Re: St.Michael's Holiday Tournament
Icemom, perhaps that is the problem. For years when your daughter was there you supported the program and never had a bad word to say about anything. Suddenly she decides to not play this year, for reasons which are her own and I know nothing about, which is immaterial to this discussion. However, since that time, your comments towards the team could at best be considered backhanded compliments, usually with some sort of semi positive note at the end to make them seem less so.
"I'm truly surprised by their win, but congratulations" (jackets, you can say its the score she's talking about, but she picked Plymouth to win the game)
Your other posts have condemned their recruiting efforts, stated that you thought they were the worst team in the league this year (attributing it to the loss of "experienced players" of which at the time there were I believe only 2 who barely even played last year not coming back), and completely shredded the head coach in a now extinct series of posts about the former assistant coach leaving to move into a new job.
When the team was carrying like 7 players and 10 had quit you were still supporting Coach Wintrup and saying to give her time because she was going to get it done. Now the team is better than it has ever been, and you find any chance to take shots at them. The fact you can say you have seen no true improvement in 5 years of watching Chatham hockey is absolutely laughable. Ask the coaches of the other teams in the league if there is an improvement. I think you'd get a pretty resounding "yes" from them.
Try building a team that hadn't won in like what, six years or something? At a small all girls school in Pittsburgh where there is virtually no local talent pool to recruit from. The fact that they are where they are at today is frankly kind of amazing and when they have 4 recruiting cycles in, instead of two, then you can analyze your numbers all you want. Winning 4 league games last year was a huge step. Having no wins this year is misleading considering they have played Utica, Plattsburgh, Elmira, and Cortland.
You want further improvement? Let's compare apples to apples. In 2006-2007, the first year I believe your daughter played, Utica, Plattsburgh, Elmira, and Cortland beat Chatham by a combined score of 65-5. Chatham was outshot 477-94 in these games (5 to 1).
in 09-10, with only 2 recruiting classes in, Chatham has lost to these same teams by a combined score of 31-8 and has only been outshot by a margin of 345-172 (2 to 1).
Like you said, the numbers don't lie.
I could go on all day if I had to. Your support for Chatham when nobody else wanted to support them here is undeniable and certainly admirable. However it is obvious that since your daughter quit playing you have become far more negative in your comments towards the program. Deny it if you wish, call it an honest assessment or whatever, but your comments aren't rooted in any fact, and when compared to your overly positive analysis in the past, it shows that you clearly have an axe to grind with someone, for some reason that I do not pretend to know.
Finally, as to your last comment, which you seem to have made a lot this year about retaining players. Come on, seriously? You want them to build a competitive program, but you don't think they are going to lose players in the process? Kids that used to play a larger role and now find themselves getting less ice time? You can't have it both ways. The kids who have quit have largely been upperclassmen who were at best role players. The kids they have brought in and actually recruited to help build the program are still there, and are still playing at a higher level than any Chatham program ever did prior to the last year and a half.
You are right, you are entitled to your opinion and to keep posting it on this thread. Just as I am entitled to mine. Everyone else can agree with whoever they choose.
