Arlington U11/U12 pre-academy

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yep, AK is definitely pretending to be a parent! Move on already, you’ve had your 2 years with this group.

Anonymous wrote:AK is a great coach! I have to agree that he plays the stronger players longer than others but don’t disagree with him. If a player loses the ball more than half the time, it does not make sense for them to start or play longer than the stronger players. The girls who played longer are the stronger players. Guest players are used as it is a small roster for 9v9 games. This spring, the team have either won or tied games without any losses. We wished he kept our daughter on his team but understood why he did not. She has a lot to work on.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I would also add that the coach for 2016G PA1 is stubborn. He does not know how to adjust to games when his team is losing. He will keep his favorites in despite failures, and pulls the rest of the team for one bad pass. He also routinely brings girls down from the 2015 age group to guest so that he can win rather than develop the team he is supposed to be coaching. He was previously the coach for Arlington's 2013G, and most parents on that team agree he did not prepare them adequately to play ECNL. He has some weird clout in the club though despite being overwhelmingly ineffective.

Strange how quick folks are to jump on parents for offering an opinion/ information. Isn’t that the point of this forum? Anyway…

OP, as a parent considering a U9 offer, I found this helpful. In your experience is this isolated to a single coach? Or is lack of development and favoritism a more pervasive problem across the club at the U-Little age groups?

Not strange if you understood what they are saying and who they are saying it about. All opinions are dependent on one’s perspective but it sounds like they have a child that did not play much or was not favored. They believe this is why their kid was not developed to be as strong a player as they could have been.

Take a look at the other thread regarding favoritism. Rather than owning their own development, they would rather whine and make excuses.

Not the OP, but every player at this level is pretty good, no true standouts at the U-little level. The more they play, however, the more they standout because they’re developing their game iq. I don’t have experience with AK personally, but have heard horror stories.

I have experience with AK at the younger ages. All players play at least half the game. The strongest players play most of the game. This sounds like parents of kids who weren’t deemed to be the strongest.

Didn’t his team beat an older year Arlington team this weekend? Must be doing something right.

Does he play everyone on his roster at least 50% of the game? That's the minimum expectation for u-littles development.

[Anonymous]

Nope. I’m the parent of a starter, she plays most, if not the whole, game (along with maybe 3 other girls). Admittedly, they are the top 4 on our team. There are about 4-5 girls on the team who don’t get to play even half the game. It is also true that guest players, some of whom will not be on the team next year, are getting more minutes than current rostered players (this is the part even us, the parents of starters, don’t agree with). Given their age, I hope they end up on teams where they get more minutes. They can’t get better sitting the bench. The PA2 coach is supposed to be very good, and is the AGD for 2016. I think it may be a good change of pace for those girls, they can work on the things they need to improve, and if they work hard, even get a chance to move back up the following year.

Also agree with another PP, the teams we beat are third, fourth teams, so playing up hasn’t been some developmental shortcut. Those teams have size, but they aren’t well matched against us technically or tactically. We struggle against actual top 2016 teams. Jeff Cup and WAGS were ugly.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yep, AK is definitely pretending to be a parent! Move on already, you’ve had your 2 years with this group.

Anonymous wrote:AK is a great coach! I have to agree that he plays the stronger players longer than others but don’t disagree with him. If a player loses the ball more than half the time, it does not make sense for them to start or play longer than the stronger players. The girls who played longer are the stronger players. Guest players are used as it is a small roster for 9v9 games. This spring, the team have either won or tied games without any losses. We wished he kept our daughter on his team but understood why he did not. She has a lot to work on.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I would also add that the coach for 2016G PA1 is stubborn. He does not know how to adjust to games when his team is losing. He will keep his favorites in despite failures, and pulls the rest of the team for one bad pass. He also routinely brings girls down from the 2015 age group to guest so that he can win rather than develop the team he is supposed to be coaching. He was previously the coach for Arlington's 2013G, and most parents on that team agree he did not prepare them adequately to play ECNL. He has some weird clout in the club though despite being overwhelmingly ineffective.

