Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You still didn't get the rock paper scissors analogy, so I'll break it down for you further. The rock doesn't win every battle. Enjoy your win, paper.

Because it is irrelevant. You continue to argue that results in youth soccer matter. Development matters. Playing to win at 12 at all costs does not develop all the players. There are lots of ways to win and call it a rock, a paper or scissors. Does a direct style make players more well rounded?

You can spout all you want but in the end if you control and keep the ball at your own discretion you have to find other ways to play.

If the style of play is to simply dribble at the opponent or get the ball to Mia oh are not developing.

It is ok, you don’t get it.

You are a true dunce. you make a big deal out of the results of one game, and from the other side of your mouth argue the result doesn't matter.

As has been stated many times, PDA didn't plan for tiki taka, and they showed it. They don't face it all year, so it's not surprising. This doesn't mean their girls are not technical, nor that they can't play a different style, nor does their management stink.

ONE GAME. Get over yourself.

Technical is more than being good at 1v1s. Technical is also being efficient with the ball. If you can receive and pass the ball accurately with one touch that is both technical and efficient. I’m sure the PDA girls can dribble at a player and beat them 1v1 but why take 6 touches when one or two will do the job?

Spoken like a true Tiki-taka acolyte. Johan would be proud. Though I'd still argue it was a style choice, not technical ability.

I'm arguing that they had no choice to make. They have played their way without opposition for so long that they were incapable of changing their style to accommodate one game. The indictment isn't against the PDA team the indictment is against the 30-40 teams that offered them zero competition and very different looks at opposing playing styles to even NEED to adapt.

If you don't NEED to adapt then you are not developing. We are a large enough nation with enough players that surely we could have enough clubs proficient at a variety of styles to give a team like PDA a different competitive look from time to time. This is why losing is good. It forces you to learn and grow as a team and as players. My guess is PDA likely doesn't mess with their team system a whole lot. They are probably unwilling to take a L in favor of dedicating a month to a new formation or change a look. And frankly, they are not challenged enough to force the issue either.

So again, you are missing the overall points.

No, I just don't agree with you.

+1000. No one here with any common sense and with soccer and sports experience agree with him either.

Again, IT’S ONE GAME. You are truly obsessed with this one game. You are no longer becoming CREEPY, you are now full-fledged CREEPY.

Literally no one who is critiquing the technical ability of US girls is doing so on the basis of one game.

Nor is anyone saying that the only way technical skills can be demonstrated is to "play like Barcelona." The styles of several teams mentioned--Bayern, Liverpool, French national team--may be different but all require a high degree of technical skill.

Last, the Barcelona girls team did not employ a "tiki-taka" style as that derisive term has come to be understood. However, their demonstrated ability to pass and move and play with tactical awareness is far superior to any US girls teams I have seen play, whether in videos from that ICC tournament or elsewhere.

Tiki-taka wasn't meant to be derisive, merely a characterization of their style of play. Essentially, keep away using short passes. These girls were trained to possess the ball, and they did it. Wow, what an accomplishment! You are insinuating that the US girls could not do the same, and you are also implying that because they have no knowledge at 14 years old how to overcome such tactics that they are somehow inferior.

You are wrong on all counts.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You still didn't get the rock paper scissors analogy, so I'll break it down for you further. The rock doesn't win every battle. Enjoy your win, paper.

Because it is irrelevant. You continue to argue that results in youth soccer matter. Development matters. Playing to win at 12 at all costs does not develop all the players. There are lots of ways to win and call it a rock, a paper or scissors. Does a direct style make players more well rounded?

You can spout all you want but in the end if you control and keep the ball at your own discretion you have to find other ways to play.

If the style of play is to simply dribble at the opponent or get the ball to Mia oh are not developing.

It is ok, you don’t get it.

You are a true dunce. you make a big deal out of the results of one game, and from the other side of your mouth argue the result doesn't matter.

As has been stated many times, PDA didn't plan for tiki taka, and they showed it. They don't face it all year, so it's not surprising. This doesn't mean their girls are not technical, nor that they can't play a different style, nor does their management stink.

ONE GAME. Get over yourself.

