Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What I meant with the bolded statement was if anyone here has come to this forum and commented on it, then don't think only the adults notice something. I would like to hope (maybe naively?) That even the worst offender on the forum doesn't talk like that to or in front of their kids.

That's why I said "maybe" . It's a form of demonstrative analogy.

Just hoping that people don't talk in front of their kids in the same manner that they do on an anonymous message board is kind of a low bar to set.

My hope (maybe just as naively) would be that some parents are actually engaging their kids in discussions about the appropriate prioritization of winning, and what they can do to contribute to a W, beyond just "playing real good"...

NP. We do the opposite. Sorry to disappoint you. In our family we focus on improving skills, effort and enjoying being able to play the game. We teach both of our soccer players that the game result is a byproduct.

Opposite of what? It sounds like you do exactly what I suggested.

You engage your kid in a discussion about the level of prioritization you place on winning (whatever level you view that to be), and you talk about improving skills and effort, and focusing on enjoying the game. All of those things help contribute to a W, whether your kid is the best player or the worst.

Fair enough. I thought you were suggesting to put winning at the top. We agree that all adds to winning.

Here's what I view as the opposite of what I said:

Hey kiddo, you did awesome! Don't worry about the loss because you played really good today, and were clearly the best player on the pitch by far! If your team could just replace players x, y, and z for more players as good as you then you could win more games.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What I meant with the bolded statement was if anyone here has come to this forum and commented on it, then don't think only the adults notice something. I would like to hope (maybe naively?) That even the worst offender on the forum doesn't talk like that to or in front of their kids.

That's why I said "maybe" . It's a form of demonstrative analogy.

Just hoping that people don't talk in front of their kids in the same manner that they do on an anonymous message board is kind of a low bar to set.

My hope (maybe just as naively) would be that some parents are actually engaging their kids in discussions about the appropriate prioritization of winning, and what they can do to contribute to a W, beyond just "playing real good"...

NP. We do the opposite. Sorry to disappoint you. In our family we focus on improving skills, effort and enjoying being able to play the game. We teach both of our soccer players that the game result is a byproduct.

Opposite of what? It sounds like you do exactly what I suggested.

You engage your kid in a discussion about the level of prioritization you place on winning (whatever level you view that to be), and you talk about improving skills and effort, and focusing on enjoying the game. All of those things help contribute to a W, whether your kid is the best player or the worst.

Fair enough. I thought you were suggesting to put winning at the top. We agree that all adds to winning.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What I meant with the bolded statement was if anyone here has come to this forum and commented on it, then don't think only the adults notice something. I would like to hope (maybe naively?) That even the worst offender on the forum doesn't talk like that to or in front of their kids.

That's why I said "maybe" . It's a form of demonstrative analogy.

Just hoping that people don't talk in front of their kids in the same manner that they do on an anonymous message board is kind of a low bar to set.

My hope (maybe just as naively) would be that some parents are actually engaging their kids in discussions about the appropriate prioritization of winning, and what they can do to contribute to a W, beyond just "playing real good"...

NP. We do the opposite. Sorry to disappoint you. In our family we focus on improving skills, effort and enjoying being able to play the game. We teach both of our soccer players that the game result is a byproduct.

Opposite of what? It sounds like you do exactly what I suggested.

You engage your kid in a discussion about the level of prioritization you place on winning (whatever level you view that to be), and you talk about improving skills and effort, and focusing on enjoying the game. All of those things help contribute to a W, whether your kid is the best player or the worst.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What I meant with the bolded statement was if anyone here has come to this forum and commented on it, then don't think only the adults notice something. I would like to hope (maybe naively?) That even the worst offender on the forum doesn't talk like that to or in front of their kids.

That's why I said "maybe" . It's a form of demonstrative analogy.

Just hoping that people don't talk in front of their kids in the same manner that they do on an anonymous message board is kind of a low bar to set.

My hope (maybe just as naively) would be that some parents are actually engaging their kids in discussions about the appropriate prioritization of winning, and what they can do to contribute to a W, beyond just "playing real good"...

NP. We do the opposite. Sorry to disappoint you. In our family we focus on improving skills, effort and enjoying being able to play the game. We teach both of our soccer players that the game result is a byproduct.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What I meant with the bolded statement was if anyone here has come to this forum and commented on it, then don't think only the adults notice something. I would like to hope (maybe naively?) That even the worst offender on the forum doesn't talk like that to or in front of their kids.

That's why I said "maybe" . It's a form of demonstrative analogy.

