Let's Do it! Stars vs NEFC vs Everyone Else

[Unregistered]

The real problem is egos of the clubs not workig togehter at U15 and older and puting the best players in the state in positions to showcase their talents. Until then it is to much about clubs rather than about players. Forget about the team accomplishments and start thinking about the player accomplishments. College and NT coaches want players not teams. The team is the vehicle to get the player notice but when a coach comes to scout a player they look at 5 things. Does the player have the technical skill I am looking for at that position, does the player communicate verbally and non-verbally on and off the field in a positive manner (leader), does the player move well on and off the ball, does the player have the position specific skills I need and finally does this player impact the team when on or off the field. They do not care about the team winning a national championship, they care if the player they are recruiting is a good fit for their team.

One of the most accurate and concise statements written here in a while.

The bottom line is the pay to play club model doesn't actually benefit the individual players at all so all of this inter-club bs ends up to be really just marketing hype to "hook" the naïve masses.

[Unregistered]

The real problem is egos of the clubs not working together at U15 and older and putting the best players in the state in positions to showcase their talents. Until then it is to much about clubs rather than about players. Forget about the team accomplishments and start thinking about the player accomplishments. College and NT coaches want players not teams. The team is the vehicle to get the player notice but when a coach comes to scout a player they look at 5 things. Does the player have the technical skill I am looking for at that position, does the player communicate verbally and non-verbally on and off the field in a positive manner (leader), does the player move well on and off the ball, does the player have the position specific skills I need and finally does this player impact the team when on or off the field. They do not care about the team winning a national championship, they care if the player they are recruiting is a good fit for their team.

You sound like you know what you are talking about, so perhaps you will indulge a question. How does a player with the 5 tools you identify appear in the best possible light if there are elements of the team that are not up to snuff? Some of the traits you point to (movement, individual skills, positive attitude) are not so much dependent on the team, but others are arguably more dependent.

Part of my working premise is that strong teams have the potential to lift the profiles of individual players higher than they might otherwise rise if they suddenly found themselves on an average or problematic team, and conversely, that strong players on teams with a bunch of holes may find that they will struggle to be in position to showcase themselves in the best possible light. For example, if the team has trouble maintaining possession or has a tendency to panic under pressure, it stands to reason that it will limit the opportunities for the 5 tool player to showcase what they can do.

Interested in your take on this, and especially whether and how college scouts factor in the surrounding team's level of play and capabilities when they are assembling an evaluation of an individual player. Your post hinted that this is a problem that is perpetuated by club egos and turf battles, however 'm not sure that's going away anytime soon, so I'm interested if there are other ways you would suggest to overcome the issue, besides pulling up stakes and moving to the best available team for the showcase years?

[Unregistered]

Would be interested in any proof that shows definitively that "most" D1 recruiting takes place in the ECNL.

A few weeks ago someone posted some data that seemed to suggest that a good chunk of the recruits from some of the major conferences played for clubs that did have an ECNL connection but that data supporting those conclusions was shown to be full of holes. It ended up that there was no discernable advantage to be on one path over another and there were many possible explanations for the numbers beyond league affiliation....

Not my job. Others can believe whatever they prefer and do whatever suits them. Maybe you can keep selling your story to the faithful, assuming they don't have an Internet connection.

[Unregistered]

The real problem is egos of the clubs not workig togehter at U15 and older and puting the best players in the state in positions to showcase their talents. Until then it is to much about clubs rather than about players. Forget about the team accomplishments and start thinking about the player accomplishments. College and NT coaches want players not teams. The team is the vehicle to get the player notice but when a coach comes to scout a player they look at 5 things. Does the player have the technical skill I am looking for at that position, does the player communicate verbally and non-verbally on and off the field in a positive manner (leader), does the player move well on and off the ball, does the player have the position specific skills I need and finally does this player impact the team when on or off the field. They do not care about the team winning a national championship, they care if the player they are recruiting is a good fit for their team.

First, great post. Second, not to take away from the specific point, but more broadly, you could say this problem is pervasive, regardless of age group, couldn't you (not just U15+). It's the idea of whether clubs are about serving the interests and development of individual players, rather than players serving the interests of clubs. I think cynicism is warranted. Lot of talking the talk, not nearly as much walking the walk.

[Unregistered]

False. Check out how the Breakers did at local tournaments last year as a club. I don't have the time but someone please show the Breakers. Pretty good U13 and below but U14 and up was a debacle!

This is an example of the naiveté that keeps club soccer growing. What this person clearly doesn't know (or perhaps doesn't want other's to know) is that having a good team at U13 doesn't actually translate into it being a good team at U14 and above simply because of the natural forces that always impact every team regardless of league affiliation.

