My U9 kid hasn’t started a single game.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:this sounds like BRYC to me? But to play devils advocate. almost every u9 kid in travel was a star in rec. Welcome to competitive sports. I know most think u9 is too young , but, its where the separation begins. As a good friend of mine always says "If they don't bark as a puppy they won't bite as a dog"

Your friend sounds like an idiot.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:this sounds like BRYC to me? But to play devils advocate. almost every u9 kid in travel was a star in rec. Welcome to competitive sports. I know most think u9 is too young , but, its where the separation begins. As a good friend of mine always says "If they don't bark as a puppy they won't bite as a dog"

Stupid saying. Kids are not dogs, and some kids get better at strategy and reading the field when they’re 11/12.

[Anonymous]

U9-u13 should be all about the individual development. Let them try whatever they want. It’s not about winning right?

[Anonymous]

What league is this? DS plays travel for Alexandria, and it is 50 percent playing time for regular games, but no promises for tournaments - the coaches can play the best players for the entire game there. Luckily our team is evenly mediocre, so it works out fine.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:this sounds like BRYC to me? But to play devils advocate. almost every u9 kid in travel was a star in rec. Welcome to competitive sports. I know most think u9 is too young , but, its where the separation begins. As a good friend of mine always says "If they don't bark as a puppy they won't bite as a dog"

A good friend of mine would tell you to stay away from kids and dogs

[Anonymous]

You must be playing for a larger club that has 3+ teams in the age group, cares about its reputation, and also is in a more competitive league where there is generally an ability cutoff to each team (CCL1 or maybe CCL2).

I could be wrong, but it sounds like you play for a CCL club, or at least a club with multiple teams.

If your son made a higher level team, then they play other higher level teams and there is very little drop-off in ability from the first to the last player.

If you were playing in NCSL, coaches wouldn't care that much who starts, because at U9, the teams are mishmashed in terms of ability and there are weaker teams in the mix. In CCL1, all teams are generally strong and CCL2 all teams are also fairly strong players compared to the rest of the player pool in the club.

Other teams almost always start their strongest players, so if your son is at the bottom of the depth / talent / ability chart for his team (#9-12), the coach does not want to match him up against players #1-6 because there would be a mismatch on the field. The coach may wait to sub him in when the other team has also taken their first rotation off the field.

As long as your son is playing, whether he starts the game or not won't effect his skill development - maybe his confidence, but not his skill development.

If you feel it's an issue, move to a lower team where he is one of the top players instead of one of the bottom ones.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So why did your kid switch teams if he was doing well on his prior team? Better coaching, different set of kids, closer location?

Went from Rec to travel.

I think that if you want equal starting/playing time then you need rec.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So why did your kid switch teams if he was doing well on his prior team? Better coaching, different set of kids, closer location?

Went from Rec to travel.

I think that if you want equal starting/playing time then you need rec.

That is baloney. Any decent club will give kids equal starting/playing time at U9. You need a different club.

[Anonymous]

I didn’t expect equal playing time when my son started travel at u9. I also recognized not everyone could be a starter. As it turned out, DS didn’t start most games and sometimes only played half the game. He, like most travel players, was the star of his rec team prior. I remember one game where he only had 10 minutes in a tournament. Travel at the young ages should be about development but it is selective. Teams are tiered and kids are cut. If your child doesn’t play a lot in games, have him talk to the coach and ask what he can do to improve. My son’s coach was incredibly kind when approached. He shared with DS that he liked that he saw the big picture on the field, made great passes and had good footwork. But he also shared that he wasn’t aggressive. When challenged he gave the ball up too easily. Of course that was easier said than done as its part personality and part psychology. Now that he’s a bit older we see that he will never be CCL1 aggressive on the field. He moved down a level and is a starter now.

[Anonymous]

Just a thought. My son is a U10. His coach this year said if the kids don't come to practice and don't have a valid excuse, they are not going to play as much as the kids that do. I think this is fair.
Also, effort during practice goes a long way as well. Kids that seem to not care/not be trying also do not play as much. Same goes for games. Some days the kids show up to games and seem to be out of it. They are kids and everyone has off days. The coach doesn't seem to play those kids as much on those days.
Son is on a mid-level NCSL team for what it is worth. In closer games against good teams, I would say that the top 8 kids play the most. The bottom 3 definitely don't get as many minutes. However, in games where it is a blowout, the other kids play. Over the course of the season, they all get equal playing time.
I have to say... my kid plays almost the whole game and has all season. I would be pretty annoyed if he was not getting playing time. The entire point at this age is development. You don't develop if you don't play. So I would absolutely be looking for a new team.

[Anonymous]

Just a thought. My son is a U10. His coach this year said if the kids don't come to practice and don't have a valid excuse, they are not going to play as much as the kids that do. I think this is fair.
Also, effort during practice goes a long way as well. Kids that seem to not care/not be trying also do not play as much. Same goes for games. Some days the kids show up to games and seem to be out of it. They are kids and everyone has off days. The coach doesn't seem to play those kids as much on those days.
Son is on a mid-level NCSL team for what it is worth. In closer games against good teams, I would say that the top 8 kids play the most. The bottom 3 definitely don't get as many minutes. However, in games where it is a blowout, the other kids play. Over the course of the season, they all get equal playing time.
I have to say... my kid plays almost the whole game and has all season. I would be pretty annoyed if he was not getting playing time. The entire point at this age is development. You don't develop if you don't play. So I would absolutely be looking for a new team.

[Anonymous]

Being the star of a U8 rec teams means absolutely nothing.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So why did your kid switch teams if he was doing well on his prior team? Better coaching, different set of kids, closer location?

Went from Rec to travel.

I think that if you want equal starting/playing time then you need rec.

That is baloney. Any decent club will give kids equal starting/playing time at U9. You need a different club.

+1

[Anonymous]

RantingSoccerDad wrote:I think U9 is too young for *full-time* travel, and the U.S. Youth Soccer guidelines (probably abandoned by this point, though I'll need to look into it) agree. You can't really tell much about kids at this age, and you need to be casting a wide net and giving plenty of kids a chance to be trained well.

The occasional tournament for select teams makes sense to me.

The idea of giving someone less than half of the game at U9 makes NO sense under pretty much any sensible system here and abroad. None. If you don't think a player is worthy of your time, move him or her down to the appropriate level. That player might develop and bounce back. Much less likely to happen if you're not playing him or her more than a few minutes here and there at U9.

Bottom line -- if you're *hurting* a kid's development at U9, you're doing something wrong.

I agree whole-heartedly.

[Anonymous]

In professional sports, the starters (and good players) gets a higher salary more than bench players. Hence, in our leagues of “pay-to-play”, starters and kids that gets more playing time should pay more than the other kids. Only fair, right?? (I’m just being funny.)