Metro United

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Who gives AF about dilution?

The whole idea of compressing the pyramid at the top is the dumbest concept in the history of dumb comcepts.

Athletes dont even hit their peak until mid to late 20s.

The idea of making the market smaller for 13-17 year old girls in order identify the top talent is so backwards.

More avenues not less.
Different avenues. Not just one.

I disagree. Having 1-2 elite teams forces everyone on those teams to be at the highest level AND train with those of similar skillsets, speed, etc. When you have dilution, you get players that slow down the game and impact training and play. You play like you practice. If a player is forced to practice at the highest levels, they'll play at the highest levels.

The championships are the results that implicitly come with this type of environment.

Look at the last 2 graduating classes from McLean and FCV. Those rosters are littered with players moving on to Penn State, UNC, Duke, Va Tech, etc. Lots of ACC and higher level college programs.

The dilution is real and it is impacting the players that have the ability to play at the higher level. The benefit is that some players that would not traditionally make a top roster now have an opportunity to get better.

It depends on what side of the fence you are on. Most would fall on the 'not traditionally make a roster' side and want the dilution.

If you are on the 'make the team side', you want those slowing development off the teams.

I am the one who made the comment about my issue with the pyramid and compressing kids out too early.

And for the record, My daughter has played at the highest level offered to her since the age 8 and doesnt fall into the "cant make the roster" catagory.

Speaking of "Cant make the roster".

Rosters at the "elite level" never ever look the same from when they start at U13 and when they end at U19. Want to know why? Because girls change so drastically between 12 and 18 that a star becomes burned out and a "nobody" becomes a star. If successful elite teams at U13 kept the same rosters until U18 they would be unsuccessful. This is a fact.

Your childs roster spot is determined by whether or not shes on a peak (roster spot) or in valley (no offer) at that particular stage in her life (soccer development speaking).

You want compression? You may find that your daughter is not so special at that particular stage. And let's not talk about injuries. The coaches loyalty only goes so far....no matter how many dinner party invitations she has received from the social butterflies trying to leverage roster spots on teams and playing time for their "elite" player (that's another topic).

if a good youth player hits a wall between 14 and 15, should she compressed out and replaced with a kid who is peaking at U15 but has no ceiling to grow? I think not.

The player that hit the wall at 14 may come out with guns blazing at 16. However, if you force her out she will quit the sport instead of being regulated.

In NOVA, we have more kids playing because if this.

Agree with everything you said. And compressing people off of a 'top' team or whatever you want to call it doesn't mean a kid has to quit.

Personally, if my DD didn't make the roster of a 'top' team, she has 2 choices, get up and work harder or quit. Not everyone is made the same.

Reducing the # of top level teams doesn't force people to quit, that is an individuals character. They may get bumped at U15, then make the team again at U17. Good for a kid for learning to overcome a difficult time and working hard to get what they want.

The # of 'top' teams is money driven and parents plowing the way for their kid. Removing obstacles so they don't have to face adversity. Tea cups as they'll break at the first sign of adversity!

NP, this doesn’t necessarily translate in a need to reduce the number of elite area teams. The slow player who doesn’t belong will get bumped for a faster, better player. Sure, depending on the age group, different clubs will be dominant because of the combination of coaching ability, overall talent level, strategy, and effort. This doesn’t mean that the other, poorer performing clubs should disband and have players playing in other leagues.

The main reason to minimize the number of clubs is to maximize titles, nothing more.

Agree to disagree.

Clubs want the area's best, period. The teams they build represent them as coaches. Titles are a side benefit of the elite teams they create.

The # of clubs is merely parent paying their kids way into 'elite' soccer. Nothing more.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Who gives AF about dilution?

The whole idea of compressing the pyramid at the top is the dumbest concept in the history of dumb comcepts.

Athletes dont even hit their peak until mid to late 20s.

The idea of making the market smaller for 13-17 year old girls in order identify the top talent is so backwards.

More avenues not less.
Different avenues. Not just one.

I disagree. Having 1-2 elite teams forces everyone on those teams to be at the highest level AND train with those of similar skillsets, speed, etc. When you have dilution, you get players that slow down the game and impact training and play. You play like you practice. If a player is forced to practice at the highest levels, they'll play at the highest levels.

The championships are the results that implicitly come with this type of environment.

