Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Are you just replying to yourself over and over? If the kids are this far behind their teammates, a coach can't fix that overnight. Now, why were they even selected in the first place if the coach had a role, I'd complain but most of the time those "2-3 kids" were given favors and it screws over the rest of the kids.
How does 2 or 3 bad performing kids affect the other kids?
Is this a real question? Take the best player between here and Richmond, put them up top and see what happens when those 2-3 kids can’t complete a pass but have to play, and as is usually the case get outsized playing time. It’s not rocket science.
I recall a game just like this where hands down the best player Id seen at that age group in NoVa (it was around 10-11) was pretty much useless in a 8-0 game against my kid despite being far and away the best player on the field.
If the kid was by your own admittance the best player on the field, then you're proving the point that their weaker teammates didn't impact their individual skillset and development
You must be a parent of the 2-3 kids if your takeaway from that is thinking an individually talented player spending 20-30 games over a year having minimal impact in a team sport due to inferior teammates doesn’t hurt development.
FWIW, said player moved on shortly thereafter as most do in those situations.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Are you just replying to yourself over and over? If the kids are this far behind their teammates, a coach can't fix that overnight. Now, why were they even selected in the first place if the coach had a role, I'd complain but most of the time those "2-3 kids" were given favors and it screws over the rest of the kids.
How does 2 or 3 bad performing kids affect the other kids?
Is this a real question? Take the best player between here and Richmond, put them up top and see what happens when those 2-3 kids can’t complete a pass but have to play, and as is usually the case get outsized playing time. It’s not rocket science.
I recall a game just like this where hands down the best player Id seen at that age group in NoVa (it was around 10-11) was pretty much useless in a 8-0 game against my kid despite being far and away the best player on the field.
If the kid was by your own admittance the best player on the field, then you're proving the point that their weaker teammates didn't impact their individual skillset and development
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Are you just replying to yourself over and over? If the kids are this far behind their teammates, a coach can't fix that overnight. Now, why were they even selected in the first place if the coach had a role, I'd complain but most of the time those "2-3 kids" were given favors and it screws over the rest of the kids.
How does 2 or 3 bad performing kids affect the other kids?
Is this a real question? Take the best player between here and Richmond, put them up top and see what happens when those 2-3 kids can’t complete a pass but have to play, and as is usually the case get outsized playing time. It’s not rocket science.
I recall a game just like this where hands down the best player Id seen at that age group in NoVa (it was around 10-11) was pretty much useless in a 8-0 game against my kid despite being far and away the best player on the field.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Are you just replying to yourself over and over? If the kids are this far behind their teammates, a coach can't fix that overnight. Now, why were they even selected in the first place if the coach had a role, I'd complain but most of the time those "2-3 kids" were given favors and it screws over the rest of the kids.
How does 2 or 3 bad performing kids affect the other kids?
Is this a real question? Take the best player between here and Richmond, put them up top and see what happens when those 2-3 kids can’t complete a pass but have to play, and as is usually the case get outsized playing time. It’s not rocket science.
I recall a game just like this where hands down the best player Id seen at that age group in NoVa (it was around 10-11) was pretty much useless in a 8-0 game against my kid despite being far and away the best player on the field.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Are you just replying to yourself over and over? If the kids are this far behind their teammates, a coach can't fix that overnight. Now, why were they even selected in the first place if the coach had a role, I'd complain but most of the time those "2-3 kids" were given favors and it screws over the rest of the kids.
How does 2 or 3 bad performing kids affect the other kids?
Anonymous wrote:Are you just replying to yourself over and over? If the kids are this far behind their teammates, a coach can't fix that overnight. Now, why were they even selected in the first place if the coach had a role, I'd complain but most of the time those "2-3 kids" were given favors and it screws over the rest of the kids.
Anonymous wrote:Are you just replying to yourself over and over? If the kids are this far behind their teammates, a coach can't fix that overnight. Now, why were they even selected in the first place if the coach had a role, I'd complain but most of the time those "2-3 kids" were given favors and it screws over the rest of the kids.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Such a stupid thread
If anyone should be demoted it's the coach for not developing the players
100% agree with you.
The same parents that complain about the kids struggling on their team are the same parents that complain about development also.
Is spelling ‘sux’ the way boomers spell it to seem cool?
The majority of the class getting D's and F's with one A student
I say the teacher sux
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Such a stupid thread
If anyone should be demoted it's the coach for not developing the players
100% agree with you.
The same parents that complain about the kids struggling on their team are the same parents that complain about development also.
Anonymous wrote:Such a stupid thread
If anyone should be demoted it's the coach for not developing the players
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:
Serious question. How do 2-3 players jeopardize the development of other players?
Every time these players touched the ball, it would get stolen. Their footwork/ball control wasn’t good enough to avoid pressure and they couldn’t pass, so building out from the back was non-existent. Building from the back is a fundamental foundation at the older/higher level. As far as the wingers and forwards, they get limited playing experience when the only time they’re getting the ball is from kick ball/long balls or stealing the ball.