FCGB Names New Director of Girls Programs

[Unregistered]

Agree with the above, but she was definitely guilty of paying priority to her NU responsibilities over the Bolts team she was with. This caused a lot of issues with the team, the parents, and the overall performance of the team that year.

3/4 of the team Roving to Stars impacted the performance of the team more.

[Unregistered]

3/4 of the team Roving to Stars impacted the performance of the team more.

Gone before she got there so no excuse.

[Unregistered]

Gone before she got there so no excuse.

The point being made is that even after Rovers left, despite where they ended up in the standings, Bolts were competitive in D1. In fact the only game they were out of was against Aztecs. Bolts were 1-5-1 for the season, but 4 of those 5 losses were 1 goal losses. Turn some of those into at least ties and the standings would have looked a whole lot different. Getting relegated is like a death knell for a club team and it has proven to be that. Had Desmond puts some time into the team, they probably would have done better and the team would not be headed to D3 as U17s, assuming the team even survives.

[Unregistered]

3/4 of the team Roving to Stars impacted the performance of the team more.

Addition by subtraction.

[Unregistered]

Flip this around. Rovers left, with only a few players remaining. These either were loyal to FCGB, or not asked to defect. Bolts were fielding an entirely new team, which was competitive in D1. Not many coaches would have been as successful dealt this hand. It's easy to criticize Spring 2008, yet Spring 2009, Maple D2 was even less successful and we don't read complaints. Rather than coach bash, parents and players need to accept their responsibility and move on. It amazes me that people need to come online and dredge up hurt feelings from what is now 2 full seasons back. Hopefully U16 Bolts, who steadily improved this Spring, will field a team next year and continue to improve.

[Unregistered]

Bolts were 1-5-1 for the season, but 4 of those 5 losses were 1 goal losses. Turn some of those into at least ties and the standings would have looked a whole lot different.

No offense, but I've seen this kind of wishful thinking on this forum before. A poster looks at the standings online and assumes because a game was decided by one goal, it could have easily have gone the other way. Yet if the poster had actually seen the game, he would have realized that the losing team was lucky to lose only by one goal.

I've lost count of the games I have seen where the winning team, clearly superior, controlled play and dominated the statistics, yet won only by a single goal. Where the losing team was clearly inferior, and yet was just a lucky break away from tying the score.

I reserve judgment until I've actually seen a team play. But in the meantime I tend to think that a team that wins a lot of games by one goal is a good team, not a lucky team, and a team that loses a lot of games by one goal is the opposite.

[Unregistered]

The point being made is that even after Rovers left, despite where they ended up in the standings, Bolts were competitive in D1. In fact the only game they were out of was against Aztecs. Bolts were 1-5-1 for the season, but 4 of those 5 losses were 1 goal losses. Turn some of those into at least ties and the standings would have looked a whole lot different. Getting relegated is like a death knell for a club team and it has proven to be that. Had Desmond puts some time into the team, they probably would have done better and the team would not be headed to D3 as U17s, assuming the team even survives.

Are they fielding a U17 team next year?

[Unregistered]

Are they fielding a U17 team next year?

They had a try out. More than enough girls to field a team were there.

[Unregistered]

No offense, but I've seen this kind of wishful thinking on this forum before. A poster looks at the standings online and assumes because a game was decided by one goal, it could have easily have gone the other way. Yet if the poster had actually seen the game, he would have realized that the losing team was lucky to lose only by one goal.

I've lost count of the games I have seen where the winning team, clearly superior, controlled play and dominated the statistics, yet won only by a single goal. Where the losing team was clearly inferior, and yet was just a lucky break away from tying the score.

I reserve judgment until I've actually seen a team play. But in the meantime I tend to think that a team that wins a lot of games by one goal is a good team, not a lucky team, and a team that loses a lot of games by one goal is the opposite.

Say what you want, but they were scoring goals against good teams and they weren't lucky goals. 2 against Puma in their only win, 1 against Rovers in their 2-1 loss, 1 against Inter in another 2-1 loss, and 3 against Hamlets in a 4-3 loss. Without consistent coaching, the season went down hill. First 4 games they were 1-2-1 with a GD of 0 and that included 1 goal games against that year's Maple champs and this year's Maple champs. Last 3 games they were 0-3 with a GD of -7. Ending on that note, 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.

[Unregistered]

They had a try out. More than enough girls to field a team were there.

Will they be improved next year or about the same?

[Unregistered]

Say what you want, but they were scoring goals against good teams and they weren't lucky goals. 2 against Puma in their only win, 1 against Rovers in their 2-1 loss, 1 against Inter in another 2-1 loss, and 3 against Hamlets in a 4-3 loss. Without consistent coaching, the season went down hill. First 4 games they were 1-2-1 with a GD of 0 and that included 1 goal games against that year's Maple champs and this year's Maple champs. Last 3 games they were 0-3 with a GD of -7. Ending on that note, 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.

I'll say it a different way: you are what your record says you are. 1-5-1 is not a good record. Even so, Puma finished last. Didn't Bolts have a chance to stay in D1 by winning their promotion/relegation game?

[Unregistered]

I'll say it a different way: you are what your record says you are. 1-5-1 is not a good record. Even so, Puma finished last. Didn't Bolts have a chance to stay in D1 by winning their promotion/relegation game?

Except that you seem unable to tell the difference between a professional NFL team (where the "You are what your record says you are" quote came from) and girls youth soccer. You are obviously one of those Massachussets parent Neanderthals who can only measure success by wins. Aren't you tired of dragging your knuckles on the ground? Time to evolve! Try walking upright!

[Unregistered]

Good, bad or otherwise. It doesn't matter as long as the kids feel the are progressing and getting their $$$ worth.

[Unregistered]

Except that you seem unable to tell the difference between a professional NFL team (where the "You are what your record says you are" quote came from) and girls youth soccer. You are obviously one of those Massachussets parent Neanderthals who can only measure success by wins. Aren't you tired of dragging your knuckles on the ground? Time to evolve! Try walking upright!

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. ;-)

[Unregistered]

I'll say it a different way: you are what your record says you are. 1-5-1 is not a good record. Even so, Puma finished last. Didn't Bolts have a chance to stay in D1 by winning their promotion/relegation game?

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.