|
Post by Guessing game on Feb 21, 2017 14:18:42 GMT 10
Why should the emergency goalkeeper for the girls' Under 18 team have been an automatic IN? Did she trial well? Did she trial better than the two selected? Didn't she throw a tantrum a couple of years ago at a national competition and walked off the pitch before the end of a game? - seems to have a bad reputation behaviour wise as far as I am aware. Never seen her do anything amazing at trials or games over a number of years. No one should rest on her laurels, no one should be an automatic IN. 'bad reputation with behaviour' care to elaborate? ^that instance was one of the boys in the same year, you must be getting confused. From the perceptive of a parent of a child in this age group, it's a bit of a surprise to say the least given her past performances and good attitude.
|
|
|
Post by guest on Feb 21, 2017 14:27:36 GMT 10
Agree completely.
There was also a boy goalie 2 years ago in 13s who was pulled from the field for abusing his own team members. Maybe people are very confused. Not to mention a 13 boy goalie last year who was carded in Perth for attitude to umpires. I
|
|
|
Post by Why? on Feb 21, 2017 15:07:59 GMT 10
Why should the emergency goalkeeper for the girls' Under 18 team have been an automatic IN? Did she trial well? Did she trial better than the two selected? Didn't she throw a tantrum a couple of years ago at a national competition and walked off the pitch before the end of a game? - seems to have a bad reputation behaviour wise as far as I am aware. Never seen her do anything amazing at trials or games over a number of years. No one should rest on her laurels, no one should be an automatic IN. 'bad reputation with behaviour' care to elaborate? ^that instance was one of the boys in the same year, you must be getting confused. From the perceptive of a parent of a child in this age group, it's a bit of a surprise to say the least given her past performances and good attitude. Not confused at all - do some research - Under 15's.
|
|
|
Post by JustAGuest on Feb 21, 2017 15:28:18 GMT 10
Quickly re. Selections; I don't think it fair to bash selectors for who they have or haven't picked - I played through with a guy called James Jewell who dominated state tournaments from 13s up to 16s but, as a top ager, didn't get picked in the U18 Vic team. He went on to train with ACTAS, play 18s, 21s and AHL with ACT, and is now in England playing for Wimbledon - winning last years Premier League and having a crack in EHL. He was easily one of the best players in our age, but he didn't trial as well as he could have. Smitty and Ando, didn't pick him because he hadn't shown anything that made him worth picking....and no players argued against that. Similarly I've been in an underage Vic team with an injured VIS/AHL player who couldn't properly train until a few weeks before the tournament. They were fitness tested, declared good to go, and I was cut from the final team. We all knew he would be more beneficial than me, and he deserved to get in on his past achievements. In the span of two years I saw it go both ways... and neither were deemed 'incorrect' by the players. It is interesting to see how the teams change over the years for the same group. Looking at the under 13 state team of 2012, which is the group now top age under 18, only one of the under 13 team is in the under 18 womens team, and five of the boys. When comparing to the 15 state team of 2014, six of the boys from 2014 and seven of the girls. It certainly shows the team changes over time. I think this would be a more interesting discussion compared to bashing/shaming underage kids (and their behaviour when they're 13). How many kids have played through from 12s/13s to 21s/AHL? For a kid, their current age-group is the most important team to make, but are there that many that carry all the way through? Should we expect similar names all the way through?
|
|
Another guest again
Guest
|
Post by Another guest again on Feb 21, 2017 15:46:48 GMT 10
Quickly re. Selections; I don't think it fair to bash selectors for who they have or haven't picked - I played through with a guy called James Jewell who dominated state tournaments from 13s up to 16s but, as a top ager, didn't get picked in the U18 Vic team. He went on to train with ACTAS, play 18s, 21s and AHL with ACT, and is now in England playing for Wimbledon - winning last years Premier League and having a crack in EHL. He was easily one of the best players in our age, but he didn't trial as well as he could have. Smitty and Ando, didn't pick him because he hadn't shown anything that made him worth picking....and no players argued against that. Similarly I've been in an underage Vic team with an injured VIS/AHL player who couldn't properly train until a few weeks before the tournament. They were fitness tested, declared good to go, and I was cut from the final team. We all knew he would be more beneficial than me, and he deserved to get in on his past achievements. In the span of two years I saw it go both ways... and neither were deemed 'incorrect' by the players. It is interesting to see how the teams change over the years for the same group. Looking at the under 13 state team of 2012, which is the group now top age under 18, only one of the under 13 team is in the under 18 womens team, and five of the boys. When comparing to the 15 state team of 2014, six of the boys from 2014 and seven of the girls. It certainly shows the team changes over time. I think this would be a more interesting discussion compared to bashing/shaming underage kids (and their behaviour when they're 13). How many kids have played through from 12s/13s to 21s/AHL? For a kid, their current age-group is the most important team to make, but are there that many that carry all the way through? Should we expect similar names all the way through? The bigger issue at the moment is the 15 boys selection. Whether the chosen ones will go on to bigger things is yet to be seen. Of concern are those not chosen who are performing now better than those who were chosen. And those kids who may likely give away the sport for not being selected over giving some kid that has trouble trapping a ball or who is under developed physically. If this becomes the case and assuming the coach is not elevating these players for selection in more senior teams and there is a transparent selection process, it's doubtful whether one or two of the chosen ones will play big time hockey. Those who fell off the list were deselected from both teams.