First of all there will be roughly a 70% reduction in participation that impacts the macro level and that ends up forcing all sorts of consolidation which ultimately restructures the competitive landscape entirely between the U13 and U15 years.

Secondly puberty hits the team and that has both positive and negative impacts upon the roster. The tiny fast girls and early bloomers that usually make U12/13 very successful often get passed by players that puberty has made into better athletes and that usually ends up radically changing the entire dynamics of individual teams.

Lastly, the training dramatically impact the quality of play and forces players to either improve or languish. Once players reach a point of over all competency it becomes a race to acquire proficiency in order to attain a competitive advantage and that makes team success as much about the trainer as it does the work ethos of the trainee. Suffice to say that it is rare to find a complete package with the right attitude and athleticism.

One thing that should also be noted is that the Breakers/Scorpions have been basically saying this same thing for years. They made the exact same statement that their younger teams are great but their older teams are a mess. It has become their annual hope springs eternal message but unfortunately history shows a very clear pattern. Their teams always peak young and peter out by the high school years.

[Unregistered]

Fail. Time for BTDT to get a new script. The only thing that matters after U14 is college placements. Winning leagues is for clubs' trophy shelves, not the players.

Prove where the local ECNL clubs are producing more than the non-ECNL clubs. Just from a size of player pool standpoint, the local non-ECNL clubs have way more players chasing their college soccer dream than the ECNL clubs do. Suggesting that most of these kids are failing to attain their goals while most of the ECNL girls are attaining theirs is simply ridiculous.

[Unregistered]

You sound like you know what you are talking about, so perhaps you will indulge a question. How does a player with the 5 tools you identify appear in the best possible light if there are elements of the team that are not up to snuff? Some of the traits you point to (movement, individual skills, positive attitude) are not so much dependent on the team, but others are arguably more dependent.

Part of my working premise is that strong teams have the potential to lift the profiles of individual players higher than they might otherwise rise if they suddenly found themselves on an average or problematic team, and conversely, that strong players on teams with a bunch of holes may find that they will struggle to be in position to showcase themselves in the best possible light. For example, if the team has trouble maintaining possession or has a tendency to panic under pressure, it stands to reason that it will limit the opportunities for the 5 tool player to showcase what they can do.

Interested in your take on this, and especially whether and how college scouts factor in the surrounding team's level of play and capabilities when they are assembling an evaluation of an individual player. Your post hinted that this is a problem that is perpetuated by club egos and turf battles, however 'm not sure that's going away anytime soon, so I'm interested if there are other ways you would suggest to overcome the issue, besides pulling up stakes and moving to the best available team for the showcase years?

This is another part of the hope springs eternal message. Loosely translated to mean that the players at the top of the roster are going to carry those at the bottom to a level beyond where their talents project them. This essentially says that college coaches don't know how to scout talent and will simply recruit it out of convenience.

[Unregistered]

This is another part of the hope springs eternal message. Loosely translated to mean that the players at the top of the roster are going to carry those at the bottom to a level beyond where their talents project them. This essentially says that college coaches don't know how to scout talent and will simply recruit it out of convenience.

Missed the point entirely.

[Unregistered]

You sound like you know what you are talking about, so perhaps you will indulge a question. How does a player with the 5 tools you identify appear in the best possible light if there are elements of the team that are not up to snuff? Some of the traits you point to (movement, individual skills, positive attitude) are not so much dependent on the team, but others are arguably more dependent.

Part of my working premise is that strong teams have the potential to lift the profiles of individual players higher than they might otherwise rise if they suddenly found themselves on an average or problematic team, and conversely, that strong players on teams with a bunch of holes may find that they will struggle to be in position to showcase themselves in the best possible light. For example, if the team has trouble maintaining possession or has a tendency to panic under pressure, it stands to reason that it will limit the opportunities for the 5 tool player to showcase what they can do.

Interested in your take on this, and especially whether and how college scouts factor in the surrounding team's level of play and capabilities when they are assembling an evaluation of an individual player. Your post hinted that this is a problem that is perpetuated by club egos and turf battles, however 'm not sure that's going away anytime soon, so I'm interested if there are other ways you would suggest to overcome the issue, besides pulling up stakes and moving to the best available team for the showcase years?

No, saw it dead on. You are falsely assuming that college coaches can't evaluate individual talent and are only interested in how the individuals fit in their current team's style of play. If you followed your line of reasoning Hope Solo would never have become a goalkeeper. The reality is there is no one universal style of play and so what college coaches are doing when they are evaluating players is PROJECTING them into their particular program's style and level of play. This is where the other poster's 5 tools come into play. I would actually net them down into 3 (athleticism, IQ, and intensity) and suggest that many of the things you are focusing on fall into the IQ realm which many coaches will downgrade deficiencies in simply because of eqo (ie what they don't know we can teach).

