Metro United

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Scoring a goal can be respect worthy or it can be a simple clean up of a ball into the net due to the work of others, or a mistake on the other team's part.

No need to hype any one player at the expense of the rest, especially when you are talking about an age group where size matters and the player you are hyping can't compete with the size of the opponent.

Some parents need to take a step back when publicly praising their little stars. There are many other kids on these teams working just as hard, if not harder, than your little starlet. Don't disrespect their contributions and efforts.

Nice plate spinning. The response was to point out that MU was successful at handling and developing play ups. There was a poster this weekend disparaging the U14 play ups. The PP simply pointed to an example of a player in the MU program that was playing up and finding success. You are very bitter. It's pretty obvious given that you are saying this player "can't compete" and yet she is playing up 3 years and scoring goals. Kind of undermines your credibility.

A stat line shows just one measure of success. There are many other factors to the game to also be considered. Success at one aspect of the game does make up for other possible weaknesses. A 3-1 loss is a stat line that demonstrates other weaknesses.

It is a team game. If one wants to believe scoring one goal for happened solely based on one playup then by that same logic it could be safe to consider that three goals against could also be attributed to that one playup. It works both ways.

Perhaps the better way to look at it is that the 04 team is strong enough to allow a playup to have a level of success versus believing the success to be the playups and only the playups success. When a team loses it is in poor taste beat ones chest about scoring one goal and doing so demonstrates selfishness.

That is an incredibly thoughtful and well laid out post. I'm sure you will be promptly chastised for it, despite how balanced and tastefully done it was.

“Plate spinner” OP here. The sentiment is exactly right. It’s not a commentary on whether or not the play up should have happened or not. Let’s just not get carried away with the impact. Seems that said playup might have had a more impactful experience playing with the two teams at the age groups beneath 2004, where size would be less of a factor. Why does said playup need to be three years up when the competition at the two younger years is stiff enough? Guess MU likes to leave it’s younger age groups hanging out to dry.

Size should not matter, looks at all the Pro small players.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
A stat line shows just one measure of success. There are many other factors to the game to also be considered. Success at one aspect of the game does make up for other possible weaknesses. A 3-1 loss is a stat line that demonstrates other weaknesses.

It is a team game. If one wants to believe scoring one goal for happened solely based on one playup then by that same logic it could be safe to consider that three goals against could also be attributed to that one playup. It works both ways.

Perhaps the better way to look at it is that the 04 team is strong enough to allow a playup to have a level of success versus believing the success to be the playups and only the playups success. When a team loses it is in poor taste beat ones chest about scoring one goal and doing so demonstrates selfishness.

Overall run of play was fairly even, but LISC presents a unique challenge. Their scoring is heavily dependent on the athleticism of one player (#7), and when she is having a good day she can dominate a game with unicorn levels of size, pace, and ball striking. She finished in the top-ten in goal scoring for all of the DA last year, and scored two against MU on Saturday. Yes, the 1-3 loss demonstrates an "other weakness", but MU will not be the only team to demonstrate that particular weakness in handling her this year.


It sounds to me that #7 on LISC is the kid who should be playing up.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Scoring a goal can be respect worthy or it can be a simple clean up of a ball into the net due to the work of others, or a mistake on the other team's part.

No need to hype any one player at the expense of the rest, especially when you are talking about an age group where size matters and the player you are hyping can't compete with the size of the opponent.

Some parents need to take a step back when publicly praising their little stars. There are many other kids on these teams working just as hard, if not harder, than your little starlet. Don't disrespect their contributions and efforts.

Nice plate spinning. The response was to point out that MU was successful at handling and developing play ups. There was a poster this weekend disparaging the U14 play ups. The PP simply pointed to an example of a player in the MU program that was playing up and finding success. You are very bitter. It's pretty obvious given that you are saying this player "can't compete" and yet she is playing up 3 years and scoring goals. Kind of undermines your credibility.

A stat line shows just one measure of success. There are many other factors to the game to also be considered. Success at one aspect of the game does make up for other possible weaknesses. A 3-1 loss is a stat line that demonstrates other weaknesses.

It is a team game. If one wants to believe scoring one goal for happened solely based on one playup then by that same logic it could be safe to consider that three goals against could also be attributed to that one playup. It works both ways.

Perhaps the better way to look at it is that the 04 team is strong enough to allow a playup to have a level of success versus believing the success to be the playups and only the playups success. When a team loses it is in poor taste beat ones chest about scoring one goal and doing so demonstrates selfishness.

