Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I agree, should be playing top 2016, not 3rd or 4th 2015 teams. Not trying to be mean, but the 3rd or 4th 2015 teams aren’t that good. Like PP said, they only have size. We only see top 2016 teams if they too play up, I think Alexandria does that (and we drew when we played them - even with a slate of 2015 guest players). I’d like to see more matches with top 2016s to compare development locally.

Anonymous wrote:Nope. I’m the parent of a starter, she plays most, if not the whole, game (along with maybe 3 other girls). Admittedly, they are the top 4 on our team. There are about 4-5 girls on the team who don’t get to play even half the game. It is also true that guest players, some of whom will not be on the team next year, are getting more minutes than current rostered players (this is the part even us, the parents of starters, don’t agree with). Given their age, I hope they end up on teams where they get more minutes. They can’t get better sitting the bench. The PA2 coach is supposed to be very good, and is the AGD for 2016. I think it may be a good change of pace for those girls, they can work on the things they need to improve, and if they work hard, even get a chance to move back up the following year.

Also agree with another PP, the teams we beat are third, fourth teams, so playing up hasn’t been some developmental shortcut. Those teams have size, but they aren’t well matched against us technically or tactically. We struggle against actual top 2016 teams. Jeff Cup and WAGS were ugly.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yep, AK is definitely pretending to be a parent! Move on already, you’ve had your 2 years with this group.

Anonymous wrote:AK is a great coach! I have to agree that he plays the stronger players longer than others but don’t disagree with him. If a player loses the ball more than half the time, it does not make sense for them to start or play longer than the stronger players. The girls who played longer are the stronger players. Guest players are used as it is a small roster for 9v9 games. This spring, the team have either won or tied games without any losses. We wished he kept our daughter on his team but understood why he did not. She has a lot to work on.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I would also add that the coach for 2016G PA1 is stubborn. He does not know how to adjust to games when his team is losing. He will keep his favorites in despite failures, and pulls the rest of the team for one bad pass. He also routinely brings girls down from the 2015 age group to guest so that he can win rather than develop the team he is supposed to be coaching. He was previously the coach for Arlington's 2013G, and most parents on that team agree he did not prepare them adequately to play ECNL. He has some weird clout in the club though despite being overwhelmingly ineffective.

Strange how quick folks are to jump on parents for offering an opinion/ information. Isn’t that the point of this forum? Anyway…

OP, as a parent considering a U9 offer, I found this helpful. In your experience is this isolated to a single coach? Or is lack of development and favoritism a more pervasive problem across the club at the U-Little age groups?

Not strange if you understood what they are saying and who they are saying it about. All opinions are dependent on one’s perspective but it sounds like they have a child that did not play much or was not favored. They believe this is why their kid was not developed to be as strong a player as they could have been.

Take a look at the other thread regarding favoritism. Rather than owning their own development, they would rather whine and make excuses.

Not the OP, but every player at this level is pretty good, no true standouts at the U-little level. The more they play, however, the more they standout because they’re developing their game iq. I don’t have experience with AK personally, but have heard horror stories.

I have experience with AK at the younger ages. All players play at least half the game. The strongest players play most of the game. This sounds like parents of kids who weren’t deemed to be the strongest.

Didn’t his team beat an older year Arlington team this weekend? Must be doing something right.

Does he play everyone on his roster at least 50% of the game? That's the minimum expectation for u-littles development.

Out of curiosity, what does losing to the “not good” team from Warrenton this past weekend make your DD’s team then? Really “not good”?

That is what happens when there are no guest players and only 10 players on team show up. Lots of playing times for everyone. 2016 PA1 tied 2015 PA2 at the President’s cup only to lose by one in PKs.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I agree, should be playing top 2016, not 3rd or 4th 2015 teams. Not trying to be mean, but the 3rd or 4th 2015 teams aren’t that good. Like PP said, they only have size. We only see top 2016 teams if they too play up, I think Alexandria does that (and we drew when we played them - even with a slate of 2015 guest players). I’d like to see more matches with top 2016s to compare development locally.

Anonymous wrote:Nope. I’m the parent of a starter, she plays most, if not the whole, game (along with maybe 3 other girls). Admittedly, they are the top 4 on our team. There are about 4-5 girls on the team who don’t get to play even half the game. It is also true that guest players, some of whom will not be on the team next year, are getting more minutes than current rostered players (this is the part even us, the parents of starters, don’t agree with). Given their age, I hope they end up on teams where they get more minutes. They can’t get better sitting the bench. The PA2 coach is supposed to be very good, and is the AGD for 2016. I think it may be a good change of pace for those girls, they can work on the things they need to improve, and if they work hard, even get a chance to move back up the following year.

