'04 LH QT Predictions

Cobra_Kai wrote:If you are making a case diminishing athleticism, you should omit 2014 WC from your argument.  Germany looked like the biggest, strongest, most athletic team to me.

The biggest, strongest, and most athletic team was either the US or one of the African teams. Germany won because they completed pass after pass after pass. They had multiple players that completed more than 90% of their passes. They possessed the ball and played smart. Probably their best player is 5'-6" or so and about 165 lbs. Big fast and strong is great but you still need to know how to play.

Ok....so to build on what BWG has done..

Assumptions:
Rankings are by Points
Blue:  Won thier Brackets
Yellow:  Seeding #1 in thier Bracket
Green:  Incline of 5 points or more
Red:  Decline of 5 points or more

What teams are the stand outs in DIV 1 (good & bad) ???


What teams are the stand outs in DIV 3 (good & bad) ???

Top Ten to make D3 no particular order

Dfeeters White
Sting West
Fcd White
Lp Raisbeck
Andro
Gssc
SRFC
FCD Central
Fc Premier(amazing center defender, but can they score?)
Sparta or Cosmos

I believe a slight adjustment is necessary.

To rank based on points, second qualifier is goal differential, third is total goals.

I think some of these depend, in part, on bracketing.

Is a team like FC Premier rewarded for their performance this weekend?

They could be playing Sting West, or Dallas Cosmos.

soccerisfun wrote:I believe a slight adjustment is necessary.

To rank based on points, second qualifier is goal differential, third is total goals.

Yes you are correct.....I have been advised on this.  I am in the middle of re-doing it and will re post it.

Thanks for the catch.

Thanks for your work!

SocDad wrote:Ok....so to build on what BWG has done..

Assumptions:
Rankings are by Points
Blue:  Won thier Brackets
Yellow:  Seeding #1 in thier Bracket
Green:  Incline of 5 points or more
Red:  Decline of 5 points or more

What teams are the stand outs in DIV 1 (good & bad) ???


What teams are the stand outs in DIV 3 (good & bad) ???

I think the only oversights were that:
- Everybody and their cat knew LP RASE/Elite were #1. Common sense should have prevailed there.
- Solar Pulp/Abbott were in the top ten rankings for almost 2 years then a couple of below average tournaments knocked them down to 16th so two years history/consistency went out the window for the sake of two tournaments where the team was trying a new formation and trying to bed in new players.
- LP Dalglish/Premier again were under-ranked because they didn't play tournaments. A 3 or 4 seeding was where they belonged and most people knew that.

Overall though, things ended up pretty much as expected.

10sDad wrote:
My point is that NTX focuses too heavily on muscle and physical play, and not enough on skill and tactics.  Abby is the quintessential NTX player (even though she is not from here).  But...because NTX focuses so much on big, brute athletes (Abby type), the smaller stature athletes (Mia type) get weeded out early as the Abby types just push them off the ball because they do not have a possession-style system to work the give/go's, the formational shifts, the tiki-taka, etc., etc.

I'm not going to disagree with your general premise here, but your Mia example is a bad example. If Mia was playing in NTX today, she would still be on a top team, and would still be playing ECNL because of her superior speed, agility, coordination, and strength (she might not have been big, but she always had a huge leg). She was a superior ATHLETE.

My point goes to the original message that you posted about ECNL players, and the first couple of responses to your post, that imply that as the kids get older, that D1 and ECNL coaches are going to simply start choosing mids and defenders that are skilled and know how to play possession well, over their stud athletes.

I'm here to tell you that the D1 and ECNL coaches will first and foremost pick the stud athletes who ALSO are skilled and know how to play possession well, and when those players run out, they will still lean towards stud athletes. I haven't met the coach yet that will take the kid with great skills who they know isn't athletic enough to keep up with the speed of the game, over taking a flyer on the freakish athlete who skills are still "raw".

If your kid is playing D3 or PPL/APL this year at U11, and when you look out on the pitch, your kid looks to be of middle of the pack size, middle of the pack speed, and middle of the pack agility to the other D3/PPL/APL players on the pitch, I don't care how skilled your kid is, or how high their soccer IQ is, their chances of playing ECNL at U14 are South of slim and just North of none.