That is an incredibly thoughtful and well laid out post. I'm sure you will be promptly chastised for it, despite how balanced and tastefully done it was.

“Plate spinner” OP here. The sentiment is exactly right. It’s not a commentary on whether or not the play up should have happened or not. Let’s just not get carried away with the impact. Seems that said playup might have had a more impactful experience playing with the two teams at the age groups beneath 2004, where size would be less of a factor. Why does said playup need to be three years up when the competition at the two younger years is stiff enough? Guess MU likes to leave it’s younger age groups hanging out to dry.

Size should not matter, looks at all the Pro small players.

Of the small professional players I know, they are generally exceptionally fast. In other words, they don't get routinely beat to the ball. Messi, one of the shortest pro players, is in the top 5 for speed.

So you can be small, up to a point, but you can't be too small and too slow. A number of small players are solid too, like Dunn. She might be the shortest on the WNT, but again, she's fast and she's also strong. You can't just knock her off the ball.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
A stat line shows just one measure of success. There are many other factors to the game to also be considered. Success at one aspect of the game does make up for other possible weaknesses. A 3-1 loss is a stat line that demonstrates other weaknesses.

It is a team game. If one wants to believe scoring one goal for happened solely based on one playup then by that same logic it could be safe to consider that three goals against could also be attributed to that one playup. It works both ways.

Perhaps the better way to look at it is that the 04 team is strong enough to allow a playup to have a level of success versus believing the success to be the playups and only the playups success. When a team loses it is in poor taste beat ones chest about scoring one goal and doing so demonstrates selfishness.


Overall run of play was fairly even, but LISC presents a unique challenge. Their scoring is heavily dependent on the athleticism of one player (#7), and when she is having a good day she can dominate a game with unicorn levels of size, pace, and ball striking. She finished in the top-ten in goal scoring for all of the DA last year, and scored two against MU on Saturday. Yes, the 1-3 loss demonstrates an "other weakness", but MU will not be the only team to demonstrate that particular weakness in handling her this year.

It sounds to me that #7 on LISC is the kid who should be playing up.

Assuming it was all just her and her team had no contribution to make, it's smart to keep her where she's at. That team will play against better at the showcases and in the DA Cup games and they could make the play offs that way. Playing better teams is a much more important developmental experience than playing up.
That's a lot smarter than watering down the team by moving her up.

Lets put it this way: is it better to play up a year in some CCL or EDP team, or to play at age on a DA team?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
A stat line shows just one measure of success. There are many other factors to the game to also be considered. Success at one aspect of the game does make up for other possible weaknesses. A 3-1 loss is a stat line that demonstrates other weaknesses.

It is a team game. If one wants to believe scoring one goal for happened solely based on one playup then by that same logic it could be safe to consider that three goals against could also be attributed to that one playup. It works both ways.

Perhaps the better way to look at it is that the 04 team is strong enough to allow a playup to have a level of success versus believing the success to be the playups and only the playups success. When a team loses it is in poor taste beat ones chest about scoring one goal and doing so demonstrates selfishness.


Overall run of play was fairly even, but LISC presents a unique challenge. Their scoring is heavily dependent on the athleticism of one player (#7), and when she is having a good day she can dominate a game with unicorn levels of size, pace, and ball striking. She finished in the top-ten in goal scoring for all of the DA last year, and scored two against MU on Saturday. Yes, the 1-3 loss demonstrates an "other weakness", but MU will not be the only team to demonstrate that particular weakness in handling her this year.

They had a good game against FCV too. All the LISC teams in multiple age groups competed well this weekend. It's a bit overstating to say they just had one single good player and that's the difference.

Otherwise, we'd be saying 04 team just doesn't have a very good forward.

Did you actually watch either of the '04 FCV-LISC or '04 MU-LISC games this weekend or are you just comparing scorelines? At the '04 level, that one player has a disproportionate impact on the scoreline and can turn an evenly fought match into what looks like a blowout with just a few individual flashes of brilliance. With her off the field LISC is a completely different team, and one that MU has historically matched up well against. My guess is you simply haven't seen her play.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
A stat line shows just one measure of success. There are many other factors to the game to also be considered. Success at one aspect of the game does make up for other possible weaknesses. A 3-1 loss is a stat line that demonstrates other weaknesses.

It is a team game. If one wants to believe scoring one goal for happened solely based on one playup then by that same logic it could be safe to consider that three goals against could also be attributed to that one playup. It works both ways.

