even a teammate, will post a wildly different review.

[Unregistered]

I'll only comment on my behalf. I'm trying to keep this anon but I'm sure someone if they really want can figure it out.... oh well, nothing I will say I haven't said in person.

I will again reiterate this is our experience only. I know there are wildly different opinions out there so feel free to comment with your first-hand experiences as well. I think it's important to get all sides so everyone can make their own decisions based on the most available information out there. With that being said...

Pros:

* Training was fantastic. While I understand the GDA coaches are long-timers, I only had a little experience with CS previously (which was positive). This year was beyond expectations. I've come across several coaches over the years, and there's maybe 2 that have really stood out for me. Ours topped that. Honest, great communicator, will be positive but will also be negative if necessary. Feedback from USSoccer, the regimen, and also the support provided by the medical staff was excellent. Training sessions included weight/fitness along with some futsal for touches which supplemented typical outdoor trainings. Hugely impressed.

* Team quality. Pretty good, not great. A little thin in some places, which is to be expected. Got much better for the most part over the year (i.e. most improved a lot, some a little, some not at all). We were difficult to play against. Overheard one comment from a parent on another team - "This is the best defensive team we've played all year".

* Game competitiveness. Quite good. A few bumps, a few blowouts, but about 75% of our games were ties or one-goal games. The blow-out losses were all ties/one-goal affairs in the second half (see note about thin roster above). This is an improvement over previous years where too many games were just long travel against poor competition.

* Results. Good. About a .500 team which probably should've been higher. Some early learnings cost a game or two, and again some of the lack of resources cost a little as well. But, no complaints as mistakes happen and the effort was there from everyone. Kids will, and did, learn and it got much better as the year went along.

* Gameday experience: Good. Refs were almost always very good, conditions were good, "professional" atmosphere, etc.



Cons:

* Roster depth. Mentioned above, but the reality is SUSC can't compete with some other clubs in MA. Mid-year additions helped, and so will additions for next year. But, there won't be 400 kids showing up for 20 spots, that's the reality of where we are.

* Travel. Can't deny that the multiple trips to NJ/NY were a drag. Would prefer a combined effort between ECNL/GDA within New England, but that won't happen. We worked it out best we could, but not easy to spin this as anything but a negative.

Mixed

* DA "Philosophy". Specifically, subbing/rostering. I'll drift from my original comment about keeping this my own opinion here. Because, my kid wasn't directly affected very often and played all (or virtually all) of every game. But, I also saw some kids not getting enough time and I can totally understand if they were disenfranchised. It's a competitive environment and everything needs to be earned. That's a change for all of us, and not everyone is cut out for it. I would say for some who maybe aren't happy, to look internally to see what they could've done differently...

* Costs. Also a mixed bag. My costs actually went down from previous years. By eliminating extra training (specifically futsal and some camps), and tournaments, there was quite a bit of savings. That was offset with the added travel for the NY/NJ games and the showcases. Showcases are optional for parents, so keep that in mind you don't need to go vs. in other leagues where it was pretty much a requirement (unless you send your kid along with someone else). We went to two, using points for one which we likely couldn't do next year. But, not sure if we will go again...two trips to Colorado over the past year is enough for me. So, this could go up or down depending on each individual's decision.

* Missed school. Had a few days missed that weren't present in other years. Grades didn't suffer and her teachers were very understanding. But, it did mean some pre-work and post-work to catch up which takes away from down- or free-time. I guess it's no different than families taking their kids out for a vacation, but it's something I've never done so it took some acceptance on my part.


OK, now for everyone's favorite topic...HS. Well, we were younger so there was no effect...yet. It's my understanding almost everyone is coming back for next year. I doubt that will be the case as it progresses through HS as the draw is there. For now, we'll take it Y2Y as though my D is adamant she doesn't want to play (and her HS is very good) the coach has put a lot of pressure on her. She may succumb later on. We'll see.

I personally look at the HS as a "nice to have" not a "have to have". Speaking for her, she does enough around the school that she gets enough of the social activity without needing it through the game. She likes that she has her school friends and her club friends...a few of which as close if not closer to her school friends. Again, that may change.



Sorry for the long-winded detail. Tried to be forthright with our experiences and, again, acknowledge someone, maybe even a teammate, will post a wildly different review.

Good post. I am sure the Pro ECNL or Anti DA folks will chime in with negativity. I have heard first hand from a good friend whos Daughter plays DA in NJ and he says almost exactly the same as you. Overall he was very happy with his experience with DA. Its funny how many times people only post negative things about DA and never even had their kid play in DA

[Unregistered]

It's my understanding almost everyone is coming back for next year.

Just on this point, assuming your daughter is on the U15 team, next year the GDA age range will be U16/17 so there will be 18 current 2004 players and 13 2003 players vying for ~22 spots (excluding any new girls) so it would be a surprise if 'almost everyone' from the U15 team is still playing GDA next year.

