BRYC Girls TD Larry Best leaving for Washington Spirit

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Playing games is important to developing players, but that wasn't the poster's argument. It was that kids can develop even if on a large roster. Part of "development" is learning to compete, which includes competing for playing time. Just because you're on the team doesn't mean you're on the field. You have to EARN it. Maybe that means you practice extra. Maybe you spend 2 hours on weekends by yourself juggling or practicing shooting. Maybe you dig deeper and hustle more. Or get fit. Or watch more professional matches. But if you expect to play because you are on the team, you belong in rec soccer, not the DA.

And if you're not earning playing minutes, that doesn't mean you're not a valuable part of the team. Or that you DESERVE to play. Or that you're not "developing." The statement "If clubs are not giving player's the chance to get significant minutes in games on a regular basis, then they simply don't care that much about that player's development. Those players are only there to provide depth, practice fodder, and $$" is utter nonsense. The "chance to get significant minutes" is based on merit, and I assure you, every DA coach gives every player "the chance" to EARN time. If you're performing, you play.

That’s the problem with WS-VA, playing time is NOT based on merit. Everyone plays relatively equal minutes. You don’t have to go to practice, you can goof off while at practice and will still get to start. The kids who should be starting have to sit in order to allow players 19-28 on the roster to get playing time

I think this is pulled out of thin air. You are telling me that you have done a minute by minute breakdown of all the players and have come to the conclusion that all the players play the same number of minutes? I think you need to back such a statement up.

I'm not sure if it's the case across all age groups, but it has been not just observed but told to younger age groups., by coaching staff as there is currently re-entry that this is the case.

Our eyes lie to us but the numbers generally don't. Ego often plays a role in things. If little Susie gets subbed out at minute 60 I've witnessed parents believe the loss of 20 minutes of playing time claimed to be the coach is playing everyone the same. I'm sure if you asked the kid who only got 20 or 15 minutes did not feel as though the minutes were equal.

So, since there are numbers out there to back this up, please use those to support your argument. Not that I don't trust your lying eyes of course. Now, for your statement to be true all subs are made at halftime right? Because that is what equal means.

Or it could mean that starting means you get a full half + 20 more minutes and then starts are fairly evenly spread across the board. So playing time may not be equal in a game, but it is over the course of a season.

All easily provable. So go ahead and prove that all the players get equal time. I'll wait.

DP but the poster who made the equal time claim also clearly stated as far as they knew it applied to age groups in which re-entry is allowed.

Game reports for those ages do not include information as to starters, reserves, or game minutes.

So it's going to be a long wait for you. Maybe think about not being such a jerk while you wait.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Playing games is important to developing players, but that wasn't the poster's argument. It was that kids can develop even if on a large roster. Part of "development" is learning to compete, which includes competing for playing time. Just because you're on the team doesn't mean you're on the field. You have to EARN it. Maybe that means you practice extra. Maybe you spend 2 hours on weekends by yourself juggling or practicing shooting. Maybe you dig deeper and hustle more. Or get fit. Or watch more professional matches. But if you expect to play because you are on the team, you belong in rec soccer, not the DA.

And if you're not earning playing minutes, that doesn't mean you're not a valuable part of the team. Or that you DESERVE to play. Or that you're not "developing." The statement "If clubs are not giving player's the chance to get significant minutes in games on a regular basis, then they simply don't care that much about that player's development. Those players are only there to provide depth, practice fodder, and $$" is utter nonsense. The "chance to get significant minutes" is based on merit, and I assure you, every DA coach gives every player "the chance" to EARN time. If you're performing, you play.

That’s the problem with WS-VA, playing time is NOT based on merit. Everyone plays relatively equal minutes. You don’t have to go to practice, you can goof off while at practice and will still get to start. The kids who should be starting have to sit in order to allow players 19-28 on the roster to get playing time

I think this is pulled out of thin air. You are telling me that you have done a minute by minute breakdown of all the players and have come to the conclusion that all the players play the same number of minutes? I think you need to back such a statement up.

I'm not sure if it's the case across all age groups, but it has been not just observed but told to younger age groups., by coaching staff as there is currently re-entry that this is the case.

