09 girls

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I thought Bethesda was going to dominate when they got to play 11v11? They're barely cracking .500.

I actually think they're regressed from 9v9 when they could play defensively and hope for counters. The big field took away the strengths of their best players.

Hmmmm, lost to PPA in State Final last spring. Never beat Pipeline last season. Lost to Lower Merion at WAGS this fall.

Past month, beat Pipeline for first time. Beat PPA over the weekend 3-0. Beat Lower Merion 3-1. Yep, true signs of regressing, winning games they lost last season and at WAGS earlier this Fall. Play defensively and hope for counters, lol! You are just a parent driven by your dislike for Bethesda for whatever reasons. Again, nobody ever claimed Bethesda would beat Loudoun either.

I refuse to sink to your level and make wild accusations about what club you are from.

But I thought winning doesn't matter at U13?

I'm talking about the actual game play regressing.

I have never said winning doesn't matter. I have also never said winning is everything.

Winning is a byproduct of skill, athleticism/physicality, IQ and endurance. In most cases, you need gameplay (IQ) to win games. Usually if you are regressing in game play, you lose games to lesser teams. Pretty sure that's how it works.

Not sure if you have seen the Bethesda 09s but size and physicality is not one of their strong suits, lol. There is zero evidence of any regression. Bethesda just has trouble tying or beating Top 25 teams. I don't think there is any shame in that either.

[Anonymous]

Little kids here people - we are talking about little kids. Aint no one recruiting your 12 yr old.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I thought Bethesda was going to dominate when they got to play 11v11? They're barely cracking .500.

I actually think they're regressed from 9v9 when they could play defensively and hope for counters. The big field took away the strengths of their best players.

Hmmmm, lost to PPA in State Final last spring. Never beat Pipeline last season. Lost to Lower Merion at WAGS this fall.

Past month, beat Pipeline for first time. Beat PPA over the weekend 3-0. Beat Lower Merion 3-1. Yep, true signs of regressing, winning games they lost last season and at WAGS earlier this Fall. Play defensively and hope for counters, lol! You are just a parent driven by your dislike for Bethesda for whatever reasons. Again, nobody ever claimed Bethesda would beat Loudoun either.

I refuse to sink to your level and make wild accusations about what club you are from.

But I thought winning doesn't matter at U13?

I'm talking about the actual game play regressing.

I have never said winning doesn't matter. I have also never said winning is everything.

Winning is a byproduct of skill, athleticism/physicality, IQ and endurance. In most cases, you need gameplay (IQ) to win games. Usually if you are regressing in game play, you lose games to lesser teams. Pretty sure that's how it works.

Not sure if you have seen the Bethesda 09s but size and physicality is not one of their strong suits, lol. There is zero evidence of any regression. Bethesda just has trouble tying or beating Top 25 teams. I don't think there is any shame in that either.

Look this is not a pro league. Most teams(95%) at this age all the way to the USWNT will win on athleticism. It’s the women’s game. Technical skill and soccer iq are not valued for a reason. The speed of play is slow enough that the other player can make contact and disrupt play. Bigger or faster players have the advantage on offense and defense.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I thought Bethesda was going to dominate when they got to play 11v11? They're barely cracking .500.

I actually think they're regressed from 9v9 when they could play defensively and hope for counters. The big field took away the strengths of their best players.

Hmmmm, lost to PPA in State Final last spring. Never beat Pipeline last season. Lost to Lower Merion at WAGS this fall.

Past month, beat Pipeline for first time. Beat PPA over the weekend 3-0. Beat Lower Merion 3-1. Yep, true signs of regressing, winning games they lost last season and at WAGS earlier this Fall. Play defensively and hope for counters, lol! You are just a parent driven by your dislike for Bethesda for whatever reasons. Again, nobody ever claimed Bethesda would beat Loudoun either.

I refuse to sink to your level and make wild accusations about what club you are from.

But I thought winning doesn't matter at U13?

I'm talking about the actual game play regressing.

I have never said winning doesn't matter. I have also never said winning is everything.

Winning is a byproduct of skill, athleticism/physicality, IQ and endurance. In most cases, you need gameplay (IQ) to win games. Usually if you are regressing in game play, you lose games to lesser teams. Pretty sure that's how it works.

Not sure if you have seen the Bethesda 09s but size and physicality is not one of their strong suits, lol. There is zero evidence of any regression. Bethesda just has trouble tying or beating Top 25 teams. I don't think there is any shame in that either.

Look this is not a pro league. Most teams(95%) at this age all the way to the USWNT will win on athleticism. It’s the women’s game. Technical skill and soccer iq are not valued for a reason. The speed of play is slow enough that the other player can make contact and disrupt play. Bigger or faster players have the advantage on offense and defense.

