Playing up - impact on other players?

[Anonymous]

So I know there are plenty of threads on the pros and cons of your kid playing up. But I’m wondering about the impact of “play up” kids on the other kids on the team. Like a high school ECNL team with middle schoolers rostered or a middle school ECNL team with elementary school kids regularly coming to practice. I’m all for development, but this reeks of desperation. How can you call a team “elite” when you’re dipping 2-3 years down to roster players? And how do you go to an ECNL showcase with a player who is 2-3 years away from college recruitment? Why would a coach sacrifice the potential success of his recruitment class by entertaining this?

[Anonymous]

Is this a serious post? Sounds more like jealous parent whose kid watched team mates play up because of their skills and never got the call.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:So I know there are plenty of threads on the pros and cons of your kid playing up. But I’m wondering about the impact of “play up” kids on the other kids on the team. Like a high school ECNL team with middle schoolers rostered or a middle school ECNL team with elementary school kids regularly coming to practice. I’m all for development, but this reeks of desperation. How can you call a team “elite” when you’re dipping 2-3 years down to roster players? And how do you go to an ECNL showcase with a player who is 2-3 years away from college recruitment? Why would a coach sacrifice the potential success of his recruitment class by entertaining this?

Coaches do strange things like that. Sometimes, kids pull out of the expensive showcases and they bring in younger players. I agree, it doesn't seem right. If I was another age group player who did not get the nod to go to the showcase over a player 2 years younger, I would have questions also. I think the there is a negative impact on the remainder of the players who did not get the call.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Is this a serious post? Sounds more like jealous parent whose kid watched team mates play up because of their skills and never got the call.

Definitely jealousy and envy dressed up as concern for the system

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So I know there are plenty of threads on the pros and cons of your kid playing up. But I’m wondering about the impact of “play up” kids on the other kids on the team. Like a high school ECNL team with middle schoolers rostered or a middle school ECNL team with elementary school kids regularly coming to practice. I’m all for development, but this reeks of desperation. How can you call a team “elite” when you’re dipping 2-3 years down to roster players? And how do you go to an ECNL showcase with a player who is 2-3 years away from college recruitment? Why would a coach sacrifice the potential success of his recruitment class by entertaining this?

Coaches do strange things like that. Sometimes, kids pull out of the expensive showcases and they bring in younger players. I agree, it doesn't seem right. If I was another age group player who did not get the nod to go to the showcase over a player 2 years younger, I would have questions also. I think the there is a negative impact on the remainder of the players who did not get the call.

The coach brought the younger better player that fits his team's needs

Why else would a coach do it

[Anonymous]

Let’s just say the younger player family threatened to leave the organization completely unless they were rostered 2 years up.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Let’s just say the younger player family threatened to leave the organization completely unless they were rostered 2 years up.

This happens all of the time in ECNL. Typically, the parents of the younger players are paying the coaches for these opportunities.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Let’s just say the younger player family threatened to leave the organization completely unless they were rostered 2 years up.

Do you know this for a fact or are you just making assumptions? Sounds like jealousy that that kid is good. Coaches do not roster an average or below average kid two years up because they threaten to leave. Let the coaches make the decisions. They are the coach after all.

[Anonymous]

Here’s a sure fire way to check if the coach doesn’t know what he’s doing — you go to to the coach and threaten to leave the club if YOUR kid isn’t rostered two years up. If the coach says no (or looks at you like you’re crazy), then that kid who they chose is getting the appropriate experience to their level. If the coach says yes, your kid can play two years up cause we don’t want you to leave the club, then you have your answer.

[Anonymous]

This whole conversation is silly, if the kid is playing up, it's likely they are good enough to be there. Some kids are just naturally talented and perform way above their age group. Unfortunately, my kid is not, but I would not be upset if a talented younger player was on the team.

[Anonymous]

It's called talent retention.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So I know there are plenty of threads on the pros and cons of your kid playing up. But I’m wondering about the impact of “play up” kids on the other kids on the team. Like a high school ECNL team with middle schoolers rostered or a middle school ECNL team with elementary school kids regularly coming to practice. I’m all for development, but this reeks of desperation. How can you call a team “elite” when you’re dipping 2-3 years down to roster players? And how do you go to an ECNL showcase with a player who is 2-3 years away from college recruitment? Why would a coach sacrifice the potential success of his recruitment class by entertaining this?

Coaches do strange things like that. Sometimes, kids pull out of the expensive showcases and they bring in younger players. I agree, it doesn't seem right. If I was another age group player who did not get the nod to go to the showcase over a player 2 years younger, I would have questions also. I think the there is a negative impact on the remainder of the players who did not get the call.

If someone gets pulled out and replaced with a kid 2 years younger they probably did not have that much to showcase to start with, no?
We are dealing with a different impact of someone playing one year up in our team. The kid plays in their own age group but also one year up. Sometimes the games of the two team are back to back and the kid shows up to our game exhausted and unable to run. The coach keeps them on the field regardless. It is really annoying.

[Anonymous]

I've seen this a lot.

On the girls' side, at older ages, it often is just a result of how girls grow at different rates around 12-16 or so. Usually a girl playing up at that age group is just playing with people that are physically her peers. My guess is most people watching the game would not be able to pick out the girls playing up.

On the boys' side, though, it almost always sucks for everyone except the family of the boy who thinks that their kid is the next Messi. Usually what happens is a boy will be able to dribble past kids in his age group and score lots of goals. So he will get moved up - either because the parents ask for it or the coaches decide. But then he is on an older age level and he still thinks that he is the dribbling king and he still plays as if he is the best kid on the team, which he isn't anymore. Instead he is just like a black hole where team passing moves die. The younger kids almost always make bad decisions and are way too selfish, but once they get moved up they tend to stay up, and once they have that habit they tend to keep it. So their teammates are stuck with a kid who hurts the team and actually drags the team down. But the kids' parents think he is awesome because he still dribble and shoots a lot, and the coaches just rotate him on the wing and don't ever correct his mental game.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Let’s just say the younger player family threatened to leave the organization completely unless they were rostered 2 years up.

that's funny

the coach is going to play a kid 2 years up where they can't handle it to make a parent happy?
this must be rec level with parent coaches

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I've seen this a lot.

On the girls' side, at older ages, it often is just a result of how girls grow at different rates around 12-16 or so. Usually a girl playing up at that age group is just playing with people that are physically her peers. My guess is most people watching the game would not be able to pick out the girls playing up.

On the boys' side, though, it almost always sucks for everyone except the family of the boy who thinks that their kid is the next Messi. Usually what happens is a boy will be able to dribble past kids in his age group and score lots of goals. So he will get moved up - either because the parents ask for it or the coaches decide. But then he is on an older age level and he still thinks that he is the dribbling king and he still plays as if he is the best kid on the team, which he isn't anymore. Instead he is just like a black hole where team passing moves die. The younger kids almost always make bad decisions and are way too selfish, but once they get moved up they tend to stay up, and once they have that habit they tend to keep it. So their teammates are stuck with a kid who hurts the team and actually drags the team down. But the kids' parents think he is awesome because he still dribble and shoots a lot, and the coaches just rotate him on the wing and don't ever correct his mental game.

Do the parents of the two years younger and can't hack it kid own the club and pay the coaches?