Our eyes lie to us but the numbers generally don't. Ego often plays a role in things. If little Susie gets subbed out at minute 60 I've witnessed parents believe the loss of 20 minutes of playing time claimed to be the coach is playing everyone the same. I'm sure if you asked the kid who only got 20 or 15 minutes did not feel as though the minutes were equal.

So, since there are numbers out there to back this up, please use those to support your argument. Not that I don't trust your lying eyes of course. Now, for your statement to be true all subs are made at halftime right? Because that is what equal means.

Or it could mean that starting means you get a full half + 20 more minutes and then starts are fairly evenly spread across the board. So playing time may not be equal in a game, but it is over the course of a season.

All easily provable. So go ahead and prove that all the players get equal time. I'll wait.

DP but the poster who made the equal time claim also clearly stated as far as they knew it applied to age groups in which re-entry is allowed.

Game reports for those ages do not include information as to starters, reserves, or game minutes.

So it's going to be a long wait for you. Maybe think about not being such a jerk while you wait.

Of course it isn't coming because the PP pulled it out of thin air. And as far as the ages where game reports do not include minutes because of re-entry the whole point of those age groups is to get everyone playing as much as possible. But those age groups were not what the poster was really complaining about. ANd if someone is going to make a claim as if based in fact then provide the fact but statements like "I've seen, Ive heard, I've felt" are not facts especially with a topic that can be easily proved.

So, I get it, Spirit has somehow disrespected the PP's DD with sharing equal playing minutes but that experience is just a tad anecdotal and likely a tad biased.

So I'm asking the PP to prove this following claim from above:

That’s the problem with WS-VA, playing time is NOT based on merit. Everyone plays relatively equal minutes. You don’t have to go to practice, you can goof off while at practice and will still get to start. The kids who should be starting have to sit in order to allow players 19-28 on the roster to get playing time

This should be simple enough to prove.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Playing games is important to developing players, but that wasn't the poster's argument. It was that kids can develop even if on a large roster. Part of "development" is learning to compete, which includes competing for playing time. Just because you're on the team doesn't mean you're on the field. You have to EARN it. Maybe that means you practice extra. Maybe you spend 2 hours on weekends by yourself juggling or practicing shooting. Maybe you dig deeper and hustle more. Or get fit. Or watch more professional matches. But if you expect to play because you are on the team, you belong in rec soccer, not the DA.

And if you're not earning playing minutes, that doesn't mean you're not a valuable part of the team. Or that you DESERVE to play. Or that you're not "developing." The statement "If clubs are not giving player's the chance to get significant minutes in games on a regular basis, then they simply don't care that much about that player's development. Those players are only there to provide depth, practice fodder, and $$" is utter nonsense. The "chance to get significant minutes" is based on merit, and I assure you, every DA coach gives every player "the chance" to EARN time. If you're performing, you play.

That’s the problem with WS-VA, playing time is NOT based on merit. Everyone plays relatively equal minutes. You don’t have to go to practice, you can goof off while at practice and will still get to start. The kids who should be starting have to sit in order to allow players 19-28 on the roster to get playing time

I think this is pulled out of thin air. You are telling me that you have done a minute by minute breakdown of all the players and have come to the conclusion that all the players play the same number of minutes? I think you need to back such a statement up.

I'm not sure if it's the case across all age groups, but it has been not just observed but told to younger age groups., by coaching staff as there is currently re-entry that this is the case.

Our eyes lie to us but the numbers generally don't. Ego often plays a role in things. If little Susie gets subbed out at minute 60 I've witnessed parents believe the loss of 20 minutes of playing time claimed to be the coach is playing everyone the same. I'm sure if you asked the kid who only got 20 or 15 minutes did not feel as though the minutes were equal.

So, since there are numbers out there to back this up, please use those to support your argument. Not that I don't trust your lying eyes of course. Now, for your statement to be true all subs are made at halftime right? Because that is what equal means.

Or it could mean that starting means you get a full half + 20 more minutes and then starts are fairly evenly spread across the board. So playing time may not be equal in a game, but it is over the course of a season.

All easily provable. So go ahead and prove that all the players get equal time. I'll wait.

DP but the poster who made the equal time claim also clearly stated as far as they knew it applied to age groups in which re-entry is allowed.

Game reports for those ages do not include information as to starters, reserves, or game minutes.

So it's going to be a long wait for you. Maybe think about not being such a jerk while you wait.

