Sharks ECNL

So I am only interested in G2007-G2010 so I'm not sure about boys or other age groups.

Sharks 2010- they were put in Super Black (not by choice) and won the entire thing and went undefeated the entire tournament.

Sharks 2009 played Best of Best -won, tied, lost. All games were competitive. I believe they lost by 1 goal

Sharks 2008- Also put in Super Black. They went undefeated and made it to semis. They by far were the better team but ended up losing from free kicks and had many missed opportunities. I also know they were missing a key forward.

Sharks 2007- Played Super Black and won two and lost by 1 goal to Placer who ended up winning the whole thing . They dominated Albion in bracket play.

All teams out played Albion,City and Rebels in those age groups, so I think Surf Cup proved Sharks is definitely the 2nd top Club for Girls in SD and have come a long way in a few months time with new teams. Let's see how they fair in Blues Cup, hopefully they get placed in top bracket
 
So now that MW has had a season to make things happen for the older Girls at Sharks as the DOC + 2009 and 2010 top team coach what's everyone's opinion?

I say better than before but not very good. Also, recruitment is shaky because MW has alienated several parents + is still receiving blowback + older parents are talking to younger parents.
 
Carlsbad7 said:
So now that MW has had a season to make things happen for the older Girls at Sharks as the DOC + 2009 and 2010 top team coach what's everyone's opinion?

I say better than before but not very good. Also, recruitment is shaky because MW has alienated several parents + is still receiving blowback + older parents are talking to younger parents.
Click to expand...
Sharks still living rent free in Carlsbad7's head. :D

shark-dance.gif
 
Carlsbad7 said:
So you'd say that not making the playoffs is good?

You like using numbers to justify everything about youth soccer but for some reason are ok with giving Sharks a pass.
Click to expand...
Carlsbad, that's not a fair question at all. No one is happy not making the playoffs. However, the Sharks are in the hardest and most badass Division of youth soccer in SW ECNL and they have arguably the best ever and #1 club in the history of youth soccer in their back yard. Then they got "The Lightning" next to them as well. Not sure what Carlsbad soccer club is called today but it's not easy to compete down in Del Mar. Give the Sharks some Mercy and Time bruh :cool:
 
crush said:
Carlsbad, that's not a fair question at all. No one is happy not making the playoffs. However, the Sharks are in the hardest and most badass Division of youth soccer in SW ECNL and they have arguably the best ever and #1 club in the history of youth soccer in their back yard. Then they got "The Lightning" next to them as well. Not sure what Carlsbad soccer club is called today but it's not easy to compete down in Del Mar. Give the Sharks some Mercy and Time bruh :cool:
Click to expand...
I agree that Sharks are playing in a very difficult league.

I also agree that with Surf right next door that it's difficult to keep any real talent from being recruited.

My question is how do parents feel about MW now that they've worked with him for a year?

What several people pointed out when MW first came on + blew up all the teams with the tact of a sledgehammer was that it was going to cause issues. At the 9v9 level and below you can treat players and parents like cattle because nobody really knows each other or has strong connections. At the 11v11 level and up parents all pretty much know each other + most of the talent has been identified. This means if you drop a player or gut a team everyone is going to know about it. If you get a reputation as a DOC/Coach that doesn't stand behind their players you'd better be able to recruit to fill in the gaps. When MW first came to Sharks he pulled from Albion and to a lesser extent CitySC both clubs have circled the wagons + it's highly unlikely that he'll be able to do the same going forward. This leaves him with recruiting from ECS, ECRL, DPL, AYSO, etc. In the long run this won't work.

What MW should have done when he first came on was do as few cuts as possible + add players + run rosters of 24+. This is what everyone else does at the ECNL/GA level. Over time players that aren't getting minutes will find other places to play on their own and leave. Or they'll get better and contribute. Either way it doesn't matter because they're still paying dues to the club. Gutting the teams showed MWs arrogance and lack of understanding about how olders works.
 
Carlsbad7 said:
I agree that Sharks are playing in a very difficult league.

I also agree that with Surf right next door that it's difficult to keep any real talent from being recruited.

My question is how do parents feel about MW now that they've worked with him for a year?

