Field hockey clubs feedback

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:NP. Current Wolves parent in the upper age group. I read this post fully and IMO there are truths to both the positive and critical posts about the Wolves. I can easily name what a PP poster called who the core players are versus the sidelined players are in the upper age group. IMO here are the top three positives and negatives about the Wolves.

Positives: 1) Excellent u12/u14 coaches that have been brought in 2) Superb goalie coaches 3) Strong recruiting advise
Negatives: 1) Inconsistent and/or ineffective (different learning styles) coaching for older age group during practices/tournaments 2) Limited skill development for less skilled upper aged players due to limited playing opportunities and skill practice differentiation 3) Coaching philosophy stated versus executed are a mismatch sometimes

Possible areas to improve: 1) Skills differentiation and playing opportunities for highly skilled players versus developing players 2) Effective practice time focusing on skills (repetition), strategy (field IQ, watching games for movement and positioning) 3) Strength and conditioning integration

I agree with other posters there isn’t a perfect club out there. Everywhere has their positives and negatives. Do your homework before deciding on a club.

Current Wolves parent. My main beef with this club is that some of the core players are not necessarily better than the sidelined players. This is what is frustrating to me.

Looking forward to watching this weekends NITQs since most teams that have been discussed are playing from Next Level, Wolves, Metro, Alpha and other top clubs from PA/NJ. It will be interesting to see roster size, playing time, skill, coaching style across both u16 and u19.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:A Hammers player recently committed to Bryn Mawr. Congratulations to her and her family!

A program on the rise with an excellent coach. He’s doing a ton of recruiting.

Everybody loves Victor. He attends events and does follow-up like no other college recruiter. He does a great job of making a case for Bryn Mawr. But, unfortunately, even he can't get top players to want to go to such a progressive women's school and that team isn't really on the rise. It's a great school and a wonderful program though.

If he can't recruit b/c of what you say, it's because people are simply buying your silly narrative. It's a women's school but there are men in classes. And the women can attend classes (incl major classes), activities, and events at Haverford, Swat, and Penn. It provides an amazing experience on a lot of levels. They have done really well the last couple of years athletically and I expect them to continue that trend.

Luckily, people are starting to and can look beyond the talking points of "progressive women's school."

^^^ great response to the backhanded compliment! You knew someone out there was gonna spin their negativity about a positive post.

I also don't want to derail but the other PP was annoying. BMC may not get the top WC talent (and may not be Midd or Hopkins) but they are getting good players. Current players there said their clinics are getting 3x's as many attendeed as in years past.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:NP. Current Wolves parent in the upper age group. I read this post fully and IMO there are truths to both the positive and critical posts about the Wolves. I can easily name what a PP poster called who the core players are versus the sidelined players are in the upper age group. IMO here are the top three positives and negatives about the Wolves.

Positives: 1) Excellent u12/u14 coaches that have been brought in 2) Superb goalie coaches 3) Strong recruiting advise
Negatives: 1) Inconsistent and/or ineffective (different learning styles) coaching for older age group during practices/tournaments 2) Limited skill development for less skilled upper aged players due to limited playing opportunities and skill practice differentiation 3) Coaching philosophy stated versus executed are a mismatch sometimes

Possible areas to improve: 1) Skills differentiation and playing opportunities for highly skilled players versus developing players 2) Effective practice time focusing on skills (repetition), strategy (field IQ, watching games for movement and positioning) 3) Strength and conditioning integration

I agree with other posters there isn’t a perfect club out there. Everywhere has their positives and negatives. Do your homework before deciding on a club.

Current Wolves parent. My main beef with this club is that some of the core players are not necessarily better than the sidelined players. This is what is frustrating to me.

Looking forward to watching this weekends NITQs since most teams that have been discussed are playing from Next Level, Wolves, Metro, Alpha and other top clubs from PA/NJ. It will be interesting to see roster size, playing time, skill, coaching style across both u16 and u19.

Husel is also playing.

