Prime Cup Results 11v11

soccerskills wrote:

SdadX2 wrote:

soccerskills wrote:Reading the forum while eating some popcorn. Not sure if I am reading a comedy or tragedy.

You shouldn't be eating popcorn at 2:30 a.m. It's pretty much always a comedy.

At least i'm not drinking at 2:30am. I know it's comical for most but some are very serious about this stuff.......it's sad

wxyz wrote:Happy (or grumpy), I have no bones to pick with you or the Rowdies. I do have concerns about parents like you who seem to be blinded by DM's perceived greatness. So, did DM congratulate Webb kids or Grubb kids after the games as you claimed he always does? Another poster stated that even though Kat was upset after losing, she congratulated Rowdies kids while DM, even though his team won, chose to ignore the Webb kids who played their hearts out. How did he react after losing to Grubb? Over the years, many parents told stories after stories (on Turfmonster) about his abhorent behavior, especially after losing to Grubb. DM is a great trainer but he is not good in coaching games and definitely does not teach or demonstrate good sportsmanship, period. He also focuses too much on winning and net-net, I do not think he is good for NTx soccer. It is comical to watch Rowdies parents trying to defend him over the years. I was in that boat since one of my DDs was a Rowdie for almost two years (she no longer plays soccer). I also have an '01 and an '02.

happygilmore wrote:

wxyz wrote:Happy (or grumpy), I have no bones to pick with you or the Rowdies. I do have concerns about parents like you who seem to be blinded by DM's perceived greatness. So, did DM congratulate Webb kids or Grubb kids after the games as you claimed he always does? Another poster stated that even though Kat was upset after losing, she congratulated Rowdies kids while DM, even though his team won, chose to ignore the Webb kids who played their hearts out. How did he react after losing to Grubb? Over the years, many parents told stories after stories (on Turfmonster) about his abhorent behavior, especially after losing to Grubb. DM is a great trainer but he is not good in coaching games and definitely does not teach or demonstrate good sportsmanship, period. He also focuses too much on winning and net-net, I do not think he is good for NTx soccer. It is comical to watch Rowdies parents trying to defend him over the years. I was in that boat since one of my DDs was a Rowdie for almost two years (she no longer plays soccer). I also have an '01 and an '02.

I see .............a disgruntled "Former" Rowdies parent, explains a lot.
You know what, the people who don't like him -shouldn't play for him.
I can't stand to hear Kat's voice, so guess what........., my DD doesnt play for her . But I'm not going to get on the forum and tell people who DO like Kat's coaching style where they shoudl or should not play. "To each his own." Rowdies parents don't need a lecture from you. They know what they are in for, and if it works for them-they stay-if not they make their own decision and leave. Same for Kat parents, Grubb whoever.

SdadX2 wrote:

happygilmore wrote:

wxyz wrote:Happy (or grumpy), I have no bones to pick with you or the Rowdies. I do have concerns about parents like you who seem to be blinded by DM's perceived greatness. So, did DM congratulate Webb kids or Grubb kids after the games as you claimed he always does? Another poster stated that even though Kat was upset after losing, she congratulated Rowdies kids while DM, even though his team won, chose to ignore the Webb kids who played their hearts out. How did he react after losing to Grubb? Over the years, many parents told stories after stories (on Turfmonster) about his abhorent behavior, especially after losing to Grubb. DM is a great trainer but he is not good in coaching games and definitely does not teach or demonstrate good sportsmanship, period. He also focuses too much on winning and net-net, I do not think he is good for NTx soccer. It is comical to watch Rowdies parents trying to defend him over the years. I was in that boat since one of my DDs was a Rowdie for almost two years (she no longer plays soccer). I also have an '01 and an '02.

I see .............a disgruntled "Former" Rowdies parent, explains a lot.
You know what, the people who don't like him -shouldn't play for him.
I can't stand to hear Kat's voice, so guess what........., my DD doesnt play for her . But I'm not going to get on the forum and tell people who DO like Kat's coaching style where they shoudl or should not play. "To each his own." Rowdies parents don't need a lecture from you. They know what they are in for, and if it works for them-they stay-if not they make their own decision and leave. Same for Kat parents, Grubb whoever.

