Is age 13 too "old" for DS to try baseball, tennis, or lacrosse?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My DS (age 13) is at a new school this year. Everyone is required to do a spring sport. The choices are baseball, tennis, lacrosse, or track and field. DS is pondering this now, and is a bit worried about it.

He has one sport that he plays a lot, but he has never played baseball, tennis, or lacrosse. He's reluctant to try any new sport at this age. The school has a no-cut policy, and I'm hoping he might give one of these sports a try, just to try it. He's not a particularly athletic person (and is critical of himself), but is a decent performer at his one chosen sport.

Is it a bad idea for him to even try to start baseball, tennis, or lacrosse at age 13 (since he's not super athletic anyway)? We want him to try new things, but also know he can be pretty negative.

He can do track and field, and a lot of kids seem to choose that if they are not already proficient at the other options.

I welcome all thoughts! Thank you!

Go with track. He doesn't need a private coach - just some shoes and the open road. It is also something he can get good at in a short amount of time.

Most people can get decent at track. A handful, usually fairly athletic or determined get good at track. Track teams are full of mediocre runners who do it to stay in shape.

[Anonymous]

Op, it's not the sport - it's the process, gathering the nerve, dedicating himself to trying, and maybe working through disappointment if he doesn't make it. From the process he will learn about himself. DS played HS football, off the team due to a concussion injury, tried out for varsity wrestling, no, took up tennis never having played, practiced for months, didn't make the team. All that trying, out of his comfort zone, meant he was meeting lots of different groups of students. He tried student council and was elected student body president.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Geesh, if we are telling 13-year-olds that it's too late to try something new, then I'm definitely screwed.

I hear you and I feel the same way. Aren't there 2nd string practice teams at the middle/high school level? Is a teenager really too old to try something new? How dumb.

[Anonymous]

I went to a college prep boarding high school. Freshmen play all three seasons, sophomores and juniors can drop one season, seniors can drop 2 seasons. It's also no cut.

Most of the PPs don't have experience with no-cut required sport schools. Usually the school is very small. By having every kid play sports they don't have to have a gym program and they can field full teams that they might not otherwise be able to fill.

With all that said, here's my experience (and the experience of kids currently attending the same school this year):

Every year there are new students, sometimes freshmen, sometimes older. Every kid comes in knowing that they have to play a sport, but many have never played anything, or they want to switch sports. The coaches are all used to dealing with kids at various levels. Some sports have varsity and jv levels, some only have varsity level and the kids who are just starting won't play more than 2 minutes per game for at least a month. Two of our sports only had jv, because we couldn't be competitive on the varsity level. For any sport that has varsity and jv both, varsity works solely on honing skills, jv works on basics at the beginning of every season, and they progress through honing strengths and shoring up weaknesses. For the sports that only have one team, whether it's varsity or jv, the team works together to teach the basics as quickly as possible.

Personally, I did field hockey, swimming and soccer. With the exception of one kid (male manager-exchange from Germany) in four years, every single girl on the field hockey team started having never held a stick before. Some had played ice hockey, some had played soccer, 2 had played lacrosse, and many had never played anything. We worked drills every practice, all four years, at least for a few minutes, because every year there was a new batch of girls for whom it was their first season, and we wanted to be competitive. Swimming isn't really a team sport. We had kids come in who set records their first couple weeks, but we also had kids who were learning to do all four strokes. For soccer, we never had enough girls to have a jv team too, so we only had varsity. Because we had enough girls who had previously played, most of the newest players played 2-5 minutes for the first month.

I like small schools, and the schools that do no-cut every kid plays for sports are great. I don't know how it works at your kid's school, OP, but from what I've seen? He should be able to pick anything he wants. Check with the school, talk with him to the coaches. And good luck!

[Anonymous]

I would stay away from baseball, especially if he hasn't watched A LOT of it on TV or live. It is such a skill game (I hesitate to call it a sport), and there is a lot of groundwork needed to get up to speed. Lacrosse would be easier, but again not a cakewalk. Tennis would probably be the best, since its easier to practice beforehand. Also, as an individual sport, he'd be less likely to feel like he disappointed his teammates if he scrubs something. Its also more of a lifetime sport. Finally, the easiest entry is track, the fall back sport for all the kids without specific athletic talents (it was the sport I did in high school, for example).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I went to a college prep boarding high school. Freshmen play all three seasons, sophomores and juniors can drop one season, seniors can drop 2 seasons. It's also no cut.

Most of the PPs don't have experience with no-cut required sport schools. Usually the school is very small. By having every kid play sports they don't have to have a gym program and they can field full teams that they might not otherwise be able to fill.

