End of ECNL vs GA Debate

[Guest]

So if an ECNL team has 20 on the roster and only 18 dress for a game, then the other two are not on the team?

At the HS ages there's always a few out with injuries or school visits so that helps some. Since there's typically 2 games a weekend two players might not dress one game but do the next and two others don't play.

But overall you shouldn't be on any team unless you're going to be a pretty consistent starter or first off the bench. Players #15-22 just aren't going to get as much PT. Sitting a lot won't improve your game no matter how good the training is.

[Guest]

^ meant to add that at showcases there's no limit of 18 so coaches will make sure everyone gets at least a half a game so they can be seen by college coaches. Or they should be anyway. Part of their job is to help players get recruited

[Guest]

Enough with this too much travel issue. If it’s too much of a inconvenience on your part then don’t sign up. Club soccer entails traveling. If that’s an issue then join your town team that will settle your inconvenience. The rest of your relegation pipe dream should definitely be placed in a pipe then smoke it.

The travel issue is a problem because it artificially reduces player pool based on ability to attend out of state games against teams that are generally not much better than other ones you could play nearby. Decreased travel expense would make the level go up. I don't personally mind the travel or the costs but I do recognize that we're missing out on some really good players who simply cant afford what is a clearly insane system, where we have STA driving to play NEFC and Scorpions driving to play World Class, all passing each other going opposite directions on the highway.

[Guest]

this is the kool aid that is being sold. YNT stats have nothing to do with yourchild's development. Making those teams does not have much do with development either. Fast forward to College teams now. Go back and look at the respective GNTs and see how many of those kids are now great College players at schools you would want your kid to attend. Making those teams can be based on a variety of reasons. Just focus on your journey and stop ooking at others to establish your "value". Some of NJs best College players never made YNTs as kids.

It wasn't a comment on the quality of players not on the NT, just that NT players can probably avoid much of the college ID Camp grind and even they still need to attend camps to show the schools where they they are interested in playing.

[Guest]

No one is really scouting ECNL league games unless top ECNL team. No one cares about Jeff Cup. That event is lightly attended by GA clubs anyway due to the GA spring showcase. If you aren’t on a top ECNL or GA team, you will have to do ID clinics, etc. At least at those events they divide the ECNL/GA kids from the USYS kids.

If a college is local many will come watch local games to see players they are interested in. It's one (or possibly more) player they don't have to see at a showcase
They know then and there if the player should stay on the list or not.

[Guest]

A lofty goal that won't happen. That's why parents have to do what's best for their kid. It means they need to find the best coaching and fit for their player amd pay less attention to the patch. Not every team or club in a "top" league is very good. Your local options will be different than someone else's two counties away

I watch College soccer. if the quality of play outside of the top 10 or so teams is a reflection of what our top leagues are producing, then they are not doing a good job. More College teams are looking abroad for high impact players. FSU, the dominant program based on NCAA tournament wins is built on international recruits. Coaching is far more important than league results, but its far easier to sell wins to parents that have avery short term goal

[Guest]

I watch College soccer. if the quality of play outside of the top 10 or so teams is a reflection of what our top leagues are producing, then they are not doing a good job. More College teams are looking abroad for high impact players. FSU, the dominant program based on NCAA tournament wins is built on international recruits. Coaching is far more important than league results, but its far easier to sell wins to parents that have avery short term goal

Competent coaches for low level teams who win regularly look like savants. It doesn't mean you are getting other worldly coaching, just competent coaching and low level competition which makes the coaching look amazing.

[Guest]

I watch College soccer. if the quality of play outside of the top 10 or so teams is a reflection of what our top leagues are producing, then they are not doing a good job. More College teams are looking abroad for high impact players. FSU, the dominant program based on NCAA tournament wins is built on international recruits. Coaching is far more important than league results, but its far easier to sell wins to parents that have avery short term goal

FSU is not the only one. So many more colleges out there built solely on international players on the womens side. Old Dominion is one we came across recently. It’s becoming more and more popular, just the way the womens game is going like the mens college game that has been flooded with int’l players for 10+ years.

[Guest]

FSU is not the only one. So many more colleges out there built solely on international players on the womens side. Old Dominion is one we came across recently. It’s becoming more and more popular, just the way the womens game is going like the mens college game that has been flooded with int’l players for 10+ years.

As long as winning in the younger age groups means more recognition for coaches because the consumer considers this the gold standard of development then there will be no changes to the US system. I often wonder how many parents would keep their child on a team with top coaches that lost a lot of games to teams that took the shortcut in development for the first few years. Would the parents be educated enough to know the difference in both products if both opportunities were presented? These scenarios are happening now!

Soccer Nut

[Guest]

It wasn't a comment on the quality of players not on the NT, just that NT players can probably avoid much of the college ID Camp grind and even they still need to attend camps to show the schools where they they are interested in playing.

my point was related to the comments that imply one league having more of them makes them better.

[Guest]

As long as winning in the younger age groups means more recognition for coaches because the consumer considers this the gold standard of development then there will be no changes to the US system. I often wonder how many parents would keep their child on a team with top coaches that lost a lot of games to teams that took the shortcut in development for the first few years. Would the parents be educated enough to know the difference in both products if both opportunities were presented? These scenarios are happening now!

Soccer Nut

"I often wonder how many parents would keep their child on a team with top coaches that lost a lot of games to teams that took the shortcut in development for the first few years"

My experience of the journey may be why I dont understand your point.

Early years - rec soccer - teams lose games, parents dont jump teams , all fun

Early club years - still predominantly town based - parent funded with professional coaches. - teams lose games and the "better" kids start to look for the bigger Clubs. Often as a group to the same one.

