08 Girls

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:To the dad that said his kid has a chance after seeing Rose juggle? Nope. It's a false indicator. Rose just proves that juggling is BS.

How so?

Again, her juggling demonstrated commitment to working towards improving a skill or a goal and it demonstrated comfort with the ball.

It may not have created comfort with the ball but it sure as hell demonstrated comfort with the ball. How hard is this to understand?

How so? She was terrible at juggling per the juggling parents. Less than one per second. Above the knee. Terrible. That's the point. Yet she is world class.

What’s wrong with juggling above your knee?

God, some people on this forum are not right in the head.

Nothing at all but it does mean the juggles are slower is all. It is all about control either way. But a person was arguing that a kid couldn't juggle one or two per second and if you are juggling above your knee that is certainly true.

Stop being so defensive.

Umm, that wasn't defensive, but you certainly proved my not right in the head point with that comment.

To counter your inane point, it's harder to control a ball from a higher height. I also realize that this discussion is not fact based, so I'll disengage now.

I only talked about the speed, ie, the number of juggles that could be accomplished within a certain time frame depending on whether you are juggling high vs low.

Yes, you are being defensive if you thought I passed judgement regarding either.

You are a bore.

And you are the same fool who makes this board unbearable. I recognized your style instantly

I'll take this as an admission that you actually re-read my PP and now understand that I wasn't making a judgement on any particular style of juggling and that you are being overly defensive.

Point proven! You frequent quite a few threads here don’t you? And wreck them all.

And yet you are the one who mis-read a post, replied defensively and incorrectly.

Here is a video to prove that juggling high can be both difficult AND impossible to replicate once per second.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G7B4DEHlZAA

[Anonymous]

And that it is also possible to juggle once to twice a second:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bN-6nQyFPco

[Anonymous]

GL with that

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:To the dad that said his kid has a chance after seeing Rose juggle? Nope. It's a false indicator. Rose just proves that juggling is BS.

How so?

Again, her juggling demonstrated commitment to working towards improving a skill or a goal and it demonstrated comfort with the ball.

It may not have created comfort with the ball but it sure as hell demonstrated comfort with the ball. How hard is this to understand?

How so? She was terrible at juggling per the juggling parents. Less than one per second. Above the knee. Terrible. That's the point. Yet she is world class.

What’s wrong with juggling above your knee?

God, some people on this forum are not right in the head.

Nothing at all but it does mean the juggles are slower is all. It is all about control either way. But a person was arguing that a kid couldn't juggle one or two per second and if you are juggling above your knee that is certainly true.

Stop being so defensive.

Umm, that wasn't defensive, but you certainly proved my not right in the head point with that comment.

To counter your inane point, it's harder to control a ball from a higher height. I also realize that this discussion is not fact based, so I'll disengage now.

I only talked about the speed, ie, the number of juggles that could be accomplished within a certain time frame depending on whether you are juggling high vs low.

Yes, you are being defensive if you thought I passed judgement regarding either.

You are a bore.

And you are the same fool who makes this board unbearable. I recognized your style instantly

I'll take this as an admission that you actually re-read my PP and now understand that I wasn't making a judgement on any particular style of juggling and that you are being overly defensive.

Point proven! You frequent quite a few threads here don’t you? And wreck them all.

And yet you are the one who mis-read a post, replied defensively and incorrectly.

Here is a video to prove that juggling high can be both difficult AND impossible to replicate once per second.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G7B4DEHlZAA

Actually everything you stated there is incorrect, but you are in perfect form, for you.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:To the dad that said his kid has a chance after seeing Rose juggle? Nope. It's a false indicator. Rose just proves that juggling is BS.

How so?

Again, her juggling demonstrated commitment to working towards improving a skill or a goal and it demonstrated comfort with the ball.

It may not have created comfort with the ball but it sure as hell demonstrated comfort with the ball. How hard is this to understand?

How so? She was terrible at juggling per the juggling parents. Less than one per second. Above the knee. Terrible. That's the point. Yet she is world class.

What’s wrong with juggling above your knee?

God, some people on this forum are not right in the head.

Nothing at all but it does mean the juggles are slower is all. It is all about control either way. But a person was arguing that a kid couldn't juggle one or two per second and if you are juggling above your knee that is certainly true.

Stop being so defensive.

Umm, that wasn't defensive, but you certainly proved my not right in the head point with that comment.

To counter your inane point, it's harder to control a ball from a higher height. I also realize that this discussion is not fact based, so I'll disengage now.