+1.

Quite frankly, on a related note, none of this would be an issue of Spirit would normalize it's roster size.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Playing games is important to developing players, but that wasn't the poster's argument. It was that kids can develop even if on a large roster. Part of "development" is learning to compete, which includes competing for playing time. Just because you're on the team doesn't mean you're on the field. You have to EARN it. Maybe that means you practice extra. Maybe you spend 2 hours on weekends by yourself juggling or practicing shooting. Maybe you dig deeper and hustle more. Or get fit. Or watch more professional matches. But if you expect to play because you are on the team, you belong in rec soccer, not the DA.

And if you're not earning playing minutes, that doesn't mean you're not a valuable part of the team. Or that you DESERVE to play. Or that you're not "developing." The statement "If clubs are not giving player's the chance to get significant minutes in games on a regular basis, then they simply don't care that much about that player's development. Those players are only there to provide depth, practice fodder, and $$" is utter nonsense. The "chance to get significant minutes" is based on merit, and I assure you, every DA coach gives every player "the chance" to EARN time. If you're performing, you play.

That’s the problem with WS-VA, playing time is NOT based on merit. Everyone plays relatively equal minutes. You don’t have to go to practice, you can goof off while at practice and will still get to start. The kids who should be starting have to sit in order to allow players 19-28 on the roster to get playing time

I think this is pulled out of thin air. You are telling me that you have done a minute by minute breakdown of all the players and have come to the conclusion that all the players play the same number of minutes? I think you need to back such a statement up.

I'm not sure if it's the case across all age groups, but it has been not just observed but told to younger age groups., by coaching staff as there is currently re-entry that this is the case.

Our eyes lie to us but the numbers generally don't. Ego often plays a role in things. If little Susie gets subbed out at minute 60 I've witnessed parents believe the loss of 20 minutes of playing time claimed to be the coach is playing everyone the same. I'm sure if you asked the kid who only got 20 or 15 minutes did not feel as though the minutes were equal.

So, since there are numbers out there to back this up, please use those to support your argument. Not that I don't trust your lying eyes of course. Now, for your statement to be true all subs are made at halftime right? Because that is what equal means.

Or it could mean that starting means you get a full half + 20 more minutes and then starts are fairly evenly spread across the board. So playing time may not be equal in a game, but it is over the course of a season.

All easily provable. So go ahead and prove that all the players get equal time. I'll wait.

DP but the poster who made the equal time claim also clearly stated as far as they knew it applied to age groups in which re-entry is allowed.

Game reports for those ages do not include information as to starters, reserves, or game minutes.

So it's going to be a long wait for you. Maybe think about not being such a jerk while you wait.

+1.

Quite frankly, on a related note, none of this would be an issue of Spirit would normalize it's roster size.

So many exaggerations. No team has a roster of 28. Easy enough to look up.

All players getting equal playing time is also very easy to provide evidence. There is nothing wrong with the criticisms if they are based in fact and not emotional, anecdotal hyperbole.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Large rosters aren't anti-development. They're a realistic approximation of college and pro rosters. Spirit's pro team has 23 players. UNC has 29 players. What you mean to say is that you're pissed not all kids on a roster are able to earn playing minutes, and that as a result of not playing games they aren't developing. That's crap. That challenge will come with any good team. You've got to earn a spot on the team and then earn a spot on the field. Most development doesn't happen during games anyway, it comes from practicing against other good kids on your own team, with the benefit of good coaching.

Pro players are paid to sit the bench. Moreover, even pro teams know how to make good use of their reserves until those players are ready. Many switch clubs or choose pro clubs based on playing time or the lack there of.

College rosters are so massive because they are an extension of how high school soccer is run. And who would accuse college soccer of a great developmental environment? College soccer and pro soccer shouldn't even be juxtaposed, since everything about how they are run and designed is to meet far different ends.

Youth clubs are about preparing youth for something, not treating them as if they are already there.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Large rosters aren't anti-development. They're a realistic approximation of college and pro rosters. Spirit's pro team has 23 players. UNC has 29 players. What you mean to say is that you're pissed not all kids on a roster are able to earn playing minutes, and that as a result of not playing games they aren't developing. That's crap. That challenge will come with any good team. You've got to earn a spot on the team and then earn a spot on the field. Most development doesn't happen during games anyway, it comes from practicing against other good kids on your own team, with the benefit of good coaching.