On the game competitiveness and results, what games are you including in your figures? For U15 I see a league season overall of 9-17-3 which is a 0.310 season, and only 11 of the 29 games were "tied or one-goal games" - which is 38%, not 75%.

Also, using those numbers as a comparison, how did these 2004 girls do in the NEP in Fall 2017 and Spring 2018? Let's take a look...

Overall record 9-3-2 (0.643), games "tied or one-goal games" 36%

So the team has gone from being a top-half NPL team to a bottom half GDA team, with 'competitive games' remaining consistent.

[Unregistered]

Just on this point, assuming your daughter is on the U15 team, next year the GDA age range will be U16/17 so there will be 18 current 2004 players and 13 2003 players vying for ~22 spots (excluding any new girls) so it would be a surprise if 'almost everyone' from the U15 team is still playing GDA next year.

On the game competitiveness and results, what games are you including in your figures? For U15 I see a league season overall of 9-17-3 which is a 0.310 season, and only 11 of the 29 games were "tied or one-goal games" - which is 38%, not 75%.

Also, using those numbers as a comparison, how did these 2004 girls do in the NEP in Fall 2017 and Spring 2018? Let's take a look...

Overall record 9-3-2 (0.643), games "tied or one-goal games" 36%

So the team has gone from being a top-half NPL team to a bottom half GDA team, with 'competitive games' remaining consistent.

Well, your original assumption is incorrect, so the rest of the post is incorrect as well.

[Unregistered]

Just on this point, assuming your daughter is on the U15 team, next year the GDA age range will be U16/17 so there will be 18 current 2004 players and 13 2003 players vying for ~22 spots (excluding any new girls) so it would be a surprise if 'almost everyone' from the U15 team is still playing GDA next year.

On the game competitiveness and results, what games are you including in your figures? For U15 I see a league season overall of 9-17-3 which is a 0.310 season, and only 11 of the 29 games were "tied or one-goal games" - which is 38%, not 75%.

Also, using those numbers as a comparison, how did these 2004 girls do in the NEP in Fall 2017 and Spring 2018? Let's take a look...

Overall record 9-3-2 (0.643), games "tied or one-goal games" 36%

So the team has gone from being a top-half NPL team to a bottom half GDA team, with 'competitive games' remaining consistent.

DA changes next year to have U16 and a U17 teams. No more combined

[Unregistered]

Well, your original assumption is incorrect, so the rest of the post is incorrect as well.

Quite right, U16/17 Girls were 7-20-1 (0.250) with 32% of games tied or within 1 goal so the figures above were a little high.

[Unregistered]

Quite right, U16/17 Girls were 7-20-1 (0.250) with 32% of games tied or within 1 goal so the figures above were a little high.

I think OP has a kid on the U14 (2005s) but it doesn't really matter. At the end of the day, I think the fact is that these teams could have stayed in NPL, but they didn't. They're in GDA and while they aren't killing it across the board, they're also not embarrassing themselves. They chose it, so be it. And I don't think any Northeast teams kill it, on the national level, so whatever.

OP, thanks for sharing your experience. Sounds like GDA is a good fit for your family. Two thoughts I had were about playing time and HS. About playing time, I'm a big proponent of earning it, especially on school teams. I think things get a little dicey when families are paying thousands of dollars and spending hours traveling to games. I think the argument could be made that the club should not have taken the money if they weren't going to play the kids. On a school or town team with much less investment, I have no issue with kids sitting on the bench
At this level of time and money, I can at least understand the disappointment. But as long as it was explained how it works going in, then that lies on the parents.

As for HS, it sounds like your D truly doesn't care, so it's a non-issue. My concern is that a LOT of girls do want to play HS and by forcing them to chose, you never going to get all of the top talent. You talk about the bench not being deep. The HS rule only hurts that situation. No, we're not going to get 400 players up here at tryouts but allowing HS would be a step in the right direction to building depth. I know there's no easy answer. I'm just thinking of a very excellent player I know on a MA NPL team who lives in NH. She won't come play GDA at SUSC because of the HS rule and she won't play NPL here because her current team is better. The HS rule doesnt matter to you directly and it is a non-issue in other parts of the country, but up here where depth is lacking, it hurts.

Anyway thanks for sharing. Good feedback.

[Unregistered]

I think OP has a kid on the U14 (2005s) but it doesn't really matter. At the end of the day, I think the fact is that these teams could have stayed in NPL, but they didn't. They're in GDA and while they aren't killing it across the board, they're also not embarrassing themselves. They chose it, so be it. And I don't think any Northeast teams kill it, on the national level, so whatever.