Also agree with another PP, the teams we beat are third, fourth teams, so playing up hasn’t been some developmental shortcut. Those teams have size, but they aren’t well matched against us technically or tactically. We struggle against actual top 2016 teams. Jeff Cup and WAGS were ugly.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yep, AK is definitely pretending to be a parent! Move on already, you’ve had your 2 years with this group.

Anonymous wrote:AK is a great coach! I have to agree that he plays the stronger players longer than others but don’t disagree with him. If a player loses the ball more than half the time, it does not make sense for them to start or play longer than the stronger players. The girls who played longer are the stronger players. Guest players are used as it is a small roster for 9v9 games. This spring, the team have either won or tied games without any losses. We wished he kept our daughter on his team but understood why he did not. She has a lot to work on.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I would also add that the coach for 2016G PA1 is stubborn. He does not know how to adjust to games when his team is losing. He will keep his favorites in despite failures, and pulls the rest of the team for one bad pass. He also routinely brings girls down from the 2015 age group to guest so that he can win rather than develop the team he is supposed to be coaching. He was previously the coach for Arlington's 2013G, and most parents on that team agree he did not prepare them adequately to play ECNL. He has some weird clout in the club though despite being overwhelmingly ineffective.

Strange how quick folks are to jump on parents for offering an opinion/ information. Isn’t that the point of this forum? Anyway…

OP, as a parent considering a U9 offer, I found this helpful. In your experience is this isolated to a single coach? Or is lack of development and favoritism a more pervasive problem across the club at the U-Little age groups?

Not strange if you understood what they are saying and who they are saying it about. All opinions are dependent on one’s perspective but it sounds like they have a child that did not play much or was not favored. They believe this is why their kid was not developed to be as strong a player as they could have been.

Take a look at the other thread regarding favoritism. Rather than owning their own development, they would rather whine and make excuses.

Not the OP, but every player at this level is pretty good, no true standouts at the U-little level. The more they play, however, the more they standout because they’re developing their game iq. I don’t have experience with AK personally, but have heard horror stories.

I have experience with AK at the younger ages. All players play at least half the game. The strongest players play most of the game. This sounds like parents of kids who weren’t deemed to be the strongest.

Didn’t his team beat an older year Arlington team this weekend? Must be doing something right.

Does he play everyone on his roster at least 50% of the game? That's the minimum expectation for u-littles development.

Out of curiosity, what does losing to the “not good” team from Warrenton this past weekend make your DD’s team then? Really “not good”?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I agree, should be playing top 2016, not 3rd or 4th 2015 teams. Not trying to be mean, but the 3rd or 4th 2015 teams aren’t that good. Like PP said, they only have size. We only see top 2016 teams if they too play up, I think Alexandria does that (and we drew when we played them - even with a slate of 2015 guest players). I’d like to see more matches with top 2016s to compare development locally.

Anonymous wrote:Nope. I’m the parent of a starter, she plays most, if not the whole, game (along with maybe 3 other girls). Admittedly, they are the top 4 on our team. There are about 4-5 girls on the team who don’t get to play even half the game. It is also true that guest players, some of whom will not be on the team next year, are getting more minutes than current rostered players (this is the part even us, the parents of starters, don’t agree with). Given their age, I hope they end up on teams where they get more minutes. They can’t get better sitting the bench. The PA2 coach is supposed to be very good, and is the AGD for 2016. I think it may be a good change of pace for those girls, they can work on the things they need to improve, and if they work hard, even get a chance to move back up the following year.

Also agree with another PP, the teams we beat are third, fourth teams, so playing up hasn’t been some developmental shortcut. Those teams have size, but they aren’t well matched against us technically or tactically. We struggle against actual top 2016 teams. Jeff Cup and WAGS were ugly.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yep, AK is definitely pretending to be a parent! Move on already, you’ve had your 2 years with this group.