Now, if your D3/PPL/APL kids is the one of the fastest, most agile, and biggest kids on the pitch, but for whatever reason hasn't developed great skills yet... there's hope, and with the right coaching and work ethic, they can develop to that level.

I should change my signature to say... "Skill and Soccer IQ are important... Athleticism is VITAL..."

Tell you what... go ahead and bookmark this post today. Come back 3 yrs. from now and tell me if I was wrong.

Here is the revised...

Ok....so to build on what BWG has done..

Assumptions:
Rankings are by Points/Goal Differential/LHGCL seeding.
Blue:  Won thier Brackets
Yellow:  Seeding #1 in thier Bracket
Green:  Incline of 5 points or more
Red:  Decline of 5 points or more

What teams are the stand outs in DIV 1 (good & bad) ???


What teams are the stand outs in DIV 3 (good & bad) ???

SocDad wrote:Here is the revised...

Ok....so to build on what BWG has done..

Assumptions:
Rankings are by Points/Goal Differential/LHGCL seeding.
Blue:  Won thier Brackets
Yellow:  Seeding #1 in thier Bracket
Green:  Incline of 5 points or more
Red:  Decline of 5 points or more

What teams are the stand outs in DIV 1 (good & bad) ???


What teams are the stand outs in DIV 3 (good & bad) ???

Where did D'Feeters Munoz go?

SoccerShocker wrote:

SocDad wrote:Here is the revised...

Ok....so to build on what BWG has done..

Assumptions:
Rankings are by Points/Goal Differential/LHGCL seeding.
Blue:  Won thier Brackets
Yellow:  Seeding #1 in thier Bracket
Green:  Incline of 5 points or more
Red:  Decline of 5 points or more

What teams are the stand outs in DIV 1 (good & bad) ???


What teams are the stand outs in DIV 3 (good & bad) ???

Where did D'Feeters Munoz go?  

You cannot rank teams versus each other using QT points the way FBR does. It is completely different.

FBR uses cross game data with same opponents. There was ZERO cross bracket play so such numbers are completely irrelevant. Everyone played their own micro tournaments. There is no way to base relative strength as a result.

Also, FBR is not based on a 10 point system. It focuses primarily on wins, losses, and draws.

FCD won bracket M by a Sunday PM coin toss. Not that it makes a difference, but wouldn't teams tied on qt points in this list also share the same "Ranking by QT points?" Sting Cuevas should be tied at 11 with Odyssey and FCD & Redknapp tied at 13 based on your criteria at the top. I'm a stickler for detail, I can't help it.   

MustangGT wrote:

SoccerShocker wrote:

SocDad wrote:Here is the revised...

Ok....so to build on what BWG has done..

Assumptions:
Rankings are by Points/Goal Differential/LHGCL seeding.
Blue:  Won thier Brackets
Yellow:  Seeding #1 in thier Bracket
Green:  Incline of 5 points or more
Red:  Decline of 5 points or more

What teams are the stand outs in DIV 1 (good & bad) ???


What teams are the stand outs in DIV 3 (good & bad) ???

Where did D'Feeters Munoz go?  

You cannot rank teams versus each other using QT points the way FBR does. It is completely different.

FBR uses cross game data with same opponents. There was ZERO cross bracket play so such numbers are completely irrelevant. Everyone played their own micro tournaments. There is no way to base relative strength as a result.

Also, FBR is not based on a 10 point system. It focuses primarily on wins, losses, and draws.

Your are correct good sir.

My intent is to get an idea of placement for Div 3 and to spur on discussion.

bwgophers wrote:
I'm here to tell you that the D1 and ECNL coaches will first and foremost pick the stud athletes who ALSO are skilled and know how to play possession well, and when those players run out, they will still lean towards stud athletes.  

Now, if your D3/PPL/APL kids is the one of the fastest, most agile, and biggest kids on the pitch, but for whatever reason hasn't developed great skills yet...  there's hope, and with the right coaching and work ethic, they can develop to that level.

