'03 Girls FBR Rankings - 06-25-13

Till-I-Collapse wrote:We all know when older games fall off, the rankings automatically adjust. IMO there are a few "over ranked" teams between 5 - 20.  Time will tell ...

soccer22 wrote:bwgophers.... how is Andromeda 03 Grado still number 33 won their games in Kyle Owens and were in Championship game? Do you go by tourneys too?

SolarPower00 wrote:This is why it matters:

1)Some talented kids will be looking for a new team this week...and some teams on here are undervalued and consequently less attractive

2)LHGCL may refer to this week's FBR  (and QT seeding is kind of important)

Did I just open that can of worms again

SolarPower00 wrote:This is why it matters:

1)Some talented kids will be looking for a new team this week...and some teams on here are undervalued 
2)LHGCL may refer to this FBR  (and QT seeding is kind of important)

Did I just open that can of worms again

soccerdad1969 wrote:

SolarPower00 wrote:This is why it matters:

1)Some talented kids will be looking for a new team this week...and some teams on here are undervalued and consequently less attractive

2)LHGCL may refer to this week's FBR  (and QT seeding is kind of important)

Did I just open that can of worms again

From what I understand, FBR is just for our benefit only. LH only considers Tut and Puma tourneys for seeding.

 Not true! LH will send reps out to any scrimmage that they know about.

GrandTXSoccer wrote:You see and hear it almost everytime you go out and watch a game. I watched a game this weekend at railroad park that included two teams in that 6-25 range I believe and I can't tell you how many times I heard parents cheering when some defender just booted the ball long down the line and then it was off to the races. It really made for some ugly, boring soccer.

In my opinion 1-5 are pretty set, sure you can swap 2 & 3 or 4 & 5 but it's really just splitting hairs. After that most of the teams rely on one fast girl to score for them and some big defender in the back to just whack the ball. Now if you talk to their parents they all seem to think they are "more of a possesion based team and not some kickball team" when in reality there's probably only a few teams in this age group that actually have a clue about switching the field, playing the ball back out of pressure and generally trying to keep possesion of the ball.

The more consistent teams are the ones that play better soccer, it's really quite simple. Yes they might have some better players but at age 10 there's still not a huge physical advantage between the girls. It comes back to coaching and the top teams generally have better coaching, or at least I'd say they've had the same coach for a longer period of time. Now if you've had the same coach for the past 3 years and your team has never improved, guess what you've pretty much wasted your money and paid good money so your daughter could make friends and have a bunch of sleepovers.

At this point I agree, we know what we know and short of a team just imploding (which I think there's a likelyhood of at least a few teams going that route) King Tut's not going to tell us anything about teams 1-5 we don't already know. Basically for the past year those teams have been the top 5 teams.

outonthelimb wrote:

GrandTXSoccer wrote:You see and hear it almost everytime you go out and watch a game. I watched a game this weekend at railroad park that included two teams in that 6-25 range I believe and I can't tell you how many times I heard parents cheering when some defender just booted the ball long down the line and then it was off to the races. It really made for some ugly, boring soccer.

In my opinion 1-5 are pretty set, sure you can swap 2 & 3 or 4 & 5 but it's really just splitting hairs. After that most of the teams rely on one fast girl to score for them and some big defender in the back to just whack the ball. Now if you talk to their parents they all seem to think they are "more of a possesion based team and not some kickball team" when in reality there's probably only a few teams in this age group that actually have a clue about switching the field, playing the ball back out of pressure and generally trying to keep possesion of the ball.

The more consistent teams are the ones that play better soccer, it's really quite simple. Yes they might have some better players but at age 10 there's still not a huge physical advantage between the girls. It comes back to coaching and the top teams generally have better coaching, or at least I'd say they've had the same coach for a longer period of time. Now if you've had the same coach for the past 3 years and your team has never improved, guess what you've pretty much wasted your money and paid good money so your daughter could make friends and have a bunch of sleepovers.

At this point I agree, we know what we know and short of a team just imploding (which I think there's a likelyhood of at least a few teams going that route) King Tut's not going to tell us anything about teams 1-5 we don't already know. Basically for the past year those teams have been the top 5 teams.

I'd agree with most of your post but there's a team that's ranked oh about #14 (in the FBR) that ended 2012 #5 in the FBR (and was consistently around that # for the better part of the academy years) which you'd be hard pressed to find anyone that actually watches games (not just quotes the FBR) that would say they haven't always been possession oriented.  Now were they successful at that style of play? Not always as imo they were missing a lot of fundamental technical components that are critical to being successful at a possession style.  This was especially apparent in 2013 win/loss when the catalyst was out Feb-May. 

