You started off by implying that a disorganized force was not only as good as, but actually better than the trained British military. As it happens, the voluntary forces were badly defeated both at Lexington and Concorde, and the Continental Army was recognized at the time to be sorely inferior to the British troops.
They were very clear in their opposition to a standing army.
And they had valid reasons for saying so. But they were also not fools -- which is why they ended up creating a standing army very soon after independence. See here for an excellent discussion of the matter.
In a sense that's true; the ragtag continentals never compared favorably to the regulars.
However, you appear to be distorting that into a claim that, somehow, disorganized fighting is better. The issue isn't organized vs. disorganized; it's coercive versus non-coercive. The claim under dispute is that defense is impossible without forcibly extorted tax dollars and absolute government control of the military.
And they had valid reasons for saying so. But they were also not fools -- which is why they ended up creating a standing army very soon after independence.
Don't let Washington fool you. He was a proponent of the standing army since before the revolution was won. His scorn for the continentals' lack of training and discipline makes perfect sense when you remember that he fought in the British army in the French and Indian war. One of his first acts as president was to provoke the Whiskey rebellion, and then use that standing army of his to cow Pittsburgh into submission.
Badly defeated? Had the Salem companies (under Pickering?) not dawdled in coming down from Essex county, and taken positions where they should have taken them, at Charleston Neck, arguably not a single British regular would've made it back to Boston alive. There wouldn't have been a single Englishman in uniform left to climb Breed's Hill that June, or leave Boston permanently shortly thereafter . . .