|
|
|
Post by ahhh on Feb 21, 2017 15:53:28 GMT 10
'bad reputation with behaviour' care to elaborate? ^that instance was one of the boys in the same year, you must be getting confused. From the perceptive of a parent of a child in this age group, it's a bit of a surprise to say the least given her past performances and good attitude. Not confused at all - do some research - Under 15's. What happened in Under 15's? is this under 15s in 2014?
|
|
|
Post by Altiusrt on Feb 21, 2017 16:06:56 GMT 10
By the looks of it she was the number one for 18s last year? Played 5 of the 7 games for the blue team who made the semi's.... So how's she gone from number one to three?
|
|
|
Post by Guessing game on Feb 21, 2017 16:37:13 GMT 10
Not confused at all - do some research - Under 15's. What happened in Under 15's? is this under 15s in 2014? She came off due to injury and didn't play rest of the tournament...not sure if that is what you are referring too?
|
|
|
Post by Poor form , NOT on Feb 21, 2017 18:41:04 GMT 10
By the looks of it she was the number one for 18s last year? Played 5 of the 7 games for the blue team who made the semi's.... So how's she gone from number one to three? And was also selected into emerging vipers from that tournament and her games in 2016 , I think the only reason was who was selecting the GK's and from what club .
|
|
|
Post by Guest on Feb 21, 2017 19:03:42 GMT 10
Alice has always been given more than a fair go, maybe the other girls have improved.
|
|
|
Post by Another guest on Feb 21, 2017 19:17:17 GMT 10
Why should the emergency goalkeeper for the girls' Under 18 team have been an automatic IN? Did she trial well? Did she trial better than the two selected? Didn't she throw a tantrum a couple of years ago at a national competition and walked off the pitch before the end of a game? - seems to have a bad reputation behaviour wise as far as I am aware. Never seen her do anything amazing at trials or games over a number of years. No one should rest on her laurels, no one should be an automatic IN. New No1 and 2 have gone well past the emergency. That is what can happen. Emergency lucky to get that gig
|
|
|
Post by Guest on Feb 21, 2017 19:59:32 GMT 10
HV can't win here - one minute there are claims of protected species and unwarranted selection, yet when they reward players that have performed they get shot down. Hypocrisy!
|
|
|
Post by Pick on form on Feb 21, 2017 21:57:27 GMT 10
Alice has always been given more than a fair go, maybe the other girls have improved. Absolutely this ^ including her brother hitting up the goalkeepers at selection trials one year so I am told. In many ways it is easier to select keepers because of the comparison of players performing drills one after another. Having been in the team the last two years she must have trialled poorly compared to the other keepers, or there is some issue over her attitude or behaviour. Simple. Selectors have got it right.
|
|
|
Post by Teams on Feb 21, 2017 22:01:04 GMT 10
HV can't win here - one minute there are claims of protected species and unwarranted selection, yet when they reward players that have performed they get shot down. Hypocrisy! Results from 18s will tell the tale.
|
|
|
Post by Guest on Feb 21, 2017 22:02:13 GMT 10
What in the hell does her brothers have to do with it?
|
|
|
Post by Family Guy on Feb 21, 2017 22:11:17 GMT 10
What in the hell does her brothers have to do with it? The family connection dude. Works every time no matter ability.
|
|
|
Post by Whack dude on Feb 22, 2017 9:13:21 GMT 10
What in the hell does her brothers have to do with it? The family connection dude. Works every time no matter ability. But how does her brother effect her being selected or not? And what do you mean by hitting up? As in hitting balls at the keepers durine the trial?
|
|
|
Post by guest on Feb 22, 2017 16:16:40 GMT 10
Why should the emergency goalkeeper for the girls' Under 18 team have been an automatic IN? Did she trial well? Did she trial better than the two selected? Didn't she throw a tantrum a couple of years ago at a national competition and walked off the pitch before the end of a game? - seems to have a bad reputation behaviour wise as far as I am aware. Never seen her do anything amazing at trials or games over a number of years. No one should rest on her laurels, no one should be an automatic IN. Firstly she got really badly injured that game in under 15s and that's why she left the ground. She has always had a fantastic attitude and has been constantly performing extremely well. And you're right no one should automatically get in to any team, but if she trialled half as good as she has been playing recently she would've gotten in.
|
|