So...now that the 10 year old D1 has been decided....there is slim to no chance for any kid whose TEAM did not make D1 to ever improve unless they are the fastest, most agile and biggest kid on the pitch. So if your kid is on a team that did not make D1, and your kid is under 5 feet tall at age 10 and not freakishly fast....best to hang up the cleats. Just go ahead and give up... That methodology shames countless potential soccer stars into quitting the sport prior to puberty. If your dd did not get her growth spurt early, or will not be a 6 footer...its too late for her to play top level soccer...ever. Go back to rec, you loser.

This is exactly what NTX preaches. And its why our players can't seem to do anything worthwhile beyond youth soccer. We don't develop soccer players...we develop football players.

People claiming Mia Hamm wouldn't have been a standout in NTX are cut from the same cloth as those who say Messi would've been a bench warmer here because he was so short. It's laughable really. Both were phenom level athletes and dominated their peers at early ages.

Then to bring up Alex Morgan starting late? Really? She's a walking billboard for the athleticism trumps all in women's soccer argument. They don't call her baby horse for nothing.

Bwgophers speaks the truth on this...as usual....and it's good to see him wade into the more subjective discussions we don't normally find him in.

My dds team is fast and athletic. They just got back from nationals after getting whopped on by big, fast, athletic kids from Michigan...who also happened to be extraordinarily skilled and tactically disciplined. Pretty much the Germany recipe...speed, skill, size where it matters, and tactical excellence. Skill and tactical IQ are huge factors, and by no means do I think they should be discounted or overlooked. But the reality on the field is athleticism is the trump suit and required for entry to the top level...especially in the girls game.

I think Gophers point is not that you can't continue to play if you are not fast, agile, big etc, but if you have none of these traits, don't expect to make a top team, play ECNL or play in college.  Nothing stopping you from playing select club soccer and having fun.  This is really not very controversial.  It takes fast, agile, skilled players to play at the top level and if you don't have those traits, then yes; too bad.

MustangGT wrote:

SoccerShocker wrote:

SocDad wrote:Here is the revised...

Ok....so to build on what BWG has done..

Assumptions:
Rankings are by Points/Goal Differential/LHGCL seeding.
Blue:  Won thier Brackets
Yellow:  Seeding #1 in thier Bracket
Green:  Incline of 5 points or more
Red:  Decline of 5 points or more

What teams are the stand outs in DIV 1 (good & bad) ???


What teams are the stand outs in DIV 3 (good & bad) ???

Where did D'Feeters Munoz go?  

You cannot rank teams versus each other using QT points the way FBR does. It is completely different.

FBR uses cross game data with same opponents. There was ZERO cross bracket play so such numbers are completely irrelevant. Everyone played their own micro tournaments. There is no way to base relative strength as a result.

Also, FBR is not based on a 10 point system. It focuses primarily on wins, losses, and draws.

But this is exactly what the LHGCL tournament does.

Odyssey, GSSC, ETUFC and Sting Harr played their own micro tournament.  Odyssey won.  But the point system determined that GSSC did not earn enough points to make D1.  GSSC never actually played any of the other teams who earned 9 to 23 points, but it was determined that their "18" points was worse than Kicks "19" points.

Relative strength is determined by seeding.  The expectation is that 1 is better than 2, 2 better than 3, etc., and if seeding held true to form, it would be expected that seeds 1-20 would finish 1-20.

This is the approach selected by LHGCL - points in micro tournaments - as opposed to head-to-head competition.  If LHGCL can use Kicks "19" points to place them ahead of GSSC's "18" points, then why can't you use GSSC's "18" to place them ahead of Andromeda's "15"?

10sDad wrote:

bwgophers wrote:
I'm here to tell you that the D1 and ECNL coaches will first and foremost pick the stud athletes who ALSO are skilled and know how to play possession well, and when those players run out, they will still lean towards stud athletes.  

Now, if your D3/PPL/APL kids is the one of the fastest, most agile, and biggest kids on the pitch, but for whatever reason hasn't developed great skills yet...  there's hope, and with the right coaching and work ethic, they can develop to that level.

So...now that the 10 year old D1 has been decided....there is slim to no chance for any kid whose TEAM did not make D1 to ever improve unless they are the fastest, most agile and biggest kid on the pitch.  So if your kid is on a team that did not make D1, and your kid is under 5 feet tall at age 10 and not freakishly fast....best to hang up the cleats.  Just go ahead and give up...  That methodology shames countless potential soccer stars into quitting the sport prior to puberty.  If your dd did not get her growth spurt early, or will not be a 6 footer...its too late for her to play top level soccer...ever.  Go back to rec, you loser.

