Difference between top and second teams

[Guest]

Has the gap significantly widened over the last few years? I am a parent who has had multiple kids both male and female play on A and B teams over the last 10 years and it seems the gap in talent and commitment has never been bigger.

An occasional XF second team at the older age groups may be closer but it seems like elsewhere it’s just a massive difference. A few years ago it didn’t seem that great.

My guess is that increased specialization and training outside the club for top teams kids has caused the vast divide. Thoughts?

[Guest]

Are you talking about the specific clubs or it's your experience for all club's A/B teams?

[Guest]

All clubs, mainly RCL/ECNL ones.

Do you agree or disagree?

Just looked at some boys ECNL scores and XF at U14 and U13 played interclub (as they have two Teams ) and the scores are jaw dropping. I hear both top teams at those age groups are amazinh but double digit victories (12-0 and 11-0) are just crazy.

[Guest]

Do you agree or disagree?

I just recently started following, but I do agree there is a big difference. Even the recent RCL games - Crossfire B2010A vs Seattle United B2009 Copa, this is first crossfire team against second SU team with a year age difference, and the first team still wins without major problems. I think that the top players are much better than the average ones right now.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wpLHIaJX6a4

[Guest]

I agree

I think a lot of the B team kids have all the talent their parents money could buy them and very little work ethic. Watch them play and they don't actually seem to care if they win the ball or not. They have good skill, but they don't have any fight so the second things go sideways they give up.

Some of it falls to the clubs, B team and lower can have some awful coaches at our club. Bad coaching, and instilling poor work ethic at Ulittles leaves a shadow that follows those kids. I've seen a team go from bottom 3rd to undefeated in one year and the only thing that changed was the coach, this was 11v11 age group. That XF 2010A team is a good group, and a great coach. XF 08 boys are disaster, they put new coaches on B08 this year to try to correct things, but look at their 08 girls much closer and all 3 teams doing well in ECNL, RCL Div 1 and Div 2.

There are also more clubs than ever so there's talent dilution, no more driving across town to play for a clubs B team in hopes you can make A. Any B team bubble player can shop around and find an A team to play for, probably within a 30 min drive of their house.

You also have teams being put in leagues/divisions they have no business being in because that's all the club has an they are obligated to provide a team. Sometimes this is done in the hopes they will attract players, no one is joining a short rostered team in the middle of the pack in Div 3, so they stick the team up a division in the hopes it will attract players. There are teams that won zero games in RCL last season that did not get relegated down a division.

[Guest]

Some of this has to do with the absolute plethora of clubs, leagues and the mentality that if a player can't make the "A" team as one club parents take them to another club's "A" team to ensure they (parents more likely) can say their kid is on a top team. The message sent to the player is that their must be something wrong with the first club instead of having their kid stick it out, work hard and try to elevate. Until U15 it really doesn't matter what level you are at unless you are in a bad 'coaching/team' situation. But to believe that you have to accept the fact that the player's desire/effort is the most important element in development and not the coach/club/league.

If I were building from scratch, Washington would have about 30 clubs (max), with the Sounders/Reign at the top. Their would be about 5 or 6 more local (amateur or USLish) clubs in greater King Co, and perhaps 3-4 in Pierce/Snohomish/Spokane. Most other counties/areas would only have one or two. There would be a league at each age/gender with no promotion/relegation, just each clubs top team in Div 1 and a single table. The rest would be local/neighborhood teams and leagues. If a player moves from one local club to another, the recruiting club would pay the first club $5,000. If the Sounders pull a player, they would pay $25,000. This way the clubs would be invested in developing (and selling) the player. These top teams would be free and staffed professionally, and the local/neighborhood teams very inexpensive (and could be staffed by volunteers). But again, you have to accept that most players would never leave the neighborhood team.

[Guest]

Some of this has to do with the absolute plethora of clubs, leagues and the mentality that if a player can't make the "A" team as one club parents take them to another club's "A" team to ensure they (parents more likely) can say their kid is on a top team. The message sent to the player is that their must be something wrong with the first club instead of having their kid stick it out, work hard and try to elevate. Until U15 it really doesn't matter what level you are at unless you are in a bad 'coaching/team' situation. But to believe that you have to accept the fact that the player's desire/effort is the most important element in development and not the coach/club/league.

