AZ Girls GA 2020-2021

Discussion in 'Development Academy' started by Sweeper, Jul 16, 2020.

  1. Digital5

    Digital5 Active Member

    Explains a lot.
     
  2. SoccerDadAZ

    SoccerDadAZ Active Member

    Not to mention a few other players that went straight to Royals from Del Sol.
     
  3. calmdown

    calmdown Member

    Thoughts on what the driving force is on those top TEAMS (U14+) that perform well...
    Is it the development and training at the club they are at, the game day mentality passed on by the coaches,.......or recruitment?
    Guessing each age group has its own story to tell...but may be common themes.
     
  4. Digital5

    Digital5 Active Member

    The DS 04s are a work in progress. They also lost two 05s that played up on the 04s last year. One went back down to play on the 05 team, I don't know where the other went. She did not want to play up on the 04 s anymore. Exceptional player and a big loss for DS - I guess just not enough room on the 05s, they are stacked.

    Royals overall appear to be much improved - that's great for AZ soccer. Good competition between top clubs is good for all. I'm glad Royals VS Rising happened. I don't know if Rising was at 100%, based on what I've heard. Royals walked away with some confidence.
     
  5. tjinaz

    tjinaz Active Member

    Crazy days. I would think with the DA subsidy gone players would be leaving Royals and they gaining. Thought that subsidy was the reason DA was as sought after as it was and Rising and Arsenal would be getting RSL players not the other way around. That and beating the 04 Cagle team everyone talks about. Never would have thought that either.
     
  6. Digital5

    Digital5 Active Member

    The Royals subsidy was certainly a draw, especially during the initial DA roll out. They were somewhat effective at drawing parents because of it. The Royals certainly had deeper pockets than SCDS. Even with deeper pockets, they were not able to draw the top talent from SCDS. Those that went were players/families that weren't getting the playing time they thought they deserved. I think now the draw is their deeper connection to the Utah Royals themselves. They've gotten better at marketing that connection (it's a real thing). That is a bit more enticing to players and parents. The connection to the Royals likely puts them in the best long term position of any of the elite girls club in the valley.

    If the 04 Cagle team was fully rostered, then beating them is a big deal for the Royals. Not only did they get likely their top players (or some of them), but they beat them handily. It's unfortunate that a rematch will never be played.

    Pricing differences between ECNL and GA are minimal, from what I can tell (I don't do the accounting in my house!). Right now the battle between the clubs is who can provide the better training environment and who can better showcase their connections to top college coaches across the country. I would say that the players that left SCDS for Rising then moved on to the Royals are there to stay.

    With that said, don't underestimate the allure of certain coaches. Who knows, maybe we will see more movement between clubs. SCDS is recruiting all the time - adding last year a top player from the Arsenal 05 team and 3 players from the Rising 06 team. We will see, parents and players can be finicky to say the least.

    Way to many words!
     
  7. THE_INTERSECT

    THE_INTERSECT Member

    I don't put a lot of stock in what parents say, I like first hand info. I've read your posts, you post good info.

    With that I did happen to catch that game, as I wanted to see the D1 Commits for each team play (Wanted to see what an AZ 1st Tier D1 players looks like vs Tier II). Royals RR (Washington State Commit) scored all three goals for Royals. She was faster than the center defenders of Rising. She might have had a 4th but a rising midfielder caught up to her and fouled her before the box (drew a yellow card for it).

    However, I would not say dominated. To me dominated is that the ball was on the defending end 75% or more of the time. Rising had many shots, hit the crossbar on one that was a rocket. Had several corner kicks. But they still struggle to get the ball in the net. I would say if you took RR out of the game, the only thing that would have been different was the score. RR is speedy and makes it look effortless. Washington State will be getting a very good player. I've seen the rising team before, and they looked like they had several new starters possible from combining the younger 02's and existing 03's.

    The game got very chippy in the 2nd half. Hard Fouls and Royals players talking back to the ref. Oh yeah, only one Ref for the "friendly games". He did his best, but it's hard at this level to only have one ref.

    I think Royals bench is deeper with talent compared to Rising.
     
    Digital5 likes this.
  8. Uber

    Uber New Member

    I saw 4 of the games last weekend,

    06 rising was without their goalie and had their best defender in goal. A rematch at full strength would be fun to see, I would say RSL would have a small advantage.

    05 rising was also without their goalie and I showed in the defending, the chemistry was off. Rising dominated the game, didn’t get it in the net. Rising 05 at full strength is probably the best in the state. SCDS won’t play a friendly so we will probably never know.