What several people pointed out when MW first came on + blew up all the teams with the tact of a sledgehammer was that it was going to cause issues. At the 9v9 level and below you can treat players and parents like cattle because nobody really knows each other or has strong connections. At the 11v11 level and up parents all pretty much know each other + most of the talent has been identified. This means if you drop a player or gut a team everyone is going to know about it. If you get a reputation as a DOC/Coach that doesn't stand behind their players you'd better be able to recruit to fill in the gaps. When MW first came to Sharks he pulled from Albion and to a lesser extent CitySC both clubs have circled the wagons + it's highly unlikely that he'll be able to do the same going forward. This leaves him with recruiting from ECS, ECRL, DPL, AYSO, etc. In the long run this won't work.

What MW should have done when he first came on was do as few cuts as possible + add players + run rosters of 24+. This is what everyone else does at the ECNL/GA level. Over time players that aren't getting minutes will find other places to play on their own and leave. Or they'll get better and contribute. Either way it doesn't matter because they're still paying dues to the club. Gutting the teams showed MWs arrogance and lack of understanding about how olders works.
Click to expand...
You should be a DOC……
 
Carlsbad7 said:
Nope, just a parent watching a slow motion trainwreck.
Click to expand...
I’ve watched it in many facets of youth soccer. On the parent side, the club side and even with individual Coaches.
MW is in a precarious position and (unless you have some inside info) we don’t know what the Board tasked him with as near and long term objectives. MW has been around the game far longer than you and I, so maybe he has the flexibility to rip off the band-aide to start the healing process.
 
Carlsbad7 said:
So you'd say that not making the playoffs is good?

You like
Click to expand...
Carlsbad7 said:
So you'd say that not making the playoffs is good?

You like using numbers to justify everything about youth soccer but for some reason are ok with giving Sharks a pass.
Click to expand...

Well lets take a look. Last year the Sharks were running dead last in just about every age in ECNL. In the first year after a reboot, they are in the middle of a very competitive group.
Standings.PNG

As far as Playoffs go:

-The G07 NL team tied the third place team in the Sonoran Division (arguably the strongest division in the strongest conference in all Girls youth soccer). The Sharks haters where on here claiming that it would take them years, possibly never, before they would challenge for one of the top three spots in Sonoran. First year, they missed third place, and therefore a spot in the Champions Division playoffs via tie-breaker (goal differential) and came in forth place. They played in the North American Cup against Real Colorado International 4-2 L, Eastside FC 3-0 W, and Sting Dallas 2-2 T.

-The G07 RL team made it to Round of 8 at ECRL West Championship Playoffs (WA, OR, NorCal, and SoCal). They were knocked out by Slammers in PK's 0-0 score, PK's 4-2. Slammers went on to beat Legends; Slammers are headed to Finals with Surf. I expect the Slammers 07RL team will be the ECRL Finals Champ, as Surf will have both the ECNL and ECRL teams at the same event, so they won't be able to use too many NL players on their RL team at Finals.

Not too shabby for the level of play in ECNL. In fact, middle of the pack in the Sonoran Division is likely doing better than 95% of the clubs in the Nation. So is it Outstanding? No. Is it Good, Absolutely.

As far as attrition and retention this year. I'm only aware of the 2007 and below. I've only heard about 2 or 3 players (ECRL) leaving the club voluntarily (I am by no means the source of knowledge on this). I know a couple of cuts were made to each of NL and RL teams, some NL players moved to RL, and a few players from SD Surf, Albion, and EC Surf were picked up. The rosters have stayed close to the same as far as I know; two or three changes per team. I suspect these fine tuning changes to the massive overhaul of last year will improve the clubs performance this year. It is clear that player selection has shifted gears from the old model of a community rec. club (were a players tenure on a team or club determines team selection), to a serious competitive club model (player Knowledge, Skill, and Ability determines team selection). I'm sure some of the pay to play parents are still having heartburn over it, but it appears to be successful, and the families who want to be a part of a no BS competitive club won't have problems with cuts being made.

I observed older tryouts at Sharks, Albion, SDSC Surf, SD Force, and Rebels this year. By far, Sharks had two maybe three times as many outside players trying out than the other clubs. It's hard to say where everyone was coming from as most don't wear club gear, but usually the backpack logos are a give away. I looked at the line of backpacks at the Sharks tryouts, and I would say a significant amount of players were from Blues, Surf, Force, Albion, and City. Sharks certainly did not have a lack of interest this year. Comparing the level of interest, to the number of new players added, it's safe to say the Sharks are still on the upswing of bringing in talent.
 
