Originally Posted by Anonymous
Originally Posted by Anonymous
Actually, if the talent was equal as you say it was, chosing either way would imply a bias if it was not the direct result of a good reason. Wanting to win is the objective. Once again, sorry your kid didnt make it. Looking forward to seeing you out there next year.


I agree with your argument. If the objective is to win and players are more or less equal, team chemistry matters so pick boys who have played together. Where I have a problem is selecting injured players no matter how good when healthy. If the objective is to win, they shouldn't be out there if they can't play to help the team. Its about the team first.


I don't disagree with this at all, unless the player was hurt during the tryouts and showed great skill before they were hurt. Then it really depends on the injury and doctors report. If a kid rolls his ankle during tryouts and the coaches/evaluators have every reason to believe that 2 weeks off will enable the player to fully heal and participate at full speed, then it is safe the select the player based on their preinjury performance. That is why alternates are chosen to replace the player if they cannot play. This happens almost every year. You are taking a risk on every kid on the roster with as many games and tournaments as they are playing during tryouts and leading up to the UA Games. Half the kids leave UA tryouts and go right to other events like Showtime. They all have chronic use issues, bumps and bruises, or additional risk of injury, so they factor everything when making a decision.