Dallas Texans 02 Glotz

RoidRage wrote:First off, the Sunday morning game.
Rowdies win first game 2-0....0-0 at halftime. Rowdies getting the better of Glotz, but Glotz hanging tough! In 2nd half Glotz starts subbing key starters and parents take notice.

Forward to Mondays semi final game. In first half Rowdies have wind and go up 1-0. Both teams playing tough and doing well. Glotz offence actually is putting shots on goal unlike day before.

In the 2nd half Glotz has the wind and is getting pressure on Rowdies and puts 2 goals in and goes up 2-1 with about 8 minutes left in game. At this point is where real controversy starts. Glotz mass subs 4 bench players for 4 starters. Parents eyes bug out! Of course Rowdies don't sub any players and score the equalizer.

1st overtime 10 min overtime half. Glotz puts 2 starters on bench for the entire first overtime period. Higgibotham keeps starters in whole period...no subbing by him. Glotz had wind game ends period still 2-2. Both teams get shots off.

2nd overtime 10 min overtime half. Higgibotham has wind and plays starters the whole half never once puts a bench player in for the entire overtime...either half. Glotz bench's his starting midfielder and starting forward(best scorer). Higgibotham scores with 8 min left in period. You think Glotz puts 2 starters back in game...especially his top forward? Nope, both starters never see the field. Instead Glotz subs in 2 bench players. Puts one at forward and moves another girl that's a starter at defender and puts her at forward(a position she hasn't played in over a year). And to top it off he moves his left footed forward back to defender. Parents going crazy hoping he puts in top forward(already has 1 goal), but no can do.... she stays on bench along with starting midfielder with the game on the line!

Rowdies win. Glotz parents think he didn't want to beat his boss, end of story!

Blank77 wrote:Tournaments are not always played to win. Teams play up to get experience or use it as a tryout for guests, lineups, etc. You can find several explamples of this just from this past weekend.

Mega Man02 wrote:You know why Glotz lost that game. Its all about the Money!!! They beat the Top Team parents start to talk and before you know it they will leave with all that Money. Its a very Cynical club. You eather like or dont. Your DD's money paves the way for the top team. They want 2 top 5 teams in the 02 world. But it will never happen. The Ex-Glotz parents will never let that happen. They are to good to play 2nd best to Higg. If I was a parent on that team I would leave now. Its not worth the time and energy to play 2nd best on a club that will never allow you to beat their top team. Not to say they could of won that game. The Higgs girls are very very good. But from what I herd they will never be allowed to beat them. Beacuse the Money comes first then DD's second.

tmcc wrote:This should be in the 02 forum. I almost missed it.

Man coaching is hard. Hard on the coach, hard on his family. Whether the pressure from the club or the parents is what got to him, I gotta believe Glotz is going to enjoy life much more now. I am sure he loves his team and loves most of the aspects of coaching his team. But, sometimes it just becomes too much, and it's just not worth all the work, complaining, stress from above, and missed family time.

I can almost guarantee his wife is doing back flips.

Blank77 wrote:Tournaments are not always played to win. Teams play up to get experience or use it as a tryout for guests, lineups, etc. You can find several explamples of this just from this past weekend.

RoidRage wrote:First off, the Sunday morning game.
Rowdies win first game 2-0....0-0 at halftime. Rowdies getting the better of Glotz, but Glotz hanging tough! In 2nd half Glotz starts subbing key starters and parents take notice.

Forward to Mondays semi final game. In first half Rowdies have wind and go up 1-0. Both teams playing tough and doing well. Glotz offence actually is putting shots on goal unlike day before.

In the 2nd half Glotz has the wind and is getting pressure on Rowdies and puts 2 goals in and goes up 2-1 with about 8 minutes left in game. At this point is where real controversy starts. Glotz mass subs 4 bench players for 4 starters. Parents eyes bug out! Of course Rowdies don't sub any players and score the equalizer.

1st overtime 10 min overtime half. Glotz puts 2 starters on bench for the entire first overtime period. Higgibotham keeps starters in whole period...no subbing by him. Glotz had wind game ends period still 2-2. Both teams get shots off.

2nd overtime 10 min overtime half. Higgibotham has wind and plays starters the whole half never once puts a bench player in for the entire overtime...either half. Glotz bench's his starting midfielder and starting forward(best scorer). Higgibotham scores with 8 min left in period. You think Glotz puts 2 starters back in game...especially his top forward? Nope, both starters never see the field. Instead Glotz subs in 2 bench players. Puts one at forward and moves another girl that's a starter at defender and puts her at forward(a position she hasn't played in over a year). And to top it off he moves his left footed forward back to defender. Parents going crazy hoping he puts in top forward(already has 1 goal), but no can do.... she stays on bench along with starting midfielder with the game on the line!

