|
|
Joined: Apr 2005
Posts: 654
goal
|
|
goal
Joined: Apr 2005
Posts: 654 |
CHT, I cannot speak for him, but for you to make the comment that “the best training my child has received thus far..came from Charleston United...Hands down,” after all the time your child has spent with him and his boys team, including a pretty much open invitation to practice with them; I take that as a slap in the face to Coach Duncan.
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2007
Posts: 1
bench
|
|
bench
Joined: May 2007
Posts: 1 |
Quote:
The Bridge and Cesa were equally represented this weekend and both came away with the same success. 2 state championships. I wouldn't call that dismall.
CESA G 93 played in U-14 (and won). CESA only competeed in three age groups with their top team.
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2006
Posts: 107
goal kick
|
|
goal kick
Joined: May 2006
Posts: 107 |
CHT
Does/do your child/children currently play for Andy Grist at Charleston United? And if not, why?
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2006
Posts: 1,521
hat-trick
|
|
hat-trick
Joined: Jan 2006
Posts: 1,521 |
Beezer,
No/My child and about five others from the team went to BFA
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2002
Posts: 2,256 Likes: 2
Coach
|
|
Coach
Joined: May 2002
Posts: 2,256 Likes: 2 |
Of course, Andy Grist at CUSC was only one good example among a number of possible ones...any response on the posted scenario, Beezer, or were we sidestepping that one in favor of an attempted personal head-to-head with CHT?
I've got good news and bad news...
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2006
Posts: 107
goal kick
|
|
goal kick
Joined: May 2006
Posts: 107 |
Coach Chass:
In your opinion, what scenario is better for the top CUSC players' development?
a) A good coach from CUSC, with a few top players and a bunch of middle players? Or,
b) Another good coach from Bridge FA, with those same few top players from CUSC and a bunch of more top, or even better, players?
In my opinion, B is the better option for the top and better players from CUSC. The majority of the middle players can still play at CUSC with other players who don't make Bridge FA and other clubs AND play with the CUSC coach who some say is a great coach. A win-win, right?
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2006
Posts: 107
goal kick
|
|
goal kick
Joined: May 2006
Posts: 107 |
No, I wasn't taking a stab at CHT at all. I was just curious to his/her background to go with the posts.
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2002
Posts: 2,256 Likes: 2
Coach
|
|
Coach
Joined: May 2002
Posts: 2,256 Likes: 2 |
Quote:
Coach Chass:
In your opinion, what scenario is better for the top CUSC players' development?
a) A good coach from CUSC, with a few top players and a bunch of middle players? Or,
b) Another good coach from Bridge FA, with those same few top players from CUSC and a bunch of more top, or even better, players?
In my opinion, B is the better option for the top and better players from CUSC. The majority of the middle players can still play at CUSC with other players who don't make Bridge FA and other clubs AND play with the CUSC coach who some say is a great coach. A win-win, right?
Actually, I can see pros and cons to both options. With option B, those players would get an opportunity to learn to interact with a team of similarly-skilled athletes. Option B would also definitely contribute to overall team success, which, as you mentioned earlier, leads to wins, championships, and certainly positive attention garnered for the players involved.
On the other hand, I'm not entirely sure this is the best approach in all cases for individual player development. For one thing, if these athletes you mention were added to an already-filled-out roster of equally or better-skilled players, it would stand to reason that they would be sharing playing time with those players. I believe that experience in real-game situations is one of the most important parts of player development, so perhaps for some, the increased time spent on the field under option A might be more beneficial than the increased time spent on the bench under option B, particularly at younger ages when developing a love of the game (and thus the dedication necessary to push for excellence as they grow older) is just as important as developing physical skills.
In the same vein, the best athletes want to win in real-game situations, and will find ways to do so. Key players who know that their team is depending on their skills for success will often push themselves harder to excel. For many, responsibility is a powerful motivator. For some, competition for a spot on the field is enough motivation to push hard at practice; for those, option B might be more effective. For others who are more motivated by finding ways to win once they're on the field, option A might be more effective. In this case, I think it depends on the individual player.
Finally, if we're talking about the importance of developing players of all levels, not just a few, I'd have to point out that leadership on the field is essential for the development of any team. Few things are more motivating than being able to see a real and present chance of success; having those leaders present on a team can have far-reaching effects among the other athletes. Not only does the pressure of responsibility give the top athletes a reason to push themselves harder, to become the best by COMPETING with the best, but the inspiration and chance of success their presence brings can motivate others to try to match their performance, and can sometimes result in otherwise middle-level players becoming "top" players. On the other hand, feeling that their team has been stripped of its top talent in order to "stack" another team can be insulting and demoralizing, and could very well amount to a small advantage for a few resulting in a large disadvantage to many.
Again, arguments can be made for both sides, and "greatest benefit" can be a matter of opinion, so I'll end with a question based on a real-world example, and all with an interest can draw their own conclusions. I'll use this past weekend's match between the CUSC U14 team and Bridge 92 as a real, non-hypothetical measuring stick.
1. If you are correct in your statement that Bridge has the higher initial concentration of "top" players to work with, and
2. a CUSC team which begins with(again, if you are correct) a lower concentration of "top" players filled out with a greater number of middle-range players can stand toe-to-toe with them (and lest anyone call fluke, the CESA 92 team as well) minute-for-minute down to an overtime decision,
then it would appear that a team that started the season with a significantly smaller talent pool quite fairly matched a team full of "top" players in performance at season's end.
Based on that, over the course of a season...on which side of the field would it seem the greatest amount of overall player development took place?
I've got good news and bad news...
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2006
Posts: 107
goal kick
|
|
goal kick
Joined: May 2006
Posts: 107 |
Personally, I feel there is absolutely no way one match can define a year's worth of work or development. A one-off result in a State Cup Final Four weekend, between any two teams, any age, any gender is possible.
There might always be a good player or coach that comes along in the club, or a team that wins a "big match" once in a while. But the club is struggling to exist, especially at the Challenge and Premier level, for some reason(s).
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2002
Posts: 2,256 Likes: 2
Coach
|
|
Coach
Joined: May 2002
Posts: 2,256 Likes: 2 |
Which, of course, is why I threw in the equally down-to-the-wire CUSC/CESA match as a control measure. One match could be random, but two in a row against excellent teams can hardly be coincidental. I think that says a LOT for a season's worth of development...
And since we're talking development, there are many great things (and people) in this world that "struggled to exist" at one point. The only thing that made the difference between great success stories and nonexistence was the will to continue the struggle.
I've got good news and bad news...
|
|
|
|