Strange how quick folks are to jump on parents for offering an opinion/ information. Isn’t that the point of this forum? Anyway…

OP, as a parent considering a U9 offer, I found this helpful. In your experience is this isolated to a single coach? Or is lack of development and favoritism a more pervasive problem across the club at the U-Little age groups?

Not strange if you understood what they are saying and who they are saying it about. All opinions are dependent on one’s perspective but it sounds like they have a child that did not play much or was not favored. They believe this is why their kid was not developed to be as strong a player as they could have been.

Take a look at the other thread regarding favoritism. Rather than owning their own development, they would rather whine and make excuses.

Not the OP, but every player at this level is pretty good, no true standouts at the U-little level. The more they play, however, the more they standout because they’re developing their game iq. I don’t have experience with AK personally, but have heard horror stories.

I have experience with AK at the younger ages. All players play at least half the game. The strongest players play most of the game. This sounds like parents of kids who weren’t deemed to be the strongest.

Didn’t his team beat an older year Arlington team this weekend? Must be doing something right.

Does he play everyone on his roster at least 50% of the game? That's the minimum expectation for u-littles development.

[Anonymous]

I agree, should be playing top 2016, not 3rd or 4th 2015 teams. Not trying to be mean, but the 3rd or 4th 2015 teams aren’t that good. Like PP said, they only have size. We only see top 2016 teams if they too play up, I think Alexandria does that (and we drew when we played them - even with a slate of 2015 guest players). I’d like to see more matches with top 2016s to compare development locally.

Anonymous wrote:Nope. I’m the parent of a starter, she plays most, if not the whole, game (along with maybe 3 other girls). Admittedly, they are the top 4 on our team. There are about 4-5 girls on the team who don’t get to play even half the game. It is also true that guest players, some of whom will not be on the team next year, are getting more minutes than current rostered players (this is the part even us, the parents of starters, don’t agree with). Given their age, I hope they end up on teams where they get more minutes. They can’t get better sitting the bench. The PA2 coach is supposed to be very good, and is the AGD for 2016. I think it may be a good change of pace for those girls, they can work on the things they need to improve, and if they work hard, even get a chance to move back up the following year.

Also agree with another PP, the teams we beat are third, fourth teams, so playing up hasn’t been some developmental shortcut. Those teams have size, but they aren’t well matched against us technically or tactically. We struggle against actual top 2016 teams. Jeff Cup and WAGS were ugly.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yep, AK is definitely pretending to be a parent! Move on already, you’ve had your 2 years with this group.

Anonymous wrote:AK is a great coach! I have to agree that he plays the stronger players longer than others but don’t disagree with him. If a player loses the ball more than half the time, it does not make sense for them to start or play longer than the stronger players. The girls who played longer are the stronger players. Guest players are used as it is a small roster for 9v9 games. This spring, the team have either won or tied games without any losses. We wished he kept our daughter on his team but understood why he did not. She has a lot to work on.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I would also add that the coach for 2016G PA1 is stubborn. He does not know how to adjust to games when his team is losing. He will keep his favorites in despite failures, and pulls the rest of the team for one bad pass. He also routinely brings girls down from the 2015 age group to guest so that he can win rather than develop the team he is supposed to be coaching. He was previously the coach for Arlington's 2013G, and most parents on that team agree he did not prepare them adequately to play ECNL. He has some weird clout in the club though despite being overwhelmingly ineffective.

Strange how quick folks are to jump on parents for offering an opinion/ information. Isn’t that the point of this forum? Anyway…

OP, as a parent considering a U9 offer, I found this helpful. In your experience is this isolated to a single coach? Or is lack of development and favoritism a more pervasive problem across the club at the U-Little age groups?

Not strange if you understood what they are saying and who they are saying it about. All opinions are dependent on one’s perspective but it sounds like they have a child that did not play much or was not favored. They believe this is why their kid was not developed to be as strong a player as they could have been.

Take a look at the other thread regarding favoritism. Rather than owning their own development, they would rather whine and make excuses.

Not the OP, but every player at this level is pretty good, no true standouts at the U-little level. The more they play, however, the more they standout because they’re developing their game iq. I don’t have experience with AK personally, but have heard horror stories.

