Announcement

**Unregistered** · 06-27-2009, 12:26 PM

Originally posted by Unregistered View Post

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

No, no, no! They had enough talent to play in D1 Maple. But they didn't have enough talent to compete in D1 Maple. A coach can only do so much with the players s/he has!

**Unregistered** · 06-27-2009, 03:21 PM

Originally posted by Unregistered View Post

No, no, no! They had enough talent to play in D1 Maple. But they didn't have enough talent to compete in D1 Maple. A coach can only do so much with the players s/he has!

Yes, yes, yes. The showed by the scores that they were competitive, (1 win, 1 tie, 4 1 goal loses) but by the point system, a system devised for professional soccer teams, they weren't able to continue to compete in D1. A coach can do plenty to change that IF THEY SHOW UP TO PRACTICES AND GAMES!!!

People like you justy don't seem to get that being competitive and earning points are often two separate things in youth soccer. Ask yourself why the DAP doesn't have promotion and relegation.

**Unregistered** · 06-27-2009, 04:14 PM

My kid played against the Bolts the season being discussed. I didn't think they were any better or worse then any of the other teams in the division. I have no idea why someone would put down these girls in defense of a coach who, I too, was told absent fairly often. Would they have survived relegation had she been available on a more regular basis? That's anybody's guess, but IMO I think they would have. I can understand why some of their parents were upset.

**Unregistered** · 06-27-2009, 06:26 PM

Originally posted by Unregistered View Post

Yes, yes, yes. The showed by the scores that they were competitive, (1 win, 1 tie, 4 1 goal loses) but by the point system, a system devised for professional soccer teams, they weren't able to continue to compete in D1.

It is a good system. It allowed two better and more deserving teams from D2 -- one of which defeated the Bolts in a promotion/relegation game -- to move up to D1. The Bolts not only had the second-worst won-loss record but also the second-worst goal differential. (Sure the GD was skewed by a 5-0 pasting, but other teams in the division also had one lopsided loss.)

**Unregistered** · 06-28-2009, 09:23 AM

Originally posted by Unregistered View Post

It is a good system. It allowed two better and more deserving teams from D2 -- one of which defeated the Bolts in a promotion/relegation game -- to move up to D1. The Bolts not only had the second-worst won-loss record but also the second-worst goal differential. (Sure the GD was skewed by a 5-0 pasting, but other teams in the division also had one lopsided loss.)

The debate has nothing to do with whether more "deserving" teams moved into D1 after the season was over. The debate has been whether Bolts had the talent to be competitive in D1 and whether they would have remained in D1 had they had a committed coach. The answer is yes on both counts.

**Unregistered** · 06-28-2009, 09:49 AM

Originally posted by Unregistered View Post

It is a good system. It allowed two better and more deserving teams from D2 -- one of which defeated the Bolts in a promotion/relegation game -- to move up to D1. The Bolts not only had the second-worst won-loss record but also the second-worst goal differential. (Sure the GD was skewed by a 5-0 pasting, but other teams in the division also had one lopsided loss.)

As a successful coach once said, "Never ever fail to realize the importance that psychology plays in performance levels." A basically new team with a new coach needed to have confidence in themselves to succeed and that confidence comes from the coach. If the coach was not there to develop that confidence then it's no surprise what the outcome would be.

**Unregistered** · 06-28-2009, 09:58 AM

Is someone actually questioning the talent level of this team??? Some of the players went to the New England Eagles, the team that reminds us all with frequency how much that team has improved at U16. Some went to the Aztecs. And one is listed as playing for JD's U18 team. They may not have been deep, but I think they had the talent to compete at D1 particularly with Rovers moving out of Maple.

**Unregistered** · 06-28-2009, 10:28 AM

Originally posted by Unregistered View Post

.And one is listed as playing for JD's U18 team.

Is this correct?

**Unregistered** · 06-28-2009, 10:37 AM

Yes it is.

**Unregistered** · 06-28-2009, 11:56 AM

2009 grad able to play U16 this year?

Where is she going to college?

**Unregistered** · 06-28-2009, 12:19 PM

Originally posted by Unregistered View Post

2009 grad able to play U16 this year?

Where is she going to college?

No, she's not listed on their web site. I believe she's actualy a U15 and may have guest played with the U18s.

**Unregistered** · 06-28-2009, 05:25 PM

The U15 rostered with JD's U18 team is entering sophmore year, graduating in 2012.

**Unregistered** · 06-28-2009, 08:24 PM

What team is this phenom playing for next year?

**Unregistered** · 06-28-2009, 11:39 PM

Originally posted by Unregistered View Post

The debate has nothing to do with whether more "deserving" teams moved into D1 after the season was over. The debate has been whether Bolts had the talent to be competitive in D1 and whether they would have remained in D1 had they had a committed coach. The answer is yes on both counts.

In the end, you can't settle hypotheticals (or debate true believers). If things were as bad as you suggest - and the case presented here is not clear - I hope the parents got together and demanded some kind of compensation from the club for shortchanging the girls on that team.