Perhaps the better way to look at it is that the 04 team is strong enough to allow a playup to have a level of success versus believing the success to be the playups and only the playups success. When a team loses it is in poor taste beat ones chest about scoring one goal and doing so demonstrates selfishness.


Overall run of play was fairly even, but LISC presents a unique challenge. Their scoring is heavily dependent on the athleticism of one player (#7), and when she is having a good day she can dominate a game with unicorn levels of size, pace, and ball striking. She finished in the top-ten in goal scoring for all of the DA last year, and scored two against MU on Saturday. Yes, the 1-3 loss demonstrates an "other weakness", but MU will not be the only team to demonstrate that particular weakness in handling her this year.

They had a good game against FCV too. All the LISC teams in multiple age groups competed well this weekend. It's a bit overstating to say they just had one single good player and that's the difference.

Otherwise, we'd be saying 04 team just doesn't have a very good forward.

Did you actually watch either of the '04 FCV-LISC or '04 MU-LISC games this weekend or are you just comparing scorelines? At the '04 level, that one player has a disproportionate impact on the scoreline and can turn an evenly fought match into what looks like a blowout with just a few individual flashes of brilliance. With her off the field LISC is a completely different team, and one that MU has historically matched up well against. My guess is you simply haven't seen her play.

I didn't see the FCV game (obviously). They beat us last year with exactly the same score, 3-1. So what happened there?

[Anonymous]

Overall run of play was fairly even, but LISC presents a unique challenge. Their scoring is heavily dependent on the athleticism of one player (#7), and when she is having a good day she can dominate a game with unicorn levels of size, pace, and ball striking. She finished in the top-ten in goal scoring for all of the DA last year, and scored two against MU on Saturday. Yes, the 1-3 loss demonstrates an "other weakness", but MU will not be the only team to demonstrate that particular weakness in handling her this year.


It sounds to me that #7 on LISC is the kid who should be playing up.

She can't. LISC doesn't have a U-17 or U-19 team in the DA.

[Anonymous]

She's not a new player folks. She was there last year too. Make all the excuses you want. I don't think losing is a bad thing. The girls can learn a lot from it. But players have to own the loss to learn from it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
A stat line shows just one measure of success. There are many other factors to the game to also be considered. Success at one aspect of the game does make up for other possible weaknesses. A 3-1 loss is a stat line that demonstrates other weaknesses.

It is a team game. If one wants to believe scoring one goal for happened solely based on one playup then by that same logic it could be safe to consider that three goals against could also be attributed to that one playup. It works both ways.

Perhaps the better way to look at it is that the 04 team is strong enough to allow a playup to have a level of success versus believing the success to be the playups and only the playups success. When a team loses it is in poor taste beat ones chest about scoring one goal and doing so demonstrates selfishness.


Overall run of play was fairly even, but LISC presents a unique challenge. Their scoring is heavily dependent on the athleticism of one player (#7), and when she is having a good day she can dominate a game with unicorn levels of size, pace, and ball striking. She finished in the top-ten in goal scoring for all of the DA last year, and scored two against MU on Saturday. Yes, the 1-3 loss demonstrates an "other weakness", but MU will not be the only team to demonstrate that particular weakness in handling her this year.

They had a good game against FCV too. All the LISC teams in multiple age groups competed well this weekend. It's a bit overstating to say they just had one single good player and that's the difference.

Otherwise, we'd be saying 04 team just doesn't have a very good forward.

Did you actually watch either of the '04 FCV-LISC or '04 MU-LISC games this weekend or are you just comparing scorelines? At the '04 level, that one player has a disproportionate impact on the scoreline and can turn an evenly fought match into what looks like a blowout with just a few individual flashes of brilliance. With her off the field LISC is a completely different team, and one that MU has historically matched up well against. My guess is you simply haven't seen her play.

I didn't see the FCV game (obviously). They beat us last year with exactly the same score, 3-1. So what happened there?

Um... She sat out the first 48 minutes and LISC was losing 0-1. Then she subbed in and scored 3 goals in the final 32 minutes. Final score 3-1.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
A stat line shows just one measure of success. There are many other factors to the game to also be considered. Success at one aspect of the game does make up for other possible weaknesses. A 3-1 loss is a stat line that demonstrates other weaknesses.

It is a team game. If one wants to believe scoring one goal for happened solely based on one playup then by that same logic it could be safe to consider that three goals against could also be attributed to that one playup. It works both ways.