I only talked about the speed, ie, the number of juggles that could be accomplished within a certain time frame depending on whether you are juggling high vs low.

Yes, you are being defensive if you thought I passed judgement regarding either.

You are a bore.

And you are the same fool who makes this board unbearable. I recognized your style instantly

I'll take this as an admission that you actually re-read my PP and now understand that I wasn't making a judgement on any particular style of juggling and that you are being overly defensive.

Point proven! You frequent quite a few threads here don’t you? And wreck them all.

And yet you are the one who mis-read a post, replied defensively and incorrectly.

Here is a video to prove that juggling high can be both difficult AND impossible to replicate once per second.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G7B4DEHlZAA

Actually everything you stated there is incorrect, but you are in perfect form, for you.

Which is incorrect?

Juggling over 18 meters is easy or that it can be done once per second?

Do you even know the point you are trying to make anymore or are you just trying to be angry?

[Anonymous]

Oh lord, there are some crazy parents in 2008G.

Batman brought us the Riddler and the Joker, now we have the Juggler, making sure we get our facts down on how long between juggles based on height and their importance to being a good soccer player.

Good grief.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Oh lord, there are some crazy parents in 2008G.

Batman brought us the Riddler and the Joker, now we have the Juggler, making sure we get our facts down on how long between juggles based on height and their importance to being a good soccer player.

Good grief.

I know, someone makes a claim and some anti juggling clown says it is impossible.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:To the dad that said his kid has a chance after seeing Rose juggle? Nope. It's a false indicator. Rose just proves that juggling is BS.

How so?

Again, her juggling demonstrated commitment to working towards improving a skill or a goal and it demonstrated comfort with the ball.

It may not have created comfort with the ball but it sure as hell demonstrated comfort with the ball. How hard is this to understand?

How so? She was terrible at juggling per the juggling parents. Less than one per second. Above the knee. Terrible. That's the point. Yet she is world class.

What’s wrong with juggling above your knee?

God, some people on this forum are not right in the head.

Nothing at all but it does mean the juggles are slower is all. It is all about control either way. But a person was arguing that a kid couldn't juggle one or two per second and if you are juggling above your knee that is certainly true.

Stop being so defensive.

Umm, that wasn't defensive, but you certainly proved my not right in the head point with that comment.

To counter your inane point, it's harder to control a ball from a higher height. I also realize that this discussion is not fact based, so I'll disengage now.

I only talked about the speed, ie, the number of juggles that could be accomplished within a certain time frame depending on whether you are juggling high vs low.

Yes, you are being defensive if you thought I passed judgement regarding either.

You are a bore.

And you are the same fool who makes this board unbearable. I recognized your style instantly

I'll take this as an admission that you actually re-read my PP and now understand that I wasn't making a judgement on any particular style of juggling and that you are being overly defensive.

Point proven! You frequent quite a few threads here don’t you? And wreck them all.

And yet you are the one who mis-read a post, replied defensively and incorrectly.

Here is a video to prove that juggling high can be both difficult AND impossible to replicate once per second.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G7B4DEHlZAA

Actually everything you stated there is incorrect, but you are in perfect form, for you.

Which is incorrect?

Juggling over 18 meters is easy or that it can be done once per second?

Do you even know the point you are trying to make anymore or are you just trying to be angry?

You have made my point yourself. High juggling is difficult, juggling at or a little above the knee can be done at good pace, and both are just fine to practice. I think you like provoking and arguing with people for argument’s sake and I don’t see that personality trait going away anytime soon.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:To the dad that said his kid has a chance after seeing Rose juggle? Nope. It's a false indicator. Rose just proves that juggling is BS.

How so?

Again, her juggling demonstrated commitment to working towards improving a skill or a goal and it demonstrated comfort with the ball.

It may not have created comfort with the ball but it sure as hell demonstrated comfort with the ball. How hard is this to understand?

How so? She was terrible at juggling per the juggling parents. Less than one per second. Above the knee. Terrible. That's the point. Yet she is world class.

What’s wrong with juggling above your knee?

God, some people on this forum are not right in the head.

Nothing at all but it does mean the juggles are slower is all. It is all about control either way. But a person was arguing that a kid couldn't juggle one or two per second and if you are juggling above your knee that is certainly true.

Stop being so defensive.

Umm, that wasn't defensive, but you certainly proved my not right in the head point with that comment.