Technical is more than being good at 1v1s. Technical is also being efficient with the ball. If you can receive and pass the ball accurately with one touch that is both technical and efficient. I’m sure the PDA girls can dribble at a player and beat them 1v1 but why take 6 touches when one or two will do the job?

Spoken like a true Tiki-taka acolyte. Johan would be proud. Though I'd still argue it was a style choice, not technical ability.

I'm arguing that they had no choice to make. They have played their way without opposition for so long that they were incapable of changing their style to accommodate one game. The indictment isn't against the PDA team the indictment is against the 30-40 teams that offered them zero competition and very different looks at opposing playing styles to even NEED to adapt.

If you don't NEED to adapt then you are not developing. We are a large enough nation with enough players that surely we could have enough clubs proficient at a variety of styles to give a team like PDA a different competitive look from time to time. This is why losing is good. It forces you to learn and grow as a team and as players. My guess is PDA likely doesn't mess with their team system a whole lot. They are probably unwilling to take a L in favor of dedicating a month to a new formation or change a look. And frankly, they are not challenged enough to force the issue either.

So again, you are missing the overall points.

No, I just don't agree with you.

+1000. No one here with any common sense and with soccer and sports experience agree with him either.

Again, IT’S ONE GAME. You are truly obsessed with this one game. You are no longer becoming CREEPY, you are now full-fledged CREEPY.

Literally no one who is critiquing the technical ability of US girls is doing so on the basis of one game.

Nor is anyone saying that the only way technical skills can be demonstrated is to "play like Barcelona." The styles of several teams mentioned--Bayern, Liverpool, French national team--may be different but all require a high degree of technical skill.

Last, the Barcelona girls team did not employ a "tiki-taka" style as that derisive term has come to be understood. However, their demonstrated ability to pass and move and play with tactical awareness is far superior to any US girls teams I have seen play, whether in videos from that ICC tournament or elsewhere.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You still didn't get the rock paper scissors analogy, so I'll break it down for you further. The rock doesn't win every battle. Enjoy your win, paper.

Because it is irrelevant. You continue to argue that results in youth soccer matter. Development matters. Playing to win at 12 at all costs does not develop all the players. There are lots of ways to win and call it a rock, a paper or scissors. Does a direct style make players more well rounded?

You can spout all you want but in the end if you control and keep the ball at your own discretion you have to find other ways to play.

If the style of play is to simply dribble at the opponent or get the ball to Mia oh are not developing.

It is ok, you don’t get it.

You are a true dunce. you make a big deal out of the results of one game, and from the other side of your mouth argue the result doesn't matter.

As has been stated many times, PDA didn't plan for tiki taka, and they showed it. They don't face it all year, so it's not surprising. This doesn't mean their girls are not technical, nor that they can't play a different style, nor does their management stink.

ONE GAME. Get over yourself.

Technical is more than being good at 1v1s. Technical is also being efficient with the ball. If you can receive and pass the ball accurately with one touch that is both technical and efficient. I’m sure the PDA girls can dribble at a player and beat them 1v1 but why take 6 touches when one or two will do the job?

Spoken like a true Tiki-taka acolyte. Johan would be proud. Though I'd still argue it was a style choice, not technical ability.

I'm arguing that they had no choice to make. They have played their way without opposition for so long that they were incapable of changing their style to accommodate one game. The indictment isn't against the PDA team the indictment is against the 30-40 teams that offered them zero competition and very different looks at opposing playing styles to even NEED to adapt.

If you don't NEED to adapt then you are not developing. We are a large enough nation with enough players that surely we could have enough clubs proficient at a variety of styles to give a team like PDA a different competitive look from time to time. This is why losing is good. It forces you to learn and grow as a team and as players. My guess is PDA likely doesn't mess with their team system a whole lot. They are probably unwilling to take a L in favor of dedicating a month to a new formation or change a look. And frankly, they are not challenged enough to force the issue either.

So again, you are missing the overall points.

No, I just don't agree with you.

+1000. No one here with any common sense and with soccer and sports experience agree with him either.

Again, IT’S ONE GAME. You are truly obsessed with this one game. You are no longer becoming CREEPY, you are now full-fledged CREEPY.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You still didn't get the rock paper scissors analogy, so I'll break it down for you further. The rock doesn't win every battle. Enjoy your win, paper.