I agree with this.

soccerA wrote:

wxyz wrote:

SdadX2 wrote:I was actually trying to make more of a comment that SRSA didnt capitalize on some very good opportunities to score. I just figured the main comments regarding the game would be about the handball, and I am just trying to point out that SRSA had some good chances that could have and should have made the end of the game irrelevant. As I said, the ball was on one side of the field the majority of the game depending on the wind. I start my watch for every 1/2 after the kick and stand by my stop watch comment. Not saying the ref tried to give Rowdies every opportunity tk win the game, but he clearly intrepreted a rule different than the PT officials stated. That being said, the time keeping rule stated to me happened in my sons game when the other coach wanted more time and the PT officials said none us given, so maybe different in girls games. As for the 2nd goalie comment, IMO, that was a good strategic play when SRSa had the wind at their backs. It wasn't meant to be derogatory to the Rowdies.

Would you say having 3, for example, in the box is also a good strategy? How about 4, 5, or 6?
Winning is important, I understand, but is it that important when they are 8 or 9 years old? Important enough to have one or more of your field players to stay in the box as opposed to playing against good competition out on the open field? Personally, I do not think it is a good strategy to teach kids since it pretty much rules out offside and allows the opposing forwards to stay too close to the goal.

I agree. Playing the sweeper and goalie in the goal is not a good strategy, but DM was doing everything he could to win.

BJones wrote:I Think everyone agrees that FCD, Rowdies, and SRSA played very well and played their hearts out. Tournament ended with FCD having no losses (one tie). Rowdies having one loss (and one tie) and SRSA hving two losses
So I think the tourn. ended fairly with FCD 1st Rowdies 2nd and SRSA 3rd

02MoMmA wrote:

soccerA wrote:

wxyz wrote:

SdadX2 wrote:I was actually trying to make more of a comment that SRSA didnt capitalize on some very good opportunities to score. I just figured the main comments regarding the game would be about the handball, and I am just trying to point out that SRSA had some good chances that could have and should have made the end of the game irrelevant. As I said, the ball was on one side of the field the majority of the game depending on the wind. I start my watch for every 1/2 after the kick and stand by my stop watch comment. Not saying the ref tried to give Rowdies every opportunity tk win the game, but he clearly intrepreted a rule different than the PT officials stated. That being said, the time keeping rule stated to me happened in my sons game when the other coach wanted more time and the PT officials said none us given, so maybe different in girls games. As for the 2nd goalie comment, IMO, that was a good strategic play when SRSa had the wind at their backs. It wasn't meant to be derogatory to the Rowdies.

Would you say having 3, for example, in the box is also a good strategy? How about 4, 5, or 6?
Winning is important, I understand, but is it that important when they are 8 or 9 years old? Important enough to have one or more of your field players to stay in the box as opposed to playing against good competition out on the open field? Personally, I do not think it is a good strategy to teach kids since it pretty much rules out offside and allows the opposing forwards to stay too close to the goal.

I agree. Playing the sweeper and goalie in the goal is not a good strategy, but DM was doing everything he could to win.

I'm a few days behind on this one.. just wanted to state that DM did NOT have the sweeper playing as back up goalie. Rowdies goalie is awesome. However, to clarify a few minute details... Rowdies Sweeper played her designated area... but being that Rowdies vs Webb game was played prodominently on one end of the field the sweeper did spend alot of time near the goal. The "playing goalie" comment is inaccurate. She saw that a shot was about to be taken and she was not the teammate to defend it, so she ran behind her goalie who had come out to intercept the shot, only for the ball to go through her hands and legs, and the sweeper was there to kick it out before crossing the line. I say it was a great idea by the sweeper, and the goalie was thankful as well.

I'm sure someone on here will take all that I have stated and twist it to make a sarcastic comment, but all that saw the Webb game and both FCD games know that all teams played great and all players played their hearts out.

soccerA wrote:

wxyz wrote:

Would you say having 3, for example, in the box is also a good strategy? How about 4, 5, or 6?
Winning is important, I understand, but is it that important when they are 8 or 9 years old? Important enough to have one or more of your field players to stay in the box as opposed to playing against good competition out on the open field? Personally, I do not think it is a good strategy to teach kids since it pretty much rules out offside and allows the opposing forwards to stay too close to the goal.

I agree. Playing the sweeper and goalie in the goal is not a good strategy, but DM was doing everything he could to win.