Perhaps the better way to look at it is that the 04 team is strong enough to allow a playup to have a level of success versus believing the success to be the playups and only the playups success. When a team loses it is in poor taste beat ones chest about scoring one goal and doing so demonstrates selfishness.


Overall run of play was fairly even, but LISC presents a unique challenge. Their scoring is heavily dependent on the athleticism of one player (#7), and when she is having a good day she can dominate a game with unicorn levels of size, pace, and ball striking. She finished in the top-ten in goal scoring for all of the DA last year, and scored two against MU on Saturday. Yes, the 1-3 loss demonstrates an "other weakness", but MU will not be the only team to demonstrate that particular weakness in handling her this year.

It sounds to me that #7 on LISC is the kid who should be playing up.

Assuming it was all just her and her team had no contribution to make, it's smart to keep her where she's at. That team will play against better at the showcases and in the DA Cup games and they could make the play offs that way. Playing better teams is a much more important developmental experience than playing up.
That's a lot smarter than watering down the team by moving her up.

Lets put it this way: is it better to play up a year in some CCL or EDP team, or to play at age on a DA team?

And that was the point all along.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
A stat line shows just one measure of success. There are many other factors to the game to also be considered. Success at one aspect of the game does make up for other possible weaknesses. A 3-1 loss is a stat line that demonstrates other weaknesses.

It is a team game. If one wants to believe scoring one goal for happened solely based on one playup then by that same logic it could be safe to consider that three goals against could also be attributed to that one playup. It works both ways.

Perhaps the better way to look at it is that the 04 team is strong enough to allow a playup to have a level of success versus believing the success to be the playups and only the playups success. When a team loses it is in poor taste beat ones chest about scoring one goal and doing so demonstrates selfishness.


Overall run of play was fairly even, but LISC presents a unique challenge. Their scoring is heavily dependent on the athleticism of one player (#7), and when she is having a good day she can dominate a game with unicorn levels of size, pace, and ball striking. She finished in the top-ten in goal scoring for all of the DA last year, and scored two against MU on Saturday. Yes, the 1-3 loss demonstrates an "other weakness", but MU will not be the only team to demonstrate that particular weakness in handling her this year.

They had a good game against FCV too. All the LISC teams in multiple age groups competed well this weekend. It's a bit overstating to say they just had one single good player and that's the difference.

Otherwise, we'd be saying 04 team just doesn't have a very good forward.

Did you actually watch either of the '04 FCV-LISC or '04 MU-LISC games this weekend or are you just comparing scorelines? At the '04 level, that one player has a disproportionate impact on the scoreline and can turn an evenly fought match into what looks like a blowout with just a few individual flashes of brilliance. With her off the field LISC is a completely different team, and one that MU has historically matched up well against. My guess is you simply haven't seen her play.

I didn't see the FCV game (obviously). They beat us last year with exactly the same score, 3-1. So what happened there?

Um... She sat out the first 48 minutes and LISC was losing 0-1. Then she subbed in and scored 3 goals in the final 32 minutes. Final score 3-1.

Game report shows her scoring in minute 1 and minute 79?

How did she score from the bench? And how did she assume another players name?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
A stat line shows just one measure of success. There are many other factors to the game to also be considered. Success at one aspect of the game does make up for other possible weaknesses. A 3-1 loss is a stat line that demonstrates other weaknesses.

It is a team game. If one wants to believe scoring one goal for happened solely based on one playup then by that same logic it could be safe to consider that three goals against could also be attributed to that one playup. It works both ways.

Perhaps the better way to look at it is that the 04 team is strong enough to allow a playup to have a level of success versus believing the success to be the playups and only the playups success. When a team loses it is in poor taste beat ones chest about scoring one goal and doing so demonstrates selfishness.


Overall run of play was fairly even, but LISC presents a unique challenge. Their scoring is heavily dependent on the athleticism of one player (#7), and when she is having a good day she can dominate a game with unicorn levels of size, pace, and ball striking. She finished in the top-ten in goal scoring for all of the DA last year, and scored two against MU on Saturday. Yes, the 1-3 loss demonstrates an "other weakness", but MU will not be the only team to demonstrate that particular weakness in handling her this year.

They had a good game against FCV too. All the LISC teams in multiple age groups competed well this weekend. It's a bit overstating to say they just had one single good player and that's the difference.

Otherwise, we'd be saying 04 team just doesn't have a very good forward.

