SC Soccer Forums SCSoccer.com Forums Club Soccer & ODP BFA & MPSC

>>[GOAL!!!} For completeness sake, I should post one other item:
Fall 2006 Bridge FA Competitiveness:
U17: Not Competitive at PREMIER
U16: GOLD; Competitive at PREMIER
RED; Competitive at CHALLENGE
U15: Competitive at CHALLENGE
U14: Not Competitive at PREMIER, Competitive at CHALLENGE

IF THE GOAL IS COMPETITIVE AT REGIONALS, THEN THE ONLY SUCCESS IN THE LOWCOUNTRY IS THE U16 GOLD TEAM AND ALSO FIELDING A COMPETITIVE U16 STATE CHALLENGE TEAM {RED}.

THE LOWCOUNTRY ALLIANCE OF U16S ARE THE ONLY SUCCESSFUL GROUP. <<

Are there any girls teams at Bridge?

Goal, I was mostly trying to point out that the Bridge U14 Boys have only played two games in the Premier League - not quite enough, in mind, to make a sweeping statement as to their success (or lack thereof).

The fact that they were missing four players is a long story; and a moot point now.

I know that I have not posted as much this year as in recent years, but this got my attention.....

>>[Belligerant] As I see it, the only thing a coach could gain from refusing to sign is the satisfaction of exacting revenge on the player and his/her parents who would have the audacity to leave his/her team.<<

Obviously, the people who agree with this statement live in a world where there is no winner or loser and no one is concerned about results. Picture this.... your team is a mid-level team in whatever league you play in. As your season progresses, you have ups and downs. Around midseason, it is obvious that the championship is out of reach. Your creative midfielder and star forward come to you, the coach, and say they want to transfer to the #1 team in the league whose only weaknesses are these two positions. You as the coach sign the transfer allowing the players to leave immediately. Two weeks later, the #1 team, with your former players, beats you 4-0 and your former players shine. Was it better for you to let the players go or more detrimental to the kids who are sticking it out with you?!? What did you and the parents teach the kids who you let go?-- that when times get tough, it is ok to run.

People love to talk about "what is best for the player" until what is best for the player comes back to beat your team and hurt the performance of your player/child. What if you are the parent of the GKer and the former player scores 3 goals on your child. Are you still concerned about what is best for that kid who jumped ship midseason? Heck no, you are mad at the coach who let the kid go soon enough to hurt your team!

I'm a coach, and I want what's best for players, but why should coaches bow to parents and players who want to jump midseason? After our season is over or in between seasons- here's your release, best of luck. In the middle of our season- no way i'm letting you go to another team simply b/c our season may not be going the way you and your parents want.

Belligerent, I saw your team lost to CESA PREMIER, was your team at full strength yesterday, did you have your starting goalkeeper? I still don't understand how a State PREMIER team doesn't have all it's players full commitment since playing at the PREMIER level is the ultimate goal of most CHALLENGE (& Classic) players. I guess I should ask, was this a commitment issue? If so, I think those players & families involved should reconsider their choices in life and the effect they have on others.

>>[TVOR] [...] Was it better for you to let the players go or more detrimental to the kids who are sticking it out with you?!? What did you and the parents teach the kids who you let go?-- that when times get tough, it is ok to run.<<

It was better for you to "let" the kid go. I use the quotes because I think the heart of this issue is the theory that a coach "lets" a child leave. Of course, this isn't the case; under the current system the coach penalizes a child for 30 days by refusing to sign -- but can do nothing about the child transferring eventually. Just as the coach can do nothing about the child leaving the team.

>>People love to talk about "what is best for the player" until what is best for the player comes back to beat your team and hurt the performance of your player/child. What if you are the parent of the GKer and the former player scores 3 goals on your child. Are you still concerned about what is best for that kid who jumped ship midseason? Heck no, you are mad at the coach who let the kid go soon enough to hurt your team!<<

Actually, if I'm the parent of the GK, I want to understand how she/he can do a better job. As a parent, my primary concern isn't the team; it's helping my child achieve her or his objectives.

>>I'm a coach, and I want what's best for players, but why should coaches bow to parents and players who want to jump midseason? After our season is over or in between seasons- here's your release, best of luck. In the middle of our season- no way i'm letting you go to another team simply b/c our season may not be going the way you and your parents want.<<

Respectfully, I think it's the attitude you display here that makes this such a capricious and arbitrary rule. If the SCYSA wants to forbid any and all transfers (which they do after a certain point in the season in any case), then so be it. Not very smart; but I understand. If the SCYSA wants to mandate a 30-day waiting period after a transfer before games can be played, again, so be it. But to ask a coach to decide whether to sign a piece of paper that will penalize the child for her/his desire to leave that coach does nothing but put the child, the coach, and the parents in a bad situation.

TVoR, since Chico answered before I had a chance to, and probably did a better job anyway, I'll just say "Yeah...what HE said!"
(sorry - that was the most mature thing I could come up with at the moment)

But, I would also like to add what I have stated before - if I were the coach of a team, and a player/parent came up to me and said they wanted to go to another team; unless there was just some kind of misunderstanding that could easily be remedied, I would prefer that child/parent leave immediately. I, personally, do not want a player on my team who does not want to be there.

Simple as that - if you want to be on my team and are willing to work hard and make a commitment to the team, we’re glad to have you. But, if you don’t really want to be here, well, don’t let the door hit you on the way out.