Look at the last 2 graduating classes from McLean and FCV. Those rosters are littered with players moving on to Penn State, UNC, Duke, Va Tech, etc. Lots of ACC and higher level college programs.

The dilution is real and it is impacting the players that have the ability to play at the higher level. The benefit is that some players that would not traditionally make a top roster now have an opportunity to get better.

It depends on what side of the fence you are on. Most would fall on the 'not traditionally make a roster' side and want the dilution.

If you are on the 'make the team side', you want those slowing development off the teams.

I am the one who made the comment about my issue with the pyramid and compressing kids out too early.

And for the record, My daughter has played at the highest level offered to her since the age 8 and doesnt fall into the "cant make the roster" catagory.

Speaking of "Cant make the roster".

Rosters at the "elite level" never ever look the same from when they start at U13 and when they end at U19. Want to know why? Because girls change so drastically between 12 and 18 that a star becomes burned out and a "nobody" becomes a star. If successful elite teams at U13 kept the same rosters until U18 they would be unsuccessful. This is a fact.

Your childs roster spot is determined by whether or not shes on a peak (roster spot) or in valley (no offer) at that particular stage in her life (soccer development speaking).

You want compression? You may find that your daughter is not so special at that particular stage. And let's not talk about injuries. The coaches loyalty only goes so far....no matter how many dinner party invitations she has received from the social butterflies trying to leverage roster spots on teams and playing time for their "elite" player (that's another topic).

if a good youth player hits a wall between 14 and 15, should she compressed out and replaced with a kid who is peaking at U15 but has no ceiling to grow? I think not.

The player that hit the wall at 14 may come out with guns blazing at 16. However, if you force her out she will quit the sport instead of being regulated.

In NOVA, we have more kids playing because if this.

Agree with everything you said. And compressing people off of a 'top' team or whatever you want to call it doesn't mean a kid has to quit.

Personally, if my DD didn't make the roster of a 'top' team, she has 2 choices, get up and work harder or quit. Not everyone is made the same.

Reducing the # of top level teams doesn't force people to quit, that is an individuals character. They may get bumped at U15, then make the team again at U17. Good for a kid for learning to overcome a difficult time and working hard to get what they want.

The # of 'top' teams is money driven and parents plowing the way for their kid. Removing obstacles so they don't have to face adversity. Tea cups as they'll break at the first sign of adversity!

The kid compressed out at 14 may indeed improve by U16 but will the Elite coach REALLY give that kid a second look and an objective look at that? No. Once a kid is compressed off a top team at U14 they will not make the top team again.

This mere speculation to attempt to make yourself correct. This is a blanket broad stroke statement that is complete conjecture.

You have no idea if a coach will consider a player previously cut. I have personally seen players get cut from a club's top team and moved to the second. Those players were moved back up 2 years later. They continued to work hard and tryout every year. Their hard work paid off.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Who gives AF about dilution?

The whole idea of compressing the pyramid at the top is the dumbest concept in the history of dumb comcepts.

Athletes dont even hit their peak until mid to late 20s.

The idea of making the market smaller for 13-17 year old girls in order identify the top talent is so backwards.

More avenues not less.
Different avenues. Not just one.

I disagree. Having 1-2 elite teams forces everyone on those teams to be at the highest level AND train with those of similar skillsets, speed, etc. When you have dilution, you get players that slow down the game and impact training and play. You play like you practice. If a player is forced to practice at the highest levels, they'll play at the highest levels.

The championships are the results that implicitly come with this type of environment.

Look at the last 2 graduating classes from McLean and FCV. Those rosters are littered with players moving on to Penn State, UNC, Duke, Va Tech, etc. Lots of ACC and higher level college programs.

The dilution is real and it is impacting the players that have the ability to play at the higher level. The benefit is that some players that would not traditionally make a top roster now have an opportunity to get better.

It depends on what side of the fence you are on. Most would fall on the 'not traditionally make a roster' side and want the dilution.

If you are on the 'make the team side', you want those slowing development off the teams.

I am the one who made the comment about my issue with the pyramid and compressing kids out too early.

And for the record, My daughter has played at the highest level offered to her since the age 8 and doesnt fall into the "cant make the roster" catagory.

Speaking of "Cant make the roster".