I have experience with AK at the younger ages. All players play at least half the game. The strongest players play most of the game. This sounds like parents of kids who weren’t deemed to be the strongest.

Didn’t his team beat an older year Arlington team this weekend? Must be doing something right.

Does he play everyone on his roster at least 50% of the game? That's the minimum expectation for u-littles development.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I agree, should be playing top 2016, not 3rd or 4th 2015 teams. Not trying to be mean, but the 3rd or 4th 2015 teams aren’t that good. Like PP said, they only have size. We only see top 2016 teams if they too play up, I think Alexandria does that (and we drew when we played them - even with a slate of 2015 guest players). I’d like to see more matches with top 2016s to compare development locally.

Anonymous wrote:Nope. I’m the parent of a starter, she plays most, if not the whole, game (along with maybe 3 other girls). Admittedly, they are the top 4 on our team. There are about 4-5 girls on the team who don’t get to play even half the game. It is also true that guest players, some of whom will not be on the team next year, are getting more minutes than current rostered players (this is the part even us, the parents of starters, don’t agree with). Given their age, I hope they end up on teams where they get more minutes. They can’t get better sitting the bench. The PA2 coach is supposed to be very good, and is the AGD for 2016. I think it may be a good change of pace for those girls, they can work on the things they need to improve, and if they work hard, even get a chance to move back up the following year.

Also agree with another PP, the teams we beat are third, fourth teams, so playing up hasn’t been some developmental shortcut. Those teams have size, but they aren’t well matched against us technically or tactically. We struggle against actual top 2016 teams. Jeff Cup and WAGS were ugly.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yep, AK is definitely pretending to be a parent! Move on already, you’ve had your 2 years with this group.

Anonymous wrote:AK is a great coach! I have to agree that he plays the stronger players longer than others but don’t disagree with him. If a player loses the ball more than half the time, it does not make sense for them to start or play longer than the stronger players. The girls who played longer are the stronger players. Guest players are used as it is a small roster for 9v9 games. This spring, the team have either won or tied games without any losses. We wished he kept our daughter on his team but understood why he did not. She has a lot to work on.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I would also add that the coach for 2016G PA1 is stubborn. He does not know how to adjust to games when his team is losing. He will keep his favorites in despite failures, and pulls the rest of the team for one bad pass. He also routinely brings girls down from the 2015 age group to guest so that he can win rather than develop the team he is supposed to be coaching. He was previously the coach for Arlington's 2013G, and most parents on that team agree he did not prepare them adequately to play ECNL. He has some weird clout in the club though despite being overwhelmingly ineffective.

Strange how quick folks are to jump on parents for offering an opinion/ information. Isn’t that the point of this forum? Anyway…

OP, as a parent considering a U9 offer, I found this helpful. In your experience is this isolated to a single coach? Or is lack of development and favoritism a more pervasive problem across the club at the U-Little age groups?

Not strange if you understood what they are saying and who they are saying it about. All opinions are dependent on one’s perspective but it sounds like they have a child that did not play much or was not favored. They believe this is why their kid was not developed to be as strong a player as they could have been.

Take a look at the other thread regarding favoritism. Rather than owning their own development, they would rather whine and make excuses.

Not the OP, but every player at this level is pretty good, no true standouts at the U-little level. The more they play, however, the more they standout because they’re developing their game iq. I don’t have experience with AK personally, but have heard horror stories.

I have experience with AK at the younger ages. All players play at least half the game. The strongest players play most of the game. This sounds like parents of kids who weren’t deemed to be the strongest.

Didn’t his team beat an older year Arlington team this weekend? Must be doing something right.

Does he play everyone on his roster at least 50% of the game? That's the minimum expectation for u-littles development.

Besides SYC, ALex, GFR, who are all playing up, which other 2016 teams in NCSL should they be playing? Does Bethesda play in NCSL? SYC, Alex and Arlington are not top teams in the standings. All three teams struggled to score against the 2015 teams.

[Anonymous]

I don't understand bringing guest players to every game and playing them over kids on your own roster. And those parents whose kids are sitting out are returning next year for more of the same?

What team are the guests coming from if this is the top team in the age group?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I don't understand bringing guest players to every game and playing them over kids on your own roster. And those parents whose kids are sitting out are returning next year for more of the same?