Simply false. At elite youth levels at older ages, athleticism is more evenly distributed across teams than technical ability or soccer IQ. Every top notch player has both athleticism and skill.

[Anonymous]

Isn’t bigger and faster better in every sport??? Maybe gymnastics being the exception.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Isn’t bigger and faster better in every sport??? Maybe gymnastics being the exception.

Of course not. Darts? Doesn't matter. Cornhole? Doesn't matter. Horse racing? Bigger jockey's are a liability. I could go on and on.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Isn’t bigger and faster better in every sport??? Maybe gymnastics being the exception.

No, it’s not. My god do you actually watch sports? Like men’s sports? There was this guy named Diego maradona. There is another guy named Tom Brady who was absolutely at the bottom of the nfl combine among QBs and another guy Jamarcus Russell who was off the charts on all the measurables. There is another guy named Steph curry. There is another guy named Michael Jordan who was great at basketball and very mediocre in baseball. Another guy named usain bolt is a great sprinter and a very average soccer player.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Isn’t bigger and faster better in every sport??? Maybe gymnastics being the exception.

No, it’s not. My god do you actually watch sports? Like men’s sports? There was this guy named Diego maradona. There is another guy named Tom Brady who was absolutely at the bottom of the nfl combine among QBs and another guy Jamarcus Russell who was off the charts on all the measurables. There is another guy named Steph curry. There is another guy named Michael Jordan who was great at basketball and very mediocre in baseball. Another guy named usain bolt is a great sprinter and a very average soccer player.

💯

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Isn’t bigger and faster better in every sport??? Maybe gymnastics being the exception.

Correct. There are obviously going to be unicorns in every sport who will overcome the odds, but if a soccer coach has two kids of equal ability, the one that has the size and speed advantage will be chosen every time.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Isn’t bigger and faster better in every sport??? Maybe gymnastics being the exception.

No, it’s not. My god do you actually watch sports? Like men’s sports? There was this guy named Diego maradona. There is another guy named Tom Brady who was absolutely at the bottom of the nfl combine among QBs and another guy Jamarcus Russell who was off the charts on all the measurables. There is another guy named Steph curry. There is another guy named Michael Jordan who was great at basketball and very mediocre in baseball. Another guy named usain bolt is a great sprinter and a very average soccer player.

One of the best MLB players is also the shortest- Jose Altuve. Dude is 5'6"

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Isn’t bigger and faster better in every sport??? Maybe gymnastics being the exception.

No, it’s not. My god do you actually watch sports? Like men’s sports? There was this guy named Diego maradona. There is another guy named Tom Brady who was absolutely at the bottom of the nfl combine among QBs and another guy Jamarcus Russell who was off the charts on all the measurables. There is another guy named Steph curry. There is another guy named Michael Jordan who was great at basketball and very mediocre in baseball. Another guy named usain bolt is a great sprinter and a very average soccer player.

One of the best MLB players is also the shortest- Jose Altuve. Dude is 5'6"

no he does. Or have the size or speed. I would take Mike Trout over him. He is 6-2 235.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Isn’t bigger and faster better in every sport??? Maybe gymnastics being the exception.

No, it’s not. My god do you actually watch sports? Like men’s sports? There was this guy named Diego maradona. There is another guy named Tom Brady who was absolutely at the bottom of the nfl combine among QBs and another guy Jamarcus Russell who was off the charts on all the measurables. There is another guy named Steph curry. There is another guy named Michael Jordan who was great at basketball and very mediocre in baseball. Another guy named usain bolt is a great sprinter and a very average soccer player.

One of the best MLB players is also the shortest- Jose Altuve. Dude is 5'6"

no he does not have the size or speed. I would take Mike Trout over him. He is 6-2 235.

corrected.

[Anonymous]

Altuve hits better with a banging trash can

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Isn’t bigger and faster better in every sport??? Maybe gymnastics being the exception.

No, it’s not. My god do you actually watch sports? Like men’s sports? There was this guy named Diego maradona. There is another guy named Tom Brady who was absolutely at the bottom of the nfl combine among QBs and another guy Jamarcus Russell who was off the charts on all the measurables. There is another guy named Steph curry. There is another guy named Michael Jordan who was great at basketball and very mediocre in baseball. Another guy named usain bolt is a great sprinter and a very average soccer player.

One of the best MLB players is also the shortest- Jose Altuve. Dude is 5'6"

no he does. Or have the size or speed. I would take Mike Trout over him. He is 6-2 235.

Fact is he makes 26 mil. He is a successful half pint baseball player.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Altuve hits better with a banging trash can