This is exactly what NTX preaches.  And its why our players can't seem to do anything worthwhile beyond youth soccer.  We don't develop soccer players...we develop football players.  

No, you're confusing height with athleticism....not the same thing. Jordan harr made the national pool from NTX....don't think she is even 5 feet tall. But.... she is a tremendous athlete.

Gophers isn't saying you're doomed if your kid isn't in d1 at u10, he's saying if she is a middle of the road athlete when ECNL time comes she will have an uphill battle, because those with similar skill but superior athletic ability will probably get the minutes.

soccerisfun wrote:

MustangGT wrote:

SoccerShocker wrote:

SocDad wrote:Here is the revised...

Ok....so to build on what BWG has done..

Assumptions:
Rankings are by Points/Goal Differential/LHGCL seeding.
Blue:  Won thier Brackets
Yellow:  Seeding #1 in thier Bracket
Green:  Incline of 5 points or more
Red:  Decline of 5 points or more

What teams are the stand outs in DIV 1 (good & bad) ???


What teams are the stand outs in DIV 3 (good & bad) ???

Where did D'Feeters Munoz go?  

You cannot rank teams versus each other using QT points the way FBR does. It is completely different.

FBR uses cross game data with same opponents. There was ZERO cross bracket play so such numbers are completely irrelevant. Everyone played their own micro tournaments. There is no way to base relative strength as a result.

Also, FBR is not based on a 10 point system. It focuses primarily on wins, losses, and draws.

But this is exactly what the LHGCL tournament does.

Odyssey, GSSC, ETUFC and Sting Harr played their own micro tournament.  Odyssey won.  But the point system determined that GSSC did not earn enough points to make D1.  GSSC never actually played any of the other teams who earned 9 to 23 points, but it was determined that their "18" points was worse than Kicks "19" points.

Relative strength is determined by seeding.  The expectation is that 1 is better than 2, 2 better than 3, etc., and if seeding held true to form, it would be expected that seeds 1-20 would finish 1-20.

This is the approach selected by LHGCL - points in micro tournaments - as opposed to head-to-head competition.  If LHGCL can use Kicks "19" points to place them ahead of GSSC's "18" points, then why can't you use GSSC's "18" to place them ahead of Andromeda's "15"?

For the same reason they are not awarding D1 Champions yet... they have to play the games versus each other.

QT was simply a way to provide general groupings, not rank from top to bottom. As I pointed out earlier, I believe they missed the boat in not allowing 2nd round D1 entries as this placed too much weight to the initial seeding versus performance. While this is fine for eyeing the top 10-15, it clearly muddies when getting into the 15-30 range.

Jules Rimet wrote:FCD won bracket M by a Sunday PM coin toss.  Not that it makes a difference, but wouldn't teams tied on qt points in this list also share the same "Ranking by QT points?" Sting Cuevas should be tied at 11 with Odyssey and FCD & Redknapp tied at 13 based on your criteria at the top.  I'm a stickler for detail, I can't help it.   

I see your point....but since DIV 1 has already been decided....so I didn't care to do by goal diff...but since your asking...I'll entertain ya :

Now remember...this rankings assume:  QT Points first / GD / GF / LHCGL Original Seeding (i dont care to do anymore after that )

Here's what I will tell you about the type of athlete ECNL and beyond are looking for, it's the same type of athletes you are looking for right now. They all want the best combination of speed, strength and tactical proficiency. Speed and strength will outweigh tactical awareness, but if two players speed and strength are equal or comparable then tactical awareness and proficiency is the deciding factor. It's that way in NTX, it's that way in CA, NJ, FL, IL, and anywhere else they are trying to put together the best soccer team they can. Size is not really much of a factor as size and strength are two different things. You can be a midget like Messi but still be strong on the ball. The reason why speed and strength outweigh the tactical things because if you are always second to the ball or if you are never able to create space, it doesn't matter how well you can dribble and change directions because you are never going to be able to keep the ball long enough to do anything with it.

