Academy Rosters

[Unregistered]

hey, if it makes you feel good to believe that...go right ahead...Otherwise maybe re-read my comments without your blinders on and realize I never celebrated losing, I just said you learn more from losing than winning.

This doesn't make sense. If it did, losing teams would be the smartest teams and be developing at an alarming rate. They wouldn't keep losing. Losing exposes weaknesses, but it doesn't teach. You're implying that flunking a math test helps you learn how to do math. In reality, in only shows you what you don't know. You learn it through instruction and practice then you try again. You can't take the same test over and over and expect to pass it because you've learned by flunking it so many times.

[Unregistered]

This doesn't make sense. If it did, losing teams would be the smartest teams and be developing at an alarming rate. They wouldn't keep losing. Losing exposes weaknesses, but it doesn't teach. You're implying that flunking a math test helps you learn how to do math. In reality, in only shows you what you don't know. You learn it through instruction and practice then you try again. You can't take the same test over and over and expect to pass it because you've learned by flunking it so many times.

Another swing and a miss...there are broadly two types of teams, the high performers and the lower performers.

A high performing team will have an expectation of themselves to win, but will lose occasionally because they ate pushing their upward limits, playing better competition and constantly challenging themselves. They will walk away from this kind of loss with clear areas on where to improve and what to do different the next time.

A lower performing team does not have this perspective because their expectation is they will likely lose, or if they are lucky they may win. They will walk away from a loss with their heads hung, and without a clear improvement plan.

Now here is the tricky part, read slowly because it seems to be causing some confusion. The difference between these two teams is entirely in their own perspective. To become a higher performing team they must have the expectation they will win, but no fear of losing, the way to eliminate the fear of losing is to see this loss as something you can learn from. As long as you are afraid to lose you will never unleash your full potential and win the way you could.

People learn new things by trying something and be forced to adapt new approaches because the old method did not work. If you succeed every time, you will never change (grow) what you are doing.

If this sounds too zen-like I apologize, it is a path you have to have walked for it to make sense.

Growth in a team goes through several stages, it sounds like your world is just at a different stage.

[Unregistered]

Another swing and a miss...there are broadly two types of teams, the high performers and the lower performers.

A high performing team will have an expectation of themselves to win, but will lose occasionally because they ate pushing their upward limits, playing better competition and constantly challenging themselves. They will walk away from this kind of loss with clear areas on where to improve and what to do different the next time.

A lower performing team does not have this perspective because their expectation is they will likely lose, or if they are lucky they may win. They will walk away from a loss with their heads hung, and without a clear improvement plan.

Now here is the tricky part, read slowly because it seems to be causing some confusion. The difference between these two teams is entirely in their own perspective. To become a higher performing team they must have the expectation they will win, but no fear of losing, the way to eliminate the fear of losing is to see this loss as something you can learn from. As long as you are afraid to lose you will never unleash your full potential and win the way you could.

People learn new things by trying something and be forced to adapt new approaches because the old method did not work. If you succeed every time, you will never change (grow) what you are doing.

If this sounds too zen-like I apologize, it is a path you have to have walked for it to make sense.

Growth in a team goes through several stages, it sounds like your world is just at a different stage.

Zen like condescension. I like it. People learn more by taking what they've learned and succeeding, not losing. Success breeds success and confidence. Sure you can't shy away from challenges and you might fall short from time to time, but you shouldn't overvalue losing.

[Unregistered]

Zen like condescension. I like it. People learn more by taking what they've learned and succeeding, not losing. Success breeds success and confidence. Sure you can't shy away from challenges and you might fall short from time to time, but you shouldn't overvalue losing.

His condescension resulted from either your refusal to understand his point or, quite simply, your inability to do so. To follow his point, you are either an over-performer or quite the opposite. His position, however, underscores the real issue and fails to make a conclusion. Which category does a team fall under? In my opinion, the U16s have fallen recently under the latter category. Their talent level, coupled by their potential of cohesion created by the number of Bain’s WST, makes their recent record suspect. In contrast, the U18 are managing wins with the opposite resources. Having said this, the U18s do not have the same undercurrents that you see on the u16s where the former WST players prevent/hinder assimilation of new strategies that are outside the paradigm of using player other than WST. I also think the egos on the U16, fueled by their parents, makes the job even trickier. Backstabbing on that team on the field and in the stands is quite bad.

GW

[Unregistered]

His condescension resulted from either your refusal to understand his point or, quite simply, your inability to do so. To follow his point, you are either an over-performer or quite the opposite. His position, however, underscores the real issue and fails to make a conclusion. Which category does a team fall under? In my opinion, the U16s have fallen recently under the latter category. Their talent level, coupled by their potential of cohesion created by the number of Bain’s WST, makes their recent record suspect. In contrast, the U18 are managing wins with the opposite resources. Having said this, the U18s do not have the same undercurrents that you see on the u16s where the former WST players prevent/hinder assimilation of new strategies that are outside the paradigm of using player other than WST. I also think the egos on the U16, fueled by their parents, makes the job even trickier. Backstabbing on that team on the field and in the stands is quite bad.

