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.

Is this AK? If so, he's one of the best around. You clearly have a gripe with your kid's playing time. It's funny how the coaches' favorites are almost always the best players.

The 2013's lack of success was not about coaching. They just didn't have the quality of players but expected to be as good as the 11's or the Mclean/FVU 13's. Recruiting got them team to a better place more recently.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Parent of a current U10 (2016). My daughter is a starter and plays the entire game without substitution (along with a few others). While I appreciate that greatly, it is sadly not true that “all players play at least half the game”. I’m happy for my daughter, since she is one of the ones AK is investing in greatly right now, but sympathize with the families whose daughters don’t play much. He has had 3-4 2015s guest with us almost every game this year, and they definitely play more than rostered 2016s. We get the sense he wants to win, but then again, who doesn’t?

Yeah see this is the problem with Arlington. If parents are enamored with the concept of "Arlington" and want their girls to go play for AK and their girls are decent, they'll probably hardly play at all, compared to the playing time they would get on other other decent to good teams in the area. It's always ideal to be one of the top 3-5 players on a team, to both get enough intra-squad competition but also to get the "favored playing time." Unless you're already one of AK's "favored" 2016s, like the prior poster's daughter, or one of the incoming 2015s referenced, I would say it would not be wise to join the team.

I think this makes sense. It seems like some parents want their kids to be on superstar teams when their kid isn’t one and then wonder why they aren’t getting superstar minutes.

Superstar teams are bad for young players unless you’re in the top 2-3 on the roster. It makes much more sense to develop on other teams where each of these players can be the strongest players and get the most development. Then they can come together later after years of main player development.

Anonymous wrote:

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.

There is a reason why AK coaches U10/11 and not older high level teams

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.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Parent of a current U10 (2016). My daughter is a starter and plays the entire game without substitution (along with a few others). While I appreciate that greatly, it is sadly not true that “all players play at least half the game”. I’m happy for my daughter, since she is one of the ones AK is investing in greatly right now, but sympathize with the families whose daughters don’t play much. He has had 3-4 2015s guest with us almost every game this year, and they definitely play more than rostered 2016s. We get the sense he wants to win, but then again, who doesn’t?

Most clubs have a policy that u-littles play half the game minimum, and also that guests can't play more than rostered players. Does Arlington not have this policy?

Never heard of that policy. Which clubs have that policy? Ours doesn't.

Our Arlington team follows this relatively equal playing time policy, but they are very transparent that tournaments look different than the regular season and they play to win.

Is it a real policy or an unspoken policy? And, what about the guests part. We have guests all the time that play more than the members of our team. It's sick.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Parent of a current U10 (2016). My daughter is a starter and plays the entire game without substitution (along with a few others). While I appreciate that greatly, it is sadly not true that “all players play at least half the game”. I’m happy for my daughter, since she is one of the ones AK is investing in greatly right now, but sympathize with the families whose daughters don’t play much. He has had 3-4 2015s guest with us almost every game this year, and they definitely play more than rostered 2016s. We get the sense he wants to win, but then again, who doesn’t?

Most clubs have a policy that u-littles play half the game minimum, and also that guests can't play more than rostered players. Does Arlington not have this policy?

Never heard of that policy. Which clubs have that policy? Ours doesn't.

Our Arlington team follows this relatively equal playing time policy, but they are very transparent that tournaments look different than the regular season and they play to win.

Is it a real policy or an unspoken policy? And, what about the guests part. We have guests all the time that play more than the members of our team. It's sick.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Parent of a current U10 (2016). My daughter is a starter and plays the entire game without substitution (along with a few others). While I appreciate that greatly, it is sadly not true that “all players play at least half the game”. I’m happy for my daughter, since she is one of the ones AK is investing in greatly right now, but sympathize with the families whose daughters don’t play much. He has had 3-4 2015s guest with us almost every game this year, and they definitely play more than rostered 2016s. We get the sense he wants to win, but then again, who doesn’t?

Most clubs have a policy that u-littles play half the game minimum, and also that guests can't play more than rostered players. Does Arlington not have this policy?

Never heard of that policy. Which clubs have that policy? Ours doesn't.

Our Arlington team follows this relatively equal playing time policy, but they are very transparent that tournaments look different than the regular season and they play to win.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Parent of a current U10 (2016). My daughter is a starter and plays the entire game without substitution (along with a few others). While I appreciate that greatly, it is sadly not true that “all players play at least half the game”. I’m happy for my daughter, since she is one of the ones AK is investing in greatly right now, but sympathize with the families whose daughters don’t play much. He has had 3-4 2015s guest with us almost every game this year, and they definitely play more than rostered 2016s. We get the sense he wants to win, but then again, who doesn’t?