What team are the guests coming from if this is the top team in the age group?

I heard other parents say the top PA2/PA1 teams from 2015. Somehow they know who all the players are while I am still learning their kids names 😅

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't understand bringing guest players to every game and playing them over kids on your own roster. And those parents whose kids are sitting out are returning next year for more of the same?

What team are the guests coming from if this is the top team in the age group?

I heard other parents say the top PA2/PA1 teams from 2015. Somehow they know who all the players are while I am still learning their kids names 😅

Not a good look.

[Anonymous]

2015 PA2 and Red. Never had any 2015 PA1s.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't understand bringing guest players to every game and playing them over kids on your own roster. And those parents whose kids are sitting out are returning next year for more of the same?

What team are the guests coming from if this is the top team in the age group?

I heard other parents say the top PA2/PA1 teams from 2015. Somehow they know who all the players are while I am still learning their kids names 😅

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't understand bringing guest players to every game and playing them over kids on your own roster. And those parents whose kids are sitting out are returning next year for more of the same?

What team are the guests coming from if this is the top team in the age group?

I heard other parents say the top PA2/PA1 teams from 2015. Somehow they know who all the players are while I am still learning their kids names 😅

Sounds like the club brought trapped 2015 players to games to get a good look for next year. Some of the parents of those players decided to stay at 2015 for next year. This definitely is not an individual coach’s decision and it is not a normal guesting situation.

Either way, just have your daughter put in work and quit whining on here. You’re not going to complain your way to the top.

[Anonymous]

Arlington dictates to individual coaches who guests plays in their games and micromanages the play time?

[Anonymous]

Wait what?

The coach was bringing in guest kids to play "down" ALL SEASON and playing those kids over kids paying to be on that team, who were not even playing half the game? (These games are not that long!) For completely meaningless games?

And there are (alleged) "parents" on here defending that?

Wow. Wild.

[Anonymous]

What coach is this again so I can make sure to avoid him?

[Anonymous]

That’s what many thought too until offers went out and it was evident that the guests were simply brought in from 2015 age group to win. One or two trapped players who ultimately got offers were brought in a few times, but more often than not were guest players who were staying in the 2015 age group. If development is the goal, why not play rostered 2016s and allow 2016 PA2s to guest?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't understand bringing guest players to every game and playing them over kids on your own roster. And those parents whose kids are sitting out are returning next year for more of the same?

What team are the guests coming from if this is the top team in the age group?

I heard other parents say the top PA2/PA1 teams from 2015. Somehow they know who all the players are while I am still learning their kids names 😅

Sounds like the club brought trapped 2015 players to games to get a good look for next year. Some of the parents of those players decided to stay at 2015 for next year. This definitely is not an individual coach’s decision and it is not a normal guesting situation.

Either way, just have your daughter put in work and quit whining on here. You’re not going to complain your way to the top.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:That’s what many thought too until offers went out and it was evident that the guests were simply brought in from 2015 age group to win. One or two trapped players who ultimately got offers were brought in a few times, but more often than not were guest players who were staying in the 2015 age group. If development is the goal, why not play rostered 2016s and allow 2016 PA2s to guest?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't understand bringing guest players to every game and playing them over kids on your own roster. And those parents whose kids are sitting out are returning next year for more of the same?

What team are the guests coming from if this is the top team in the age group?

I heard other parents say the top PA2/PA1 teams from 2015. Somehow they know who all the players are while I am still learning their kids names 😅

Sounds like the club brought trapped 2015 players to games to get a good look for next year. Some of the parents of those players decided to stay at 2015 for next year. This definitely is not an individual coach’s decision and it is not a normal guesting situation.

Either way, just have your daughter put in work and quit whining on here. You’re not going to complain your way to the top.

This sounds like horrible mismanagement of this team and the kids development. They shouldn't be playing up in the first place, and they shouldn't be bringing 2015s. How about you get a look at the combined age groups with club sessions.

[Anonymous]

And they shouldn't be bringing in guest players if you have enough subs anyway. Those games are meant to develop the players are your team (who are paying for them). Not even playing 20 minutes is insane.