FCGB Names New Director of Girls Programs

[Unregistered]

If walking upright means thinking that a 1-5-1 record is "competitive in D1," then no thanks, I'll keep dragging my knuckles on the ground. I grant that the team's goal differential wasn't too negative, once you deduct the 5-0 loss to the Aztecs. But evidently the team couldn't even beat the second-best team (that is, the team with the second-best record) in D2 to stay in D1.

To quote another famous American football guy, I don't think winning is the only thing. I think winning enough games to stay in D1 is the main thing. Otherwise your team falls apart. I consider that an evolved point of view. ;-)

Yeah, so how do you win when you lack a coach and training time? Not even the best professional team would win under those circumstances. You must be as dumb as a rock if you can't figure that out.

[Unregistered]

If walking upright means thinking that a 1-5-1 record is "competitive in D1," then no thanks, I'll keep dragging my knuckles on the ground. I grant that the team's goal differential wasn't too negative, once you deduct the 5-0 loss to the Aztecs. But evidently the team couldn't even beat the second-best team (that is, the team with the second-best record) in D2 to stay in D1.

To quote another famous American football guy, I don't think winning is the only thing. I think winning enough games to stay in D1 is the main thing. Otherwise your team falls apart. I consider that an evolved point of view. ;-)

You aren't as evolved as you purport to be. You continue to cite wins and losses as your measuring stick. We are trying to move away from that infantile way of thinking.

So, Oh Great Evolved One, maybe you can give us a game recap of each game showing us that they weren't competitive in these games. The numbers are more credible than you're obviously negative anti-Bolts attitude.

[Unregistered]

Like I said, they were on the downhill slope as the season progressed, so what do you think? Good teams get better with good training. This is what the Bolts lacked under Desmond because she just wasn't around to oversee that training. she may have been a knowledgeable coach, but she certainly wasn't a committed coach.

Yeah, so how do you win when you lack a coach and training time? Not even the best professional team would win under those circumstances. You must be as dumb as a rock if you can't figure that out.

You aren't as evolved as you purport to be. You continue to cite wins and losses as your measuring stick. We are trying to move away from that infantile way of thinking.

So, Oh Great Evolved One, maybe you can give us a game recap of each game showing us that they weren't competitive in these games. The numbers are more credible than you're obviously negative anti-Bolts attitude.

Man, you people are harsh! I don't have anything personal against the Bolts. I think most people remember that team as overachievers, if they remember them at all. As for being competitive in D1, they were competitive sort of in the same way the Pawtucket Red Sox would be competitive in the major leagues. Pawtucket would surely win a few games but lose most of them. There would be no doubt that Pawtucket belonged in a lower league.

The main reason I cite wins and losses is because wins allow you to keep a team together and play against the best possible competition. Often when a team is relegated it falls apart, and then it's free-fall time. (See what happened to this year's Bolts U15 team.)

I do grant that if you take out the Aztecs game, their GD wasn't so bad (-2). But for comparison's sake you'd have to subtract a bad game for the other teams in the division.

Incidentally, baseball stat-crunchers use something called the Pythagorean method to see how much of a role luck plays in a team's won-loss record. It relies on the difference between how many runs a team scores and how many it allows - its run differential. Maybe somebody like Mathman could apply this method to soccer.

And as soon as I wrote the last sentence, I decided to see if anyone already had. Here's something I found via Google:

http://dcunitedblog.************/200...terminism.html

The author writes: "Part of the fundamental assumption is that games in baseball decided by one run are likely the result of luck, and the wider of margin of victory in a game, the more likely it is a reflection of a true comparison between the skill levels of any two teams. Just something to keep in mind when I tell you that I looked at Pythagorean Expectation in MLS."

The author concludes: "MLS, and I think soccer in general, will see a significant margin of victory usually only as the result of some flukes, whereas close games are truly more representative of typical skill levels. Given that soccer is a game where a less skilled team may well bunker in an attempt to keep scoring down (feeling a nil-nil draw is fine with them) in a way that doesn't really extend to the NFL, NHL, MLB, or NBA, this makes a certain degree of sense."

Maybe this conclusion doesn't apply to youth soccer. But it's food for thought.

[Unregistered]

Maybe this conclusion doesn't apply to youth soccer. But it's food for thought.

That's right. It doesn't belong in youth soccer and in this case in particular, because the team did not bunker down just to survive.

[Unregistered]

The main reason I cite wins and losses is because wins allow you to keep a team together and play against the best possible competition. Often when a team is relegated it falls apart, and then it's free-fall time. (See what happened to this year's Bolts U15 team.)

That has been the point all along. Had they finished higher in the standings, had they finished on a positive note, then it is likely the players that left wouldn't have left and it is likely that better players might have joined the team. Location and a nationally known club name would have been an attractive option for some players. EVERY top club team out there has improved itself season to season by the addition of better players, but relegation to D2 would not allow that option for the Bolts and it was lack of both club and coaching commitment that caused that to happen, with lack of coaching commitment the biggest issue.

[Unregistered]

That has been the point all along..... it was lack of both club and coaching commitment that caused that to happen, with lack of coaching commitment the biggest issue.

My point is it was also a lack of player and parent commitment. While it is convenient to blame the club or coach, the former had unrealistic expectations and their attitudes and efforts soured down the stretch. Clearly this is a touchy subject. This is my last post.

[Unregistered]

sung briefer

Of course it is pretty realistic for a parent or family to expect their coach will attend practices and matches...call me crazy.

[Unregistered]

My point is it was also a lack of player and parent commitment. While it is convenient to blame the club or coach, the former had unrealistic expectations and their attitudes and efforts soured down the stretch. Clearly this is a touchy subject. This is my last post.

How unrealistic are the expectations to have a coach present fro training and games? I believe that was all anyone expected as they knew rebuilding the team would be difficult. Under the circumstances the team did pretty well IMO and I did not have a player on this team.

[Unregistered]

That's right. It doesn't belong in youth soccer and in this case in particular, because the team did not bunker down just to survive.

Too bad. Otherwise they might not have gone 1-5-1 and lost the promotion/relegation game.

[Unregistered]

EVERY top club team out there has improved itself season to season by the addition of better players, but relegation to D2 would not allow that option for the Bolts and it was lack of both club and coaching commitment that caused that to happen, with lack of coaching commitment the biggest issue.

Lack of available talent was the biggest issue.

[Unregistered]

Will the team be more competititve or less competitive next year?

[Unregistered]

key players left which explains the continued slide in D2. Had they finished higher and stayed in D1, instead of losing players, it is very likely they would have gained players.

It's laughable that anyone would consider any Bolts U15G, 2008 players "key". Town or rec players a year later doesn't quite cut it.

I do agree had Bolts obtained a win or so more, most of the status hungry wannabes wouldn't have bailed.

[Unregistered]

troll alert.

[Unregistered]

It's laughable that anyone would consider any Bolts U15G, 2008 players "key". Town or rec players a year later doesn't quite cut it.

I do agree had Bolts obtained a win or so more, most of the status hungry wannabes wouldn't have bailed.

Didn't the GK move to Aztecs and become the starting keeper there?

[Unregistered]

Lack of available talent was the biggest issue.

They had enough talent to compete in D1 Maple. What they lacked was a dedicated coach.