Just hoping that people don't talk in front of their kids in the same manner that they do on an anonymous message board is kind of a low bar to set.

My hope (maybe just as naively) would be that some parents are actually engaging their kids in discussions about the appropriate prioritization of winning, and what they can do to contribute to a W, beyond just "playing real good"...

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What I meant with the bolded statement was if anyone here has come to this forum and commented on it, then don't think only the adults notice something. I would like to hope (maybe naively?) That even the worst offender on the forum doesn't talk like that to or in front of their kids.

That's why I said "maybe" . It's a form of demonstrative analogy.

Just hoping that people don't talk in front of their kids in the same manner that they do on an anonymous message board is kind of a low bar to set.

My hope (maybe just as naively) would be that some parents are actually engaging their kids in discussions about the appropriate prioritization of winning, and what they can do to contribute to a W, beyond just "playing real good"...

Anonymous wrote:What I meant with the bolded statement was if anyone here has come to this forum and commented on it, then don't think only the adults notice something. I would like to hope (maybe naively?) That even the worst offender on the forum doesn't talk like that to or in front of their kids.

That's why I said "maybe" . It's a form of demonstrative analogy.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I like MU. I know it well because my child played for them. I wish everyone still at MU well. I think they do an excellent job of development. But whether we like it or not, or think it matters for development or not, they'll need to start winning some games for long-term viability of the club.

Yeah, it's ok to take losses, but to lose over and over across the board year after year on multiple teams does indicate something is wrong. Soccer is a competitive sport, and winning is a sign of competing well.

Players should also not be inoculated into believing losing is normal. A truly competitive player won't walk away ok with that. She has a fire inside that burns and makes her want to win. It's what gives her that edge in those 50/50 moments.

A) Winning is the only thing that matters
B) Winning doesn't matter at all

I think both A and B are too extreme, and the truth is somewhere in between. One of the big problems with MU for the first two years (as Spirit) was that they were operating under philosophy "B", and a lot of their decisions/communications reflected the lack of priority they placed on winning. That seemed to change once MU was announced, and I believe they are trying to move the club towards a more healthy understanding of the importance of winning; Not that it is the only thing, but that it should actually be the goal of each match they play.

Unfortunately I think it will take time to see a significant impact of this philosophy shift on overall W-L records. If a typical MU team has XX number of matches each season where they face an evenly matched opponent, historically they seem to win about 20% of those matches. A renewed emphasis on winning could push that win percentage up to a more reasonable 50% or more of their evenly-matched games, but that would still have them well below .500 overall because they are simply overmatched in some games.

The important metric will not be overall record (or individual scorelines against FCV...), instead it will be whether or not they can start winning their fair share of the evenly matched games instead of consistently settling for moral victories.

Most players can live with that if the club starts showing them that is the shift. Kids are smart and at least the older half of the team's will notice how fostering is done, who gets time, and they talk about it. I've overheard those conversations. Like so and so always loses the ball or so and so is never where she is supposed to be or so and so only passes to her friends.

I have seen some changes, including intensity of environment and more accountability. Those will help. Although there are some questionable decisions that draw attention here and within the club, I have seen them make some of the hard decisions they will need. There is more to go.

The club though needs to have some hard conversations still in some cases. It doesn't go unnoticed by players. We may talk about whether or not such and such player should be out there. They are too. Not because we are, but because they aren't in elementary school any more. They understand the game and see what is going on.

I hope they can do it. It won't be an easy path ahead.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I like MU. I know it well because my child played for them. I wish everyone still at MU well. I think they do an excellent job of development. But whether we like it or not, or think it matters for development or not, they'll need to start winning some games for long-term viability of the club.

Yeah, it's ok to take losses, but to lose over and over across the board year after year on multiple teams does indicate something is wrong. Soccer is a competitive sport, and winning is a sign of competing well.

Players should also not be inoculated into believing losing is normal. A truly competitive player won't walk away ok with that. She has a fire inside that burns and makes her want to win. It's what gives her that edge in those 50/50 moments.

A) Winning is the only thing that matters
B) Winning doesn't matter at all

I think both A and B are too extreme, and the truth is somewhere in between. One of the big problems with MU for the first two years (as Spirit) was that they were operating under philosophy "B", and a lot of their decisions/communications reflected the lack of priority they placed on winning. That seemed to change once MU was announced, and I believe they are trying to move the club towards a more healthy understanding of the importance of winning; Not that it is the only thing, but that it should actually be the goal of each match they play.