Rowdies win. Glotz parents think he didn't want to beat his boss, end of story!

Blank77 wrote:I doubt it, he probably just felt that you win as a team, you lose as a team, and struggled with the thought of upsetting the girls on the bench without even giving them a chance to play at critical times. Maybe his goal was building up the bench to give them some stress/critical game experience and make the team better in the long run, instead of relying on the same players to succeed or fail for this one event.

ralfdallas wrote:

Blank77 wrote:I doubt it, he probably just felt that you win as a team, you lose as a team, and struggled with the thought of upsetting the girls on the bench without even giving them a chance to play at critical times. Maybe his goal was building up the bench to give them some stress/critical game experience and make the team better in the long run, instead of relying on the same players to succeed or fail for this one event.

I've got this in a nutshell: after a #4 ranked Academy team loses 3-2 in overtime to the #3 ranked Academy team, a bunch of sideline geniuses who think they can do it better decide that the coach doesn't know what he's doing, (because God forbid an Academy coach play his bench/put fresh legs in after 5 games in 48 hours, and, really, coaching a team to top 5 status in age group in NTX is easy). Parents of starters then proceeded to second-guess and go all high-maintenance, top-team-soccer-parent vocal because they felt they were wrongly denied the chance to shout "We're #1", and they really, really, really wanted that. They questioned his motives and bitched, bitched, bitched, and Coach said, "Ciao."

Academy "starter" parents who don't like to see their girls come off the field should watch what they ask for -- someday their girl might find herself on the bench with glue on her butt. Also, ya'll know what happens to Academy teams that don't play their bench? -- 1) Word gets around, and no one wants their dd to be on that bench; so then, 2) they either have a mightly slim bench, or, they have no depth off the bench, (and neither of these do a team any favors come signing day). Chances are good that here where a top 4 team is involved, the player(s) that the starters' parents begrudge play time in 'critical' moments could go out and earn a spot on and bring much strength to any team she wanted, (and that spot might not be on the bench). Maybe keeping such players around has as much value as a $3 trophy and the opportunity to claim the #3 ranking spot, however so briefly? (Just a thought).

I can't always explain some of JG's game day switch ups either -- sometimes they work ('He's a genius!), and sometimes they don't ('Why the F did he do that?'). I do know that JG tells his players that they play as a team, and they lose as a team. And, he plays his bench.

ralfdallas wrote:

Blank77 wrote:I doubt it, he probably just felt that you win as a team, you lose as a team, and struggled with the thought of upsetting the girls on the bench without even giving them a chance to play at critical times. Maybe his goal was building up the bench to give them some stress/critical game experience and make the team better in the long run, instead of relying on the same players to succeed or fail for this one event.

I've got this in a nutshell: after a #4 ranked Academy team loses 3-2 in overtime to the #3 ranked Academy team, a bunch of sideline geniuses who think they can do it better decide that the coach doesn't know what he's doing, (because God forbid an Academy coach play his bench/put fresh legs in after 5 games in 48 hours, and, really, coaching a team to top 5 status in age group in NTX is easy). Parents of starters then proceeded to second-guess and go all high-maintenance, top-team-soccer-parent vocal because they felt they were wrongly denied the chance to shout "We're #1", and they really, really, really wanted that. They questioned his motives and bitched, bitched, bitched, and Coach said, "Ciao."

Academy "starter" parents who don't like to see their girls come off the field should watch what they ask for -- someday their girl might find herself on the bench with glue on her butt. Also, ya'll know what happens to Academy teams that don't play their bench? -- 1) Word gets around, and no one wants their dd to be on that bench; so then, 2) they either have a mightly slim bench, or, they have no depth off the bench, (and neither of these do a team any favors come signing day). Chances are good that here where a top 4 team is involved, the player(s) that the starters' parents begrudge play time in 'critical' moments could go out and earn a spot on and bring much strength to any team she wanted, (and that spot might not be on the bench). Maybe keeping such players around has as much value as a $3 trophy and the opportunity to claim the #3 ranking spot, however so briefly? (Just a thought).

I can't always explain some of JG's game day switch ups either -- sometimes they work ('He's a genius!), and sometimes they don't ('Why the F did he do that?'). I do know that JG tells his players that they play as a team, and they lose as a team. And, he plays his bench.

