Field hockey clubs feedback

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Winter Escape happened. Warhawks did well. Wolves and Alpha did not. Alpha did better than Wolves.

This is why this thread is useless. Too many people commenting on things they don’t understand.

Winter Escape is not a tournament you win or lose. It’s is a recruiting showcase and there is one age group. There are too many unknowns to say one team did well and another did not. You simply can’t compare teams at a showcase like Winter Escape.

[Anonymous]

So true. For our club, WES has kids on a single team ranging from freshmen to seniors, who are there simply because they hope to play at some level in college. No tryout necessary to go, not necessarily the best players in the club...simply a group of players keen to be seen by college coaches.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Winter Escape happened. Warhawks did well. Wolves and Alpha did not. Alpha did better than Wolves.

This is why this thread is useless. Too many people commenting on things they don’t understand.

Winter Escape is not a tournament you win or lose. It’s is a recruiting showcase and there is one age group. There are too many unknowns to say one team did well and another did not. You simply can’t compare teams at a showcase like Winter Escape.

I’m sorry when a team only wins 1 of the 4 games it doesn’t matter that there a mix of players age group or can’t score in 2 of the 4 games. If they want to play in college they need to be good since it is a showcase. The reality is the players this go around at some of these clubs are not strong. They may think they are but showcases like this prove it.

If you don’t want to look at WES, look at NITQ and the number of teams that didn’t qualify etc. When you have u16 teams qualifying in u19 over existing u19 players for certain clubs (NL), it tells you which clubs are strong in which years. Also, the teams that qualify at Meadowbrook and KY most likely would not qualify if they competed in the PA area NITQs. Look at the local clubs that qualified in PA. Those are the strong clubs.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Winter Escape happened. Warhawks did well. Wolves and Alpha did not. Alpha did better than Wolves.

This is why this thread is useless. Too many people commenting on things they don’t understand.

Winter Escape is not a tournament you win or lose. It’s is a recruiting showcase and there is one age group. There are too many unknowns to say one team did well and another did not. You simply can’t compare teams at a showcase like Winter Escape.

It's not that type of tourney, you are right. But if your team cannot win, you're not getting as many looks.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Winter Escape happened. Warhawks did well. Wolves and Alpha did not. Alpha did better than Wolves.

This is why this thread is useless. Too many people commenting on things they don’t understand.

Winter Escape is not a tournament you win or lose. It’s is a recruiting showcase and there is one age group. There are too many unknowns to say one team did well and another did not. You simply can’t compare teams at a showcase like Winter Escape.

I’m sorry when a team only wins 1 of the 4 games it doesn’t matter that there a mix of players age group or can’t score in 2 of the 4 games. If they want to play in college they need to be good since it is a showcase. The reality is the players this go around at some of these clubs are not strong. They may think they are but showcases like this prove it.

If you don’t want to look at WES, look at NITQ and the number of teams that didn’t qualify etc. When you have u16 teams qualifying in u19 over existing u19 players for certain clubs (NL), it tells you which clubs are strong in which years. Also, the teams that qualify at Meadowbrook and KY most likely would not qualify if they competed in the PA area NITQs. Look at the local clubs that qualified in PA. Those are the strong clubs.

WES is not about winning. Just because a team doesn't win doesn't mean it doesn't have good players. The college coaches are looking at the individual player. An individual player may only have the ball a few minutes of each game. It's what they do in those few minutes that matter.

NL had teams at Meadowbrook and their two U19 teams that qualified were a mix of U16 and U19 players. I'm not saying their U16s are not good enough to qualify on their own, but your statement is false. I don't know of any local team that sent all their qualifying teams to PA - maybe a club that only had one team at qualifiers. At any give NITQ a great team can fail to qualify because they end up in a pool/location with other great teams.

I don't know why people are so bent on tearing down local players and clubs.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Winter Escape happened. Warhawks did well. Wolves and Alpha did not. Alpha did better than Wolves.

This is why this thread is useless. Too many people commenting on things they don’t understand.

Winter Escape is not a tournament you win or lose. It’s is a recruiting showcase and there is one age group. There are too many unknowns to say one team did well and another did not. You simply can’t compare teams at a showcase like Winter Escape.

I’m sorry when a team only wins 1 of the 4 games it doesn’t matter that there a mix of players age group or can’t score in 2 of the 4 games. If they want to play in college they need to be good since it is a showcase. The reality is the players this go around at some of these clubs are not strong. They may think they are but showcases like this prove it.

If you don’t want to look at WES, look at NITQ and the number of teams that didn’t qualify etc. When you have u16 teams qualifying in u19 over existing u19 players for certain clubs (NL), it tells you which clubs are strong in which years. Also, the teams that qualify at Meadowbrook and KY most likely would not qualify if they competed in the PA area NITQs. Look at the local clubs that qualified in PA. Those are the strong clubs.

WES is not about winning. Just because a team doesn't win doesn't mean it doesn't have good players. The college coaches are looking at the individual player. An individual player may only have the ball a few minutes of each game. It's what they do in those few minutes that matter.

NL had teams at Meadowbrook and their two U19 teams that qualified were a mix of U16 and U19 players. I'm not saying their U16s are not good enough to qualify on their own, but your statement is false. I don't know of any local team that sent all their qualifying teams to PA - maybe a club that only had one team at qualifiers. At any give NITQ a great team can fail to qualify because they end up in a pool/location with other great teams.

I don't know why people are so bent on tearing down local players and clubs.

Have you been to WE? We have. It is about winning in the sense if your team wins, you’re probably playing better and showcasing yourself better, and getting more looks.