Pro players are paid to sit the bench. Moreover, even pro teams know how to make good use of their reserves until those players are ready. Many switch clubs or choose pro clubs based on playing time or the lack there of.

College rosters are so massive because they are an extension of how high school soccer is run. And who would accuse college soccer of a great developmental environment? College soccer and pro soccer shouldn't even be juxtaposed, since everything about how they are run and designed is to meet far different ends.

Youth clubs are about preparing youth for something, not treating them as if they are already there.

Well it obviously isn't preparing them to have to sit the bench if that is what ends up happening in college. That fact becomes a real shock to players in their first two years if they even make it to their second season.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Playing games is important to developing players, but that wasn't the poster's argument. It was that kids can develop even if on a large roster. Part of "development" is learning to compete, which includes competing for playing time. Just because you're on the team doesn't mean you're on the field. You have to EARN it. Maybe that means you practice extra. Maybe you spend 2 hours on weekends by yourself juggling or practicing shooting. Maybe you dig deeper and hustle more. Or get fit. Or watch more professional matches. But if you expect to play because you are on the team, you belong in rec soccer, not the DA.

And if you're not earning playing minutes, that doesn't mean you're not a valuable part of the team. Or that you DESERVE to play. Or that you're not "developing." The statement "If clubs are not giving player's the chance to get significant minutes in games on a regular basis, then they simply don't care that much about that player's development. Those players are only there to provide depth, practice fodder, and $$" is utter nonsense. The "chance to get significant minutes" is based on merit, and I assure you, every DA coach gives every player "the chance" to EARN time. If you're performing, you play.

That’s the problem with WS-VA, playing time is NOT based on merit. Everyone plays relatively equal minutes. You don’t have to go to practice, you can goof off while at practice and will still get to start. The kids who should be starting have to sit in order to allow players 19-28 on the roster to get playing time

I think this is pulled out of thin air. You are telling me that you have done a minute by minute breakdown of all the players and have come to the conclusion that all the players play the same number of minutes? I think you need to back such a statement up.

I'm not sure if it's the case across all age groups, but it has been not just observed but told to younger age groups., by coaching staff as there is currently re-entry that this is the case.

Our eyes lie to us but the numbers generally don't. Ego often plays a role in things. If little Susie gets subbed out at minute 60 I've witnessed parents believe the loss of 20 minutes of playing time claimed to be the coach is playing everyone the same. I'm sure if you asked the kid who only got 20 or 15 minutes did not feel as though the minutes were equal.

So, since there are numbers out there to back this up, please use those to support your argument. Not that I don't trust your lying eyes of course. Now, for your statement to be true all subs are made at halftime right? Because that is what equal means.

Or it could mean that starting means you get a full half + 20 more minutes and then starts are fairly evenly spread across the board. So playing time may not be equal in a game, but it is over the course of a season.

All easily provable. So go ahead and prove that all the players get equal time. I'll wait.

DP but the poster who made the equal time claim also clearly stated as far as they knew it applied to age groups in which re-entry is allowed.

Game reports for those ages do not include information as to starters, reserves, or game minutes.

So it's going to be a long wait for you. Maybe think about not being such a jerk while you wait.

+1.

Quite frankly, on a related note, none of this would be an issue of Spirit would normalize it's roster size.

So many exaggerations. No team has a roster of 28. Easy enough to look up.

All players getting equal playing time is also very easy to provide evidence. There is nothing wrong with the criticisms if they are based in fact and not emotional, anecdotal hyperbole.

I agree. It's not 28. It's more like 23 or 24, as per the website - because you have the 04s that are listed + the play ups. I'm not cutting and pasting as it's right there on the website for everyone to see.

That's still massive and unacceptable. 16-18 is a developmental roster. Anything above that is a money making, check receiving roster. That becomes even more obvious when it becomes clear that some of those players are not DA or ECNL level.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Large rosters aren't anti-development. They're a realistic approximation of college and pro rosters. Spirit's pro team has 23 players. UNC has 29 players. What you mean to say is that you're pissed not all kids on a roster are able to earn playing minutes, and that as a result of not playing games they aren't developing. That's crap. That challenge will come with any good team. You've got to earn a spot on the team and then earn a spot on the field. Most development doesn't happen during games anyway, it comes from practicing against other good kids on your own team, with the benefit of good coaching.

