I believe that I've seen some of the scenarios discussed at one time or another. Some teams are just hierachical. That's the way the are, and most everyone gets used to it or leaves. It may be good or bad depending on your perspective, but they won't change. There are parents that seek out these teams, and there are children that thrive on them. The ones that don't leave. I don't think it necessarily has to do with talent, as much as priorities and expectations. Over time, I've come to realize that it's useless to try to change this kind of team. No one will be happy.
Chico seems to be saying that you should insist on accountability, and winning is a form of accountability. If winning is not your measurement, then what is? In the younger age groups, the English soccer federation had come up with a testing system to measure technical skills in young players on such things as speed and accuracy in passing, shooting, dribbling etc. I don't know how widely it is used, or how valid it is, never having tried it myself.
In many cases, especially with younger players, it's not hard for a parent to answer the question "Is my child noticeably better at the end of the season than at the beginning". The honest question for some kids on some "winning teams" might be "no". That child might be better served by a team that wins half its games, instead of the undefeated team. Of course, I believe that you could have a great team that wins a lot and does a good job with player development. It's a much tougher call to decide with a team that loses all of the time because of player development.