Code said:
Well lets take a look. Last year the Sharks were running dead last in just about every age in ECNL. In the first year after a reboot, they are in the middle of a very competitive group.
View attachment 17554

As far as Playoffs go:

-The G07 NL team tied the third place team in the Sonoran Division (arguably the strongest division in the strongest conference in all Girls youth soccer). The Sharks haters where on here claiming that it would take them years, possibly never, before they would challenge for one of the top three spots in Sonoran. First year, they missed third place, and therefore a spot in the Champions Division playoffs via tie-breaker (goal differential) and came in forth place. They played in the North American Cup against Real Colorado International 4-2 L, Eastside FC 3-0 W, and Sting Dallas 2-2 T.

-The G07 RL team made it to Round of 8 at ECRL West Championship Playoffs (WA, OR, NorCal, and SoCal). They were knocked out by Slammers in PK's 0-0 score, PK's 4-2. Slammers went on to beat Legends; Slammers are headed to Finals with Surf. I expect the Slammers 07RL team will be the ECRL Finals Champ, as Surf will have both the ECNL and ECRL teams at the same event, so they won't be able to use too many NL players on their RL team at Finals.

Not too shabby for the level of play in ECNL. In fact, middle of the pack in the Sonoran Division is likely doing better than 95% of the clubs in the Nation. So is it Outstanding? No. Is it Good, Absolutely.

As far as attrition and retention this year. I'm only aware of the 2007 and below. I've only heard about 2 or 3 players (ECRL) leaving the club voluntarily (I am by no means the source of knowledge on this). I know a couple of cuts were made to each of NL and RL teams, some NL players moved to RL, and a few players from SD Surf, Albion, and EC Surf were picked up. The rosters have stayed close to the same as far as I know; two or three changes per team. I suspect these fine tuning changes to the massive overhaul of last year will improve the clubs performance this year. It is clear that player selection has shifted gears from the old model of a community rec. club (were a players tenure on a team or club determines team selection), to a serious competitive club model (player Knowledge, Skill, and Ability determines team selection). I'm sure some of the pay to play parents are still having heartburn over it, but it appears to be successful, and the families who want to be a part of a no BS competitive club won't have problems with cuts being made.

I observed older tryouts at Sharks, Albion, SDSC Surf, SD Force, and Rebels this year. By far, Sharks had two maybe three times as many outside players trying out than the other clubs. It's hard to say where everyone was coming from as most don't wear club gear, but usually the backpack logos are a give away. I looked at the line of backpacks at the Sharks tryouts, and I would say a significant amount of players were from Blues, Surf, Force, Albion, and City. Sharks certainly did not have a lack of interest this year. Comparing the level of interest, to the number of new players added, it's safe to say the Sharks are still on the upswing of bringing in talent.
Click to expand...
That's a fair assessment + inline with what I see happening.

Good but not great, better but not worse.

Hopefully time will cure some of the tactlessness that happened when MW first took over. I haven't heard of any major purges or players being dropped recently.
 
Carlsbad7 said:
I agree that Sharks are playing in a very difficult league.

I also agree that with Surf right next door that it's difficult to keep any real talent from being recruited.

My question is how do parents feel about MW now that they've worked with him for a year?

What several people pointed out when MW first came on + blew up all the teams with the tact of a sledgehammer was that it was going to cause issues. At the 9v9 level and below you can treat players and parents like cattle because nobody really knows each other or has strong connections. At the 11v11 level and up parents all pretty much know each other + most of the talent has been identified. This means if you drop a player or gut a team everyone is going to know about it. If you get a reputation as a DOC/Coach that doesn't stand behind their players you'd better be able to recruit to fill in the gaps. When MW first came to Sharks he pulled from Albion and to a lesser extent CitySC both clubs have circled the wagons + it's highly unlikely that he'll be able to do the same going forward. This leaves him with recruiting from ECS, ECRL, DPL, AYSO, etc. In the long run this won't work.

What MW should have done when he first came on was do as few cuts as possible + add players + run rosters of 24+. This is what everyone else does at the ECNL/GA level. Over time players that aren't getting minutes will find other places to play on their own and leave. Or they'll get better and contribute. Either way it doesn't matter because they're still paying dues to the club. Gutting the teams showed MWs arrogance and lack of understanding about how olders works.
Click to expand...