Anonymous wrote:AK is a great coach! I have to agree that he plays the stronger players longer than others but don’t disagree with him. If a player loses the ball more than half the time, it does not make sense for them to start or play longer than the stronger players. The girls who played longer are the stronger players. Guest players are used as it is a small roster for 9v9 games. This spring, the team have either won or tied games without any losses. We wished he kept our daughter on his team but understood why he did not. She has a lot to work on.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I would also add that the coach for 2016G PA1 is stubborn. He does not know how to adjust to games when his team is losing. He will keep his favorites in despite failures, and pulls the rest of the team for one bad pass. He also routinely brings girls down from the 2015 age group to guest so that he can win rather than develop the team he is supposed to be coaching. He was previously the coach for Arlington's 2013G, and most parents on that team agree he did not prepare them adequately to play ECNL. He has some weird clout in the club though despite being overwhelmingly ineffective.

Strange how quick folks are to jump on parents for offering an opinion/ information. Isn’t that the point of this forum? Anyway…

OP, as a parent considering a U9 offer, I found this helpful. In your experience is this isolated to a single coach? Or is lack of development and favoritism a more pervasive problem across the club at the U-Little age groups?

Not strange if you understood what they are saying and who they are saying it about. All opinions are dependent on one’s perspective but it sounds like they have a child that did not play much or was not favored. They believe this is why their kid was not developed to be as strong a player as they could have been.

Take a look at the other thread regarding favoritism. Rather than owning their own development, they would rather whine and make excuses.

Not the OP, but every player at this level is pretty good, no true standouts at the U-little level. The more they play, however, the more they standout because they’re developing their game iq. I don’t have experience with AK personally, but have heard horror stories.

I have experience with AK at the younger ages. All players play at least half the game. The strongest players play most of the game. This sounds like parents of kids who weren’t deemed to be the strongest.

Didn’t his team beat an older year Arlington team this weekend? Must be doing something right.

Does he play everyone on his roster at least 50% of the game? That's the minimum expectation for u-littles development.

Out of curiosity, what does losing to the “not good” team from Warrenton this past weekend make your DD’s team then? Really “not good”?

Anonymous wrote:
Out of curiosity, what does losing to the “not good” team from Warrenton this past weekend make your DD’s team then? Really “not good”?

Anonymous wrote:I agree, should be playing top 2016, not 3rd or 4th 2015 teams. Not trying to be mean, but the 3rd or 4th 2015 teams aren’t that good. Like PP said, they only have size. We only see top 2016 teams if they too play up, I think Alexandria does that (and we drew when we played them - even with a slate of 2015 guest players). I’d like to see more matches with top 2016s to compare development locally.

Anonymous wrote:Nope. I’m the parent of a starter, she plays most, if not the whole, game (along with maybe 3 other girls). Admittedly, they are the top 4 on our team. There are about 4-5 girls on the team who don’t get to play even half the game. It is also true that guest players, some of whom will not be on the team next year, are getting more minutes than current rostered players (this is the part even us, the parents of starters, don’t agree with). Given their age, I hope they end up on teams where they get more minutes. They can’t get better sitting the bench. The PA2 coach is supposed to be very good, and is the AGD for 2016. I think it may be a good change of pace for those girls, they can work on the things they need to improve, and if they work hard, even get a chance to move back up the following year.

Also agree with another PP, the teams we beat are third, fourth teams, so playing up hasn’t been some developmental shortcut. Those teams have size, but they aren’t well matched against us technically or tactically. We struggle against actual top 2016 teams. Jeff Cup and WAGS were ugly.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yep, AK is definitely pretending to be a parent! Move on already, you’ve had your 2 years with this group.

Anonymous wrote:AK is a great coach! I have to agree that he plays the stronger players longer than others but don’t disagree with him. If a player loses the ball more than half the time, it does not make sense for them to start or play longer than the stronger players. The girls who played longer are the stronger players. Guest players are used as it is a small roster for 9v9 games. This spring, the team have either won or tied games without any losses. We wished he kept our daughter on his team but understood why he did not. She has a lot to work on.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I would also add that the coach for 2016G PA1 is stubborn. He does not know how to adjust to games when his team is losing. He will keep his favorites in despite failures, and pulls the rest of the team for one bad pass. He also routinely brings girls down from the 2015 age group to guest so that he can win rather than develop the team he is supposed to be coaching. He was previously the coach for Arlington's 2013G, and most parents on that team agree he did not prepare them adequately to play ECNL. He has some weird clout in the club though despite being overwhelmingly ineffective.

Strange how quick folks are to jump on parents for offering an opinion/ information. Isn’t that the point of this forum? Anyway…

OP, as a parent considering a U9 offer, I found this helpful. In your experience is this isolated to a single coach? Or is lack of development and favoritism a more pervasive problem across the club at the U-Little age groups?