Pro players are paid to sit the bench. Moreover, even pro teams know how to make good use of their reserves until those players are ready. Many switch clubs or choose pro clubs based on playing time or the lack there of.

College rosters are so massive because they are an extension of how high school soccer is run. And who would accuse college soccer of a great developmental environment? College soccer and pro soccer shouldn't even be juxtaposed, since everything about how they are run and designed is to meet far different ends.

Youth clubs are about preparing youth for something, not treating them as if they are already there.

Well it obviously isn't preparing them to have to sit the bench if that is what ends up happening in college. That fact becomes a real shock to players in their first two years if they even make it to their second season.

It's about preparing and developing them for the best possible chance at making the starting line up, not indoctrinated them into how to handle not suiting up for the game.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Playing games is important to developing players, but that wasn't the poster's argument. It was that kids can develop even if on a large roster. Part of "development" is learning to compete, which includes competing for playing time. Just because you're on the team doesn't mean you're on the field. You have to EARN it. Maybe that means you practice extra. Maybe you spend 2 hours on weekends by yourself juggling or practicing shooting. Maybe you dig deeper and hustle more. Or get fit. Or watch more professional matches. But if you expect to play because you are on the team, you belong in rec soccer, not the DA.

And if you're not earning playing minutes, that doesn't mean you're not a valuable part of the team. Or that you DESERVE to play. Or that you're not "developing." The statement "If clubs are not giving player's the chance to get significant minutes in games on a regular basis, then they simply don't care that much about that player's development. Those players are only there to provide depth, practice fodder, and $$" is utter nonsense. The "chance to get significant minutes" is based on merit, and I assure you, every DA coach gives every player "the chance" to EARN time. If you're performing, you play.

That’s the problem with WS-VA, playing time is NOT based on merit. Everyone plays relatively equal minutes. You don’t have to go to practice, you can goof off while at practice and will still get to start. The kids who should be starting have to sit in order to allow players 19-28 on the roster to get playing time

I think this is pulled out of thin air. You are telling me that you have done a minute by minute breakdown of all the players and have come to the conclusion that all the players play the same number of minutes? I think you need to back such a statement up.

I'm not sure if it's the case across all age groups, but it has been not just observed but told to younger age groups., by coaching staff as there is currently re-entry that this is the case.

Our eyes lie to us but the numbers generally don't. Ego often plays a role in things. If little Susie gets subbed out at minute 60 I've witnessed parents believe the loss of 20 minutes of playing time claimed to be the coach is playing everyone the same. I'm sure if you asked the kid who only got 20 or 15 minutes did not feel as though the minutes were equal.

So, since there are numbers out there to back this up, please use those to support your argument. Not that I don't trust your lying eyes of course. Now, for your statement to be true all subs are made at halftime right? Because that is what equal means.

Or it could mean that starting means you get a full half + 20 more minutes and then starts are fairly evenly spread across the board. So playing time may not be equal in a game, but it is over the course of a season.

All easily provable. So go ahead and prove that all the players get equal time. I'll wait.

DP but the poster who made the equal time claim also clearly stated as far as they knew it applied to age groups in which re-entry is allowed.

Game reports for those ages do not include information as to starters, reserves, or game minutes.

So it's going to be a long wait for you. Maybe think about not being such a jerk while you wait.

+1.

Quite frankly, on a related note, none of this would be an issue of Spirit would normalize it's roster size.

So many exaggerations. No team has a roster of 28. Easy enough to look up.

All players getting equal playing time is also very easy to provide evidence. There is nothing wrong with the criticisms if they are based in fact and not emotional, anecdotal hyperbole.

I agree. It's not 28. It's more like 23 or 24, as per the website - because you have the 04s that are listed + the play ups. I'm not cutting and pasting as it's right there on the website for everyone to see.

That's still massive and unacceptable. 16-18 is a developmental roster. Anything above that is a money making, check receiving roster. That becomes even more obvious when it becomes clear that some of those players are not DA or ECNL level.

