rec league coaching -- OK to give the strongest players slightly more minutes than the weaker?

[Anonymous]

I'm coaching a rec soccer composed mostly of 5th graders.

We have had a lot of turnover the last couple of years, with some kids moving onwards to play in the travel league, and kids who are entirely new to the game joining the team. About half the team has less than 1 year of experience.

If I play all of the kids evenly -- each getting the same number of minutes -- will would probably lose every game by a wide margin.

If I slightly favor the 5 most experienced kids -- letting them play 90% of each game -- and slightly underplay the rest of the kids, letting them play about 70% of each game -- then the team is competitive and we can we games.

So far this season, I've been favoring the more experienced players to avoid lopsided defeats. I've received no complaints from parents or the kids.

If you are a rec league coach, do you feel my strategy is appropriate, or should I be giving all kids equal playing time?

Keep in mind that no player is permanently parked on the sidelines. Everybody is playing at least 60% of each game.

[Anonymous]

You’re doing a great job, this sounds fine to me.

[Anonymous]

For my sons' rec league, the coach keeps the top players on the whole game, the middle kids play the next most, and the weakest players play 40-50% of the game. I am not the coach, this is just my observation. If your team is winning by a lot, you could have the weaker and middle kids play more, and take the strong players out. On the tougher games, you might do the opposite. Kids and parents like being on a team that wins most games, so I think this is the way to keep everyone as happy as possible.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I'm coaching a rec soccer composed mostly of 5th graders.

We have had a lot of turnover the last couple of years, with some kids moving onwards to play in the travel league, and kids who are entirely new to the game joining the team. About half the team has less than 1 year of experience.

If I play all of the kids evenly -- each getting the same number of minutes -- will would probably lose every game by a wide margin.

If I slightly favor the 5 most experienced kids -- letting them play 90% of each game -- and slightly underplay the rest of the kids, letting them play about 70% of each game -- then the team is competitive and we can we games.

So far this season, I've been favoring the more experienced players to avoid lopsided defeats. I've received no complaints from parents or the kids.

If you are a rec league coach, do you feel my strategy is appropriate, or should I be giving all kids equal playing time?

Keep in mind that no player is permanently parked on the sidelines. Everybody is playing at least 60% of each game.

I can not remember any scores from my rec or travel days. Wins and loses just do not matter. Coach up the weaker players.

[Anonymous]

Play all your players the same amount.

But, play your stronger players in the middle of the field and at keeper. So, if you are playing 9v9, play a 3-3-2 with your best two players as center D and center mid. Then next two as keeper and a forward. Keep two of your best 4 always at center D and center mid. Rotating in - at other positions depending on your numbers.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Play all your players the same amount.

But, play your stronger players in the middle of the field and at keeper. So, if you are playing 9v9, play a 3-3-2 with your best two players as center D and center mid. Then next two as keeper and a forward. Keep two of your best 4 always at center D and center mid. Rotating in - at other positions depending on your numbers.

OP here. I always play the strongest players in the middle of the field, and try to play a strong defense.

Despite the use of this strategy, the team immediately gives up goals if I don't have all of the veteran players on the field for almost the entire game. This is a lopsided team with several kids who could play travel, but the remainder can barely kick a ball. When I aim for even distribution of minutes across all players, it leads to weak line-ups that can give up goals at a rate of one every few minutes. I think we would lose 4 or 5 nothing every game unless I maximize the minutes of the top players.

I feel very uneasy playing the top players so much, but I'm worried that any other approach would lead to blow-out loses that would be discouraging for all players.

[Anonymous]

Do you feel that it's OK to focus 90% of the course material to the smartest kids in the class, and only spend 70% as much time on the middle kids and 40% on the dumbest kids?

How about paying attention to the best looking kids 90% of the time and only focusing on the average kids 70% of the time and barely looking at the ugliest 40% of the time?

Let's extrapolate this and many things like it across their entire lives and see what kind of society we get...

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Do you feel that it's OK to focus 90% of the course material to the smartest kids in the class, and only spend 70% as much time on the middle kids and 40% on the dumbest kids?

How about paying attention to the best looking kids 90% of the time and only focusing on the average kids 70% of the time and barely looking at the ugliest 40% of the time?

Let's extrapolate this and many things like it across their entire lives and see what kind of society we get...