To counter your inane point, it's harder to control a ball from a higher height. I also realize that this discussion is not fact based, so I'll disengage now.

I only talked about the speed, ie, the number of juggles that could be accomplished within a certain time frame depending on whether you are juggling high vs low.

Yes, you are being defensive if you thought I passed judgement regarding either.

You are a bore.

And you are the same fool who makes this board unbearable. I recognized your style instantly

I'll take this as an admission that you actually re-read my PP and now understand that I wasn't making a judgement on any particular style of juggling and that you are being overly defensive.

Point proven! You frequent quite a few threads here don’t you? And wreck them all.

And yet you are the one who mis-read a post, replied defensively and incorrectly.

Here is a video to prove that juggling high can be both difficult AND impossible to replicate once per second.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G7B4DEHlZAA

Actually everything you stated there is incorrect, but you are in perfect form, for you.

Which is incorrect?

Juggling over 18 meters is easy or that it can be done once per second?

Do you even know the point you are trying to make anymore or are you just trying to be angry?

You have made my point yourself. High juggling is difficult, juggling at or a little above the knee can be done at good pace, and both are just fine to practice. I think you like provoking and arguing with people for argument’s sake and I don’t see that personality trait going away anytime soon.

What you don't understand is I NEVER SAID IT WAS EASY!!!

I NEVER MADE A JUDGMENT EITHER WAY.

READ and stop reacting!!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:To the dad that said his kid has a chance after seeing Rose juggle? Nope. It's a false indicator. Rose just proves that juggling is BS.

How so?

Again, her juggling demonstrated commitment to working towards improving a skill or a goal and it demonstrated comfort with the ball.

It may not have created comfort with the ball but it sure as hell demonstrated comfort with the ball. How hard is this to understand?

How so? She was terrible at juggling per the juggling parents. Less than one per second. Above the knee. Terrible. That's the point. Yet she is world class.

What’s wrong with juggling above your knee?

God, some people on this forum are not right in the head.

Nothing at all but it does mean the juggles are slower is all. It is all about control either way. But a person was arguing that a kid couldn't juggle one or two per second and if you are juggling above your knee that is certainly true.

Stop being so defensive.

Umm, that wasn't defensive, but you certainly proved my not right in the head point with that comment.

To counter your inane point, it's harder to control a ball from a higher height. I also realize that this discussion is not fact based, so I'll disengage now.

I only talked about the speed, ie, the number of juggles that could be accomplished within a certain time frame depending on whether you are juggling high vs low.

Yes, you are being defensive if you thought I passed judgement regarding either.

You are a bore.

And you are the same fool who makes this board unbearable. I recognized your style instantly

I'll take this as an admission that you actually re-read my PP and now understand that I wasn't making a judgement on any particular style of juggling and that you are being overly defensive.

Point proven! You frequent quite a few threads here don’t you? And wreck them all.

And yet you are the one who mis-read a post, replied defensively and incorrectly.

Here is a video to prove that juggling high can be both difficult AND impossible to replicate once per second.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G7B4DEHlZAA

Actually everything you stated there is incorrect, but you are in perfect form, for you.

Which is incorrect?

Juggling over 18 meters is easy or that it can be done once per second?

Do you even know the point you are trying to make anymore or are you just trying to be angry?

You have made my point yourself. High juggling is difficult, juggling at or a little above the knee can be done at good pace, and both are just fine to practice. I think you like provoking and arguing with people for argument’s sake and I don’t see that personality trait going away anytime soon.

What you don't understand is I NEVER SAID IT WAS EASY!!!

I NEVER MADE A JUDGMENT EITHER WAY.

READ and stop reacting!!

You take things too personally. I never mentioned any individual in my OP and it sounds like we agree more than disagree.

take a breath!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:To the dad that said his kid has a chance after seeing Rose juggle? Nope. It's a false indicator. Rose just proves that juggling is BS.

How so?

Again, her juggling demonstrated commitment to working towards improving a skill or a goal and it demonstrated comfort with the ball.

It may not have created comfort with the ball but it sure as hell demonstrated comfort with the ball. How hard is this to understand?

How so? She was terrible at juggling per the juggling parents. Less than one per second. Above the knee. Terrible. That's the point. Yet she is world class.

What’s wrong with juggling above your knee?

God, some people on this forum are not right in the head.

Nothing at all but it does mean the juggles are slower is all. It is all about control either way. But a person was arguing that a kid couldn't juggle one or two per second and if you are juggling above your knee that is certainly true.