Seems like you are placing the responsibility of the Sharks prior team compositions onto the new coaching staff. Why would a new coaching staff brought in to build a competitive program keep a bunch of players who were not properly developed? It sucks for those players, but they were not up to par for a club fielding ECNL teams. That failure falls on the previous coaching staff/director for failing to make changes to the teams as players changed over the years. Some player improve, some don't. Some practice seriously year in and year out, some don't. Puberty can make big changes in how the player compares to others over the years; some improve, some drop off. The point is the composition of a top team at U12/13 will change significantly by U15/16, or you will nonger have a top team.

I don't think anyone, pro or anti Sharks has ever taken a position that the few years pre-MW, Sharks were doing good, or had top teams. MW and his staff did exactly what should have been done, create teams with the best available talent, not teams with best parent Cumbia, or players with the most tenure. The current Sharks staff did what some other clubs in the area will need to start doing if they want to stay relevant (SDSC, EC Surf, Rebels, Albion). If you want to compete in the top tier, you make team selections based on ability of the players each year; not politics, parents, social circles, player/team numbers, or sour grapes. Sharks and Rebels are some of the few clubs playing in top tier leagues that keeps the rosters of the NL and RL teams at 18 +/- 1. The SD Surf, Albion and SDSC teams are running 22-26 + players per team. My DD is not willing to play on a team with more than 20, she would rather drop down a level.

The coaching staff over the past year at Sharks has been dedicated and straight forward. They work well as a team, and have been responsive to any concerns we have had, and made huge improvements in the players abilities. Nothing has been sugarcoated about playing time and player abilities, and coaching perspectives are shared openly. It has been a good club and a good experience. My DD is very happy with the coaches and other players, there is minimal to no parent drama, and the talent is legit.
 
Carlsbad7 said:
So now that MW has had a season to make things happen for the older Girls at Sharks as the DOC + 2009 and 2010 top team coach what's everyone's opinion?

I say better than before but not very good. Also, recruitment is shaky because MW has alienated several parents + is still receiving blowback + older parents are talking to younger parents.
Click to expand...

I'd say certainly better than before and, overall, trending in the right direction.

Carlsbad7 said:
What MW should have done when he first came on was do as few cuts as possible + add players + run rosters of 24+. This is what everyone else does at the ECNL/GA level. Over time players that aren't getting minutes will find other places to play on their own and leave. Or they'll get better and contribute. Either way it doesn't matter because they're still paying dues to the club. Gutting the teams showed MWs arrogance and lack of understanding about how olders works.
Click to expand...

While I agree that the way the roster rebuilds absolutely could have been handled better, I couldn't disagree more with the sentiment that carrying a roster of 24+ is the right thing to do for a youth team. Cutting the kids may be harder on feelings short term but is better for the players long term than having them not even suit up for games.

Talk to parents and kids currently in the NL/RL programs and by and large they are satisfied with what's happening over there in terms of coaching and culture.

That being said, Sharks have a fundamental issues in the form of field space and (as others pointed out) having Surf in their backyard. Not sure how or if they will ever be able to solve the former. As for how to deal with Surf, they are going to have to really lean into culture/community and (everyone says the do it, but few really do) player development over recruiting.
 
Code said:
Seems like you are placing the responsibility of the Sharks prior team compositions onto the new coaching staff. Why would a new coaching staff brought in to build a competitive program keep a bunch of players who were not properly developed? It sucks for those players, but they were not up to par for a club fielding ECNL teams. That failure falls on the previous coaching staff/director for failing to make changes to the teams as players changed over the years. Some player improve, some don't. Some practice seriously year in and year out, some don't. Puberty can make big changes in how the player compares to others over the years; some improve, some drop off. The point is the composition of a top team at U12/13 will change significantly by U15/16, or you will nonger have a top team.

I don't think anyone, pro or anti Sharks has ever taken a position that the few years pre-MW, Sharks were doing good, or had top teams. MW and his staff did exactly what should have been done, create teams with the best available talent, not teams with best parent Cumbia, or players with the most tenure. The current Sharks staff did what some other clubs in the area will need to start doing if they want to stay relevant (SDSC, EC Surf, Rebels, Albion). If you want to compete in the top tier, you make team selections based on ability of the players each year; not politics, parents, social circles, player/team numbers, or sour grapes. Sharks and Rebels are some of the few clubs playing in top tier leagues that keeps the rosters of the NL and RL teams at 18 +/- 1. The SD Surf, Albion and SDSC teams are running 22-26 + players per team. My DD is not willing to play on a team with more than 20, she would rather drop down a level.