Because it is irrelevant. You continue to argue that results in youth soccer matter. Development matters. Playing to win at 12 at all costs does not develop all the players. There are lots of ways to win and call it a rock, a paper or scissors. Does a direct style make players more well rounded?

You can spout all you want but in the end if you control and keep the ball at your own discretion you have to find other ways to play.

If the style of play is to simply dribble at the opponent or get the ball to Mia oh are not developing.

It is ok, you don’t get it.

You are a true dunce. you make a big deal out of the results of one game, and from the other side of your mouth argue the result doesn't matter.

As has been stated many times, PDA didn't plan for tiki taka, and they showed it. They don't face it all year, so it's not surprising. This doesn't mean their girls are not technical, nor that they can't play a different style, nor does their management stink.

ONE GAME. Get over yourself.

Technical is more than being good at 1v1s. Technical is also being efficient with the ball. If you can receive and pass the ball accurately with one touch that is both technical and efficient. I’m sure the PDA girls can dribble at a player and beat them 1v1 but why take 6 touches when one or two will do the job?

Spoken like a true Tiki-taka acolyte. Johan would be proud. Though I'd still argue it was a style choice, not technical ability.

So to you it is tiki-taka. The rest of the world it is the modern game. You either evolve or get left behind. Playing rugby and long ball is so 1980’s. It’s not even soccer. It’s like watching the 1950 basketball.

Liverpool doesn't play Barca's style. I think they do OK. The last WC winner didn't play Barca's style either, they seemed to do OK too. Modern football is NOT tiki taka.

Our youth soccer teams do not play like Liverpool or France. There is very little tactical cohesiveness even at DA and ECNL level. It is extremely rare to see a local youth team to play good soccer.

Now you are reaching incredibly beyond your grasp. Just let it go.

You keep coming here.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You still didn't get the rock paper scissors analogy, so I'll break it down for you further. The rock doesn't win every battle. Enjoy your win, paper.

Because it is irrelevant. You continue to argue that results in youth soccer matter. Development matters. Playing to win at 12 at all costs does not develop all the players. There are lots of ways to win and call it a rock, a paper or scissors. Does a direct style make players more well rounded?

You can spout all you want but in the end if you control and keep the ball at your own discretion you have to find other ways to play.

If the style of play is to simply dribble at the opponent or get the ball to Mia oh are not developing.

It is ok, you don’t get it.

You are a true dunce. you make a big deal out of the results of one game, and from the other side of your mouth argue the result doesn't matter.

As has been stated many times, PDA didn't plan for tiki taka, and they showed it. They don't face it all year, so it's not surprising. This doesn't mean their girls are not technical, nor that they can't play a different style, nor does their management stink.

ONE GAME. Get over yourself.

Technical is more than being good at 1v1s. Technical is also being efficient with the ball. If you can receive and pass the ball accurately with one touch that is both technical and efficient. I’m sure the PDA girls can dribble at a player and beat them 1v1 but why take 6 touches when one or two will do the job?

Spoken like a true Tiki-taka acolyte. Johan would be proud. Though I'd still argue it was a style choice, not technical ability.

So to you it is tiki-taka. The rest of the world it is the modern game. You either evolve or get left behind. Playing rugby and long ball is so 1980’s. It’s not even soccer. It’s like watching the 1950 basketball.

Liverpool doesn't play Barca's style. I think they do OK. The last WC winner didn't play Barca's style either, they seemed to do OK too. Modern football is NOT tiki taka.

Our youth soccer teams do not play like Liverpool or France. There is very little tactical cohesiveness even at DA and ECNL level. It is extremely rare to see a local youth team to play good soccer.

Bayern Munich does not play like Barcelona. They seem to be doing okay.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You still didn't get the rock paper scissors analogy, so I'll break it down for you further. The rock doesn't win every battle. Enjoy your win, paper.

Because it is irrelevant. You continue to argue that results in youth soccer matter. Development matters. Playing to win at 12 at all costs does not develop all the players. There are lots of ways to win and call it a rock, a paper or scissors. Does a direct style make players more well rounded?

You can spout all you want but in the end if you control and keep the ball at your own discretion you have to find other ways to play.

