Kristie Mewis leaves for Australia

[Unregistered]

Don't remember where anyone said that coaching is not important. Some of you make it seem as though the coach is more important than what the player brings to table. Also consider that most coaches coach thousands of players and only produce a handful of really talented ones (if they are lucky). If a player like KM is the success, does that then make all of the other players then failures? What level of responsibility does that wonder coach have for all of those failures then? Can't really have it both ways.

[Unregistered]

Don't remember where anyone said that coaching is not important. Some of you make it seem as though the coach is more important than what the player brings to table. Also consider that most coaches coach thousands of players and only produce a handful of really talented ones (if they are lucky). If a player like KM is the success, does that then make all of the other players then failures? What level of responsibility does that wonder coach have for all of those failures then? Can't really have it both ways.

No, the point has been made that you can get to the top simply on talent. You can't. And the better the environment you are placed in gives you the best chance of getting to the top. Note I said environment, not coaching. Coaching is only one part of the total picture.

[Unregistered]

You're missing the point if you call the others failures.

If you go to dental school, get 100% on every exam, are you guaranteed of being a successful dentist? The other half is application, being able to apply what you've learned.

[Unregistered]

No, the point has been made that you can get to the top simply on talent. You can't. And the better the environment you are placed in gives you the best chance of getting to the top. Note I said environment, not coaching. Coaching is only one part of the total picture.

Gee based upon what I've always read, the point has always been that the talent comes first because without it no amount of coaching is going to turn a cows ear into a silk purse. Environment is important but also over rated because you could have the best facilities in the world and a bunch of high level players and still not develop winning players.

[Unregistered]

You're missing the point if you call the others failures.

If you go to dental school, get 100% on every exam, are you guaranteed of being a successful dentist? The other half is application, being able to apply what you've learned.

How many dental professors go on Talking-Denistry.com and claim credit for their pupils?

[Unregistered]

Gee based upon what I've always read, the point has always been that the talent comes first because without it no amount of coaching is going to turn a cows ear into a silk purse. Environment is important but also over rated because you could have the best facilities in the world and a bunch of high level players and still not develop winning players.

You have to have a certain level of athleticism. Just how much is debatable in a sport like soccer which tends to require more general atleticism than specialized athleticism. That indicates potential, but not success.

[Unregistered]

Top tier players learn quickly. After being taught something new, they get it and almost instantly and perform it at speed. If not, they don't want to quit until they get it. Every player has certain challenges to overcome, but the ones that succeed overcome them.

Players learn from others (coaches), and they learn from themselves (competing). What you get back is what you put into the process.

The ones that succeed are the ones who overcome their challenges? That is so profound. Is that like, "the team that wins the game manages to score the most goals"? Or "the runner who finishes first is the one who doesn't let anyone finish ahead of him"?

This is called begging the question. We are talking about paths to success and what contributes to getting there or not getting there. Saying that the players who get there are the players who get there is nonsensical. No one is destined to get there. People who DO get there know they could have been one unlucky bounce, injury, call, observation, opinion or guess away from not getting there. All you can do is maximize your chances and every dimension on which you are not maximizing hurts the overall prospect of success.

[Unregistered]

Don't remember where anyone said that coaching is not important. Some of you make it seem as though the coach is more important than what the player brings to table. Also consider that most coaches coach thousands of players and only produce a handful of really talented ones (if they are lucky). If a player like KM is the success, does that then make all of the other players then failures? What level of responsibility does that wonder coach have for all of those failures then? Can't really have it both ways.

Of course you can have it both ways.

[Unregistered]

The ones that succeed are the ones who overcome their challenges? That is so profound. Is that like, "the team that wins the game manages to score the most goals"? Or "the runner who finishes first is the one who doesn't let anyone finish ahead of him"?

This is called begging the question. We are talking about paths to success and what contributes to getting there or not getting there. Saying that the players who get there are the players who get there is nonsensical. No one is destined to get there. People who DO get there know they could have been one unlucky bounce, injury, call, observation, opinion or guess away from not getting there. All you can do is maximize your chances and every dimension on which you are not maximizing hurts the overall prospect of success.

individual challenges

[Unregistered]

Players like KM play on many teams and have many coaches. There simply is no way to attribute their success to any one person or any particular environment.