Stop being so defensive.

Umm, that wasn't defensive, but you certainly proved my not right in the head point with that comment.

To counter your inane point, it's harder to control a ball from a higher height. I also realize that this discussion is not fact based, so I'll disengage now.

I only talked about the speed, ie, the number of juggles that could be accomplished within a certain time frame depending on whether you are juggling high vs low.

Yes, you are being defensive if you thought I passed judgement regarding either.

You are a bore.

And you are the same fool who makes this board unbearable. I recognized your style instantly

I'll take this as an admission that you actually re-read my PP and now understand that I wasn't making a judgement on any particular style of juggling and that you are being overly defensive.

Point proven! You frequent quite a few threads here don’t you? And wreck them all.

And yet you are the one who mis-read a post, replied defensively and incorrectly.

Here is a video to prove that juggling high can be both difficult AND impossible to replicate once per second.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G7B4DEHlZAA

Actually everything you stated there is incorrect, but you are in perfect form, for you.

Which is incorrect?

Juggling over 18 meters is easy or that it can be done once per second?

Do you even know the point you are trying to make anymore or are you just trying to be angry?

You have made my point yourself. High juggling is difficult, juggling at or a little above the knee can be done at good pace, and both are just fine to practice. I think you like provoking and arguing with people for argument’s sake and I don’t see that personality trait going away anytime soon.

What you don't understand is I NEVER SAID IT WAS EASY!!!

I NEVER MADE A JUDGMENT EITHER WAY.

READ and stop reacting!!

You take things too personally. I never mentioned any individual in my OP and it sounds like we agree more than disagree.

take a breath!

Nothing personal, it is just frustrating posting when someone like you puts words in my mouth that were never stated. Read things more carefully next time before you reply attempting to contradict something that was never said.

[Anonymous]

I do not want to start an argument but I have to ask this question.

On the soccer field, the object is it control the ball in the air and ground it as soon as possible in the desire direction or to kick/pass the airborne ball towards goal or to a teammate. Hence, why the need to continuously juggle 1000 times without it hitting the ground instead of trying to control it and ground it in 1-3 juggles?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I do not want to start an argument but I have to ask this question.

On the soccer field, the object is it control the ball in the air and ground it as soon as possible in the desire direction or to kick/pass the airborne ball towards goal or to a teammate. Hence, why the need to continuously juggle 1000 times without it hitting the ground instead of trying to control it and ground it in 1-3 juggles?

Nobody is really saying there is a magic number.

If you are good at juggling you can control the end yourself versus losing control of the ball.

Kinda like ice skating. If you can truly ice skate you can come to a controlled stop on your own without needing to skate into the rink wall in order to stop.

There is no magic number, there is no magic height, there is no magic speed. Only comfort with the ball.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I do not want to start an argument but I have to ask this question.

On the soccer field, the object is it control the ball in the air and ground it as soon as possible in the desire direction or to kick/pass the airborne ball towards goal or to a teammate. Hence, why the need to continuously juggle 1000 times without it hitting the ground instead of trying to control it and ground it in 1-3 juggles?

You do not need to hit any number. Many coaches and such use 1000 juggles because at that number you basically can juggle as long as you want. So a player who practices controlling a ball in the air a 1000 is going to be better at it vs one who does it 3 times. It starts to become muscle memory.

Juggling is also about standing one foot and hitting the ball with the other... coordination and balance. Every time you play soccer you do this. Many players u12 and below have not developed their balance- leg/ankle/foot muscles are weak. Ask a group of u10/u11 girls to stand on one leg for 30 seconds. You would be surprised by how many can not do this. This is one of the reason juggling is harder for u12 and below but important.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I do not want to start an argument but I have to ask this question.

On the soccer field, the object is it control the ball in the air and ground it as soon as possible in the desire direction or to kick/pass the airborne ball towards goal or to a teammate. Hence, why the need to continuously juggle 1000 times without it hitting the ground instead of trying to control it and ground it in 1-3 juggles?

Here's my humble opinion on it. It's the repetition that ultimately matters the most. That said, if the 1000 juggles are all roughly 6 inches off the same foot, that doesn't necessarily translate to the field. What does translate is varied heights and surfaces. It's not just the number, but the types of touches and the quality of each touch. Using varied heights and surfaces and getting into the hundreds, then doing it regularly really helps for that odd ball in a game situation in bringing the ball right where you need it for that first touch.