Sting Hilton (then Mendoza) is not a top 5 team as those teams have added a lot of firepower in the last 5-6 mths and proven themselves worthy of such distinction time and time again.  However, they shouldn't be lumped into a category of 'After that most of the teams rely on one fast girl to score for them and some big defender in the back to just whack the ball.'

 Are you saying they don't have either?

SolarPower00 wrote:

#2:  you might be surprised

turftoe9 wrote:

outonthelimb wrote:

GrandTXSoccer wrote:You see and hear it almost everytime you go out and watch a game. I watched a game this weekend at railroad park that included two teams in that 6-25 range I believe and I can't tell you how many times I heard parents cheering when some defender just booted the ball long down the line and then it was off to the races. It really made for some ugly, boring soccer.

In my opinion 1-5 are pretty set, sure you can swap 2 & 3 or 4 & 5 but it's really just splitting hairs. After that most of the teams rely on one fast girl to score for them and some big defender in the back to just whack the ball. Now if you talk to their parents they all seem to think they are "more of a possesion based team and not some kickball team" when in reality there's probably only a few teams in this age group that actually have a clue about switching the field, playing the ball back out of pressure and generally trying to keep possesion of the ball.

The more consistent teams are the ones that play better soccer, it's really quite simple. Yes they might have some better players but at age 10 there's still not a huge physical advantage between the girls. It comes back to coaching and the top teams generally have better coaching, or at least I'd say they've had the same coach for a longer period of time. Now if you've had the same coach for the past 3 years and your team has never improved, guess what you've pretty much wasted your money and paid good money so your daughter could make friends and have a bunch of sleepovers.

At this point I agree, we know what we know and short of a team just imploding (which I think there's a likelyhood of at least a few teams going that route) King Tut's not going to tell us anything about teams 1-5 we don't already know. Basically for the past year those teams have been the top 5 teams.

I'd agree with most of your post but there's a team that's ranked oh about #14 (in the FBR) that ended 2012 #5 in the FBR (and was consistently around that # for the better part of the academy years) which you'd be hard pressed to find anyone that actually watches games (not just quotes the FBR) that would say they haven't always been possession oriented.  Now were they successful at that style of play? Not always as imo they were missing a lot of fundamental technical components that are critical to being successful at a possession style.  This was especially apparent in 2013 win/loss when the catalyst was out Feb-May. 

Sting Hilton (then Mendoza) is not a top 5 team as those teams have added a lot of firepower in the last 5-6 mths and proven themselves worthy of such distinction time and time again.  However, they shouldn't be lumped into a category of 'After that most of the teams rely on one fast girl to score for them and some big defender in the back to just whack the ball.'

 Are you saying they don't have either?

turftoe9 wrote:

soccerdad1969 wrote:

SolarPower00 wrote:This is why it matters:

1)Some talented kids will be looking for a new team this week...and some teams on here are undervalued and consequently less attractive

2)LHGCL may refer to this week's FBR  (and QT seeding is kind of important)

Did I just open that can of worms again

From what I understand, FBR is just for our benefit only. LH only considers Tut and Puma tourneys for seeding.

 Not true! LH will send reps out to any scrimmage that they know about.

bwgophers wrote:

SolarPower00 wrote:

#2:  you might be surprised

I know I would be.  I have 2 years worth of comparisons between FBR Rankings and QT seeding that show pretty clearly that LHGCL doesn't pay much attention to them when it comes to QT seeding.  I'd post the info, but am limited to smart-phone access only until this evening.

I personally think you give me far tooooooo much credit, but if you and others in the '03 world fear and loath any real and/or implied influence of the mighty FBR, you have no one to blame but yourselves for not offering up any alternatives to balance whatever inequities or shortcomings FBR might have.

bwgophers wrote:

SolarPower00 wrote:

#2:  you might be surprised

I know I would be.  I have 2 years worth of comparisons between FBR Rankings and QT seeding that show pretty clearly that LHGCL doesn't pay much attention to them when it comes to QT seeding.  I'd post the info, but am limited to smart-phone access only until this evening.

I personally think you give me far tooooooo much credit, but if you and others in the '03 world fear and loath any real and/or implied influence of the mighty FBR, you have no one to blame but yourselves for not offering up any alternatives to balance whatever inequities or shortcomings FBR might have.