If the style of play is to simply dribble at the opponent or get the ball to Mia oh are not developing.

It is ok, you don’t get it.

You are a true dunce. you make a big deal out of the results of one game, and from the other side of your mouth argue the result doesn't matter.

As has been stated many times, PDA didn't plan for tiki taka, and they showed it. They don't face it all year, so it's not surprising. This doesn't mean their girls are not technical, nor that they can't play a different style, nor does their management stink.

ONE GAME. Get over yourself.

Technical is more than being good at 1v1s. Technical is also being efficient with the ball. If you can receive and pass the ball accurately with one touch that is both technical and efficient. I’m sure the PDA girls can dribble at a player and beat them 1v1 but why take 6 touches when one or two will do the job?

Spoken like a true Tiki-taka acolyte. Johan would be proud. Though I'd still argue it was a style choice, not technical ability.

So to you it is tiki-taka. The rest of the world it is the modern game. You either evolve or get left behind. Playing rugby and long ball is so 1980’s. It’s not even soccer. It’s like watching the 1950 basketball.

Liverpool doesn't play Barca's style. I think they do OK. The last WC winner didn't play Barca's style either, they seemed to do OK too. Modern football is NOT tiki taka.

Our youth soccer teams do not play like Liverpool or France. There is very little tactical cohesiveness even at DA and ECNL level. It is extremely rare to see a local youth team to play good soccer.

Now you are reaching incredibly beyond your grasp. Just let it go.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You still didn't get the rock paper scissors analogy, so I'll break it down for you further. The rock doesn't win every battle. Enjoy your win, paper.

Because it is irrelevant. You continue to argue that results in youth soccer matter. Development matters. Playing to win at 12 at all costs does not develop all the players. There are lots of ways to win and call it a rock, a paper or scissors. Does a direct style make players more well rounded?

You can spout all you want but in the end if you control and keep the ball at your own discretion you have to find other ways to play.

If the style of play is to simply dribble at the opponent or get the ball to Mia oh are not developing.

It is ok, you don’t get it.

You are a true dunce. you make a big deal out of the results of one game, and from the other side of your mouth argue the result doesn't matter.

As has been stated many times, PDA didn't plan for tiki taka, and they showed it. They don't face it all year, so it's not surprising. This doesn't mean their girls are not technical, nor that they can't play a different style, nor does their management stink.

ONE GAME. Get over yourself.

Technical is more than being good at 1v1s. Technical is also being efficient with the ball. If you can receive and pass the ball accurately with one touch that is both technical and efficient. I’m sure the PDA girls can dribble at a player and beat them 1v1 but why take 6 touches when one or two will do the job?

Spoken like a true Tiki-taka acolyte. Johan would be proud. Though I'd still argue it was a style choice, not technical ability.

So to you it is tiki-taka. The rest of the world it is the modern game. You either evolve or get left behind. Playing rugby and long ball is so 1980’s. It’s not even soccer. It’s like watching the 1950 basketball.

Liverpool doesn't play Barca's style. I think they do OK. The last WC winner didn't play Barca's style either, they seemed to do OK too. Modern football is NOT tiki taka.

Our youth soccer teams do not play like Liverpool or France. There is very little tactical cohesiveness even at DA and ECNL level. It is extremely rare to see a local youth team to play good soccer.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You still didn't get the rock paper scissors analogy, so I'll break it down for you further. The rock doesn't win every battle. Enjoy your win, paper.

Because it is irrelevant. You continue to argue that results in youth soccer matter. Development matters. Playing to win at 12 at all costs does not develop all the players. There are lots of ways to win and call it a rock, a paper or scissors. Does a direct style make players more well rounded?

You can spout all you want but in the end if you control and keep the ball at your own discretion you have to find other ways to play.

If the style of play is to simply dribble at the opponent or get the ball to Mia oh are not developing.

It is ok, you don’t get it.

You are a true dunce. you make a big deal out of the results of one game, and from the other side of your mouth argue the result doesn't matter.

As has been stated many times, PDA didn't plan for tiki taka, and they showed it. They don't face it all year, so it's not surprising. This doesn't mean their girls are not technical, nor that they can't play a different style, nor does their management stink.

ONE GAME. Get over yourself.