OP. No, I don't think its OK in a classroom to focus exclusively on the smarter kids. The weekly soccer game, however, isn't the only classroom, in this case. The main classroom is the weekly practices where we focus heavily on the newcomers to the game. Those kids that show up for our practices definitely show steady improvement. We have 3 coaches (1 head, 2 assistants) that work together with the kids, so they are getting a heck of a lot of attention. All of us have extensive soccer experience. All of us have coached many years. The better kids on our team have been with us for years, and I'd like to believe that the coaches on this team are responsible, at least in part, for their development into strong players.

In our weekly games, the kids don't like to lose. They want to win. If they truly didn't care about winning, I'd play the kids with equal minutes. But herein lies the tension: they want to win, and they also each want as many minutes as possible. This isn't possible. I cannot simultaneously (1) win games and (2) play all kids equal minutes. This isn't possible. I feel uneasy regardless of which approach I use. Losing badly doesn't feel right, nor does favoring the stronger players. But there isn't any middle ground. I can only do one or the other.

[Anonymous]

It’s fine. I have two kids, one who plays almost all of every game and the other who has been played at the minimum 50% requirement for a lot of rec years. You are doing a good job with how you are handling it.

The only adjustment would be if your team is winning by a lot. Take out the strongest players and give the weaker ones more playing time.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Do you feel that it's OK to focus 90% of the course material to the smartest kids in the class, and only spend 70% as much time on the middle kids and 40% on the dumbest kids?

How about paying attention to the best looking kids 90% of the time and only focusing on the average kids 70% of the time and barely looking at the ugliest 40% of the time?

Let's extrapolate this and many things like it across their entire lives and see what kind of society we get...

OP. No, I don't think its OK in a classroom to focus exclusively on the smarter kids. The weekly soccer game, however, isn't the only classroom, in this case. The main classroom is the weekly practices where we focus heavily on the newcomers to the game. Those kids that show up for our practices definitely show steady improvement. We have 3 coaches (1 head, 2 assistants) that work together with the kids, so they are getting a heck of a lot of attention. All of us have extensive soccer experience. All of us have coached many years. The better kids on our team have been with us for years, and I'd like to believe that the coaches on this team are responsible, at least in part, for their development into strong players.

In our weekly games, the kids don't like to lose. They want to win. If they truly didn't care about winning, I'd play the kids with equal minutes. But herein lies the tension: they want to win, and they also each want as many minutes as possible. This isn't possible. I cannot simultaneously (1) win games and (2) play all kids equal minutes. This isn't possible. I feel uneasy regardless of which approach I use. Losing badly doesn't feel right, nor does favoring the stronger players. But there isn't any middle ground. I can only do one or the other.

Well, it's a recreational league. Once the good players get strong enough, they need to move into a more competitive league. Your job is to continue to train them.

Not giving kids equal opportunity when they are young (and playing rec) is a bit like feeding all the good nutritious food to the bigger stronger ones and the scraps to the weaker ones.... then wondering why the weak ones grow at a slower rate.

[Anonymous]

Your league should tell you.
Our rec league has rules on playing time.

[Anonymous]

Our Rec League requires each kid play 50% of the game. If you can play the strong players more, while still giving everyone else 50%, go for it.

It's Rec, how are other players going to develop if they aren't given the playing time?

And, it's Rec, it's supposed to be fun for everyone - don't be that jerk coach who only cares about winning and not player development, teamwork, fun, etc

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Our Rec League requires each kid play 50% of the game. If you can play the strong players more, while still giving everyone else 50%, go for it.

It's Rec, how are other players going to develop if they aren't given the playing time?

And, it's Rec, it's supposed to be fun for everyone - don't be that jerk coach who only cares about winning and not player development, teamwork, fun, etc

OP. Each child on the team is getting way more than 50%. I've been giving the best players about 90% playing time, and the weaker players around 70%.

In practice, the weaker players get most of my attention.

[Anonymous]

Parents think games matter more than practice, when it is actually the complete opposite. Practice is how kids improve. No one would suggest that performing in piano recitals improves skills better than piano practice and lessons. Focusing on weaker players at practice and giving everyone at least 50% playing time in the games is a good compromise.

You sound better than 90% of rec coaches just from the fact that you are thinking about being fair and improving your players.

[Anonymous]

Every rec league has rules about this. What do the rules say as far as participation? Ours requires kids play minimum 50% of the game. So some kids play a lot more. Follow your league's rules and then do what you want.

Disagree with the person who said kids who can play the sport move to travel. There are lots of great soccer players in our rec league. Rec is for everyone and coaches and players want to win games.