Unfortunately I think it will take time to see a significant impact of this philosophy shift on overall W-L records. If a typical MU team has XX number of matches each season where they face an evenly matched opponent, historically they seem to win about 20% of those matches. A renewed emphasis on winning could push that win percentage up to a more reasonable 50% or more of their evenly-matched games, but that would still have them well below .500 overall because they are simply overmatched in some games.

The important metric will not be overall record (or individual scorelines against FCV...), instead it will be whether or not they can start winning their fair share of the evenly matched games instead of consistently settling for moral victories.

Most players can live with that if the club starts showing them that is the shift. Kids are smart and at least the older half of the team's will notice how fostering is done, who gets time, and they talk about it. I've overheard those conversations. Like so and so always loses the ball or so and so is never where she is supposed to be or so and so only passes to her friends.

I have seen some changes, including intensity of environment and more accountability. Those will help. Although there are some questionable decisions that draw attention here and within the club, I have seen them make some of the hard decisions they will need. There is more to go.

The club though needs to have some hard conversations still in some cases. It doesn't go unnoticed by players. We may talk about whether or not such and such player should be out there. They are too. Not because we are, but because they aren't in elementary school any more. They understand the game and see what is going on.

I hope they can do it. It won't be an easy path ahead.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I like MU. I know it well because my child played for them. I wish everyone still at MU well. I think they do an excellent job of development. But whether we like it or not, or think it matters for development or not, they'll need to start winning some games for long-term viability of the club.

Yeah, it's ok to take losses, but to lose over and over across the board year after year on multiple teams does indicate something is wrong. Soccer is a competitive sport, and winning is a sign of competing well.

Players should also not be inoculated into believing losing is normal. A truly competitive player won't walk away ok with that. She has a fire inside that burns and makes her want to win. It's what gives her that edge in those 50/50 moments.

A) Winning is the only thing that matters
B) Winning doesn't matter at all

I think both A and B are too extreme, and the truth is somewhere in between. One of the big problems with MU for the first two years (as Spirit) was that they were operating under philosophy "B", and a lot of their decisions/communications reflected the lack of priority they placed on winning. That seemed to change once MU was announced, and I believe they are trying to move the club towards a more healthy understanding of the importance of winning; Not that it is the only thing, but that it should actually be the goal of each match they play.

Unfortunately I think it will take time to see a significant impact of this philosophy shift on overall W-L records. If a typical MU team has XX number of matches each season where they face an evenly matched opponent, historically they seem to win about 20% of those matches. A renewed emphasis on winning could push that win percentage up to a more reasonable 50% or more of their evenly-matched games, but that would still have them well below .500 overall because they are simply overmatched in some games.

The important metric will not be overall record (or individual scorelines against FCV...), instead it will be whether or not they can start winning their fair share of the evenly matched games instead of consistently settling for moral victories.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I like MU. I know it well because my child played for them. I wish everyone still at MU well. I think they do an excellent job of development. But whether we like it or not, or think it matters for development or not, they'll need to start winning some games for long-term viability of the club.

Yeah, it's ok to take losses, but to lose over and over across the board year after year on multiple teams does indicate something is wrong. Soccer is a competitive sport, and winning is a sign of competing well.

Players should also not be inoculated into believing losing is normal. A truly competitive player won't walk away ok with that. She has a fire inside that burns and makes her want to win. It's what gives her that edge in those 50/50 moments.

A) Winning is the only thing that matters
B) Winning doesn't matter at all

I think both A and B are too extreme, and the truth is somewhere in between. One of the big problems with MU for the first two years (as Spirit) was that they were operating under philosophy "B", and a lot of their decisions/communications reflected the lack of priority they placed on winning. That seemed to change once MU was announced, and I believe they are trying to move the club towards a more healthy understanding of the importance of winning; Not that it is the only thing, but that it should actually be the goal of each match they play.

Unfortunately I think it will take time to see a significant impact of this philosophy shift on overall W-L records. If a typical MU team has XX number of matches each season where they face an evenly matched opponent, historically they seem to win about 20% of those matches. A renewed emphasis on winning could push that win percentage up to a more reasonable 50% or more of their evenly-matched games, but that would still have them well below .500 overall because they are simply overmatched in some games.

The important metric will not be overall record (or individual scorelines against FCV...), instead it will be whether or not they can start winning their fair share of the evenly matched games instead of consistently settling for moral victories.

Anonymous wrote:Good grief. Yes, they need to recruit better talent to fill out their teams. How many times does that need to be said? But at least those who have been there can admit that development/environment isn’t really the issue. The issue is scared parents chasing clubs who have winning records.