Technical is more than being good at 1v1s. Technical is also being efficient with the ball. If you can receive and pass the ball accurately with one touch that is both technical and efficient. I’m sure the PDA girls can dribble at a player and beat them 1v1 but why take 6 touches when one or two will do the job?

Spoken like a true Tiki-taka acolyte. Johan would be proud. Though I'd still argue it was a style choice, not technical ability.

So to you it is tiki-taka. The rest of the world it is the modern game. You either evolve or get left behind. Playing rugby and long ball is so 1980’s. It’s not even soccer. It’s like watching the 1950 basketball.

Liverpool doesn't play Barca's style. I think they do OK. The last WC winner didn't play Barca's style either, they seemed to do OK too. Modern football is NOT tiki taka.

Nobody is saying play Barca style. What is being said is that the technical ability required to play a Barca style is quite high. Other pro clubs have their style too, but do you know what? They have rosters full of technically advanced Pro players which allow them to play any style a particular managers wishes to try and implement. Their roster and players selected are form among the best in the world so they have the luxury of tweeking how they want to play to minute detail. But without being very technical, smart AND athletic none of it matters.

What does this mean to a youth coach? You control what you can, you develop technical and tactical players. A tiki-taka style is a great way to both teach the game and make sure ALL the players are involved in the game. You will lose lots of games at first. Does this mean that every youth coach should teach tiki-taka? No, and I doubt many really could anyways. BUT they can focus more on the technical side as well as teaching the game tactically regardless of style.

However, if you walk the sidelines of any youth game you will still hear far to often "send it!"

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You still didn't get the rock paper scissors analogy, so I'll break it down for you further. The rock doesn't win every battle. Enjoy your win, paper.

Because it is irrelevant. You continue to argue that results in youth soccer matter. Development matters. Playing to win at 12 at all costs does not develop all the players. There are lots of ways to win and call it a rock, a paper or scissors. Does a direct style make players more well rounded?

You can spout all you want but in the end if you control and keep the ball at your own discretion you have to find other ways to play.

If the style of play is to simply dribble at the opponent or get the ball to Mia oh are not developing.

It is ok, you don’t get it.

You are a true dunce. you make a big deal out of the results of one game, and from the other side of your mouth argue the result doesn't matter.

As has been stated many times, PDA didn't plan for tiki taka, and they showed it. They don't face it all year, so it's not surprising. This doesn't mean their girls are not technical, nor that they can't play a different style, nor does their management stink.

ONE GAME. Get over yourself.

Technical is more than being good at 1v1s. Technical is also being efficient with the ball. If you can receive and pass the ball accurately with one touch that is both technical and efficient. I’m sure the PDA girls can dribble at a player and beat them 1v1 but why take 6 touches when one or two will do the job?

Spoken like a true Tiki-taka acolyte. Johan would be proud. Though I'd still argue it was a style choice, not technical ability.

So to you it is tiki-taka. The rest of the world it is the modern game. You either evolve or get left behind. Playing rugby and long ball is so 1980’s. It’s not even soccer. It’s like watching the 1950 basketball.

Liverpool doesn't play Barca's style. I think they do OK. The last WC winner didn't play Barca's style either, they seemed to do OK too. Modern football is NOT tiki taka.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You still didn't get the rock paper scissors analogy, so I'll break it down for you further. The rock doesn't win every battle. Enjoy your win, paper.

Because it is irrelevant. You continue to argue that results in youth soccer matter. Development matters. Playing to win at 12 at all costs does not develop all the players. There are lots of ways to win and call it a rock, a paper or scissors. Does a direct style make players more well rounded?

You can spout all you want but in the end if you control and keep the ball at your own discretion you have to find other ways to play.

If the style of play is to simply dribble at the opponent or get the ball to Mia oh are not developing.

It is ok, you don’t get it.

You are a true dunce. you make a big deal out of the results of one game, and from the other side of your mouth argue the result doesn't matter.

As has been stated many times, PDA didn't plan for tiki taka, and they showed it. They don't face it all year, so it's not surprising. This doesn't mean their girls are not technical, nor that they can't play a different style, nor does their management stink.

ONE GAME. Get over yourself.