Not strange if you understood what they are saying and who they are saying it about. All opinions are dependent on one’s perspective but it sounds like they have a child that did not play much or was not favored. They believe this is why their kid was not developed to be as strong a player as they could have been.

Take a look at the other thread regarding favoritism. Rather than owning their own development, they would rather whine and make excuses.

Not the OP, but every player at this level is pretty good, no true standouts at the U-little level. The more they play, however, the more they standout because they’re developing their game iq. I don’t have experience with AK personally, but have heard horror stories.

I have experience with AK at the younger ages. All players play at least half the game. The strongest players play most of the game. This sounds like parents of kids who weren’t deemed to be the strongest.

Didn’t his team beat an older year Arlington team this weekend? Must be doing something right.

Does he play everyone on his roster at least 50% of the game? That's the minimum expectation for u-littles development.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My 2015 dd didn’t have him but I heard he was awful with the girls side too and showed unique favoritism toward one of the worst players because of some weird relationship with the kid’s parent while he didn’t talk to other parents at all, ignored everyone except this one parent who said he was extremely close with the coach. I didn’t know he was getting a demotion but it tracks

He let basically an entire boys PA team leave, including a top national player, because he didn’t know how to ID and offer good players quickly enough. What a clown. I’m glad he is banished to the girls side where he has also screwed up their rosters for next year as well.

How is he screwing up the girls rosters? I thought individual coaches pick their own rosters?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My 2015 dd didn’t have him but I heard he was awful with the girls side too and showed unique favoritism toward one of the worst players because of some weird relationship with the kid’s parent while he didn’t talk to other parents at all, ignored everyone except this one parent who said he was extremely close with the coach. I didn’t know he was getting a demotion but it tracks

He let basically an entire boys PA team leave, including a top national player, because he didn’t know how to ID and offer good players quickly enough. What a clown. I’m glad he is banished to the girls side where he has also screwed up their rosters for next year as well.

Anonymous wrote:I guess the National Team player must have been called up for the u11 world cup qualifier when they lost to Mclean in round of 16 for state cup.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My 2015 dd didn’t have him but I heard he was awful with the girls side too and showed unique favoritism toward one of the worst players because of some weird relationship with the kid’s parent while he didn’t talk to other parents at all, ignored everyone except this one parent who said he was extremely close with the coach. I didn’t know he was getting a demotion but it tracks

He let basically an entire boys PA team leave, including a top national player, because he didn’t know how to ID and offer good players quickly enough. What a clown. I’m glad he is banished to the girls side where he has also screwed up their rosters for next year as well.

“Top national player” is this a joke? What parent thinks this way about their 10 year old.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My 2015 dd didn’t have him but I heard he was awful with the girls side too and showed unique favoritism toward one of the worst players because of some weird relationship with the kid’s parent while he didn’t talk to other parents at all, ignored everyone except this one parent who said he was extremely close with the coach. I didn’t know he was getting a demotion but it tracks

He let basically an entire boys PA team leave, including a top national player, because he didn’t know how to ID and offer good players quickly enough. What a clown. I’m glad he is banished to the girls side where he has also screwed up their rosters for next year as well.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My 2015 dd didn’t have him but I heard he was awful with the girls side too and showed unique favoritism toward one of the worst players because of some weird relationship with the kid’s parent while he didn’t talk to other parents at all, ignored everyone except this one parent who said he was extremely close with the coach. I didn’t know he was getting a demotion but it tracks

He let basically an entire boys PA team leave, including a top national player, because he didn’t know how to ID and offer good players quickly enough. What a clown. I’m glad he is banished to the girls side where he has also screwed up their rosters for next year as well.

“Top national player” is this a joke? What parent thinks this way about their 10 year old.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My 2015 dd didn’t have him but I heard he was awful with the girls side too and showed unique favoritism toward one of the worst players because of some weird relationship with the kid’s parent while he didn’t talk to other parents at all, ignored everyone except this one parent who said he was extremely close with the coach. I didn’t know he was getting a demotion but it tracks

He let basically an entire boys PA team leave, including a top national player, because he didn’t know how to ID and offer good players quickly enough. What a clown. I’m glad he is banished to the girls side where he has also screwed up their rosters for next year as well.

Anonymous wrote:My 2015 dd didn’t have him but I heard he was awful with the girls side too and showed unique favoritism toward one of the worst players because of some weird relationship with the kid’s parent while he didn’t talk to other parents at all, ignored everyone except this one parent who said he was extremely close with the coach. I didn’t know he was getting a demotion but it tracks