Rosters at the "elite level" never ever look the same from when they start at U13 and when they end at U19. Want to know why? Because girls change so drastically between 12 and 18 that a star becomes burned out and a "nobody" becomes a star. If successful elite teams at U13 kept the same rosters until U18 they would be unsuccessful. This is a fact.

Your childs roster spot is determined by whether or not shes on a peak (roster spot) or in valley (no offer) at that particular stage in her life (soccer development speaking).

You want compression? You may find that your daughter is not so special at that particular stage. And let's not talk about injuries. The coaches loyalty only goes so far....no matter how many dinner party invitations she has received from the social butterflies trying to leverage roster spots on teams and playing time for their "elite" player (that's another topic).

if a good youth player hits a wall between 14 and 15, should she compressed out and replaced with a kid who is peaking at U15 but has no ceiling to grow? I think not.

The player that hit the wall at 14 may come out with guns blazing at 16. However, if you force her out she will quit the sport instead of being regulated.

In NOVA, we have more kids playing because if this.

Agree with everything you said. And compressing people off of a 'top' team or whatever you want to call it doesn't mean a kid has to quit.

Personally, if my DD didn't make the roster of a 'top' team, she has 2 choices, get up and work harder or quit. Not everyone is made the same.

Reducing the # of top level teams doesn't force people to quit, that is an individuals character. They may get bumped at U15, then make the team again at U17. Good for a kid for learning to overcome a difficult time and working hard to get what they want.

The # of 'top' teams is money driven and parents plowing the way for their kid. Removing obstacles so they don't have to face adversity. Tea cups as they'll break at the first sign of adversity!

NP, this doesn’t necessarily translate in a need to reduce the number of elite area teams. The slow player who doesn’t belong will get bumped for a faster, better player. Sure, depending on the age group, different clubs will be dominant because of the combination of coaching ability, overall talent level, strategy, and effort. This doesn’t mean that the other, poorer performing clubs should disband and have players playing in other leagues.

The main reason to minimize the number of clubs is to maximize titles, nothing more.

Agree to disagree.

Clubs want the area's best, period. The teams they build represent them as coaches. Titles are a side benefit of the elite teams they create.

The # of clubs is merely parent paying their kids way into 'elite' soccer. Nothing more.

"The teams they build represent them as coaches. Titles are a side benefit of the elite teams they create."

What a crock of ish.

The "best" coaches are nothing more than talent aggregators. Their favorite tactic is recruiting not developing.

Lets cut the rhetoric.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Who gives AF about dilution?

The whole idea of compressing the pyramid at the top is the dumbest concept in the history of dumb comcepts.

Athletes dont even hit their peak until mid to late 20s.

The idea of making the market smaller for 13-17 year old girls in order identify the top talent is so backwards.

More avenues not less.
Different avenues. Not just one.

I disagree. Having 1-2 elite teams forces everyone on those teams to be at the highest level AND train with those of similar skillsets, speed, etc. When you have dilution, you get players that slow down the game and impact training and play. You play like you practice. If a player is forced to practice at the highest levels, they'll play at the highest levels.

The championships are the results that implicitly come with this type of environment.

Look at the last 2 graduating classes from McLean and FCV. Those rosters are littered with players moving on to Penn State, UNC, Duke, Va Tech, etc. Lots of ACC and higher level college programs.

The dilution is real and it is impacting the players that have the ability to play at the higher level. The benefit is that some players that would not traditionally make a top roster now have an opportunity to get better.

It depends on what side of the fence you are on. Most would fall on the 'not traditionally make a roster' side and want the dilution.

If you are on the 'make the team side', you want those slowing development off the teams.

I am the one who made the comment about my issue with the pyramid and compressing kids out too early.

And for the record, My daughter has played at the highest level offered to her since the age 8 and doesnt fall into the "cant make the roster" catagory.

Speaking of "Cant make the roster".

Rosters at the "elite level" never ever look the same from when they start at U13 and when they end at U19. Want to know why? Because girls change so drastically between 12 and 18 that a star becomes burned out and a "nobody" becomes a star. If successful elite teams at U13 kept the same rosters until U18 they would be unsuccessful. This is a fact.

Your childs roster spot is determined by whether or not shes on a peak (roster spot) or in valley (no offer) at that particular stage in her life (soccer development speaking).