Technical is more than being good at 1v1s. Technical is also being efficient with the ball. If you can receive and pass the ball accurately with one touch that is both technical and efficient. I’m sure the PDA girls can dribble at a player and beat them 1v1 but why take 6 touches when one or two will do the job?

Spoken like a true Tiki-taka acolyte. Johan would be proud. Though I'd still argue it was a style choice, not technical ability.

I'm arguing that they had no choice to make. They have played their way without opposition for so long that they were incapable of changing their style to accommodate one game. The indictment isn't against the PDA team the indictment is against the 30-40 teams that offered them zero competition and very different looks at opposing playing styles to even NEED to adapt.

If you don't NEED to adapt then you are not developing. We are a large enough nation with enough players that surely we could have enough clubs proficient at a variety of styles to give a team like PDA a different competitive look from time to time. This is why losing is good. It forces you to learn and grow as a team and as players. My guess is PDA likely doesn't mess with their team system a whole lot. They are probably unwilling to take a L in favor of dedicating a month to a new formation or change a look. And frankly, they are not challenged enough to force the issue either.

So again, you are missing the overall points.

No, I just don't agree with you.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You still didn't get the rock paper scissors analogy, so I'll break it down for you further. The rock doesn't win every battle. Enjoy your win, paper.

Because it is irrelevant. You continue to argue that results in youth soccer matter. Development matters. Playing to win at 12 at all costs does not develop all the players. There are lots of ways to win and call it a rock, a paper or scissors. Does a direct style make players more well rounded?

You can spout all you want but in the end if you control and keep the ball at your own discretion you have to find other ways to play.

If the style of play is to simply dribble at the opponent or get the ball to Mia oh are not developing.

It is ok, you don’t get it.

You are a true dunce. you make a big deal out of the results of one game, and from the other side of your mouth argue the result doesn't matter.

As has been stated many times, PDA didn't plan for tiki taka, and they showed it. They don't face it all year, so it's not surprising. This doesn't mean their girls are not technical, nor that they can't play a different style, nor does their management stink.

ONE GAME. Get over yourself.

Technical is more than being good at 1v1s. Technical is also being efficient with the ball. If you can receive and pass the ball accurately with one touch that is both technical and efficient. I’m sure the PDA girls can dribble at a player and beat them 1v1 but why take 6 touches when one or two will do the job?

Spoken like a true Tiki-taka acolyte. Johan would be proud. Though I'd still argue it was a style choice, not technical ability.

I'm arguing that they had no choice to make. They have played their way without opposition for so long that they were incapable of changing their style to accommodate one game. The indictment isn't against the PDA team the indictment is against the 30-40 teams that offered them zero competition and very different looks at opposing playing styles to even NEED to adapt.

If you don't NEED to adapt then you are not developing. We are a large enough nation with enough players that surely we could have enough clubs proficient at a variety of styles to give a team like PDA a different competitive look from time to time. This is why losing is good. It forces you to learn and grow as a team and as players. My guess is PDA likely doesn't mess with their team system a whole lot. They are probably unwilling to take a L in favor of dedicating a month to a new formation or change a look. And frankly, they are not challenged enough to force the issue either.

So again, you are missing the overall points.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You still didn't get the rock paper scissors analogy, so I'll break it down for you further. The rock doesn't win every battle. Enjoy your win, paper.

Because it is irrelevant. You continue to argue that results in youth soccer matter. Development matters. Playing to win at 12 at all costs does not develop all the players. There are lots of ways to win and call it a rock, a paper or scissors. Does a direct style make players more well rounded?

You can spout all you want but in the end if you control and keep the ball at your own discretion you have to find other ways to play.

If the style of play is to simply dribble at the opponent or get the ball to Mia oh are not developing.

It is ok, you don’t get it.

You are a true dunce. you make a big deal out of the results of one game, and from the other side of your mouth argue the result doesn't matter.

As has been stated many times, PDA didn't plan for tiki taka, and they showed it. They don't face it all year, so it's not surprising. This doesn't mean their girls are not technical, nor that they can't play a different style, nor does their management stink.

ONE GAME. Get over yourself.

Technical is more than being good at 1v1s. Technical is also being efficient with the ball. If you can receive and pass the ball accurately with one touch that is both technical and efficient. I’m sure the PDA girls can dribble at a player and beat them 1v1 but why take 6 touches when one or two will do the job?