With all that said, here's my experience (and the experience of kids currently attending the same school this year):


Your experience 20 plus years ago is not particularly relevant
Every year there are new students, sometimes freshmen, sometimes older. Every kid comes in knowing that they have to play a sport, but many have never played anything, or they want to switch sports. The coaches are all used to dealing with kids at various levels. Some sports have varsity and jv levels, some only have varsity level and the kids who are just starting won't play more than 2 minutes per game for at least a month. Two of our sports only had jv, because we couldn't be competitive on the varsity level. For any sport that has varsity and jv both, varsity works solely on honing skills, jv works on basics at the beginning of every season, and they progress through honing strengths and shoring up weaknesses. For the sports that only have one team, whether it's varsity or jv, the team works together to teach the basics as quickly as possible.

Personally, I did field hockey, swimming and soccer. With the exception of one kid (male manager-exchange from Germany) in four years, every single girl on the field hockey team started having never held a stick before. Some had played ice hockey, some had played soccer, 2 had played lacrosse, and many had never played anything. We worked drills every practice, all four years, at least for a few minutes, because every year there was a new batch of girls for whom it was their first season, and we wanted to be competitive. Swimming isn't really a team sport. We had kids come in who set records their first couple weeks, but we also had kids who were learning to do all four strokes. For soccer, we never had enough girls to have a jv team too, so we only had varsity. Because we had enough girls who had previously played, most of the newest players played 2-5 minutes for the first month.

I like small schools, and the schools that do no-cut every kid plays for sports are great. I don't know how it works at your kid's school, OP, but from what I've seen? He should be able to pick anything he wants. Check with the school, talk with him to the coaches. And good luck!

Your experience a decade or two ago isn't particularly relevant in today's world where many kids start in sports league at the age of five. Dd started field hockey in 4 th grade, most of the other girls had been playing since first grade.

[Anonymous]

If he is 13 and not yet mastered the hand-eye coordination needed for baseball and lacrosse then forget it. He will be embarassed. I don't understand how a boy gets to be 13 years old without ever playing baseball.

Track his only option. It's called the social sport because everyone is welcome and you can be slowest kid in school or the fastest and you will be welcome.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I went to a college prep boarding high school. Freshmen play all three seasons, sophomores and juniors can drop one season, seniors can drop 2 seasons. It's also no cut.

Most of the PPs don't have experience with no-cut required sport schools. Usually the school is very small. By having every kid play sports they don't have to have a gym program and they can field full teams that they might not otherwise be able to fill.

With all that said, here's my experience (and the experience of kids currently attending the same school this year):


Your experience 20 plus years ago is not particularly relevant
Every year there are new students, sometimes freshmen, sometimes older. Every kid comes in knowing that they have to play a sport, but many have never played anything, or they want to switch sports. The coaches are all used to dealing with kids at various levels. Some sports have varsity and jv levels, some only have varsity level and the kids who are just starting won't play more than 2 minutes per game for at least a month. Two of our sports only had jv, because we couldn't be competitive on the varsity level. For any sport that has varsity and jv both, varsity works solely on honing skills, jv works on basics at the beginning of every season, and they progress through honing strengths and shoring up weaknesses. For the sports that only have one team, whether it's varsity or jv, the team works together to teach the basics as quickly as possible.

Personally, I did field hockey, swimming and soccer. With the exception of one kid (male manager-exchange from Germany) in four years, every single girl on the field hockey team started having never held a stick before. Some had played ice hockey, some had played soccer, 2 had played lacrosse, and many had never played anything. We worked drills every practice, all four years, at least for a few minutes, because every year there was a new batch of girls for whom it was their first season, and we wanted to be competitive. Swimming isn't really a team sport. We had kids come in who set records their first couple weeks, but we also had kids who were learning to do all four strokes. For soccer, we never had enough girls to have a jv team too, so we only had varsity. Because we had enough girls who had previously played, most of the newest players played 2-5 minutes for the first month.

I like small schools, and the schools that do no-cut every kid plays for sports are great. I don't know how it works at your kid's school, OP, but from what I've seen? He should be able to pick anything he wants. Check with the school, talk with him to the coaches. And good luck!

Your experience a decade or two ago isn't particularly relevant in today's world where many kids start in sports league at the age of five. Dd started field hockey in 4 th grade, most of the other girls had been playing since first grade.