You want compression? You may find that your daughter is not so special at that particular stage. And let's not talk about injuries. The coaches loyalty only goes so far....no matter how many dinner party invitations she has received from the social butterflies trying to leverage roster spots on teams and playing time for their "elite" player (that's another topic).

if a good youth player hits a wall between 14 and 15, should she compressed out and replaced with a kid who is peaking at U15 but has no ceiling to grow? I think not.

The player that hit the wall at 14 may come out with guns blazing at 16. However, if you force her out she will quit the sport instead of being regulated.

In NOVA, we have more kids playing because if this.

Agree with everything you said. And compressing people off of a 'top' team or whatever you want to call it doesn't mean a kid has to quit.

Personally, if my DD didn't make the roster of a 'top' team, she has 2 choices, get up and work harder or quit. Not everyone is made the same.

Reducing the # of top level teams doesn't force people to quit, that is an individuals character. They may get bumped at U15, then make the team again at U17. Good for a kid for learning to overcome a difficult time and working hard to get what they want.

The # of 'top' teams is money driven and parents plowing the way for their kid. Removing obstacles so they don't have to face adversity. Tea cups as they'll break at the first sign of adversity!

The kid compressed out at 14 may indeed improve by U16 but will the Elite coach REALLY give that kid a second look and an objective look at that? No. Once a kid is compressed off a top team at U14 they will not make the top team again.

This mere speculation to attempt to make yourself correct. This is a blanket broad stroke statement that is complete conjecture.

You have no idea if a coach will consider a player previously cut. I have personally seen players get cut from a club's top team and moved to the second. Those players were moved back up 2 years later. They continued to work hard and tryout every year. Their hard work paid off.

This rarely happens after U14.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Agree. Soccer is a terrific sport and the opportunity to travel and develop is great. The more avenues the more it will allow kids who started late to finish developing. I am tired of it only being a sport you had to decide for your kid at 8.

+100

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Who gives AF about dilution?

The whole idea of compressing the pyramid at the top is the dumbest concept in the history of dumb comcepts.

Athletes dont even hit their peak until mid to late 20s.

The idea of making the market smaller for 13-17 year old girls in order identify the top talent is so backwards.

More avenues not less.
Different avenues. Not just one.

I disagree. Having 1-2 elite teams forces everyone on those teams to be at the highest level AND train with those of similar skillsets, speed, etc. When you have dilution, you get players that slow down the game and impact training and play. You play like you practice. If a player is forced to practice at the highest levels, they'll play at the highest levels.

The championships are the results that implicitly come with this type of environment.

Look at the last 2 graduating classes from McLean and FCV. Those rosters are littered with players moving on to Penn State, UNC, Duke, Va Tech, etc. Lots of ACC and higher level college programs.

The dilution is real and it is impacting the players that have the ability to play at the higher level. The benefit is that some players that would not traditionally make a top roster now have an opportunity to get better.

It depends on what side of the fence you are on. Most would fall on the 'not traditionally make a roster' side and want the dilution.

If you are on the 'make the team side', you want those slowing development off the teams.

I am the one who made the comment about my issue with the pyramid and compressing kids out too early.

And for the record, My daughter has played at the highest level offered to her since the age 8 and doesnt fall into the "cant make the roster" catagory.

Speaking of "Cant make the roster".

Rosters at the "elite level" never ever look the same from when they start at U13 and when they end at U19. Want to know why? Because girls change so drastically between 12 and 18 that a star becomes burned out and a "nobody" becomes a star. If successful elite teams at U13 kept the same rosters until U18 they would be unsuccessful. This is a fact.

Your childs roster spot is determined by whether or not shes on a peak (roster spot) or in valley (no offer) at that particular stage in her life (soccer development speaking).

You want compression? You may find that your daughter is not so special at that particular stage. And let's not talk about injuries. The coaches loyalty only goes so far....no matter how many dinner party invitations she has received from the social butterflies trying to leverage roster spots on teams and playing time for their "elite" player (that's another topic).

if a good youth player hits a wall between 14 and 15, should she compressed out and replaced with a kid who is peaking at U15 but has no ceiling to grow? I think not.

The player that hit the wall at 14 may come out with guns blazing at 16. However, if you force her out she will quit the sport instead of being regulated.

In NOVA, we have more kids playing because if this.