OP, thanks for sharing your experience. Sounds like GDA is a good fit for your family. Two thoughts I had were about playing time and HS. About playing time, I'm a big proponent of earning it, especially on school teams. I think things get a little dicey when families are paying thousands of dollars and spending hours traveling to games. I think the argument could be made that the club should not have taken the money if they weren't going to play the kids. On a school or town team with much less investment, I have no issue with kids sitting on the bench
At this level of time and money, I can at least understand the disappointment. But as long as it was explained how it works going in, then that lies on the parents.

As for HS, it sounds like your D truly doesn't care, so it's a non-issue. My concern is that a LOT of girls do want to play HS and by forcing them to chose, you never going to get all of the top talent. You talk about the bench not being deep. The HS rule only hurts that situation. No, we're not going to get 400 players up here at tryouts but allowing HS would be a step in the right direction to building depth. I know there's no easy answer. I'm just thinking of a very excellent player I know on a MA NPL team who lives in NH. She won't come play GDA at SUSC because of the HS rule and she won't play NPL here because her current team is better. The HS rule doesnt matter to you directly and it is a non-issue in other parts of the country, but up here where depth is lacking, it hurts.

Anyway thanks for sharing. Good feedback.

Good points. I'll say I don't think USSF cares if they don't get some players who want to play HS (just my opinion). The program and structure doesn't, and shouldn't, allow it. They firmly believe in control of the development, and outside influences "soil" the data and prevents them from implementing changes. Meaning...if they believe you need to practice 4x a week with a single game on a weekend, using their methodology, they can chart the impact and improvements, if any. Players playing in other leagues and other coaches and for schools, etc. prevents that clear data result.

Is it hogwash? Quite possibly. But, it takes a normal scientific approach on something so I do get it.

Should a parent be more concerned with their own kid's happiness then how this program will change (for the better?) 5 years down the road when they are off to college? Doubtful.

There was an organizational change recently within USSF and prior to that I believed they would relent on the HS issue. Instead, they seemed to double-down on it. So I really don't see it changing. As long as they are getting the players they want into the NT pipeline, and colleges continue to show up by the hundreds to showcases, I think they are willing to accept it. It's a realization they won't get 100% of the top players. No single league will anyway. From my experience, I'd say in our age group we have probably over half of the "best" players from the state. Is that enough? Not sure it matters. Personally, I'd love it but know that's not reality. In talking to several coaches over the last year, they are looking at ECNL & GDA players equally. They will look at any other player if presented from anywhere. These two leagues just provide you with a better chance at visibility, that's it.



On the PT issue, there's always different sides to a story. I felt that they were upfront that time would be earned. Not sure how well that message got across to everyone as often people hear what they want to hear. I know the same issue exists in ECNL/NPL as I've had conversations about it with some parents. But, this is a crapload of money to spend to not play.

For some kids on the team, I feel for them as they could be good players, but can only play one position and they happen to not be the best at that position. So, they try to find a spot for them. That's just a bad break. For others, I don't understand why they don't play more, but what the hell do I know. But, there's also a group who miss practice often, haven't followed the program, and are left behind. Those need to look internally for the reasons.

We were constantly bringing in players over the course of they year. Some parents would gripe about it, however I always felt it was an off-base complaint. You want the team to get better, to win, but "goddammit not at the expense of my kid's minutes."


As stated in my original post, any opinions are my own and I'm quite sure my view of what I consider reality is wrong at times.

[Unregistered]

Good points. I'll say I don't think USSF cares if they don't get some players who want to play HS (just my opinion). The program and structure doesn't, and shouldn't, allow it. They firmly believe in control of the development, and outside influences "soil" the data and prevents them from implementing changes. Meaning...if they believe you need to practice 4x a week with a single game on a weekend, using their methodology, they can chart the impact and improvements, if any. Players playing in other leagues and other coaches and for schools, etc. prevents that clear data result.

Is it hogwash? Quite possibly. But, it takes a normal scientific approach on something so I do get it.

Should a parent be more concerned with their own kid's happiness then how this program will change (for the better?) 5 years down the road when they are off to college? Doubtful.

There was an organizational change recently within USSF and prior to that I believed they would relent on the HS issue. Instead, they seemed to double-down on it. So I really don't see it changing. As long as they are getting the players they want into the NT pipeline, and colleges continue to show up by the hundreds to showcases, I think they are willing to accept it. It's a realization they won't get 100% of the top players. No single league will anyway. From my experience, I'd say in our age group we have probably over half of the "best" players from the state. Is that enough? Not sure it matters. Personally, I'd love it but know that's not reality. In talking to several coaches over the last year, they are looking at ECNL & GDA players equally. They will look at any other player if presented from anywhere. These two leagues just provide you with a better chance at visibility, that's it.