    04 rising are missing several players, but RSL is a better team. Better bench and better defense. Had they played a full 90 min the score would have been worse.

    03 game was all about one player. Take RR of the field for RSL and it is probably a draw. She is a dominating player.
     
    THE_INTERSECT likes this.
  9. SoccerDadAZ

    SoccerDadAZ Active Member

    It's my understanding that the total cost for GA clubs is still lower than ECNL clubs. Whether that makes a difference will depend on the individual player and parents.

    Regarding the decision-making of players (and parents) to play at certain clubs, in addition to the variables found in boys soccer like coaching, platform, location, cost, etc. I find that the chemistry variable plays a big role in the minds of girls soccer players and parents. Cliques frequently form, for players and parents and they certainly accelerate the downfall or rise of teams. Sort of like "Mean Girls" meets "Bend it Like Beckham" perhaps?
     
  10. Digital5

    Digital5 Active Member

    I think that cost is a small portion of the equation. Once you've seen the potential ROI in the form of a scholarship to the school your kid loves (that love will change multiple times) , you are willing to pay - at least that's the discussion I've had with other parents. The subsidy thing with the Royals didn't pay much dividends, parents are willing to absorb cost if they think they are with the best coach. The Royals are benefiting from other things.

    From what I've seen, coaching seems to be the driving factor. I've seen the youngers chase coaches around the valley and the olders leave clubs and drive an hr plus to play on a team for a specific coach. The SCDS 04 exodus seemed to be a result of following a coach. Not unusual to see Tucson commutes. While there are certainly cliques, I don't think that's a primary driver. My DD has close friends in other clubs, one in particular. No way she moves there because of them.

    Anecdotal evidence I guess.
     
  11. I'd still take the quality of the players on the team over the coach when helping my kid with decisions of where to go play - at least until Sophomore/Junior year. Good coaches can get their hands tied with players who slow down training. Good players get better while training against "good-er" players. Coaches can bounce for greener pastures or make promises to get the stud mercenary. I do agree though, feels like kids/parents follow coaches quite a bit.
     
  12. Digital5

    Digital5 Active Member

    I get it, makes sense to think that way as well. I'm just relaying my personal experience. Our scenario right now is that the coach is the draw, across several age groups. The by product is having a quality team that is competitive in and out of state.

    Bad coaches tend to drive players away. "Bad" is subjective of course. Some parents are finicky about style of play, some parents don't like "mean" coaches. Groups of good players tend to congregate around quality coaching.

    Checking the tenure and turnover of a team is pretty important. I guess you could also thrown in mileage driven. If a parent is driving past practices to get to their practices, then that's important (in my view). Especially if the player is good enough to play on the teams they are driving by. I guess a good example is driving past Arsenal ECNL practices at their complex to get to Rising, Royals, or SCDS practices at SSC, Reach, Salt River Fields, Rose Mofford, etc.
     
    Not a Futballer likes this.
  13. SoccerDadAZ

    SoccerDadAZ Active Member

    Having a very high quality group of players on a team may not negate a very bad coach. I recall observing 2 teams filled with extremely talented players coached by this one coach. This coach proceeded to not only lose in an inordinate amount of games given the individuals' skills (which pointed to the coach's inability to teach the fundamentals of teamwork and get the best out of each player) but at the end of the season, made the majority of players lose their confidence and lose their desire to win and even play, and some of them regressed in their development. Needless to say, I felt sorry for these players for wasting a year of development during their prime years. Some of them left the club and some even quit.

    Yes, great players can get better playing and training against great players. But they need a very good coach to facilitate that. It's easier said than done.
     
  14. Just4Kix

    Just4Kix New Member

    A great coach can make a team 10% better, but a bad one can make them 30% worse...
     
  15. overtime

    overtime New Member

    any updates on royals/del sol scores? I know these...

    02/03 royals 2, del sol 4
    05 royals 1, del sol 0
    07 royals 4, del sol 0
     
  16. overtime

    overtime New Member

    my apologies, the 05s tied 1-1....I think;) can anyone confirm ?
     
  17. Desert Hound

    Desert Hound Well-Known Member

    04 royals 4-0 vs del sol
     
  18. Desert Hound

    Desert Hound Well-Known Member

    Yes a tie
     
  19. Cheap Seats

    Cheap Seats New Member

    I thought SCDSL 05 was supposed to be a super team.
     
  20. Sweeper

    Sweeper Active Member

    05 SC Del Sol team is down to 13 players (a player quit a couple of weeks ago). It will be difficult for them to remain a super team with only 2 subs.
     
    Digital5 likes this.

Share This Page