Goal, as a matter of fact, we were NOT full strength yesterday – we were missing four players, and our keeper was one of them. I do not believe we have commitment issues – the first two games were, like I said, a long story (that was discussed in the beginning of this thread a little) for two players, and two players were hurt. The game yesterday, well, it was just one of those things – IT happens. Hopefully, we will be back to full strength minus one (broken/fractured pieces/parts) next weekend, and then have that one back soon after.

As things go, over the years, this team has been very fortunate regarding injuries. Maybe it just caught up to us this year.

My point was this... i am not going to allow a player to transfer to a team that could possibly hurt my team just b/c my team may not be doing as well as he had hoped or if it's a playing time issue. I would also not allow that player to train with my team. If you as a player are not willing to stick it out through the tough times with the team you were selected to (and presumably chose) then why should I as the coach be willing to make it easy for you to go to a different team? Ahhh, b/c I am supposed to be most concerned with player development. Well, if that is the case, parents have to be ready to hear that answer when the player who left our team becomes the top weapon on the team who knocks us out of the playoffs... "I'm sorry parents that our former player, Joe Q. Soccer, scored 2 goals and ended our season, but I signed the papers to allow him to transfer in time to play in this game b/c I am most concerned about his development as a player."

As a coach, I do not want a player on my team who does not want to be there, but I'm also not going to let that player easily go to a team where he may affect the players who are honoring their commitment. If it's 30 days, then fine. It gives my team 30 days to practice without that player before we have to face him. If the player is leaving b/c of a legitimate physical move (parents moving from Charleston to Greenville, etc), then I understand, and I would sign the paperwork. But what about the player who wants to leave a Greenville based team to join a Charleston, Charlotte or Atlanta based club?

My thoughts are reserved for the 15+ age groups where most top teams should probably be results driven. At the 14 and below ages, coaches AND parents should be concerned with player development. But in my experience, it is the parent of a simply bad 17 year old player who says, "you are too concerned with results and not with player development." And it's the parent of the talented 12 year old who says, "you are too concerned with developing players and not concerned enough with results."

If you believe that every coach should automatically sign the transfer papers, then you should be the one to tell the kids sticking it out with the team, that the papers were signed "b/c we are more concerned about that one player's development than we are about succeeding as a team." If a coach of a 15+ team tells their team this, then they lose most of their credibility b/c the kids will see it as the coach being more concerned about one player instead of team success.

No one wants people to focus on individuals and we try to teach kids this... just look at the penalties for celebrating a goal. However, now we are concerned about the success of one player over the team? Yes, the team may be better off without that player on the team, but we are probably not better off with him on a team we play in the near future.

That player and his parents have made a choice to leave my team and join a new one. I am going to do what i think is best for my current players, and I would expect the parents of a 15+ year old team to expect the same.

Okay, Voice...listen up - there was NO chance the transferring players would be playing against the team they were leaving anywhere near the 30 days. Absolutely none. Zippo. Nada. Zilch.

The two teams are scheduled to play each other the first of April. Hmmm….let me check my calendar again…yes, it appears that would be somewhere around 90 DAYS after this whole thing started.

Since you made the comment about seasons - this was after the Fall season, or in-between the Fall and the Spring season, whichever way you prefer to put it.

You say “My thoughts are reserved for the 15+ age groups.” So, why are you even discussing this? We are discussing U14 Boys - make up your mind.

For a moment, forget anything about player development vs team development. You have just stated to everyone that you, as a coach, would get into a pissing match with a 14-year-old. Is one of the two of you not supposed to be an adult?

Lastly, I want to thank you. I believe that anyone reading your incoherent, paranoid rantings above will see how you have completely contradicted yourself, and proven that you, yourself wish only to punish, or should I say, exact revenge on the player and his/her parents who would have the audacity to leave his/her team.

I feel compelled to respond to the comment concerning the commitment of the parents and players of this "premier" team. When you speak of commitment there seems to be not only the commitment of the players and families, but the commitment of the team. There has always been great commitment on this team by both parents and players, but feel the "team" commitment has let us down.
This team has been competitive for years as a group and then other players started to be added on. First there was the boy from Beaufort, not really an issue at first, but really saw no need or benefit from it, but ok. Then we added one from Mt Pleasant and 3 from Myrtle Beach, with these additions, 2 of our "committed" players were told they were no longer on the team. So now we have 6 new players that not only have cost 2 boys a position on the team, but have also cut the playing time of others with no real contribution to the team's success. The new players, especially the ones from Myrtle Beach, were maybe at practice and maybe not, you never really knew if they were going to be there or not. Then after the fall 06 season, 2 of the Myrtle Beach boys decide they no longer want to play for this team and leave, so the 2 "committed" players are dismissed for players not really committed. So we get 2 players from Mt Pleasant that want to come over and we bend over backwards to get them on the team. So now lets look at commitment....7 new players in the course of year and half...one who yells and screams at players on the field, one who has been injured since Thanksgiving, one has been to 3 or 4 practices and 4 games (none Premier) this season, 2 who decided no longer to play and 2 new ones that feel they should be on the team because they want to be. These players have brought nothing to the team, they have stepped into and on a group of boys that have been committed and successful for years and now others that have had NO role in the success of this team and getting them to level they are at, are reaping the benefits of the others hard work. So I can see where the commmitment of some can be dimished...what good is that commitment when tomorrow some other kid can decide to step in and take that kids place. You talk about player development...the best for the kids...well how does taking a roster spot and playing time away from a kid develop him, when he and his family have been comitted to you for years.

Wow! This is getting good!