I will say this though, I wouldn't stress out about where your DD is at age 10/11. Let them all go through the change physically and then let's see who's the fastest. I've seen kids go from middle of the pack speed wise to absolute burners over the course of a year and I've seen it go the other way as well.

GrandTXSoccer wrote:Here's what I will tell you about the type of athlete ECNL and beyond are looking for, it's the same type of athletes you are looking for right now. They all want the best combination of speed, strength and tactical proficiency. Speed and strength will outweigh tactical awareness, but if two players speed and strength are equal or comparable then tactical awareness and proficiency is the deciding factor. It's that way in NTX, it's that way in CA, NJ, FL, IL, and anywhere else they are trying to put together the best soccer team they can. Size is not really much of a factor as size and strength are two different things. You can be a midget like Messi but still be strong on the ball. The reason why speed and strength outweigh the tactical things because if you are always second to the ball or if you are never able to create space, it doesn't matter how well you can dribble and change directions because you are never going to be able to keep the ball long enough to do anything with it.

I will say this though, I wouldn't stress out about where your DD is at age 10/11. Let them all go through the change physically and then let's see who's the fastest. I've seen kids go from middle of the pack speed wise to absolute burners over the course of a year and I've seen it go the other way as well.  

I do enjoy when folks come on here and give a level headed explanation of events to those of us that have never rode this bus before. Always wondering if we've pushed our kid hard enough at 10 years old to be the best at 14, 15 or older... It's a tough balance between those that think the "right now" is better than the development to later years. As a parent going through this little world of NTX Soccer for the first time it helps to have folks put a realistic spin on what we should expect from our 10 year old players. Being that I never played the game of soccer it's even harder to decipher at times. That balance between too little and too much can mean the difference between love of the sport and complete burnout by the time her body has caught up with OUR expectations.

 

SocDad wrote:
I see your point....but since DIV 1 has already been decided....so I didn't care to do by goal diff...but since your asking...I'll entertain ya :

Now remember...this rankings assume:  QT Points first / GD / GF / LHCGL Original Seeding (i dont care to do anymore after that )

This is a really clean view - thanks for throwing it together. I noticed that you used the GD and GF data based on the official results. Remember that the official scoring maxed GF at 8 per game. I was curious if your standings changed if using actual game results. I discovered 2 things that don't really matter much, but since I did the work, I thought I'd share the results:
- Sting Guzman (GF8) and Sting North (GF9) should rightfully be flipped based on GF
- DTS (GD14)  and DT Scott (GD13) would flip based on GD if you consider the actual game scores

Clearly, I lead an exciting life.

db10 wrote:

Cobra_Kai wrote:If you are making a case diminishing athleticism, you should omit 2014 WC from your argument.  Germany looked like the biggest, strongest, most athletic team to me.

The biggest, strongest, and most athletic team was either the US or one of the African teams. Germany won because they completed pass after pass after pass. They had multiple players that completed more than 90% of their passes. They possessed the ball and played smart.  Probably their best player is 5'-6" or so and about 165 lbs. Big fast and strong is great but you still need to know how to play.

Cobra_Kai is exactly right. When you say something like "most athletic", that's hard to quantify. But when you say who was the "biggest", we can look that up.

Germany was in fact the "biggest" team in world cup 2014...on both average height and weight. They have a few talented small guys, but a lot more talented above average sized players (surely you noticed the likes of 6'4" J.Boateng dominating the central defensive third with his aerial prowess against Argentina).

US was 9th biggest. The biggest african team was Nigeria at #11.

In terms of "most athletic", I'd say Ghana was BY FAR the most athletic African squad. The others were scrubs in comparison. IMO, no African side other than Ghana was on par athletically with Germany, Netherlands, England, Chile, Argentina, Columbia, etc.

Ghana was one of the 5 smallest teams at the world cup.

Source: this pretty cool visualization from Emil Johannson: http://ejoh.se/worldcup2014/height

For those that are complaining about the failure of NTX developing anything other than the biggest...fastest kids....here's a novel idea, MOVE to SoCal or the East Coast where apparently they only develop the most skilled players...If NTX coaches are so bad at development, why let your DD play for one?!!