Did you actually watch either of the '04 FCV-LISC or '04 MU-LISC games this weekend or are you just comparing scorelines? At the '04 level, that one player has a disproportionate impact on the scoreline and can turn an evenly fought match into what looks like a blowout with just a few individual flashes of brilliance. With her off the field LISC is a completely different team, and one that MU has historically matched up well against. My guess is you simply haven't seen her play.

I didn't see the FCV game (obviously). They beat us last year with exactly the same score, 3-1. So what happened there?

Um... She sat out the first 48 minutes and LISC was losing 0-1. Then she subbed in and scored 3 goals in the final 32 minutes. Final score 3-1.

Game report shows her scoring in minute 1 and minute 79?

How did she score from the bench? And how did she assume another players name?

Wasn't talking about this year's game. Her 32-minute hattrick was last year, in response to the poster's question "so what happended there"...

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
A stat line shows just one measure of success. There are many other factors to the game to also be considered. Success at one aspect of the game does make up for other possible weaknesses. A 3-1 loss is a stat line that demonstrates other weaknesses.

It is a team game. If one wants to believe scoring one goal for happened solely based on one playup then by that same logic it could be safe to consider that three goals against could also be attributed to that one playup. It works both ways.

Perhaps the better way to look at it is that the 04 team is strong enough to allow a playup to have a level of success versus believing the success to be the playups and only the playups success. When a team loses it is in poor taste beat ones chest about scoring one goal and doing so demonstrates selfishness.


Overall run of play was fairly even, but LISC presents a unique challenge. Their scoring is heavily dependent on the athleticism of one player (#7), and when she is having a good day she can dominate a game with unicorn levels of size, pace, and ball striking. She finished in the top-ten in goal scoring for all of the DA last year, and scored two against MU on Saturday. Yes, the 1-3 loss demonstrates an "other weakness", but MU will not be the only team to demonstrate that particular weakness in handling her this year.

They had a good game against FCV too. All the LISC teams in multiple age groups competed well this weekend. It's a bit overstating to say they just had one single good player and that's the difference.

Otherwise, we'd be saying 04 team just doesn't have a very good forward.

Really? Is losing 6-2 with one of those goals in the last minute or two a good game?

[Anonymous]

During the years these kids play DA U14 - U18/19, a single player can make a big difference.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
A stat line shows just one measure of success. There are many other factors to the game to also be considered. Success at one aspect of the game does make up for other possible weaknesses. A 3-1 loss is a stat line that demonstrates other weaknesses.

It is a team game. If one wants to believe scoring one goal for happened solely based on one playup then by that same logic it could be safe to consider that three goals against could also be attributed to that one playup. It works both ways.

Perhaps the better way to look at it is that the 04 team is strong enough to allow a playup to have a level of success versus believing the success to be the playups and only the playups success. When a team loses it is in poor taste beat ones chest about scoring one goal and doing so demonstrates selfishness.


Overall run of play was fairly even, but LISC presents a unique challenge. Their scoring is heavily dependent on the athleticism of one player (#7), and when she is having a good day she can dominate a game with unicorn levels of size, pace, and ball striking. She finished in the top-ten in goal scoring for all of the DA last year, and scored two against MU on Saturday. Yes, the 1-3 loss demonstrates an "other weakness", but MU will not be the only team to demonstrate that particular weakness in handling her this year.

They had a good game against FCV too. All the LISC teams in multiple age groups competed well this weekend. It's a bit overstating to say they just had one single good player and that's the difference.

Otherwise, we'd be saying 04 team just doesn't have a very good forward.

Did you actually watch either of the '04 FCV-LISC or '04 MU-LISC games this weekend or are you just comparing scorelines? At the '04 level, that one player has a disproportionate impact on the scoreline and can turn an evenly fought match into what looks like a blowout with just a few individual flashes of brilliance. With her off the field LISC is a completely different team, and one that MU has historically matched up well against. My guess is you simply haven't seen her play.

I didn't see the FCV game (obviously). They beat us last year with exactly the same score, 3-1. So what happened there?

Um... She sat out the first 48 minutes and LISC was losing 0-1. Then she subbed in and scored 3 goals in the final 32 minutes. Final score 3-1.

Game report shows her scoring in minute 1 and minute 79?

How did she score from the bench? And how did she assume another players name?

Wasn't talking about this year's game. Her 32-minute hattrick was last year, in response to the poster's question "so what happended there"...

Net result was the same. Tell us now how a playup made a difference.

The only difference maker is on the other team.