IMLE the same coaches that would replace a girl whenever the wind blows(or at least talk about it), are the first to cry about loyalty when a girl leaves.
Of course.
IMLE the same coaches that would replace a girl whenever the wind blows(or at least talk about it), are the first to cry about loyalty when a girl leaves.
WaSpeed02 said:I like the balanced philosophy of sticking to the concept of developing a core group of girls, yet at the same time, every player must earn their spot on the team and commit to keeping it.
What am I missing here? How can you do both? Are they being judged by effort only and not actual ability?
Another fine howdy do, three good local teams have the same 4 dates and times for Fall tryouts. They "suggest" you come to all the dates.
WaSpeed02's statement makes sense to me. You try to keep a core group of girls, but it's not a free pass to slack off.
What if you have 8 girls who are seeing instructors, practicing on their own outside of team practice, coming early/staying late, etc. and are all improving their game versus 3 girls who are only doing the bare minimum and aren't making any extra effort? Isn't it reasonable to say that at the end of the season, you will be loyal to the 8, but are willing to upgrade the 3? JMO.
That's exactly right.
That's pretty close to our situation. We retained 8 girls and had 3 leave. The 3 that left weren't because of lack of effort or ability, but because of other circumstances. That being said, 2 of the 3 we got in their place are upgrades, at least in raw talent. However, one of the girls who left was the inspirational leader on the team and I don't know if that can be replaced. I even got choked up last night at the year-end party when the girls were saying goodbye to her and all of them were bawling their eyes out.
Please tell me you are not talking about mighty mite.