[Anonymous]

MAX just released the All-Region teams:

https://maxfh.longstreth.com/2024-mid-atlantic-all-region/

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

I agree that the ISL is not as strong once the 2023s left. But the fact is, Yorktown has never won against Stone Ridge or any other ISL teams. Would they win against any out of the top 5, yes, most likely. But against Stone Ridge, Visi, this year's Holy Child and last year's Bullis and Potomac, it would have been unlikely. It shouldn't be taken so personally, it is just a fact that the publics get much more attention when it comes to awards--as teams and individuals.

Think about this: the Potomac player who scored so many goals over her ISL career couldn't get recruited by any D1 schools. What does that say about the quality of the ISL? Don't take that personally- it's just a fact.

True, but two 2023s did go to D1s. That was my point. There were much stronger players in the ISL then than now.

[Anonymous]

Here’s a thought I just want to put out there. Imagine your child was discussed in this thread, albeit vaguely, and sees people mentioning (paraphrasing) that her skill is overhyped or that she couldn’t get recruited to DI or that her parents are the true reason she was accepted into a school? These kids recognize who is being referenced in this thread and they are just kids. Fine, highlight ISL isn’t as strong, highlight strong teams in the area, share personal opinions about clubs or coaches, but please stop it with the references on specific players. Whether you’re close personal friends with that family and you know alllllllllll about their recruiting journey or a nosy Ned who makes suppositions, is irrelevant. We are (I hope) grown adults trash talking kids and hiding behind the anonymity this thread offers in order to do it.

Again, consider if you’d want your kid finding out that someone is saying this stuff before you say it. And do not think for a minute your kid would be thick skinned enough to handle it. Some of the stuff has been truly mean spirited.

[Anonymous]

100% agree. This thread is supposed to offer advice on club field hockey. Some of these posts are embarassing and several of you should be ashamed of yourselves. You're adults, stop acting like 4-year-olds

[Anonymous]

Yet, many of these parents have no problem destroying coaches on this exact same forum. Not a sermon, just a thought.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Here’s a thought I just want to put out there. Imagine your child was discussed in this thread, albeit vaguely, and sees people mentioning (paraphrasing) that her skill is overhyped or that she couldn’t get recruited to DI or that her parents are the true reason she was accepted into a school? These kids recognize who is being referenced in this thread and they are just kids. Fine, highlight ISL isn’t as strong, highlight strong teams in the area, share personal opinions about clubs or coaches, but please stop it with the references on specific players. Whether you’re close personal friends with that family and you know alllllllllll about their recruiting journey or a nosy Ned who makes suppositions, is irrelevant. We are (I hope) grown adults trash talking kids and hiding behind the anonymity this thread offers in order to do it.

Again, consider if you’d want your kid finding out that someone is saying this stuff before you say it. And do not think for a minute your kid would be thick skinned enough to handle it. Some of the stuff has been truly mean spirited.

I seriously hope recruited field hockey players on their way to college--or already there--aren't wasting their time on DCUM, much less on this thread. I don't there's anything to worry about.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Here’s a thought I just want to put out there. Imagine your child was discussed in this thread, albeit vaguely, and sees people mentioning (paraphrasing) that her skill is overhyped or that she couldn’t get recruited to DI or that her parents are the true reason she was accepted into a school? These kids recognize who is being referenced in this thread and they are just kids. Fine, highlight ISL isn’t as strong, highlight strong teams in the area, share personal opinions about clubs or coaches, but please stop it with the references on specific players. Whether you’re close personal friends with that family and you know alllllllllll about their recruiting journey or a nosy Ned who makes suppositions, is irrelevant. We are (I hope) grown adults trash talking kids and hiding behind the anonymity this thread offers in order to do it.

Again, consider if you’d want your kid finding out that someone is saying this stuff before you say it. And do not think for a minute your kid would be thick skinned enough to handle it. Some of the stuff has been truly mean spirited.

Agreed

[Anonymous]

I don’t think the players are reading this. It’s mostly the bored parents.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Winter Escape happened. Warhawks did well. Wolves and Alpha did not. Alpha did better than Wolves.

This is why this thread is useless. Too many people commenting on things they don’t understand.

Winter Escape is not a tournament you win or lose. It’s is a recruiting showcase and there is one age group. There are too many unknowns to say one team did well and another did not. You simply can’t compare teams at a showcase like Winter Escape.

I’m sorry when a team only wins 1 of the 4 games it doesn’t matter that there a mix of players age group or can’t score in 2 of the 4 games. If they want to play in college they need to be good since it is a showcase. The reality is the players this go around at some of these clubs are not strong. They may think they are but showcases like this prove it.

If you don’t want to look at WES, look at NITQ and the number of teams that didn’t qualify etc. When you have u16 teams qualifying in u19 over existing u19 players for certain clubs (NL), it tells you which clubs are strong in which years. Also, the teams that qualify at Meadowbrook and KY most likely would not qualify if they competed in the PA area NITQs. Look at the local clubs that qualified in PA. Those are the strong clubs.

WES is not about winning. Just because a team doesn't win doesn't mean it doesn't have good players. The college coaches are looking at the individual player. An individual player may only have the ball a few minutes of each game. It's what they do in those few minutes that matter.

NL had teams at Meadowbrook and their two U19 teams that qualified were a mix of U16 and U19 players. I'm not saying their U16s are not good enough to qualify on their own, but your statement is false. I don't know of any local team that sent all their qualifying teams to PA - maybe a club that only had one team at qualifiers. At any give NITQ a great team can fail to qualify because they end up in a pool/location with other great teams.

I don't know why people are so bent on tearing down local players and clubs.

Have you been to WE? We have. It is about winning in the sense if your team wins, you’re probably playing better and showcasing yourself better, and getting more looks.

^^^ 100% correct