If I were building from scratch, Washington would have about 30 clubs (max), with the Sounders/Reign at the top. Their would be about 5 or 6 more local (amateur or USLish) clubs in greater King Co, and perhaps 3-4 in Pierce/Snohomish/Spokane. Most other counties/areas would only have one or two. There would be a league at each age/gender with no promotion/relegation, just each clubs top team in Div 1 and a single table. The rest would be local/neighborhood teams and leagues. If a player moves from one local club to another, the recruiting club would pay the first club $5,000. If the Sounders pull a player, they would pay $25,000. This way the clubs would be invested in developing (and selling) the player. These top teams would be free and staffed professionally, and the local/neighborhood teams very inexpensive (and could be staffed by volunteers). But again, you have to accept that most players would never leave the neighborhood team.

This is about as stupid as it gets. The only difference between your model and any other model is the selling of players. No club would do this and a kid would be stuck at the same club for life. Get a grip.

[Guest]

Some of this has to do with the absolute plethora of clubs, leagues and the mentality that if a player can't make the "A" team as one club parents take them to another club's "A" team to ensure they (parents more likely) can say their kid is on a top team. The message sent to the player is that their must be something wrong with the first club instead of having their kid stick it out, work hard and try to elevate. Until U15 it really doesn't matter what level you are at unless you are in a bad 'coaching/team' situation. But to believe that you have to accept the fact that the player's desire/effort is the most important element in development and not the coach/club/league.

If I were building from scratch, Washington would have about 30 clubs (max), with the Sounders/Reign at the top. Their would be about 5 or 6 more local (amateur or USLish) clubs in greater King Co, and perhaps 3-4 in Pierce/Snohomish/Spokane. Most other counties/areas would only have one or two. There would be a league at each age/gender with no promotion/relegation, just each clubs top team in Div 1 and a single table. The rest would be local/neighborhood teams and leagues. If a player moves from one local club to another, the recruiting club would pay the first club $5,000. If the Sounders pull a player, they would pay $25,000. This way the clubs would be invested in developing (and selling) the player. These top teams would be free and staffed professionally, and the local/neighborhood teams very inexpensive (and could be staffed by volunteers). But again, you have to accept that most players would never leave the neighborhood team.

wow that is some good crack! locking in a kid for life for a club. That is crazy. You can move to any club you want now. If you kid is good enough they will move up and not they will move down. If there is no movement in a club then up coming kids will move on to a club that needs players. A club with a bad coach will not keep players. We have all seen this over the years. Sometimes the coach moves and sometimes the players all move.

We have seen whole teams show up a tryout and take a bunch of spaces in a club. Turning it into a money thing is crazy. But so is paying as much as you have to pay to play now.

[Guest]

Perhaps a silly question but does the change a few years back to birth year age groups have any effect on this?

[Guest]

Here is a thought. How about asking the players, the kids, how they would like it to work.

This is not England were soccer maybe the life of a community.

[Guest]

wow that is some good crack! locking in a kid for life for a club. That is crazy. You can move to any club you want now. If you kid is good enough they will move up and not they will move down. If there is no movement in a club then up coming kids will move on to a club that needs players. A club with a bad coach will not keep players. We have all seen this over the years. Sometimes the coach moves and sometimes the players all move.

We have seen whole teams show up a tryout and take a bunch of spaces in a club. Turning it into a money thing is crazy. But so is paying as much as you have to pay to play now.

The idea is that most kids would want to play for the local club and there would be local support for the local club. The way up would be through the local club. Let's face is most of these kids won't even play college soccer, let alone professional and this idea that any "club" can get you there is false. The biggest factor in a player developing is the player themselves. Why not recognize that this should be done much cheaper for the vast majority of players.

Additionally, only the best coaches would get jobs (even at the high level amateur clubs) because they would be best at developing (then selling) players. I would expect these clubs would be free and the lower level amateur clubs would be negligible cost.

Why are we wasting so many resources on players that won't develop? I'll tell you, because people are willing to pay even though their kid is unlikely to make it.....there's a saying in soccer. The best players don't pay. Here in the US, those that pay get to play.

[Guest]

To change the game solidarity payments are a must.

[Guest]

The idea is that most kids would want to play for the local club and there would be local support for the local club. The way up would be through the local club. Let's face is most of these kids won't even play college soccer, let alone professional and this idea that any "club" can get you there is false. The biggest factor in a player developing is the player themselves. Why not recognize that this should be done much cheaper for the vast majority of players.

Additionally, only the best coaches would get jobs (even at the high level amateur clubs) because they would be best at developing (then selling) players. I would expect these clubs would be free and the lower level amateur clubs would be negligible cost.