Agree with everything you said. And compressing people off of a 'top' team or whatever you want to call it doesn't mean a kid has to quit.

Personally, if my DD didn't make the roster of a 'top' team, she has 2 choices, get up and work harder or quit. Not everyone is made the same.

Reducing the # of top level teams doesn't force people to quit, that is an individuals character. They may get bumped at U15, then make the team again at U17. Good for a kid for learning to overcome a difficult time and working hard to get what they want.

The # of 'top' teams is money driven and parents plowing the way for their kid. Removing obstacles so they don't have to face adversity. Tea cups as they'll break at the first sign of adversity!

The kid compressed out at 14 may indeed improve by U16 but will the Elite coach REALLY give that kid a second look and an objective look at that? No. Once a kid is compressed off a top team at U14 they will not make the top team again.

This mere speculation to attempt to make yourself correct. This is a blanket broad stroke statement that is complete conjecture.

You have no idea if a coach will consider a player previously cut. I have personally seen players get cut from a club's top team and moved to the second. Those players were moved back up 2 years later. They continued to work hard and tryout every year. Their hard work paid off.

This rarely happens after U14.

It rarely happens within the club. Those players often need to look at a competing club to be given fresh consideration, but it happens easily if a player continues to work hard and to find alternative ways to be challenged.

[Anonymous]

When people say they’re upset about dilution it’s really about the fact that no more than one or two Girls DA/ECNL teams are competitive at any given age group in this region. There aren’t enough high-level players in this area to fill out competitive top teams in 5 “elite” teams (FCV, Mclean, VDA, BRYC, MU, Arlington) in Virginia. Richmond Strikers can compete on a national level because of compression. No one seems to be complaining about dilution in SoCal because half of the ECNL/DA teams are nationally competitive. Maybe it’s because girls in this area have more sports to choose from, including lacrosse which doesn’t seem to be as big in SoCal, or maybe it’s because of the year-round play or better coaching, but no one would be whining about dilution if, for example, MU and Arlington were fielding competitive teams in any age group.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:When people say they’re upset about dilution it’s really about the fact that no more than one or two Girls DA/ECNL teams are competitive at any given age group in this region. There aren’t enough high-level players in this area to fill out competitive top teams in 5 “elite” teams (FCV, Mclean, VDA, BRYC, MU, Arlington) in Virginia. Richmond Strikers can compete on a national level because of compression. No one seems to be complaining about dilution in SoCal because half of the ECNL/DA teams are nationally competitive. Maybe it’s because girls in this area have more sports to choose from, including lacrosse which doesn’t seem to be as big in SoCal, or maybe it’s because of the year-round play or better coaching, but no one would be whining about dilution if, for example, MU and Arlington were fielding competitive teams in any age group.

To be fair, we are all comparing all the area teams (PP lists 5, but make it 6 if you add Loudoun to the mix) as if they were all equally well-established. They are not. For some it's only been 1-2 years, which is not long enough to establish a foothold, a reputation, brand awareness, etc. So it's possible that there ARE players in the area who may contribute to make the newer teams (BRYC somewhat at ECNL level, Loudoun, MU, Arlington) more competitive but just haven't had the geographic option, or the realization that they will need to be at this level to play in the future. As some of those teams improve, they may also draw away from the more established folks -- FCV/McLean. Not necessarily dilution, just what PPs have said about sometimes a player is stale or overlooked in one system and flourishes in another....

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:When people say they’re upset about dilution it’s really about the fact that no more than one or two Girls DA/ECNL teams are competitive at any given age group in this region. There aren’t enough high-level players in this area to fill out competitive top teams in 5 “elite” teams (FCV, Mclean, VDA, BRYC, MU, Arlington) in Virginia. Richmond Strikers can compete on a national level because of compression. No one seems to be complaining about dilution in SoCal because half of the ECNL/DA teams are nationally competitive. Maybe it’s because girls in this area have more sports to choose from, including lacrosse which doesn’t seem to be as big in SoCal, or maybe it’s because of the year-round play or better coaching, but no one would be whining about dilution if, for example, MU and Arlington were fielding competitive teams in any age group.