GW

I understand his point just fine. There's no doubt you can learn from losing, but you can't make a habit of it nor can the potential learning from those lessons be used as a rationalization for the lack of success. Winning is a far more successful formula. I'll give you an example. In skiing if you only ski runs where you never fall down your progress will be slow. On the other hand, you won't get anywhere if you only ski runs where you always fall down. The successful formula is finding runs that present a challenge yet enable you to succeed the vast majority of the time. It should be a challenge, but you should be able to successfully manage it. That is the instructor's job and good ones find that balance. Coaching is no different. It's not controversial.

Regarding your other point about the two teams. Perhaps the premise is wrong. Personalities and egos aside, maybe there wasn't the disparity in talent between the two teams that was assumed going in.

[Unregistered]

I understand his point just fine. There's no doubt you can learn from losing, but you can't make a habit of it nor can the potential learning from those lessons be used as a rationalization for the lack of success. Winning is a far more successful formula. I'll give you an example. In skiing if you only ski runs where you never fall down your progress will be slow. On the other hand, you won't get anywhere if you only ski runs where you always fall down. The successful formula is finding runs that present a challenge yet enable you to succeed the vast majority of the time. It should be a challenge, but you should be able to successfully manage it. That is the instructor's job and good ones find that balance. Coaching is no different. It's not controversial.

Regarding your other point about the two teams. Perhaps the premise is wrong. Personalities and egos aside, maybe there wasn't the disparity in talent between the two teams that was assumed going in.

To simplify this, i think where we are missing is you are trying to diagnose games already lost, trying to look at a teams past performance. The perspective I am sharing is living in the present. In the present play a game that challenges and pushes you...You will either win or lose, if you lose take what you can away from that game and prepare for the next game. If you do this you will get better before the next game, and the process repeats...My comments were not for parents, who will always hate losing, they were for a team.

If you have a team that is losing a lot one of the hardest, but most transformational things you can help them do is not fear losing. You can see this fear as these teams play, a ball is mi**** and a player gets down on himself, a goal is scored and the goalie slumps. This team will defeat themselves before they ever set foot on the field.

[Unregistered]

To simplify this, i think where we are missing is you are trying to diagnose games already lost, trying to look at a teams past performance. The perspective I am sharing is living in the present. In the present play a game that challenges and pushes you...You will either win or lose, if you lose take what you can away from that game and prepare for the next game. If you do this you will get better before the next game, and the process repeats...My comments were not for parents, who will always hate losing, they were for a team.

If you have a team that is losing a lot one of the hardest, but most transformational things you can help them do is not fear losing. You can see this fear as these teams play, a ball is mi**** and a player gets down on himself, a goal is scored and the goalie slumps. This team will defeat themselves before they ever set foot on the field.

The discussion started with losing which necessarily requires looking backward because you can't lose if you haven't played. Of course teams should play games where there is a risk of losing -- a challenge. You'll won't find disagreement from me there. In fact, that was the point of the skiing example.

The responsibility for what you describe in your example lies with the coach or manager. Fear of losing and lack of confidence is learned behavior. It usually comes from failing to put players or teams in situations where they can succeed (wrong time of a game, wrong position, bad tactics, or repeated games against overwhelmingly superior opponents where what you're teaching cannot be accomplished). Even worse in my opinion is a coach blaming the players or team, rather than himself, when they fail. That's when the team gets lost and players stop listening. It works that way at every level and in every sport.

From a coaching perspective, if your team plays well and tries to do what you set out to do in the game, then whether you win or lose isn't the be all and end all. It doesn't necessarily have to be a win, but a positive result should be part of your game plan. That's true even in games that "don't matter."

Maybe we don't disagree all that much.

[Unregistered]

Merry Christmas!

The discussion started with losing which necessarily requires looking backward because you can't lose if you haven't played. Of course teams should play games where there is a risk of losing -- a challenge. You'll won't find disagreement from me there. In fact, that was the point of the skiing example.

The responsibility for what you describe in your example lies with the coach or manager. Fear of losing and lack of confidence is learned behavior. It usually comes from failing to put players or teams in situations where they can succeed (wrong time of a game, wrong position, bad tactics, or repeated games against overwhelmingly superior opponents where what you're teaching cannot be accomplished). Even worse in my opinion is a coach blaming the players or team, rather than himself, when they fail. That's when the team gets lost and players stop listening. It works that way at every level and in every sport.

From a coaching perspective, if your team plays well and tries to do what you set out to do in the game, then whether you win or lose isn't the be all and end all. It doesn't necessarily have to be a win, but a positive result should be part of your game plan. That's true even in games that "don't matter."

Maybe we don't disagree all that much.

Merry Christmas to all!

[Unregistered]

Merry Christmas!

[Unregistered]

College Commitments

Does anybody know where any of the seniors on the DA team are going to end up playing next year? NLI signing day is coming up soon.

[Unregistered]

Does anybody know where any of the seniors on the DA team are going to end up playing next year? NLI signing day is coming up soon.

JN is going to U of W

[Unregistered]

JN is going to U of W

That's great. I think that SK is going to OSU. There are a few more seniors on the team. Anybody else?