The coaching staff over the past year at Sharks has been dedicated and straight forward. They work well as a team, and have been responsive to any concerns we have had, and made huge improvements in the players abilities. Nothing has been sugarcoated about playing time and player abilities, and coaching perspectives are shared openly. It has been a good club and a good experience. My DD is very happy with the coaches and other players, there is minimal to no parent drama, and the talent is legit.
Click to expand...
Everything you've stated is good to hear.

Your comment "there is minimal to no patent drama" is interesting. MW had a reputation for getting involved in parent drama at times. (Or maybe it was Albion leadership) Hopefully he's figured out that it's a dead-end street + stopped all the nonsense + focused only on soccer.

On the boys side Sharks have always scrapped by providing fairly consistent above average coaching. If the girls can get to the same level they would likely fit the same niche.
 
Kicker4Life said:
I’ve watched it in many facets of youth soccer. On the parent side, the club side and even with individual Coaches.
MW is in a precarious position and (unless you have some inside info) we don’t know what the Board tasked him with as near and long term objectives. MW has been around the game far longer than you and I, so maybe he has the flexibility to rip off the band-aide to start the healing process.
Click to expand...
It may seem that he should get some players that got recruited from him, but to only come back … maybe from the Surf, who knows
 
Just look at the results from their tournament over the last weekend in Del Mar! Sharks teams taking 1st left and right!

I kid, because it's a very small tournament (and it's their own), and with ECNL playoffs so close, not many top teams were playing in it.
 
I have two DDs youngers both playing flight 1 at other ECNL and GA clubs. Looking from the outside it does not appear they field competitive flight 1 teams in younger ages in fact I have never even seen these teams. Why don’t they take the blues or rebels approach and play every weekend? In most instances I don’t see them on schedules playing flight 1 until first year of 9 vs 9. I do consider them often in switching. However, my hesitancy is not enough game time experience. Although I do though keep hearing of flight 1 teams from around SD at the younger ages with full teams or half the teams switching over to sharks. Maybe word is getting out at Younger ages this is a third option of you can’t get on surf A or rebels? All in all I guess my point is if they want to be more competitive within ECNL/ECRL shouldn’t they be carrying multiple flight 1 teams in an age bracket? If you waiting until 9v9 which is two years prior to ECNL to field a flight 1 team you’re 4 years behind. Just imho.
 
Ljohnso8 said:
Looking from the outside it does not appear they field competitive flight 1 teams in younger ages in fact I have never even seen these teams. Why don’t they take the blues or rebels approach and play every weekend? In most instances I don’t see them on schedules playing flight 1 until first year of 9 vs 9.
Click to expand...

Looking just at SR - it does make you wonder. They do appear to have multiple teams in the younger age groups (2015G, 2014G, 2013G, etc.), but they all show just tournament games in their record, not league. It isn't until 2012G that it shows a team that competed in SoCal at all, let alone Flight 1. Same on the boys side. Multiple teams in each younger age group, but no league results of note until 2012B. Seems like it would make it much harder to then build competitive teams from that age and older, but it does seem to be working by some measures - DMCV is showing 12th strongest girls club in CA (out of 163), and there are plenty of very well-respected clubs that are nowhere near that ranking.
 
RandomSoccerFan said:
Looking just at SR - it does make you wonder. They do appear to have multiple teams in the younger age groups (2015G, 2014G, 2013G, etc.), but they all show just tournament games in their record, not league. It isn't until 2012G that it shows a team that competed in SoCal at all, let alone Flight 1. Same on the boys side. Multiple teams in each younger age group, but no league results of note until 2012B. Seems like it would make it much harder to then build competitive teams from that age and older, but it does seem to be working by some measures - DMCV is showing 12th strongest girls club in CA (out of 163), and there are plenty of very well-respected clubs that are nowhere near that ranking.
Click to expand...

The youngers do play SoCal.


SoCal doesn't publish scores (or even require that they are reported) for league play until 9v9.
 
In my experience pre 11v11 in San Diego for girls it goes obviously Surf by a pretty significant gap… then City, Rebels, and Sharks all kinds right there behind

boys I’m not as sure for youngers , but I believe it’s primarily dominated by Surf, City , and Rebels. Also think SDSC has some strong boys teams
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top