To be fair, we are all comparing all the area teams (PP lists 5, but make it 6 if you add Loudoun to the mix) as if they were all equally well-established. They are not. For some it's only been 1-2 years, which is not long enough to establish a foothold, a reputation, brand awareness, etc. So it's possible that there ARE players in the area who may contribute to make the newer teams (BRYC somewhat at ECNL level, Loudoun, MU, Arlington) more competitive but just haven't had the geographic option, or the realization that they will need to be at this level to play in the future. As some of those teams improve, they may also draw away from the more established folks -- FCV/McLean. Not necessarily dilution, just what PPs have said about sometimes a player is stale or overlooked in one system and flourishes in another....

Spirit had brand awareness from day one. Squandering that was their own doing.

[Anonymous]

^^^^ no one disagrees with that. Spirit handcuffed their academies and mismanaged what could have been a true pipeline to the pros. Instead, i saw the academies as a way to subsidize its pro side and then dumped them after promising to change their policies.

Even with Spirit's dismal participation, there remain two new girl's DAs. Baltimore Armour will undoubtedly be fine. MU is also showing promising signs of creating something new. The leadership went back to the foundations of making a club great, with setting a higher standard for coaching, reducing rosters to only players who belong there and to numbers that are reasonable for a coach to manage plus with meaningful playing time. There will be far less crazy playing up which I have seen stunt more development than enhance it. They have even stepped up the way games are filmed with a state of the art camera system that allows the game to be filmed simultaneously from multiple angles. I can't wait for that, as it can only improve the recruitment reels my DD can have.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:^^^^ no one disagrees with that. Spirit handcuffed their academies and mismanaged what could have been a true pipeline to the pros. Instead, i saw the academies as a way to subsidize its pro side and then dumped them after promising to change their policies.

Even with Spirit's dismal participation, there remain two new girl's DAs. Baltimore Armour will undoubtedly be fine. MU is also showing promising signs of creating something new. The leadership went back to the foundations of making a club great, with setting a higher standard for coaching, reducing rosters to only players who belong there and to numbers that are reasonable for a coach to manage plus with meaningful playing time. There will be far less crazy playing up which I have seen stunt more development than enhance it. They have even stepped up the way games are filmed with a state of the art camera system that allows the game to be filmed simultaneously from multiple angles. I can't wait for that, as it can only improve the recruitment reels my DD can have.

lol

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:^^^^ no one disagrees with that. Spirit handcuffed their academies and mismanaged what could have been a true pipeline to the pros. Instead, i saw the academies as a way to subsidize its pro side and then dumped them after promising to change their policies.

Even with Spirit's dismal participation, there remain two new girl's DAs. Baltimore Armour will undoubtedly be fine. MU is also showing promising signs of creating something new. The leadership went back to the foundations of making a club great, with setting a higher standard for coaching, reducing rosters to only players who belong there and to numbers that are reasonable for a coach to manage plus with meaningful playing time. There will be far less crazy playing up which I have seen stunt more development than enhance it. They have even stepped up the way games are filmed with a state of the art camera system that allows the game to be filmed simultaneously from multiple angles. I can't wait for that, as it can only improve the recruitment reels my DD can have.

I'll believe this when I see it: "reducing rosters to only players who belong there"

[Anonymous]

Believe whatever you like. I can't blame you given two years of mind boggling decisions that no other club in the country would have done and then justifying it with ludicrous explanations. Given all that Spirit did, it was hard for me to believe until I saw them cutting players, giving players PT offers, and losing players because they would no longer be played up. And the training environment has stepped up considerably, with coaches demanding intensity when they weren't empowered to before.

This year will be a turning point.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Believe whatever you like. I can't blame you given two years of mind boggling decisions that no other club in the country would have done and then justifying it with ludicrous explanations. Given all that Spirit did, it was hard for me to believe until I saw them cutting players, giving players PT offers, and losing players because they would no longer be played up. And the training environment has stepped up considerably, with coaches demanding intensity when they weren't empowered to before.

This year will be a turning point.

Well said George. Well said.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Believe whatever you like. I can't blame you given two years of mind boggling decisions that no other club in the country would have done and then justifying it with ludicrous explanations. Given all that Spirit did, it was hard for me to believe until I saw them cutting players, giving players PT offers, and losing players because they would no longer be played up. And the training environment has stepped up considerably, with coaches demanding intensity when they weren't empowered to before.

This year will be a turning point.

You mean an upward turning point. Right?