Just for the heck of it. Here’s a look at how some of the top water polo clubs performed in the 14u, 16u, and 18u age groups in this year’s Junior Olympics. For each age group and gender, I awarded 10 points to the club that finished first, 9 points to the club that finished second, and so on. The maximum score any club could receive is 60 points. I could have used other point systems but I don’t think the results would vary dramatically. I chose not to consider the 12u and 10u age groups because (1) I don’t think the results of these age groups have much predictive value and (2) I have a high school water polo bent.
Top 10 Girls’ Clubs (the numbers in parenthesis show how many points a club received in the 18u, 16u, and 14u age groups):
Newport Beach – 23 (3, 10, 10)
Lamorinda – 18 (7, 7, 4)
SB 805 - 15 (6, 9, 0)
Patriot – 14 (0, 5, 9)
Diablo Alliance – 12 (2, 3, 7)
SET – 10 (10, 0, 0)
Regency – 9 (9, 0, 0)
SOCAL – 8 (8, 0, 0)
San Diego Shores – 8 (0, 8, 0)
South Coast – 8 (0, 0, 8)
Top 10 Boys’ Clubs (the numbers in parenthesis show how many points a club received in the 18u, 16u, and 14u age groups):
Del Mar – 18 (8, 10, 0)
San Diego Shores – 16 (0, 9, 7)
Newport Beach – 12 (9, 3, 0)
CC United – 12 (2, 8, 2)
Channel Islands United – 12 (0, 2, 10)
Lamorinda – 10 (7, 0, 3)
Mission – 10 (4, 0, 6)
North Irvine – 10 (10, 0, 0)
Greenwich – 9 (0, 0, 9)
Patriot – 8 (0, 0, 8)
Top 10 Girls’ and Boys’ Clubs Combined (the first number in parenthesis shows how many points a club received in the girls’ 18u, 16u, and 14u age groups; the second number shows how many points a club received in the boys’ 18u, 16u, and 14u age groups)
Newport Beach – 35 (23, 12)
Lamorinda – 28 (18, 10)
San Diego Shores – 24 (8, 16)
Patriot – 22 (14, 8)
Del Mar – 18 (0, 18)
SB 805 – 15 (15, 0)
SOCAL – 14 (8, 6)
CC United – 12 (0, 12)
Channel Islands United – 12 (0, 12)
Greenwich – 12 (3, 9)
Newport Beach finished in the top 10 of every age group I considered, except for the boys’ 14u age group (Newport finished 16th). Lamorinda finished in the top 10 of every age group I considered, except for the boys’ 16u age group (Lamorinda finished 17th). No other club finished in the top 10 in more than three of the age groups I considered. Newport is the only club to win two gold medals in the age groups I considered, winning the girls’ 16u and 14u age groups. Newport also won the silver medal in the boys’ 18u age group. I don’t think there is any question that, at the moment, Newport has the strongest club. It’s no coincidence that Newport Harbor also has the strongest high school water polo program.
General Observations. This was a down year for some of the top Northern California clubs, including Stanford’s boys’ teams, Atherton (Sacred Heart Prep’s club), and 680. Stanford’s 16u team, expected by many to finish in the top four, finished 10th. Their 18u team finished 14th and their 14u team finished 13th. Atherton finished 18th in the boys’ 18u age group and 15th in the boys’ 16u age group. Sacred Heart has been the dominant boys’ high school water polo program in the Central Coast Section for almost a generation. I don’t think Stanford can regain its stature as a top 5 boys’ club as long as Sacred Heart has its own club for the boys’ 18u and 16u age groups.
From the 1970s to the mid-1990s, the Concord Water Polo Club, consistently one of the best men’s water polo clubs in the country, was the only prominent water polo club in the East Bay. The Concord Water Polo Club was dissolved in the late 1990s. There are now four well-established water polo clubs in the East Bay: Lamorinda, Diablo Alliance, 680, and CC United. In the early years of their existence, CC United focused on boys’ water polo and Diablo focused on girls’ water polo. In recent years, however, Diablo has expanded its boys’ programs and CC United has expanded its girls’ 12u and 14u programs. Although this expansion has allowed for more parental and player choice, I don’t think the East Bay has the player pool to support four clubs if each club wishes to compete at the highest levels.
The level of success of the East Bay clubs tends to be cyclical but, at least for now, it’s a down period for 680. Their girls’ 14u team finished 6th but the 16u team finished 26th and the 18u team finished 21st. Their boys’ 14u team finished 11th, the 16u team finished 14th, and they didn’t enter an 18u team. In the last few years, 680 has lost some of its top high school age players to Lamorinda, Diablo, and CC United. We’ll see whether this trend continues.
In Southern California, SOCAL, historically a top 3 or 4 club, finished 2nd in the girls’ 18u age group and 5th in the boys’ 18u age group but had disappointing results in the 16u and 14u age groups. Specifically, the girls’ 16u team finished 26th, the girls’ 14u team finished 21st, the boys’ 16u team finished 19th, and the boys’ 14u team finished 23rd. The girls’ program at SOCAL has been adversely affected by Chris Segesman’s return to Mater Dei and Regency. On the boys’ side, I have heard that SOCAL is losing players to other clubs, including North Irvine, Orange County Water Polo Club, and Patriot. Speaking of Patriot, they had strong performances in the boys’ and girls’ 14u age groups and the girls’ 16u age group.
Finally, congratulations to the three non-California teams that finished in the top 10 in the three age groups I considered: the Greenwich boys’ 14u team, the Greenwich girls’ 14u team, and the Longhorn boys’ 14u team.