|
|
Post by tsssoccer on Jun 30, 2021 10:26:23 GMT -5
U18 Tophat SCCL Club team in need of 2-4 players for the upcoming fall season.
Please reply if you know any uncommitted player or high school player not assigned to a club team.
|
|
|
|
Post by liverpoolfc on Jul 1, 2021 5:35:41 GMT -5
which location?
|
|
|
|
Post by tsssoccer on Jul 20, 2021 17:14:09 GMT -5
Team would train in East Cobb (Franklin, Metro or Terrill Mill)
|
|
|
|
Post by BubbleDad on Jul 29, 2021 2:26:38 GMT -5
Team would train in East Cobb (Franklin, Metro or Terrill Mill) Are you still looking for players and would you be willing to have U16 level players? |
|
|
|
Post by Keeper on Jul 29, 2021 13:44:08 GMT -5
Team would train in East Cobb (Franklin, Metro or Terrill Mill) Are you still looking for players and would you be willing to have U16 level players? Debating a move back to Tophat? |
|
|
|
Post by BubbleDad on Jul 30, 2021 1:22:25 GMT -5
Are you still looking for players and would you be willing to have U16 level players? Debating a move back to Tophat? no lol. Asking for someone else lol |
|
|
|
Post by interestedspectator on Jul 30, 2021 8:25:32 GMT -5
Obviously not that interested in adding players due to the coaches lack of response on here to the original reply and the last reply!!
|
|
|
|
Post by liverpoolfc on Jul 30, 2021 9:18:24 GMT -5
I know a team looking for 2-3 more 07 girls players for a SCCL 1 level player.
|
|
|
|
Post by Keeper on Jul 30, 2021 9:45:08 GMT -5
I know a team looking for 2-3 more 07 girls players for a SCCL 1 level player. 2007 has to be a year where players are needed the most. I know a couple of 07 teams still looking for players on the boys and girls side. |
|
|
|
Post by liverpoolfc on Jul 30, 2021 15:03:17 GMT -5
I know a team looking for 2-3 more 07 girls players for a SCCL 1 level player. 2007 has to be a year where players are needed the most. I know a couple of 07 teams still looking for players on the boys and girls side. I agree with you, if you know some 07 SCCL 1 girls. let me know. |
|
|
|
Post by jam040 on Jul 30, 2021 16:00:28 GMT -5
For the boys or girls? I know someone who could possibly play.
|
|
|
|
Post by liverpoolfc on Jul 30, 2021 17:29:31 GMT -5
Girls 07 SCCL 1
|
|
|
|
Post by jam040 on Jul 30, 2021 22:10:46 GMT -5
For the boys or girls? I know someone who could possibly play. I was referring to the OP |
|
|
|
Post by roki12 on Jul 31, 2021 10:34:43 GMT -5
Any teams looking for players should post the club, age, gender, level, practice locations, coach and contact info. Is there a reason they don’t advertise the need/openings on social media? They used to do “supplemental” tryouts.
|
|
|
|
Post by southsoccerfam on Aug 2, 2021 0:57:47 GMT -5
Where are the 07 sccl 1 girls needed ? What area of ATL?
|
|
|
|
Post by mightydawg on Aug 2, 2021 8:18:14 GMT -5
I think that 2007 was the year that was most effected by the birth year mandate. 2007 was the largest birth year in U.S. history but seems to have fewer soccer players than both 2006 and 2008 (this is antidotal, I could not find a stat). I think that most of the explanation is the birth year mandate. 2007s had just completed U9 when the birth year mandate went into effect for U10. That meant for 2 years the relative age effect had pushed August through December 2006s to the top of the player pool while only providing players who had experienced the relative age effect for 1 year (u8). As a result, for players that would have been playing U10 without the age mandate, the loss of players to the 2006 age group was greater than the influx of players from the group that would have been playing U9. This has been seen in the fact that 2006 seems to be one of the strongest age groups while 2007 is one of the weakest.
|
|
|
|
Post by liverpoolfc on Aug 2, 2021 9:19:03 GMT -5
Where are the 07 sccl 1 girls needed ? What area of ATL? Tophat Milton |
|
|
|
Post by atlfutboldad on Aug 2, 2021 11:08:31 GMT -5
I think that 2007 was the year that was most effected by the birth year mandate. 2007 was the largest birth year in U.S. history but seems to have fewer soccer players than both 2006 and 2008 (this is antidotal, I could not find a stat). I think that most of the explanation is the birth year mandate. 2007s had just completed U9 when the birth year mandate went into effect for U10. That meant for 2 years the relative age effect had pushed August through December 2006s to the top of the player pool while only providing players who had experienced the relative age effect for 1 year (u8). As a result, for players that would have been playing U10 without the age mandate, the loss of players to the 2006 age group was greater than the influx of players from the group that would have been playing U9. This has been seen in the fact that 2006 seems to be one of the strongest age groups while 2007 is one of the weakest. My 06 (late September birthday) was a U9 in 2015-16 prior to the birth-year mandate and had to move up to play U11 in 2016-17. I think 07's who were playing U9 in 2015-16 would have moved to U10 the following year. I still think the birth-year mandate was one of the most disastrous moves by the USSF to date. For example, on our club's 2006 (U16) 1st and 2nd teams only 2 players (out of 17) on each team are August-December birthdays (2025 graduates). Only 12% of each team is represented by players born in 42% of the year. A flexible system was made inflexible, and I still think they need to fix it. |
|