Why are we wasting so many resources on players that won't develop? I'll tell you, because people are willing to pay even though their kid is unlikely to make it.....there's a saying in soccer. The best players don't pay. Here in the US, those that pay get to play.

Again, another dumb statement. What you are asking for is called recreational soccer in America. There is even a level above that called select. The systems aren’t necessarily broken, parents have too much disposable income and choose to pay $2k+ a year for soccer. It’s what parents are choosing to do. It is not required, but just look at the major clubs - they all have “C” teams at U16 and U17.

Explain that other than this is what America wants.

It’s not just soccer. There is an AAU basketball team for everyone- pay your $2k and you can find a team to take your money. Also 7v7 football, club track teams, and club baseball. Don’t fool yourself, Americans love this stuff!

Impactful solidarity payments is a start, but would need to go hand in hand with continued/further restrictions on mls foreign players. The Sounders have been known to be great with homegrown players- but how many are really succeeding that are “from” the northwest?

Morris
Yedlin
Darwin Jones
Ethan Dobblelaere (tbd)
Josh Atencio (tbd)
Reed Baker-Whiting (tbd)

SDP hasn’t seen any real difference makers come through the program. Do we really think Dobbelaere, Atencio, or Baker-Whiting will get picked up by any other club once their Sounders contract is up? Morris, Yedlin and Jones were Homegrown, but SDP didn’t exist back then. Atencio and Dobblelaere are the first two local homegrown players to play with the Sounders first team.

SDP needs to be revamped, Sounders Academy needs to be revamped, and MLS needs to put the breaks on young players coming from outside the US. Want to go sign Messi, Ronaldo, or Zlatan? Of course, bring it!

But this is a problem if you want to accelerate youth soccer development:

https://www.miamiherald.com/sports/m...246452590.html

[Guest]

Again, another dumb statement. What you are asking for is called recreational soccer in America. There is even a level above that called select. The systems aren’t necessarily broken, parents have too much disposable income and choose to pay $2k+ a year for soccer. It’s what parents are choosing to do. It is not required, but just look at the major clubs - they all have “C” teams at U16 and U17.

Explain that other than this is what America wants.

It’s not just soccer. There is an AAU basketball team for everyone- pay your $2k and you can find a team to take your money. Also 7v7 football, club track teams, and club baseball. Don’t fool yourself, Americans love this stuff!

Impactful solidarity payments is a start, but would need to go hand in hand with continued/further restrictions on mls foreign players. The Sounders have been known to be great with homegrown players- but how many are really succeeding that are “from” the northwest?

Morris
Yedlin
Darwin Jones
Ethan Dobblelaere (tbd)
Josh Atencio (tbd)
Reed Baker-Whiting (tbd)

SDP hasn’t seen any real difference makers come through the program. Do we really think Dobbelaere, Atencio, or Baker-Whiting will get picked up by any other club once their Sounders contract is up? Morris, Yedlin and Jones were Homegrown, but SDP didn’t exist back then. Atencio and Dobblelaere are the first two local homegrown players to play with the Sounders first team.

SDP needs to be revamped, Sounders Academy needs to be revamped, and MLS needs to put the breaks on young players coming from outside the US. Want to go sign Messi, Ronaldo, or Zlatan? Of course, bring it!

But this is a problem if you want to accelerate youth soccer development:

https://www.miamiherald.com/sports/m...246452590.html

You're helping my point. Current system is broken and per/capita the system doesn't produce. There isn't the realization that few players make it professionally, or even collegiately, it's all buyer and seller of soccer services. I'm trying to offer a solution that will help us compete better while reducing the expense. Just because a parent can afford it, doesn't make it a good system. In fact, I would argue that the marketplace, in this instance, actually precludes the better players from raising up to their ultimate level. Soccer in the US is generally white and upper-to-upper middle class. Yet our national team doesn't really reflect that demographic and in other countries being upper-to-upper middle class actually seems to hurt players development.

So what I'm proposing would help to level the playing field, create a larger recreational base (which is really what's needed), reduce the cost of participation for the vast majority, and provide the best coaching for the few that can rise. If a parent wants to pay, it won't help them get to the top in this type of system. Basically, you wouldn't be able to buy your child's way onto a team (except for the recreational team). And if the player is good enough, they'd move up and the clubs that provide the 'free' environment for that player would be compensated.

[Guest]

That system already exists. It doesn’t work, parents cant stop throwing money at this issue because dd and ds should be on the top team.

Hoping it will work won’t change anything.

Good luck. Start with your kids. Boycott pay for play and put them in rec.