[Unregistered]

Players like KM play on many teams and have many coaches. There simply is no way to attribute their success to any one person or any particular environment.

Why do you care so much? She spent her youth club years at Scorpions--so her family obviously felt there was some value added by being there. (I say this as a parent who wouldn't consider dealing with that club.)

Well-balanced people aren't preoccupied with the proper distribution of "credit" for their children's success. Instead, they're appreciating the fruits of the natural endowment, hard work, and good fortune that contributed to the successful outcomes.

My kid has a dream to play at Stanford. If that dream becomes reality, the club can take nearly as much "credit" as it can manage on its website--even though I know the club was only one significant contributing factor, among others.

[Unregistered]

Players like KM play on many teams and have many coaches. There simply is no way to attribute their success to any one person or any particular environment.

Aha, so the important thing for us to understand is that there is a way of looking at this situation such that Scorpions gets no credit. OK why didn't you just tell what you were all about on page 1?

[Unregistered]

^^^^Perspective again^^^^

What Perspective is incapable of understanding because he is continually projecting his mindset on others, is that there are people new to soccer who ask questions because they want to learn and they want to learn through a dialogue with others who may have more inside knowledge than Googling articles will provide. People like BTDT and others who may still visit the forum after decades of involvement, but are loathe to post anything but anonymously because of what Perspective has done to BTDT.

The fact of the matter, Perspective, is you've ruined this forum for those people looking for information because of your OCD influenced conspiracy theories.

Those who are genuinely looking for information don't do it the way you posed. You can feel the specificity and voice of a real poster who is asking questions. They don't ask in some generic way because they are looking out for the whole group, and they don't show that kind of investment within hours of being too lacking in investment to grab a program and doing a search and actively ignoring all of the obvious sites and that would have so obviously provided the data deserved and then claimed to rely on search links so deeply buried no one else has actually found them yet.

Now, if you want to defend the right of people to post fictionally as a way to get a conversation going or as a way to push an agenda, then let's have that discussion. We already know that BTDT has defended multiple screen names and fictitious scenarios as a legitimate, regular practice in forums such as these. He did so last summer when initially challenged about SD33 (like 3 posts after SD33 challenged the P-man to sign on) and then again very recently when he referenced how everyone used to do it on the old sites (like the one everyone was going to go join and apparently nothing happened, although Pathfinder did register).

And the P-man has ruined the forum because it is obviously going strong, BTDT is still doing his thing every single day, and we're still getting these newbie and false start threads virtually every day. What could ruin the site is the amount of deception and lying which stains all of us and argues strongly for assigning zero credibility to anything that is written.

[Unregistered]

Players like KM play on many teams and have many coaches. There simply is no way to attribute their success to any one person or any particular environment.

And no one EVER does attribute success to any one person or environment. Another great example of selling that something has been said that hasn't.

[Unregistered]

Those who are genuinely looking for information don't do it the way you posed. You can feel the specificity and voice of a real poster who is asking questions. They don't ask in some generic way because they are looking out for the whole group, and they don't show that kind of investment within hours of being too lacking in investment to grab a program and doing a search and actively ignoring all of the obvious sites and that would have so obviously provided the data deserved and then claimed to rely on search links so deeply buried no one else has actually found them yet.

Now, if you want to defend the right of people to post fictionally as a way to get a conversation going or as a way to push an agenda, then let's have that discussion. We already know that BTDT has defended multiple screen names and fictitious scenarios as a legitimate, regular practice in forums such as these. He did so last summer when initially challenged about SD33 (like 3 posts after SD33 challenged the P-man to sign on) and then again very recently when he referenced how everyone used to do it on the old sites (like the one everyone was going to go join and apparently nothing happened, although Pathfinder did register).

And the P-man has ruined the forum because it is obviously going strong, BTDT is still doing his thing every single day, and we're still getting these newbie and false start threads virtually every day. What could ruin the site is the amount of deception and lying which stains all of us and argues strongly for assigning zero credibility to anything that is written.

Like I said, Perspective, you have ruined this forum for those people looking for information because of your OCD influenced conspiracy theories. You just continue to prove that the case every time you post whether under your name or pretending to be someone else. No one normal would care why a person asks for information other than someone like yourself that sees an agenda in anything posted.