Gunners wrote:

ralfdallas wrote:

Blank77 wrote:I doubt it, he probably just felt that you win as a team, you lose as a team, and struggled with the thought of upsetting the girls on the bench without even giving them a chance to play at critical times. Maybe his goal was building up the bench to give them some stress/critical game experience and make the team better in the long run, instead of relying on the same players to succeed or fail for this one event.

I've got this in a nutshell: after a #4 ranked Academy team loses 3-2 in overtime to the #3 ranked Academy team, a bunch of sideline geniuses who think they can do it better decide that the coach doesn't know what he's doing, (because God forbid an Academy coach play his bench/put fresh legs in after 5 games in 48 hours, and, really, coaching a team to top 5 status in age group in NTX is easy). Parents of starters then proceeded to second-guess and go all high-maintenance, top-team-soccer-parent vocal because they felt they were wrongly denied the chance to shout "We're #1", and they really, really, really wanted that. They questioned his motives and bitched, bitched, bitched, and Coach said, "Ciao."

Academy "starter" parents who don't like to see their girls come off the field should watch what they ask for -- someday their girl might find herself on the bench with glue on her butt. Also, ya'll know what happens to Academy teams that don't play their bench? -- 1) Word gets around, and no one wants their dd to be on that bench; so then, 2) they either have a mightly slim bench, or, they have no depth off the bench, (and neither of these do a team any favors come signing day). Chances are good that here where a top 4 team is involved, the player(s) that the starters' parents begrudge play time in 'critical' moments could go out and earn a spot on and bring much strength to any team she wanted, (and that spot might not be on the bench). Maybe keeping such players around has as much value as a $3 trophy and the opportunity to claim the #3 ranking spot, however so briefly? (Just a thought).

I can't always explain some of JG's game day switch ups either -- sometimes they work ('He's a genius!), and sometimes they don't ('Why the F did he do that?'). I do know that JG tells his players that they play as a team, and they lose as a team. And, he plays his bench.

I can't +1 this post enough.

Idiot soccer parents and their conspiracy theories suck. In the end, the ones who will be most negatively impacted by their idiocy is their own dds. What goes around, comes around.

DT4L wrote:

ralfdallas wrote:

Blank77 wrote:I doubt it, he probably just felt that you win as a team, you lose as a team, and struggled with the thought of upsetting the girls on the bench without even giving them a chance to play at critical times. Maybe his goal was building up the bench to give them some stress/critical game experience and make the team better in the long run, instead of relying on the same players to succeed or fail for this one event.

I've got this in a nutshell: after a #4 ranked Academy team loses 3-2 in overtime to the #3 ranked Academy team, a bunch of sideline geniuses who think they can do it better decide that the coach doesn't know what he's doing, (because God forbid an Academy coach play his bench/put fresh legs in after 5 games in 48 hours, and, really, coaching a team to top 5 status in age group in NTX is easy). Parents of starters then proceeded to second-guess and go all high-maintenance, top-team-soccer-parent vocal because they felt they were wrongly denied the chance to shout "We're #1", and they really, really, really wanted that. They questioned his motives and bitched, bitched, bitched, and Coach said, "Ciao."

Academy "starter" parents who don't like to see their girls come off the field should watch what they ask for -- someday their girl might find herself on the bench with glue on her butt. Also, ya'll know what happens to Academy teams that don't play their bench? -- 1) Word gets around, and no one wants their dd to be on that bench; so then, 2) they either have a mightly slim bench, or, they have no depth off the bench, (and neither of these do a team any favors come signing day). Chances are good that here where a top 4 team is involved, the player(s) that the starters' parents begrudge play time in 'critical' moments could go out and earn a spot on and bring much strength to any team she wanted, (and that spot might not be on the bench). Maybe keeping such players around has as much value as a $3 trophy and the opportunity to claim the #3 ranking spot, however so briefly? (Just a thought).

I can't always explain some of JG's game day switch ups either -- sometimes they work ('He's a genius!), and sometimes they don't ('Why the F did he do that?'). I do know that JG tells his players that they play as a team, and they lose as a team. And, he plays his bench.

I wish you could of told some of the parents that before WW3 broke lose on a good man, that was coaching his ass off, but came up short. Glotz had nothing but respect and love for all his girls. Never once had I ever herd him use foul lanuage or cut any of the girls down. He was a great soccer coach. My DD learned alot from him. I wish he would coach at another club. I would take my DD their in a heart beat.

lovingsoccer wrote:WOW I sure hope that the parents learn a lesson from all this IF what is being posted is true...

springzephyr wrote:If IF is available?