On the PT issue, there's always different sides to a story. I felt that they were upfront that time would be earned. Not sure how well that message got across to everyone as often people hear what they want to hear. I know the same issue exists in ECNL/NPL as I've had conversations about it with some parents. But, this is a crapload of money to spend to not play.

For some kids on the team, I feel for them as they could be good players, but can only play one position and they happen to not be the best at that position. So, they try to find a spot for them. That's just a bad break. For others, I don't understand why they don't play more, but what the hell do I know. But, there's also a group who miss practice often, haven't followed the program, and are left behind. Those need to look internally for the reasons.

We were constantly bringing in players over the course of they year. Some parents would gripe about it, however I always felt it was an off-base complaint. You want the team to get better, to win, but "goddammit not at the expense of my kid's minutes."


As stated in my original post, any opinions are my own and I'm quite sure my view of what I consider reality is wrong at times.

I agree with you that the HS issue probably won't change and you're probably right - it really doesn't matter. They have a large talent pool for the NT so be it. It doesn't fit in with their model and that's the choice they made. As a parent and fan of the game, I would love it if there was a way to attract as many players possibly to one league, but as long as overall GDA is doing okay, there is no reason to change it. I prefer the ECNL model personally but I'm also too lazy to drive to those practices in MA so not an option.

Anyway, good feedback. We've chosen the NPL route as my D isn't a NT contender and will more than likely be going to a D3 school for academic reasons (hopefully playing soccer for the love of the game but that's her decision), so the pull wasn't strong enough for her to give up HS (where she gets to play with all the friends she used to play with before moving to club soccer). She's happy so I'm happy but I do like hearing how GDA is going! Wishing you all another successful year.

[Unregistered]

She's happy so I'm happy but I do like hearing how GDA is going! Wishing you all another successful year.

And you as well. One thing I know about the game is there is a place to play for everyone. As long as you (they) play and foster the love of the game, that is what the game needs.

I won't discredit anyone's choices; play your game and just enjoy the hell out of it. Good luck to yours as well.

[Unregistered]

I enjoy reading threads from NH. Polite and insightful. Good job, parents!

[Unregistered]

Playing time in pay to play

This is the best GDA thread this board has seen -

As far as playing time. In club - no matter the level of club play - you are a pay to play system. You can’t retain players who are not playing when mom and dad are shelling out thousands in fees, travel, and required showcase / clinics. You just won’t retain players who don’t play.

If I had a son or daughter only being rostered for 8 games and I payed just as much as the next guy, I’m not coming back.

Now at GDA level, this is by tryout only and is selected by the top coaches in the club. So if a kid only plays in 8 games, then this happened: the player didn’t belong on DA in the first place and the evaluation was poor. You can’t use earned playing time when you have pay to play. It’s unsustainable as a model because you are alienating those families but cashing their checks all the while. You have to play kids and roster them with consistency.

[Unregistered]

This is the best GDA thread this board has seen -

As far as playing time. In club - no matter the level of club play - you are a pay to play system. You can’t retain players who are not playing when mom and dad are shelling out thousands in fees, travel, and required showcase / clinics. You just won’t retain players who don’t play.

If I had a son or daughter only being rostered for 8 games and I payed just as much as the next guy, I’m not coming back.

Now at GDA level, this is by tryout only and is selected by the top coaches in the club. So if a kid only plays in 8 games, then this happened: the player didn’t belong on DA in the first place and the evaluation was poor. You can’t use earned playing time when you have pay to play. It’s unsustainable as a model because you are alienating those families but cashing their checks all the while. You have to play kids and roster them with consistency.

It isn't always easy to fully evaluate players prior to offers. Even where it's well done it's only for that moment in time. A coach can't really predict how a player will or won't step up to additional challenges they will face in a tougher league, fighting for playing time etc. Parents play a role as well. In DA or with any team really, you want to make sure (as best you can) your kid will be a consistent starter or first off the bench sub. If you're not confident of that then you're probably setting your kid up for disappointment. It matters even more in DA where PT can be even more restricted. Not playing is a sure fire way to suck the love of the game out of a kid.

[Unregistered]

One thing I’ll note is PT seemed to fluctuate and as the season went along it dropped for some and rose for others. For some players, as attendance dropped (especially over the winter but also in the Spring) PT dropped. That’s probably easier to justify-i.e. you get out of it what you out into it. Not the case for all though. Having positional flexibility is key.

Some players put in the effort and improved and it became more difficult to take them off the field. So minutes need to drop for someone else.

If the expectations were clear-should be no complaints. Still it’s a lot of $$ to be in that position. It’s a complaint on every team we’ve ever been on, valid or not

[Unregistered]

From the business side, every club wants 18 players on the roster. The coaches expect 14 players to get the most time and the other 4 are fillers. Just the way it works and the parents of the 4 fillers think their kid is a stud just for making a DA team.