[Anonymous]

Question - Isn't indoor completely different from outdoor? Can you judge a club based on their performance at NITQs? or even NITs?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Question - Isn't indoor completely different from outdoor? Can you judge a club based on their performance at NITQs? or even NITs?

Yes. Different game. And it won’t tell how a club does in outdoor, necessarily. But the traditionally strong clubs are strong in both bc their players are the best.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:NP. Current Wolves parent in the upper age group. I read this post fully and IMO there are truths to both the positive and critical posts about the Wolves. I can easily name what a PP poster called who the core players are versus the sidelined players are in the upper age group. IMO here are the top three positives and negatives about the Wolves.

Positives: 1) Excellent u12/u14 coaches that have been brought in 2) Superb goalie coaches 3) Strong recruiting advise
Negatives: 1) Inconsistent and/or ineffective (different learning styles) coaching for older age group during practices/tournaments 2) Limited skill development for less skilled upper aged players due to limited playing opportunities and skill practice differentiation 3) Coaching philosophy stated versus executed are a mismatch sometimes

Possible areas to improve: 1) Skills differentiation and playing opportunities for highly skilled players versus developing players 2) Effective practice time focusing on skills (repetition), strategy (field IQ, watching games for movement and positioning) 3) Strength and conditioning integration

I agree with other posters there isn’t a perfect club out there. Everywhere has their positives and negatives. Do your homework before deciding on a club.

Current Wolves parent. My main beef with this club is that some of the core players are not necessarily better than the sidelined players. This is what is frustrating to me.

Looking forward to watching this weekends NITQs since most teams that have been discussed are playing from Next Level, Wolves, Metro, Alpha and other top clubs from PA/NJ. It will be interesting to see roster size, playing time, skill, coaching style across both u16 and u19.

I wish all the players good luck! They all want the same thing, to qualify. Hoping the weather cooperates.

[Anonymous]

The pools for the Sunshine Showcase later this month have been released. Love the matchups!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Question - Isn't indoor completely different from outdoor? Can you judge a club based on their performance at NITQs? or even NITs?

What it will show you is the teams dynamic, coaching style on and off the court, how the team subs in and out players (indoor should be more sub cycling because of the fast pace of the game and if coaches don’t sub very often you know they really won’t do it in outdoor). The top outdoor clubs do well indoors too. Although a different game, what indoor shows you are stick skill fundamentals, if the team has a strategy (press) and how conditioned the players are. Also it shows you who the leading forwards are because it’s all about shot speed and ball placement accuracy on cage. You clearly get to see the coaching dynamics clearly because of the smaller court.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The pools for the Sunshine Showcase later this month have been released. Love the matchups!

Let’s see how the DMV clubs do after the racking and stacking happens after the 3rd game. What bracket you are placed in after the 3rd game will tell you how strong the team is. For those that aren’t going they stream many games live for free so if you want to do some research on teams before joining, this is a good opportunity.

[Anonymous]

Did any DMV teams qualify today?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Did any DMV teams qualify today?

At the NITQs in Virginia Beach, U16 Metro qualified - winning all 4 games. The U16 Freedom team lost 3 out of 4 games.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Did any DMV teams qualify today?

Not all the locations are posting results. USA field hockey will post the qualified teams in a few days.

[Anonymous]

At the NITQs at United Sports in PA, Husel U19 qualified and beat Freedom U19 (lost 2 games, tied 1). Warhawks U19 lost 2 games so far.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:At the NITQs at United Sports in PA, Husel U19 qualified and beat Freedom U19 (lost 2 games, tied 1). Warhawks U19 lost 2 games so far.

They beat the non-top Freedom team. They still qualified and good on them but they had a weak pool.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:At the NITQs at United Sports in PA, Husel U19 qualified and beat Freedom U19 (lost 2 games, tied 1). Warhawks U19 lost 2 games so far.

They beat the non-top Freedom team. They still qualified and good on them but they had a weak pool.

By your definition, if husel was in a weak pool, then shouldn’t Freedom’s team have qualified?