Spoken like a true Tiki-taka acolyte. Johan would be proud. Though I'd still argue it was a style choice, not technical ability.

So to you it is tiki-taka. The rest of the world it is the modern game. You either evolve or get left behind. Playing rugby and long ball is so 1980’s. It’s not even soccer. It’s like watching the 1950 basketball.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You still didn't get the rock paper scissors analogy, so I'll break it down for you further. The rock doesn't win every battle. Enjoy your win, paper.

Because it is irrelevant. You continue to argue that results in youth soccer matter. Development matters. Playing to win at 12 at all costs does not develop all the players. There are lots of ways to win and call it a rock, a paper or scissors. Does a direct style make players more well rounded?

You can spout all you want but in the end if you control and keep the ball at your own discretion you have to find other ways to play.

If the style of play is to simply dribble at the opponent or get the ball to Mia oh are not developing.

It is ok, you don’t get it.

You are a true dunce. you make a big deal out of the results of one game, and from the other side of your mouth argue the result doesn't matter.

As has been stated many times, PDA didn't plan for tiki taka, and they showed it. They don't face it all year, so it's not surprising. This doesn't mean their girls are not technical, nor that they can't play a different style, nor does their management stink.

ONE GAME. Get over yourself.

Technical is more than being good at 1v1s. Technical is also being efficient with the ball. If you can receive and pass the ball accurately with one touch that is both technical and efficient. I’m sure the PDA girls can dribble at a player and beat them 1v1 but why take 6 touches when one or two will do the job?

Spoken like a true Tiki-taka acolyte. Johan would be proud. Though I'd still argue it was a style choice, not technical ability.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You still didn't get the rock paper scissors analogy, so I'll break it down for you further. The rock doesn't win every battle. Enjoy your win, paper.

Because it is irrelevant. You continue to argue that results in youth soccer matter. Development matters. Playing to win at 12 at all costs does not develop all the players. There are lots of ways to win and call it a rock, a paper or scissors. Does a direct style make players more well rounded?

You can spout all you want but in the end if you control and keep the ball at your own discretion you have to find other ways to play.

If the style of play is to simply dribble at the opponent or get the ball to Mia oh are not developing.

It is ok, you don’t get it.

You are a true dunce. you make a big deal out of the results of one game, and from the other side of your mouth argue the result doesn't matter.

As has been stated many times, PDA didn't plan for tiki taka, and they showed it. They don't face it all year, so it's not surprising. This doesn't mean their girls are not technical, nor that they can't play a different style, nor does their management stink.

ONE GAME. Get over yourself.

The question was “how technical are the girls?”

Technical without purpose is useless. Everyone thinks, “my kid is fast” or “my kid is technical”. You need all of it. PDA is technical but in that one game they were without purpose. They were not technical or smart enough to keep the ball.

Technical is more than being good at 1v1s. Technical is also being efficient with the ball. If you can receive and pass the ball accurately with one touch that is both technical and efficient. I’m sure the PDA girls can dribble at a player and beat them 1v1 but why take 6 touches when one or two will do the job?

Taking two to three touches to move the ball and then when you do get the pass off it is picked off because it is so telegraphed is not the way to make the case that the girls are technical.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You still didn't get the rock paper scissors analogy, so I'll break it down for you further. The rock doesn't win every battle. Enjoy your win, paper.

Because it is irrelevant. You continue to argue that results in youth soccer matter. Development matters. Playing to win at 12 at all costs does not develop all the players. There are lots of ways to win and call it a rock, a paper or scissors. Does a direct style make players more well rounded?

You can spout all you want but in the end if you control and keep the ball at your own discretion you have to find other ways to play.

If the style of play is to simply dribble at the opponent or get the ball to Mia oh are not developing.

It is ok, you don’t get it.

You are a true dunce. you make a big deal out of the results of one game, and from the other side of your mouth argue the result doesn't matter.

As has been stated many times, PDA didn't plan for tiki taka, and they showed it. They don't face it all year, so it's not surprising. This doesn't mean their girls are not technical, nor that they can't play a different style, nor does their management stink.

ONE GAME. Get over yourself.