Originally Posted by Anonymous
Originally Posted by Anonymous
Originally Posted by Anonymous
It is my understanding that when the senior all American wrestler came in as a FOGO the score started changing... Not sure if I understand your point. I think if they let him play the field there would have been a major difference in possession certainly and defense too. It was the first time he played all year and there was a swing in momentum when he did. Are you suggesting that the other FO kids should have been used instead because of their college commitments?

We like the all american kid and agree he should be on the field...just not a fogo-I am not even close to saying the other fogo kids should have played because they are committed-but very much saying that the all american isn't as good at it as any of the other three.

Now, if you were losing every fo (think about that kid from sme we will face in a couple of weeks) and you put him there to battle, like a long pole-excellent coaching move, but that was not the case yesterday.

To your point about "momentum" -he didn't win possession as much as any of the former players, nor did he score nor was he given the opportunity to play defense. Having him run on the field and run off after losing possession is just foolish and poor coaching.

I completely agree the all american kid is an asset the coaches let sit on the side line when his size and strength are the exact attributes the team needed yesterday at middie. I also think he would have been a very strong fit during sachem n game and agree that the outcome could have been different if the coaches let him play yesterday (four or five or even 10 other boys in exactly the same position). Same old political nonsense in our happy little town.

I am not attacking any of the wm players.

We at WM have been watching these boys for ten years and we all know each of them, their strengths and weaknesses and when they are on and when they are not. If some kids weren't on, weren't strong enough, couldn't hit the cage, why not see if one of the other kids sitting on the bench were on, were strong enough, were hitting the cage. You and I agree that yesterday, the all american should have been playing (a lot).

the WM coaching leaves a lot to be desired and while some might say too early to pick on the coach (fair point), my opinion is that the team has an opportunity to actually compete for LI championship this year, so giving the coach a pass on a poorly managed, poorly coached game against WI is wasteful and harmful. And if we were all being honest, we would admit that sachem and commack were close games that could have gone wrong.

WM is still coaching as if the two all Americans from last year were on the field. They are gone -get over it and coach the very evenly talented 42 kids you have.

there is not a kid on that team that isn't as good as the other 41, so if fogo by committee, why not middie by committee or attack by committee or d by committee??? Unlike all the recent past years, we have a pretty even talent pool. Someone will undoubtedly say they are building team chemistry-to that I say bs-these boys have all been playing together for years, pal, travel, in house...they know each other well.

for the record, my boy was in all his normal shifts and didn't have a great day. If I were coaching, would have replaced him in that game for another kid...one of several. getting pulled for having a bad day is exactly what this team needs.

we all have to pay 200 for this stupid video service-my kid uses it-suggest that the coaches do the same...

the only people that will disagree with the above are the parents of the other 14 or 15 kids that always play no matter how poorly they are playing. the parents of all the other 26 equally talented boys watching and freezing on the side, will entirely agree-

I am with them....

So you're saying that WM has a team of completely equal players? No single player is better than the other 41? That's amazing! Or, you're just completely insane. If playing on the summer team is making the difference in playing time, then play on the summer team. If playing on the summer team helps the boys better understand the coach's offense, then play on the summer team. If playing on the summer team strengthens the coach's faith in particular players (thereby putting them a step above the 41 other equals), then play on the summer team. Or just complain that the world is unfair and no fault lies on you or your son.

I'm confused. An earlier post suggested that the coach should stick to his guns and play the kids who pay him in the summer. That would lead me to believe that the coach is playing kids who do not pay to play for him in the summer. If that is the case then I must assume the coach is playing the players who he believes will help the team win and he is not showing favoritism to the people who believe that in order to play you must pay. Am I correct?

Also, I am not sure if it was the same poster or not but didn't I also read something about playing seniors? I assume they mean over a freshman or sophomore. Do I have that right? Again, If I am following this correctly the coach is playing freshmen and sophomore's who may or may not pay to play in the summer over upperclassmen who do pay to play in the summer and therefore believe they should play because they pay to play, are older and have put in their time. Is that correct?

My take is the coach wants to win and he will play who he believes will help the team win.

The parents of kids who are not playing are going to be unhappy. Some believe their kid is owed something and will complain. And some will tell their kid to keep working.

The pay to play summer crap should be done away with. There is a conflict of interest.

Don't know if the coach is good at managing the game or not but I find it hard to believe he is not playing who he believes are the best players.

Sounds like a lot of finger pointing and animosity.

I guess winning keeps everyone quiet.