Reply to Metro vs Paramount (vs other top clubs)

Forum Index » Volleyball

Reply to "Metro vs Paramount (vs other top clubs)"

Subject:

Emoticons





More smilies

Text Color: Font: Close Marks

[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]
What about the 6 players who left? Did they move to first teams somewhere? Maybe they prefer to be starters on first teams? Were there players who played down at 14 and decided to move up to 16? That's pretty common. Did any of them move out of the area? Did any find the commute too long? Did any want to focus more on academics? Maybe they don't like the coaches... There are many, many possible reasons why they left. If some of the starters left for various reasons, the team has to replace them with others.

The team was ranked 11th in the region in 24. There were quite a few teams ranked above them, and recruiting better players from other teams to improve their team is expected. Replacing 6 players (including starters) in one year is not unusual for a second team ranked 11th. Yes, Metro has a core group that stays with the club from 14. But Metro is number one. There aren't many players better than their core group.

You can't be so extreme to say: you can't actively recruit new players because that proves your training is not good enough. Recruiting and training are both needed to build a better team.
[/quote]
I don't think that's what they were saying. They actually gave you the benefit of the doubt and included all the teams with at least half the team returning into the group where training could be the reason performance improved. When you pushed that the regional rank improved even though the national rank didn't they provided data that showed the team replaced its starters at the same rate as the rest club replaced players. Since they'd already shown the largest increases in performance came from the teams that added the most new players to their roster, the team we thought was an outlier and really did improve primarily through training was turned out to be like the rest of the club.

You kind of fell into a trap that is hard to get out of now because if you have to rely on the 15-2s team try to prove your point, you've already lost the argument. Especially since they acknowledge the 15-2 team did perform well.

You are arguing the "ends" and claiming that "but we won a bid" and regional ranking improvements prove how good Paramount is. The PP isn't arguing with you that Paramount is winning today. They are providing data on the "means" and showing that the largest increases in performance came from the teams that added the most new players to their roster.

At this point you would need to show a lot of data to the contrary convince us that Paramount is really knocking it out of the park with its training and and not just getting most of its improved performance from recruiting.[/quote]

Options

	Disable HTML in this message
	Disable BB Code in this message
	Disable smilies in this message

Review message

Search Recent Topics Hottest Topics