NP here and I agree and disagree . I agree that kids start sports earlier now, and when I played field hockey 30 years ago, none of the girls had ever held a stick before taking it up in 7th grade but that would be very different now. However, I also agree with the spirit of the first poster in that in a small school with a no cut policy, there are always going to be beginners in most sports so you should just try what you want. That having been said, I'd probably still encourage my DC to pick running or tennis because those are sports he can continue into adulthood.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:If he is 13 and not yet mastered the hand-eye coordination needed for baseball and lacrosse then forget it. He will be embarassed. I don't understand how a boy gets to be 13 years old without ever playing baseball.

Track his only option. It's called the social sport because everyone is welcome and you can be slowest kid in school or the fastest and you will be welcome.

This is ridiculous. Baseball is one of many, many sports. There are plenty of boys who decide not to play because they are focused on other sports or activities.

[Anonymous]

Here's why I would avoid baseball, and I say this as someone who joined a softball team in middle school with no natural skill but the usual amount of American experience:

It is really, really lonely in right field and you learn very little out there.

If the coach is good, all players will learn and progress and any natural talent this kid has will have a chance to develop.

If the coach is not so good, the kid will stand around a whole lot... strike out every 20 minutes or so in batting practice, and spend the rest of the time watching the daisies grow.

If your son wants to do baseball, he needs to get to the batting cages ASAP. Pretty much any man over 40 can teach him enough. A little prep goes a long way and the kids who like it are practicing their swing in the off season.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:If he is 13 and not yet mastered the hand-eye coordination needed for baseball and lacrosse then forget it. He will be embarassed. I don't understand how a boy gets to be 13 years old without ever playing baseball.

Track his only option. It's called the social sport because everyone is welcome and you can be slowest kid in school or the fastest and you will be welcome.

My kid has never played baseball, mostly because I don't want him around parents like you.

[Anonymous]

Martial arts

Plenty of kids start as teens, and his fitness is already good from swimming

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Martial arts

Plenty of kids start as teens, and his fitness is already good from swimming

Not one of the choices. He has to pick a school sport.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Didn't Misty Copeland begin ballet at the advanced age of 13yo?

I don't see the problem.

Misty Copeland was a prodigy. She was en pointe three months after she started lessons, and started dancing professionally about nine months later. OP has said her child isn't a natural athlete, so it's no really an apt comparison.

And, if her parents had thought, "she's too old to start ballet", what then? We'd have lost out on a brilliant dancer. And, she would have lost out on the grand opportunity of finding something she connected with so profoundly. Hell, I'm far from 13 and would hate to hear I couldn't engage in a new sport just because of my chronological age. We're talking about a young boy here! Why shouldn't he try out ANYTHING in the world he may find of interest?!! My goodness! Life is all about new things. Try, baby boy! I learned a new language when I was nearly thirty. Should I have stayed away from that challenge because of how much better it would have been to have learned a language as a toddler? Nope. Sure, the other boys may be far more experienced, but as with the Misty Copeland example, you never know what he'll do with it once he's been exposed. It wasn't written that MC would be a prodigy. It was the opportunity that revealed her talents. Also, there are so many other benefits that come with team sports. Why wouldn't you want your child to access all of that? The potential good is apparent. The bad side is simply that it may not be a great fit. NBD.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Didn't Misty Copeland begin ballet at the advanced age of 13yo?

I don't see the problem.

Misty Copeland was a prodigy. She was en pointe three months after she started lessons, and started dancing professionally about nine months later. OP has said her child isn't a natural athlete, so it's no really an apt comparison.

And, if her parents had thought, "she's too old to start ballet", what then? We'd have lost out on a brilliant dancer. And, she would have lost out on the grand opportunity of finding something she connected with so profoundly. Hell, I'm far from 13 and would hate to hear I couldn't engage in a new sport just because of my chronological age. We're talking about a young boy here! Why shouldn't he try out ANYTHING in the world he may find of interest?!! My goodness! Life is all about new things. Try, baby boy! I learned a new language when I was nearly thirty. Should I have stayed away from that challenge because of how much better it would have been to have learned a language as a toddler? Nope. Sure, the other boys may be far more experienced, but as with the Misty Copeland example, you never know what he'll do with it once he's been exposed. It wasn't written that MC would be a prodigy. It was the opportunity that revealed her talents. Also, there are so many other benefits that come with team sports. Why wouldn't you want your child to access all of that? The potential good is apparent. The bad side is simply that it may not be a great fit. NBD.

Most of us aren't saying he shouldn't even try, we're suggesting that OP should get her son a private coach for a while if he wants to play one of these sports to help him catch up, because otherwise he'll be left behind. Misty Copeland had the equivalent of a private coach, she had a teacher who worked directly with her at her level to develop her skills, they didn't just throw her in with a bunch of 13-year-olds who's been dancing since they were 3 and expect her to figure it out.