Club years (P2P) - players from a wider area - tryouts, travel to games, coaching 2-3 x per week etc. - whatever level you are, after 2 years of this, you should have an idea of your childs ability,potential and desires wrt the game.

its at this point that the parents (in my experience) should be educated enough to help their kids steer a path that meets their goals.

in your example, how do you determine a top coach? Also, as long as the NT win, who is to say its a bad system? How do you determine that a short cut to development was taken? There is a difference between winning via tactics and developing individuals. A coach can be doing both or neither. The system is not designed to reward development and wont be until the professional stake holders put in the money to structure thier own professional pathway. Who do we think gets paid the most? the head coaches at UNC,FSU,UVA,Duke (other examples im sure), a head coach in the NWSL, the DoC of a big destination Club, Vlatko Andonowski ? and in what order

[Guest]

Development and winning don't have to be mutually exclusive, nor does 100% overlap on a Venn diagram mean it's because of good coaching. Look at clubs that have most or all of their teams pretty consistently in the top half. Some losses are perfectly fine . As long as games are close you know the teams are competitive and in the right league.

Being on a truly top team won't be worthb8t if you never play. play for fit not win/loss records

[Guest]

"I often wonder how many parents would keep their child on a team with top coaches that lost a lot of games to teams that took the shortcut in development for the first few years"

My experience of the journey may be why I dont understand your point.

Early years - rec soccer - teams lose games, parents dont jump teams , all fun

Early club years - still predominantly town based - parent funded with professional coaches. - teams lose games and the "better" kids start to look for the bigger Clubs. Often as a group to the same one.

Club years (P2P) - players from a wider area - tryouts, travel to games, coaching 2-3 x per week etc. - whatever level you are, after 2 years of this, you should have an idea of your childs ability,potential and desires wrt the game.

its at this point that the parents (in my experience) should be educated enough to help their kids steer a path that meets their goals.

in your example, how do you determine a top coach? Also, as long as the NT win, who is to say its a bad system? How do you determine that a short cut to development was taken? There is a difference between winning via tactics and developing individuals. A coach can be doing both or neither. The system is not designed to reward development and wont be until the professional stake holders put in the money to structure thier own professional pathway. Who do we think gets paid the most? the head coaches at UNC,FSU,UVA,Duke (other examples im sure), a head coach in the NWSL, the DoC of a big destination Club, Vlatko Andonowski ? and in what order

So, your path was my path for my first child. After, understanding that I did not have to start my second and third child at the rec level to early town club years to figure out if my child wanted to play this game, I skipped those steps and began with fun technique, foot skills and passing right from the very beginning. I also chose a top coach early-. all the while, keeping it fun. It was a little more expensive than rec or town club but worth every penny.

Even in the early years, (U9), you would be surprised at how many parents equated wins to development, instead of what the girls were doing during the process of the game.

A top coach for each age group would have different personality traits and skill sets for each age group, for example, one is never too, young to learn foot skills and the coach must be good at 1) keeping it fun and 2) understand proper technique. At the young ages, it is all about the child and the ball, they see nothing around them, As they get older, it's about spacing then it's about passing and learning how to pass properly, then about angles and defense. There are coaches at every age group that are very good with one segment of training but may not be good at other aspects -in both temperament or skill.

Also in my example, i am talking more those girls that play in college, and at that level, the game lacks the fundamentals to simply keep the ball, The National team, like top schools like FSU are technical enough, I am not looking for us to emulate other countries, I simply want our girls to be technical. As you know, being technical has nothing to do with style of play.

I believe the US National team style of play will continue to evolve as is needed. College Soccer, not so much.

Soccer Nut

[Guest]

you don't understand how this works, and that's OK. I get it. Let me help you.

Players are called into NT pools, essentially as a try-out. The pick a roster for "tournaments" (i.e. qualifying, cups, etc.). Those rosters are locked, with the exception with some allow for a replacement should there be an injury. Those players not picked are, at best, alternates. They likely don't even travel with the team.

An ECNL roster has 20+ players, some of whom rotate with 18 at the game. The others may not play one game, but will the next. So it's a fluid game-day roster vs. one that is locked.

Does that help?

So how do you know those bottom roster players will ever play an ECNL team?

So if you are on the roster for one tournament and then not on the roster for the next tournament, but back on the roster for following tournament, then in the middle of those three tournaments you aren’t on the team?

So if Christian Pulisic doesn’t play in a USA game he’s not on the national team?

[Guest]

So, your path was my path for my first child. After, understanding that I did not have to start my second and third child at the rec level to early town club years to figure out if my child wanted to play this game, I skipped those steps and began with fun technique, foot skills and passing right from the very beginning. I also chose a top coach early-. all the while, keeping it fun. It was a little more expensive than rec or town club but worth every penny.

Even in the early years, (U9), you would be surprised at how many parents equated wins to development, instead of what the girls were doing during the process of the game.

A top coach for each age group would have different personality traits and skill sets for each age group, for example, one is never too, young to learn foot skills and the coach must be good at 1) keeping it fun and 2) understand proper technique. At the young ages, it is all about the child and the ball, they see nothing around them, As they get older, it's about spacing then it's about passing and learning how to pass properly, then about angles and defense. There are coaches at every age group that are very good with one segment of training but may not be good at other aspects -in both temperament or skill.

Also in my example, i am talking more those girls that play in college, and at that level, the game lacks the fundamentals to simply keep the ball, The National team, like top schools like FSU are technical enough, I am not looking for us to emulate other countries, I simply want our girls to be technical. As you know, being technical has nothing to do with style of play.

I believe the US National team style of play will continue to evolve as is needed. College Soccer, not so much.

Soccer Nut

What makes a top coach for you, may not be the same for someone else. That holds true at pretty much every level.