[Unregistered]

No, saw it dead on. You are falsely assuming that college coaches can't evaluate individual talent and are only interested in how the individuals fit in their current team's style of play. If you followed your line of reasoning Hope Solo would never have become a goalkeeper. The reality is there is no one universal style of play and so what college coaches are doing when they are evaluating players is PROJECTING them into their particular program's style and level of play. This is where the other poster's 5 tools come into play. I would actually net them down into 3 (athleticism, IQ, and intensity) and suggest that many of the things you are focusing on fall into the IQ realm which many coaches will downgrade deficiencies in simply because of eqo (ie what they don't know we can teach).

I follow your point, but what I was driving at was less about how the team's style of play affects things, and more about how the overall quality of the play the team is capable of affects the evaluator's perception of the individual.

Take a situation where a strong 3/5 tool player player is worried about showcasing up to their potential/skill/ability level because few other comparable talents are present on that player's team. How does the evaluator effectively correct for that, when what they see on the surface at least, is a kid who may never get the ball fed to them in anything approaching an advantageous position, or on the other side of it, a kid who creates a play that very quickly dies on the vine because his teammates were incapable of building further on the opportunity? Are those things easily apparent to most evaluators such that they can correct for that in their assessments, or is it more tricky? That was the other part of the question.

[Unregistered]

I follow your point, but what I was driving at was less about how the team's style of play affects things, and more about how the overall quality of the play the team is capable of affects the evaluator's perception of the individual.

Take a situation where a strong 3/5 tool player player is worried about showcasing up to their potential/skill/ability level because few other comparable talents are present on that player's team. How does the evaluator effectively correct for that, when what they see on the surface at least, is a kid who may never get the ball fed to them in anything approaching an advantageous position, or on the other side of it, a kid who creates a play that very quickly dies on the vine because his teammates were incapable of building further on the opportunity? Are those things easily apparent to most evaluators such that they can correct for that in their assessments, or is it more tricky? That was the other part of the question.

You are putting way to much emphasis on how players play with and off each other. That all comes down to IQ. Most coaches arrogantly think they can make up for that with their coaching so what they look for is heart and athleticism (the things they can't coach)

[Unregistered]

If a player makes a great run but the other player fails to see it, the player who makes the run gets a check plus, the player who fails gets a check minus. If they connect then they both get the check plus but it still doesn't matter unless the coach is looking to fill both of their positions.

[Unregistered]

I follow your point, but what I was driving at was less about how the team's style of play affects things, and more about how the overall quality of the play the team is capable of affects the evaluator's perception of the individual.

Take a situation where a strong 3/5 tool player player is worried about showcasing up to their potential/skill/ability level because few other comparable talents are present on that player's team. How does the evaluator effectively correct for that, when what they see on the surface at least, is a kid who may never get the ball fed to them in anything approaching an advantageous position, or on the other side of it, a kid who creates a play that very quickly dies on the vine because his teammates were incapable of building further on the opportunity? Are those things easily apparent to most evaluators such that they can correct for that in their assessments, or is it more tricky? That was the other part of the question.

New poster here. Great question but to my experience most college coaches (with exception of course) are looking more at the individual than the team.
Part of it is the prevailing philosophy of American soccer that if you win enough individual battles more likely a favorable outcome will follow.
Making runs ,connecting passes, have a vision is all secondary.
Unfortunately the quality of coaching at the college level is well below "my personal"
expectations.

[Unregistered]

Just mail the coach an envelope filled with $$$ and you'll have no worries.

[Unregistered]

My thoughts are if you project the 5 tools that I mentioned it does not matter what team you are on to a certain degree. Most of the top 20 teams have players that will play in college, some higher than other but I don't think you need to be on a top 5 team to be a high scouted player if you are playing against good enough comepetition for the scout to get a good look at your abilities. I will say being on a lower team you will have to show that you are the most dominant player on the field. That does not mean you are a ball hog or running around playing everybody's position. It means you are playing the game according to your teams philosophy and you are exceptional with the 5 tools. For those on top 5 teams you need to know who are the regional and national level player and need to win the 1v1 battles that anoter poster talked about. This is how you will get noticed and they will now have you on their radar when they look at other players playing agianst you. I have seen many players at showcase tournaments receive college offers that day because they did well agaisnt a top recruited player. Coaches are projecting like another posted stated and hoping that their gut paid off and you were not a one trick pony for that day.