Roster Sizes

Just curious where the roster sizes ended up.  There were some on the forum that were adamant most all of the D1 teams would go to 18.  Can anyone confirm the numbers below?

Solar Red.........16
FC Dallas..........18
Sting................15 (Last I heard, could have added)
Kicks................15
Texans.............17
Sting North.......?
Feet.................16
Andromeda.......16
Texans FW........17

Surprised Sting is at 16. I would've expected them to sign at least 17 like Texans and FCD.

3-4-3 wrote:Surprised Sting is at 16. I would've expected them to sign at least 17 like Texans and FCD.

Which one of these teams had the most turn over?

3-4-3 wrote:Surprised Sting is at 16. I would've expected them to sign at least 17 like Texans and FCD.

Flanny has always tried to keep a streamlined roster. No surprise there

soccersounder wrote:

3-4-3 wrote:Surprised Sting is at 16. I would've expected them to sign at least 17 like Texans and FCD.

Flanny has always tried to keep a streamlined roster. No surprise there

Don't know much about what he did with his other teams, but this year carrying 16 is the first year he ended up with less than league maximum for his 01 team.

Given that team was hit mightily by injuries by end of u12, I'm surprised he wouldn't go to at least 17 like the other volume clubs.

3-4-3 wrote:

soccersounder wrote:

3-4-3 wrote:Surprised Sting is at 16. I would've expected them to sign at least 17 like Texans and FCD.

Flanny has always tried to keep a streamlined roster. No surprise there

Don't know much about what he did with his other teams, but this year carrying 16 is the first year he ended up with less than league maximum for his 01 team.

Given that team was hit mightily by injuries by end of u12, I'm surprised he wouldn't go to at least 17 like the other volume clubs.  

You not knowing what he normally does is the point of my post: to put you in the know, so that you're not surprised anymore.. :-)

For Flanny, it would of been surprising if he had more than 16..

Kudos for a new term: "Volume Clubs"....

But every team/Coach is different.. Can't speak to the other Clubs, but the DOC at Sting hires his coaches for a reason and let's them run their own teams...

soccersounder wrote:

3-4-3 wrote:

soccersounder wrote:

3-4-3 wrote:Surprised Sting is at 16. I would've expected them to sign at least 17 like Texans and FCD.

Flanny has always tried to keep a streamlined roster. No surprise there

Don't know much about what he did with his other teams, but this year carrying 16 is the first year he ended up with less than league maximum for his 01 team.

Given that team was hit mightily by injuries by end of u12, I'm surprised he wouldn't go to at least 17 like the other volume clubs.  

You not knowing what he normally does is the point of my post: to put you in the know, so that you're not surprised anymore.. :-)

For Flanny, it would of been surprising if he had more than 16..

Kudos for a new term: "Volume Clubs"....

But every team/Coach is different.. Can't speak to the other Clubs, but the DOC at Sting hires his coaches for a reason and let's them run their own teams...

Which would explain the hiring of Guzman!!   

soccersounder wrote:
You not knowing what he normally does is the point of my post: to put you in the know, so that you're not surprised anymore.. :-)

For Flanny, it would of been surprising if he had more than 16..

Kudos for a new term: "Volume Clubs"....

But every team/Coach is different.. Can't speak to the other Clubs, but the DOC at Sting hires his coaches for a reason and let's them run their own teams...

Glad you could follow the new term.

Appreciate you putting me in the know on Flanny keeping streamlined rosters. Hope you didn't gloss over what I posted about what's happened the last few years.

As far as a club letting coaches run their own teams...I think that's one of the biggest challenges with American clubs. No standards, no consistency, no identifiable style of play -because each team is its own island.

We sometimes have clubs with a shared culture, usually centered around winning, but none of the top clubs in the world let coaches do their own thing with their teams in isolation. I suspect if Sting used to do that, those days are coming to an end, and if Flanagan expects that, doubt Sting would be foolish enough to let him coach 01s in ECNL.

3-4-3 wrote:

As far as a club letting coaches run their own teams...I think that's one of the biggest challenges with American clubs. No standards, no consistency, no identifiable style of play -because each team is its own island.

That is an interesting observation. It's been awhile since I had a kid playing at Sting, so I don't know much about the current organization. However, at one time, the very thing BK demanded of his club was conformity to a certain structure.

Every team played the same style (for a long time, the same 4-3-3 used by Anson and the WNT), had the same warmup drills, same pre-training routines, same "uni" while traveling, to the point of how the bags were lined up on the sideline and what kind of water bottle you could use. BK would randomly show up at games to make sure the kids didn't roll their shorts or sleeves - LOL - Good luck with that one these days!! It was pretty easy to identify a Sting team by many things other than the kit they wore (which was leased, btw, so there were only certain numbers you could have).

I don't know if that much conformity is workable or even desirable in today's environment where clubs have a zillion teams of very disparate abilities, but it would be interesting to see a club try to pull it off.