Most clubs have a policy that u-littles play half the game minimum, and also that guests can't play more than rostered players. Does Arlington not have this policy?

Never heard of that policy. Which clubs have that policy? Ours doesn't.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Parent of a current U10 (2016). My daughter is a starter and plays the entire game without substitution (along with a few others). While I appreciate that greatly, it is sadly not true that “all players play at least half the game”. I’m happy for my daughter, since she is one of the ones AK is investing in greatly right now, but sympathize with the families whose daughters don’t play much. He has had 3-4 2015s guest with us almost every game this year, and they definitely play more than rostered 2016s. We get the sense he wants to win, but then again, who doesn’t?

Most clubs have a policy that u-littles play half the game minimum, and also that guests can't play more than rostered players. Does Arlington not have this policy?

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.

There is a reason why AK coaches U10/11 and not older high level teams

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.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Arlington not alone in pursuing this strategy. SYC & Alexandria 2016 teams playing in NCSL girls U11 Div1 as well this Spring.

It's the American Way! Less touches and time on ball for ulittles! Upselling by local travel clubs to justify "Academy" branding! Parents telling themselves uneven play will make their DCs stronger elite players!

There are definitely cases where teams should play up. Arlington, ASA, SYC and all of these DMV clubs having not one, but multiple teams doing this is not for development.

Pay-to-play soccer at its best.

I agree that there are some teams that should play up. Bethesda 2016 actually won the Fall season in the NCSL top division 1 year up. The Arlington 2016s are nowhere close to that level of play though and should play their age group.

Didn’t the Bethesda 2016 team get their a$$ handed to them in a tournament this spring where a trashy parent started whining at parents from the other team because they were losing? That team is going nowhere next year. Believe it.

2016? U-little babies? Any parent posting about something that happened to a baby team in the fall is just as nuts as that parent sounds.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Arlington not alone in pursuing this strategy. SYC & Alexandria 2016 teams playing in NCSL girls U11 Div1 as well this Spring.

It's the American Way! Less touches and time on ball for ulittles! Upselling by local travel clubs to justify "Academy" branding! Parents telling themselves uneven play will make their DCs stronger elite players!

There are definitely cases where teams should play up. Arlington, ASA, SYC and all of these DMV clubs having not one, but multiple teams doing this is not for development.

Pay-to-play soccer at its best.

I agree that there are some teams that should play up. Bethesda 2016 actually won the Fall season in the NCSL top division 1 year up. The Arlington 2016s are nowhere close to that level of play though and should play their age group.

Didn’t the Bethesda 2016 team get their a$$ handed to them in a tournament this spring where a trashy parent started whining at parents from the other team because they were losing? That team is going nowhere next year. Believe it.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Arlington not alone in pursuing this strategy. SYC & Alexandria 2016 teams playing in NCSL girls U11 Div1 as well this Spring.

It's the American Way! Less touches and time on ball for ulittles! Upselling by local travel clubs to justify "Academy" branding! Parents telling themselves uneven play will make their DCs stronger elite players!

There are definitely cases where teams should play up. Arlington, ASA, SYC and all of these DMV clubs having not one, but multiple teams doing this is not for development.

Pay-to-play soccer at its best.

I agree that there are some teams that should play up. Bethesda 2016 actually won the Fall season in the NCSL top division 1 year up. The Arlington 2016s are nowhere close to that level of play though and should play their age group.

Didn’t the Bethesda 2016 team get their a$$ handed to them in a tournament this spring where a trashy parent started whining at parents from the other team because they were losing? That team is going nowhere next year. Believe it.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Parent of a current U10 (2016). My daughter is a starter and plays the entire game without substitution (along with a few others). While I appreciate that greatly, it is sadly not true that “all players play at least half the game”. I’m happy for my daughter, since she is one of the ones AK is investing in greatly right now, but sympathize with the families whose daughters don’t play much. He has had 3-4 2015s guest with us almost every game this year, and they definitely play more than rostered 2016s. We get the sense he wants to win, but then again, who doesn’t?

Are those 2015s staying in the u11 age group next year? Are they trying to get a look at the top team for the 26/27 season?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Arlington not alone in pursuing this strategy. SYC & Alexandria 2016 teams playing in NCSL girls U11 Div1 as well this Spring.

It's the American Way! Less touches and time on ball for ulittles! Upselling by local travel clubs to justify "Academy" branding! Parents telling themselves uneven play will make their DCs stronger elite players!

There are definitely cases where teams should play up. Arlington, ASA, SYC and all of these DMV clubs having not one, but multiple teams doing this is not for development.

Pay-to-play soccer at its best.

I agree that there are some teams that should play up. Bethesda 2016 actually won the Fall season in the NCSL top division 1 year up. The Arlington 2016s are nowhere close to that level of play though and should play their age group.

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.