Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:
I'll go a step further. At U-15, Spirit didn't start their best striker, best midfielder, best defender, or best goalie. Make of that what you will, but I'd propose that winning games may not be their top priority.
That is a great theory, except Tom told the girls he wants wins. Also, best players according to you, I'm assuming?
Anonymous wrote:
I'll go a step further. At U-15, Spirit didn't start their best striker, best midfielder, best defender, or best goalie. Make of that what you will, but I'd propose that winning games may not be their top priority.
Anonymous wrote:Arlington U15’s:
17 man roster
14 players dressed
3 left off for unknown reason. Can dress 18
8 players played 80 minutes (entire game)
The remaining 6 players played the following minutes:
1 -22 min
1 – 16 min
1 – 58 min
1 – 64 min
1- 57 min
1 -23 min
As you can see, 11 players (strongest I presume) played the majority of the game. Since they keep an extremely small roster, they are no subjected to a big talent drop off. Smart on their part.
The game was 4-1 with 11 minutes left. At that point, it was a whooping!
After Penn Fusion made their subs, Arlington scored at 69 (11 minutes left) and 76 (4 minutes).
Now, I commend them for a hard fought game. I’m sure the will find plenty of success this year…but let’s not go overboard.
Arlington will be competitive because they will play their best the majority of minutes.
Some clubs don’t. Some clubs spread the love
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Or to the parent’s face either.
I think you are overreacting. No one insulted them. They just said the truth: that playing up was too much of a stretch but that they were strong players who missed being able to contribute to a game in a meaningful way, not because they suck, because they weren't given a chance to play in their own age group. That's not an insult.
The implication was that your game got out of hand when the playups joined the game. That is an insult.
The implication was that their game was negatively impacted by the play ups, not because they suck but because they were going against a team that is 95% 2+ years older than them. It's only an insult if it were said about them when they play in their own age group. Not being able to play up doesn't mean a player isn't good. That's a huge misconception you have - and an insult to all the other players who don't play up.
It seems that you overlooked the 05 who played 90 minutes for Cedar Stars.
Playups are not the problem.
It’s not an insult to any player if they play in their own age group. Richmond United’s 04 NT player played all last year in her own age group and it seems she may continue with that trend if the scrimmages against FCV and Spirit are any indication. And she went all last year to ever single National team training and is ranked #2 in the country in the 04 age group (according to the NTC coaches). If she is that talented and played in her own age group, I don’t get what all the fuss is about.
Only two players were subbed when 2 of the first 3 goals were scored the rest of the sub’s came in after the 3rd goal. The fourth was scored shortly after the last overall sub went in.
3 of the 4 goals were scored with 9 of your original starters still in the game. This is not a playup problem. Please just stop.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Or to the parent’s face either.
I think you are overreacting. No one insulted them. They just said the truth: that playing up was too much of a stretch but that they were strong players who missed being able to contribute to a game in a meaningful way, not because they suck, because they weren't given a chance to play in their own age group. That's not an insult.
The implication was that your game got out of hand when the playups joined the game. That is an insult.
The implication was that their game was negatively impacted by the play ups, not because they suck but because they were going against a team that is 95% 2+ years older than them. It's only an insult if it were said about them when they play in their own age group. Not being able to play up doesn't mean a player isn't good. That's a huge misconception you have - and an insult to all the other players who don't play up.
It seems that you overlooked the 05 who played 90 minutes for Cedar Stars.
Playups are not the problem.
It’s not an insult to any player if they play in their own age group. Richmond United’s 04 NT player played all last year in her own age group and it seems she may continue with that trend if the scrimmages against FCV and Spirit are any indication. And she went all last year to ever single National team training and is ranked #2 in the country in the 04 age group (according to the NTC coaches). If she is that talented and played in her own age group, I don’t get what all the fuss is about.
Anonymous wrote:Can we take a break from talking about Spirit and talk about anything else please?
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Or to the parent’s face either.
I think you are overreacting. No one insulted them. They just said the truth: that playing up was too much of a stretch but that they were strong players who missed being able to contribute to a game in a meaningful way, not because they suck, because they weren't given a chance to play in their own age group. That's not an insult.
The implication was that your game got out of hand when the playups joined the game. That is an insult.
The implication was that their game was negatively impacted by the play ups, not because they suck but because they were going against a team that is 95% 2+ years older than them. It's only an insult if it were said about them when they play in their own age group. Not being able to play up doesn't mean a player isn't good. That's a huge misconception you have - and an insult to all the other players who don't play up.
It seems that you overlooked the 05 who played 90 minutes for Cedar Stars.
Playups are not the problem.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Or to the parent’s face either.
I think you are overreacting. No one insulted them. They just said the truth: that playing up was too much of a stretch but that they were strong players who missed being able to contribute to a game in a meaningful way, not because they suck, because they weren't given a chance to play in their own age group. That's not an insult.
The implication was that your game got out of hand when the playups joined the game. That is an insult.
The implication was that their game was negatively impacted by the play ups, not because they suck but because they were going against a team that is 95% 2+ years older than them. It's only an insult if it were said about them when they play in their own age group. Not being able to play up doesn't mean a player isn't good. That's a huge misconception you have - and an insult to all the other players who don't play up.
It seems that you overlooked the 05 who played 90 minutes for Cedar Stars.
Playups are not the problem.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Or to the parent’s face either.
I think you are overreacting. No one insulted them. They just said the truth: that playing up was too much of a stretch but that they were strong players who missed being able to contribute to a game in a meaningful way, not because they suck, because they weren't given a chance to play in their own age group. That's not an insult.
The implication was that your game got out of hand when the playups joined the game. That is an insult.
The implication was that their game was negatively impacted by the play ups, not because they suck but because they were going against a team that is 95% 2+ years older than them. It's only an insult if it were said about them when they play in their own age group. Not being able to play up doesn't mean a player isn't good. That's a huge misconception you have - and an insult to all the other players who don't play up.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Or to the parent’s face either.
I think you are overreacting. No one insulted them. They just said the truth: that playing up was too much of a stretch but that they were strong players who missed being able to contribute to a game in a meaningful way, not because they suck, because they weren't given a chance to play in their own age group. That's not an insult.
The implication was that your game got out of hand when the playups joined the game. That is an insult.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Or to the parent’s face either.
Don't be ridiculous. These teenagers don't spend time on forums like these. Instagram, snapchat, they have their places they spend online, but they don't come here.
All of that said, these teenagers also know when they played well and when they didn't. They know when they have a good game and when they don't. So no matter what false praise or unfair criticism they may get, they don't look to a forum like this for confirmation.
You are missing the point. Although, that does not surprise me at all. Please let the advice sink in.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Or to the parent’s face either.
Don't be ridiculous. These teenagers don't spend time on forums like these. Instagram, snapchat, they have their places they spend online, but they don't come here.
All of that said, these teenagers also know when they played well and when they didn't. They know when they have a good game and when they don't. So no matter what false praise or unfair criticism they may get, they don't look to a forum like this for confirmation.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Or to the parent’s face either.
I think you are overreacting. No one insulted them. They just said the truth: that playing up was too much of a stretch but that they were strong players who missed being able to contribute to a game in a meaningful way, not because they suck, because they weren't given a chance to play in their own age group. That's not an insult.
Anonymous wrote:Or to the parent’s face either.