quietobserver wrote:All good stuff folks...and no argument from me.
Recall....I did say that you have to have balance (team or individual) of all the necessary attributes (athleticism, determination, skill, heart, coachable, IQ and don't forget playing as a team. (We've seen players with lots of fancy moves that refuse to pass and end up turning the ball over way too many times because they think they can beat 3 defenders.)
Good players (and teams) in any sport find out what their opponents weakness is...and then exploit it to create the desired outcome (which is winning). A tennis player will discover that his opponent can't return backhand....and will try to serve to the backhand. Does that mean he can't serve to the forehand....NO...it just means he's smart and knows how to win.
TheFarPost is convinced that Darlington is/was the only passing team at this age group. If they were so good at retaining possession then how/why did they give up so many goals? Perhaps....the teams that had more success had a balance of passing/possession and - what did you call it GG - direct play! I don't believe for a second that all of the other teams were playing kick and run all the time. Maybe they mixed it up when it made sense to exploit the opposition's weakness?
Regardless.....statistically very few of these girls will be playing at a high level in 4-5 years....I'll hazard a guess that the ones that aren't athletic now aren't going to magically become athletic in the future - but the athletic ones can improve their skill (if they don't already have it)!
quietobserver wrote: Again...you are painting all of these quality teams and players with the broad stroke that all they play is kick and run. You don't really believe that do you?
[/quote]quietobserver wrote:There's a strong chance the best players would have left the program in pursuit of playing at the highest level...thus destroying the chances of the team ever realizing the 'future' objective. I'd hazard to say that girls from L4 and L5 don't get scholarships or play beyond high school age! That's just reality.
TheFarPost wrote:QO, you're right in that all girls at this level are pretty skilled.
You're also right in that there's no absolute passing team, just as there's no absolute kick-and-run team. What's important is where your main focus is, the pattern matters. A team that is not used to possession will lose all that passing when under pressure, the old habits will always prevail. Canada Womens' team looked like a passing team under CarolinaM. until the WC; then as soon as they were under pressure by good teams, they forgot all that passing and returned to what their blue-print was: kick-and-run.
Waterloo started well, then something happened. I always admired their well structured and balanced game. I personally think that the coach did the right thing by insisting on possession game as opposed to long ball. The have developed skilled players, a number of them in the provincial program; that says something about their player development program.
I don't know if they will loose players or not...but that's not really what matters. They will do again the right thing and will be back.
As for the 'objective'...I think that winning a scolarship is a wrong objective; most players will burn out and quit
football before reaching their objective, if that's what drives them. They cannot play with passion and train hard for
years if that's what they are after, it becomes some sort of job. I know such a player, could have been exceptional if
her dad wouldn't remind her daily about the scolarship $$$. She played and trained like a good soldier, because she's
a good kid. At some point she quit, she didn't enjoy anymore...
for the girls wrote:After Day 1 in Indiana
Ajax win 1-0
Brams win 3-0
Burlington win 4-0
North London win 4-2
Oakville loss 0-3
Good looking Canadian teams!
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests