Lake Highlands D3 Week 9 Predictions

Predictions for week 9 anyone?

LADY AZTECS (2) v DALLAS TEXANS WHITE (1)
ETUFC (1) v ANDROMEDA (2)
TX SPIRIT RED (2) v GSSC THUNDER BLUE (2)
D'FEETERS WHITE (2) v SRFC (3)
STING WEST (4) v LP ST JOHN (1)

LADY AZTECS (3) v DALLAS TEXANS WHITE (1)
ETUFC (3) v ANDROMEDA (2)
TX SPIRIT RED (0) v GSSC THUNDER BLUE (2)
D'FEETERS WHITE (0) v SRFC (2)
STING WEST (3) v LP ST JOHN (0)

LADY AZTECS v DALLAS TEXANS WHITE 2-2 tie
ETUFC v ANDROMEDA 0-3 Andromeda
TX SPIRIT RED v GSSC THUNDER BLUE 1-3 Thunder
D'FEETERS WHITE v SRFC 3-2 D'Feeters
STING WEST v LP ST JOHN 5-0 Sting West

Lady Aztecs (2) v Dallas Texans White (1)
EFUFC (0) v Andro (2)
TX Spirit Red (0) v GSSC (4)
D'Feeters White (3) v SRFC (1)
Sting West (4) v LP ST John (1)

The predictions for the d'feeters vs SRFC are a little off. Maybe it's because the two D1 ringers weren't taken into account. It's a shame the d'feeter's coach didn't trust his team to give SRFC a good game.

You also forgot to mention the two D'Feeters girls in walking boots which I believe are their 2 starting CB's. So yes there were two girls used to cover the injuries. You also failed to mention neither of the "ringers" scored, and one basically sat on the bench most of the game.

First off, I want to congratulate GSSC for their result against TX Spirit Red who brought in 3 players from their D1 team including what most consider one of the top players in the league. GSSC still took care of business and congrats to the independent team for not letting CPP beat them! Way to go GSSC!

D'Feet White have no chance against SRFC without those two CPP players, but it is within the rules and SRFC could not beat those D1 players. Those CPP players played every minute of the match including the end when the result was known. The girls call it "cheating" and one specifically mentioned "that coach doesn't care about the fun of the game, he just wants to win". Amazing truth in that simple statement from a 10 year old playing youth soccer.

Two matches where neither team was short players, but still leveraged CPP. In the end it all about the money for those coaches. Funny how money shows a person's true character.

db10 wrote:You also forgot to mention the two D'Feeters girls in walking boots which I believe are their 2 starting CB's. So yes there were two girls used to cover the injuries. You also failed to mention neither of the "ringers" scored, and one basically sat on the bench most of the game.

Those girls played every minute - CB and the forward. Two girls in boots, but 14 other healthy players. Those two were involved in every scoring play and the CB is a great player who protected the middle great. If you play with who your signed, then that match is not even close. It is what it is!

Don't know what game you were watching, but one of the CPP players did NOT play all of the game.  You must have your players mixed up.

One CPP switched out with a regular forward, and was not on the field at all for the 3rd goal, so that is quite a wonder that she was involved in the scoring play.  

There were many other opportunities to score when she was on the bench - including one of the one v. one's with your goalie 1/2 way through the second, where the D'Feet player shot it wide left and your obnoxious dad yelled "in your face" to the player.

Real nice.

And unless the coach yells like a girl - he was the one screaming "cheaters" at the end of the game.

tigerdad wrote:D'Feet White have no chance against SRFC without those two CPP players, but it is within the rules and SRFC could not beat those D1 players.  Those CPP players played every minute of the match including the end when the result was known. The girls call it "cheating" and one specifically mentioned "that coach doesn't care about the fun of the game, he just wants to win".  Amazing truth in that simple statement from a 10 year old playing youth soccer.

Nice try but that comes from the parents and the coach, not the kids...  it was probably already put in their minds before the game even started - so I call a BIG BS on that statement...  not one kid, if not told "who" is on the field, would give a rats donkey - period...  biggest bunch of bull I've heard all year...

soccerisfun wrote:Don't know what game you were watching, but one of the CPP players did NOT play all of the game.  You must have your players mixed up.

One CPP switched out with a regular forward, and was not on the field at all for the 3rd goal, so that is quite a wonder that she was involved in the scoring play.  

There were many other opportunities to score when she was on the bench - including one of the one v. one's with your goalie 1/2 way through the second, where the D'Feet player shot it wide left and your obnoxious dad yelled "in your face" to the player.

Real nice.

And unless the coach yells like a girl - he was the one screaming "cheaters" at the end of the game.

Tigerdad...I think he just called you a sissy! I bet he says GO BAMA next! This CPP is getting ugly.

tigerdad wrote:First off, I want to congratulate GSSC for their result against TX Spirit Red who brought in 3 players from their D1 team including what most consider one of the top players in the league.  GSSC still took care of business and congrats to the independent team for not letting CPP beat them!  Way to go GSSC!

D'Feet White have no chance against SRFC without those two CPP players, but it is within the rules and SRFC could not beat those D1 players.  Those CPP players played every minute of the match including the end when the result was known. The girls call it "cheating" and one specifically mentioned "that coach doesn't care about the fun of the game, he just wants to win".  Amazing truth in that simple statement from a 10 year old playing youth soccer.

Two matches where neither team was short players, but still leveraged CPP.  In the end it all about the money for those coaches.  Funny how money shows a person's true character.

GSSC has a bunch of class acts as parents I hear as well - one of the parents want so far as to call one of the opposing players a "punk", not just once but several times until the ref finally stopped it and said something to the parent - probably lucky he wasn't ejected...  someone even got it on video - I'm sure that will be looked at by LH...  So although it was a great job by all those ten year olds, I have to give an F to the parents of GSSC for showing they truly are NOT the class acts of D3.  I also heard there just might be pictures of this asshat that will be floating around on social media to warn other teams that this guy loves to pick on ten year olds.

So, I give kudos to those teams that won despite the adversity of CPP but it just goes to show, they're ten year olds and CPP truly IS about development and one player that may be a "ringer" in one's eyes isn't necessarily the one player that's going to change the game and is truly "still" developing.  Unless, of course, the teams truly were that close and that one ringer was all they needed to take the team over the top then I would beg to differ...  truly is tragic when parents act that way at a ten year old's soccer game.

I wonder why you don't hear the boys complaining about CPP very often? Wait, I know why, cause they don't allow boys to "play down" using CPP in their league...only to play up or play same division. Guess they (boys league) were able to see the writing on the wall, and how easy it would be for coaches to abuse the rule and bring girls down just to try and gain points. But wait...what happens when two girls are hurt and we can't bring down D1 players to "develop"? How about you develop the other 14 and allow them to get more playing time than normal. Wait, you mean develop players instead of bringing D1 players down and take their playing time??? And my daughter gets more playing time and coaching for the $3000 I paid? Well that sounds great!! Oh, but wait, my coach would rather win so guess my kid, who doesn't start on D3, still can't start cause coach can bring better players down to play instead....but wonder how happy my daughter wouls be if she got more playing time instead?.............

CPP is a fail cause coaches abuse it...plain and simple...everyone knows it...no reason to try and defend it.

But...well within the rule (just for now I heard), so why not...kind of busch league in my opinion though. If winning really didn't matter, and it was all about development, the coach would value the time when he was shorthanded cause he could focus on working with some girls that normally don't get as much "game experience"

My dd and 05, so no dog in the fight....but doing a little campaigning so we don't have to deal with this bs next year ;-)

I watched my DD from the sidelines play against GSSC today. I did not hear any GSSC parent call our girls a "punk". There was a warning from the referee given for excessive noise from GSSC parents. In my opinion, there was too much coaching from the sidelines, but I have been guilty of that a time or two in the past.

I am not a sore loser and I do not believe that we should teach our DDs to be sore losers either. My DD's reason for not winning the game was, "The defender kept getting in my way and that keeper stops everything." The lesson she took away from the game today is that 2 GSSC players leveled the playing field against 3 CPP. I hope that as parents we learn good sportsmanship from our DDs and are able to congratulate the victor.

GSSC played well today. The girls were determined and confident. They showed themselves to be the winning team. Let's not dampen their victory with accusations that are not "comment" worthy.

We will play each other again. I know that both teams will be prepared and ready to go to battle with or without CPP.

CPP doesn't guarantee a win but it must feel awful to bring some ringers and still get dusted off. One of the mid-fielder dads films all the games with a big yellow camera that might have caught the sideline allegations.

Sting West 2
LP St John 4

Interesting score...any story here?

canaryman wrote:Sting West 2
LP St John 4

Interesting score...any story here?  

Let me guess...CPP?

I saw the SRFC / Feet game. SRFC had about 2 chances the whole game to score and one was when the Feet GK mis-hit the punt, turned it over and had to make a big save. The other was at the end of the game when SRFC pushed everyone forward and the ball bounced around from foot to foot and the DFeet defender had to stop the shot.

soccerjack wrote:

soccerisfun wrote:Don't know what game you were watching, but one of the CPP players did NOT play all of the game.  You must have your players mixed up.

One CPP switched out with a regular forward, and was not on the field at all for the 3rd goal, so that is quite a wonder that she was involved in the scoring play.  

There were many other opportunities to score when she was on the bench - including one of the one v. one's with your goalie 1/2 way through the second, where the D'Feet player shot it wide left and your obnoxious dad yelled "in your face" to the player.

Real nice.

And unless the coach yells like a girl - he was the one screaming "cheaters" at the end of the game.

Tigerdad...I think he just called you a sissy!    I bet he says GO BAMA next!  This CPP is getting ugly.

Sounds more like he called you a punk.  

You hit the board with your "facts" ("Those girls played every minute - CB and the forward.  Those two were involved in every scoring play") and he calls you out ("One CPP switched out with a regular forward, and was not on the field at all for the 3rd goal").

So, you either were mistaken (but won't admit it), weren't there and got the story 3rd hand (and wont admit it), or you "stretched" the truth to embellish your story.

Whichever it is, if your going to hit and run, at least get your facts straight.

Nothing_but_net wrote:

canaryman wrote:Sting West 2
LP St John 4

Interesting score...any story here?  

Let me guess...CPP?

Neither team used CPP. Good match.

El Clasico, hopefully you are a Feet parent, otherwise that's extremely creepy that you happend to watch a 10-year old soccer game at 8:00 am. So, assuming you are a feet parent...your perception of the game is biased. I know peeps close with both teams, and both said it was a close game...so quit trying to stir up trouble

If it makes you feel better to believe a 3-0 game was close then go for it.

Deal.  And if it makes you feel better to get on here and say that SRFC only had two chances to score, then you go for that too.

Good first half to the season!