And all other clubs utilize DP players as well. No smart coach is going to roll into a year long soccer season with 16 kids. It might meet your development ideal and wet dream but you are one concussion and a torn ACL away from putting yourself in a real tough spot. Every club and team has some mechanism for roster depth. Spirit, with no real feeder club simply does not have the ability to just tap the A team. Spirit MD can pull from Pipeline and those are names that you just do not see on the roster. Arlington can also pull kids up from their B team as well. FCV has several DP players train almost exclusively with the DA team. The idea that clubs do not have 5-6 players they can call up in case of injury is being naive and emotional.

And if the poster would dig into the actual game reports they just might that there is in fact a core group of regular players. They might find that their assumption was right too but until that actual effort is done it is all just anecdotal complaining.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Large rosters aren't anti-development. They're a realistic approximation of college and pro rosters. Spirit's pro team has 23 players. UNC has 29 players. What you mean to say is that you're pissed not all kids on a roster are able to earn playing minutes, and that as a result of not playing games they aren't developing. That's crap. That challenge will come with any good team. You've got to earn a spot on the team and then earn a spot on the field. Most development doesn't happen during games anyway, it comes from practicing against other good kids on your own team, with the benefit of good coaching.

Pro players are paid to sit the bench. Moreover, even pro teams know how to make good use of their reserves until those players are ready. Many switch clubs or choose pro clubs based on playing time or the lack there of.

College rosters are so massive because they are an extension of how high school soccer is run. And who would accuse college soccer of a great developmental environment? College soccer and pro soccer shouldn't even be juxtaposed, since everything about how they are run and designed is to meet far different ends.

Youth clubs are about preparing youth for something, not treating them as if they are already there.

Well it obviously isn't preparing them to have to sit the bench if that is what ends up happening in college. That fact becomes a real shock to players in their first two years if they even make it to their second season.

It's about preparing and developing them for the best possible chance at making the starting line up, not indoctrinated them into how to handle not suiting up for the game.

Well since nearly all of them end up sitting anyways it did a poor job of preparing the players to start at the collegiate level. But by all means, keep preaching how that 16 man roster was so critical in their development when they end up as nothing more than practice cones in college for two years.

And frankly handling the disappointment of not suiting up is important for development. It teaches patience and perseverance. I know you want Susie to play every minute of every game but that isn't merit, that is entitlement.

[Anonymous]

People complaining about playing time here need to just leave and let their kids find an appropriate level of play. If they are not playing it is because they are not good enough...

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Different posters so different comments. Some say they lack talent; others say their talent is being lost in the shuffle of bloated rosters that include players who shouldn't be in the DA or who shouldn't be playing up.

The talent level is below every ECNL and DA team the area for all but the 00-02 age groups.

The rosters ARE bloated but not with a lot of talent. Revenue generation is a major initiative

The rosters include plenty of kids playing up that shouldn’t be. Some of this is lack of talent but more of it is too much parental influence being accepted by the club.

All of this needs to stop for the club to improve.

This is the ugly truth.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:People complaining about playing time here need to just leave and let their kids find an appropriate level of play. If they are not playing it is because they are not good enough...

Exactly. Short benches can cause just as much complacency and lazy training habits because there is no threat to playing time. Playing time is earned through practice and game performance, not at an ID session. So you were better than kids over 4 practices and now that means you are gifted a starting role for a year because of a short bench?

Both approaches (large bench/short bench) can work but it all lies in how things are actually executed and the overall talent level. Nothing brings out better practice habits more than a new face appearing at practice.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Different posters so different comments. Some say they lack talent; others say their talent is being lost in the shuffle of bloated rosters that include players who shouldn't be in the DA or who shouldn't be playing up.

The talent level is below every ECNL and DA team the area for all but the 00-02 age groups.

The rosters ARE bloated but not with a lot of talent. Revenue generation is a major initiative

The rosters include plenty of kids playing up that shouldn’t be. Some of this is lack of talent but more of it is too much parental influence being accepted by the club.

All of this needs to stop for the club to improve.

This is the ugly truth.

I think this point is understood. The problem at Spirit has mostly been a lack of a true mechanism to have the "B" team kids practice and play as other clubs have. They certainly need to streamline their tiers in a more common practice. But other clubs in principle do the same thing they just have a better structure to make it work better.

[Anonymous]

Problem at Spirit is the Coaching.