DMCV Sharks Girls Director

soccerdad904 said:
Surf RL lost to City's 2nd GA team. To say RL is stronger than GA in this area is laughable. City GA made a great run this year and ended up losing in the semi finals(?) in the GA playoffs and Albion isn't far removed from their National Championship a few years ago. The GA talent level may be more watered down in San Diego than other parts of the country who don't have to compete with 3 other ECNL clubs and a couple GA clubs in their backyard but the proof is in the college commitment pudding (ECNL, GA, RL/others). RL is just a glorified DPL or NPL level team that charges you a premium ECNL price.
Click to expand...
Are you sure about that? The 2006 and older GA teams may have had a slight edge, but 2007 and younger age groups show a different landscape.

When you compare the top 15 or so California teams of the different leagues by age group there is a clear trend. ECRL and GA as a group have the same strength and spread of teams within rankings; they are the same level of play. ECNL is clearly better than both, but not by a substantial amount. DPL and NPL are also the same level of play as each other, and slightly lower than ECRL/GA, but not by much.

2007 Age Group
Screenshot_20240726_172210_Rankings.jpgScreenshot_20240726_172245_Rankings.jpgScreenshot_20240726_172309_Rankings.jpgScreenshot_20240726_172323_Rankings.jpgScreenshot_20240726_172402_Rankings.jpg
 
One of the challenges in Socal of playing in a league that isn't ECNL is if you want a high ranking in general your local league games are more of a risk than a way to move up. You end up being forced to beat local league teams by 8+ goals. Because Southwest ECNL local league teams are mostly highly ranked as long as you win or lose +/- 1 goal you'll stay highly ranked.

Also if you're not in socal ECNL once you get past u14 clubs don't participate in tournaments as much any more so there's not as many opportunities to play highly ranked clubs.

If you're playing in Southwest ECNL you have the opposite situation. Local league games are against highly ranked clubs. When you travel to different ECNL national events you end up playing lower ranked clubs. Which is a weird situation. Basically you're paying a bunch of money to travel to play teams that are worse than the ones you play in local league games.

This is the unfortunate distortion closed leagues place on the development of players in local clubs. Right now Southwest ECNL is the best option for playing the most high level teams in local league games. However, think how much better all the Socal clubs could be if the lower performing Southwest ECNL clubs were dropped from the league and replaced by the top performing teams from other leagues. This is essentially what happens in other parts of the world where a single (often government administered) entity sanctions all league play. Basically the best only play the best and everyone else works to get their opportunity to play in the highest level league via pro/rel.
 
I still think LegendsSD is doomed unless former Sharks leadership (starting with SM) are purged.

However, I wonder if ECNL was behind Sharks taking the Legends name. Essentially what's happend is two clubs have merged. For youth clubs usually when this happens the newly merged club renames itself some variation of "XYZ United". In this case Sharks took the Legends name. If ECNL pushed for the change in the background it's a very smart move. They get rid of the Sharks brand and LegendsSD becomes Legends ECNL2 team essentially defining a lower level of expectation of performance because they're considered Legends 2nd ECNL team.

From an ECNL perspective they get rid of Sharks and didn't need to boot them from the league. Booting from the league sets up a situation where they likely get beat up on by clubs from all the other leagues which ends up being a bad look. Merging gives Legends what they want (a second team) and ECNL what they want (getting rid of Sharks).
 
Carlsbad7 said:
This is the unfortunate distortion closed leagues place on the development of players in local clubs.
Click to expand...
If this means that unfortunately most of the best teams are mainly playing in one closed bracket, that seems to track.

If this means that because of the closed bracket, the ratings are inflated, and teams in other brackets are just as good - this continues to be an incorrect reading of the data. Of course lesser teams have to beat even lesser teams by more, if they want to have equivalent numerical rankings to teams that are beating stronger teams. There is no bracket numerical award for any team in the database. If a team wants a high rank, they need to beat high ranking teams. While we'd all appreciate more cross-play and even a more open environment - the little cross-play in this geography that there is pretty much always validates the doubters anyway.
 
soccerdad904 said:
Surf RL lost to City's 2nd GA team. To say RL is stronger than GA in this area is laughable. City GA made a great run this year and ended up losing in the semi finals(?) in the GA playoffs and Albion isn't far removed from their National Championship a few years ago. The GA talent level may be more watered down in San Diego than other parts of the country who don't have to compete with 3 other ECNL clubs and a couple GA clubs in their backyard but the proof is in the college commitment pudding (ECNL, GA, RL/others). RL is just a glorified DPL or NPL level team that charges you a premium ECNL price.

Having said that, I think it's a great move by both clubs as it gives both something they need but at the end of the day the number of roster spots on the Sharks ECNL teams hasn't changed. Surf will always be the top choice over Sharks/Legends/whatever you want to call them, so really the Sharks are still pulling players from the same pool and hoping for a few stars to come up through their Legends feeder program. And let's be real, if anybody worth a damn on the Sharks ECNL team was offered a spot on Surf's ECNL team, most are going to take that opportunity.
Click to expand...
Which birth year? surf 2010 RL lost 2-0 to City GA 2010 in Copa. 1 goal was because of an error on a mid. The 2 goal was nothing special. City didn’t play possession, they kick and run, get the ball to the Gwynn player. Surf plays possession.
 
Surf has individuals with business backgrounds running surf like a business, one of the reasons they are so successful. The club has expanded all over the country, including Canada, Puerto Rico and Hawaii,
 
EXSD007 said:
Which birth year? surf 2010 RL lost 2-0 to City GA 2010 in Copa. 1 goal was because of an error on a mid. The 2 goal was nothing special. City didn’t play possession, they kick and run, get the ball to the Gwynn player. Surf plays possession.
Click to expand...
2010 Surf RL was whooped by the top RL teams, the comparison with top City GA should be against those teams. Playing possession does not always result in scoring.
 
Culer said:
2010 Surf RL was whooped by the top RL teams, the comparison with top City GA should be against those teams. Playing possession does not always result in scoring.
Click to expand...
it’s my understanding that the only team that “whooped” Surf 2010 RL was Beach. Blues and Slammers were within 1 maybe 2 goal differential.
 
EXSD007 said:
it’s my understanding that the only team that “whooped” Surf 2010 RL was Beach. Blues and Slammers were within 1 maybe 2 goal differential.
Click to expand...
Sorry, "whooped" by Beach/Slammers (1-9, 2-9) and beaten by Blues, Koge, Arsenal, Del Mar by 2-3 goals. My point is that Surf RL isn't in the upper echelon for RL teams when comparing to top GA teams.
 
Kudos for keeping track of Surf RL scores. I am simply going off of my buddies comment on where they ended in league. Looks like OC has the better RL teams, Surf/sharks/Rebels bottom of the RL league. How’s Albion GA? Big contenders?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top