Playing time expectations

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Just curious what parent expectations are regarding playing time for your kids. Is it ‘win or die’ even at age 10 with kids riding the bench for extended periods of time, or is complete equity no matter what? I’m assuming most parents are somewhere in between and I’m most specifically curious what’s the minimum you’d be okay with and how long you think kids should be sitting while they’re out.

In my specific situation, I’ve got a young kid on a team that’s not the top team for that age group. What’s a reasonable expectation?

my expectations :

the need to win is a built in byproduct of our american pay to play system and will affect balance of play no matter where you go. It is perhaps not the best way, but in our current system, it is a reality, so I expect it.

the younger the age, the broader the development net should be. This should tend towards more balanced playing time at younger ages

the higher the level of play, the more the balance is shifted to the kids the coach deems have the greatest potential. Sometimes coaches don't get it right, and focus on kids who have matured earlier physically, vs those with true potential.

certain positions may be more biased than others. defenders are more critical to team success so better defenders play a higher percentage of time. the higher the level of play, the more this becomes a factor

some game situations may change the balance of playing time. Again, the higher the level, the more emphasis there is on winning so the more this becomes a factor.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Just curious what parent expectations are regarding playing time for your kids. Is it ‘win or die’ even at age 10 with kids riding the bench for extended periods of time, or is complete equity no matter what? I’m assuming most parents are somewhere in between and I’m most specifically curious what’s the minimum you’d be okay with and how long you think kids should be sitting while they’re out.

In my specific situation, I’ve got a young kid on a team that’s not the top team for that age group. What’s a reasonable expectation?

my expectations :

the need to win is a built in byproduct of our american pay to play system and will affect balance of play no matter where you go. It is perhaps not the best way, but in our current system, it is a reality, so I expect it.

the younger the age, the broader the development net should be. This should tend towards more balanced playing time at younger ages

the higher the level of play, the more the balance is shifted to the kids the coach deems have the greatest potential. Sometimes coaches don't get it right, and focus on kids who have matured earlier physically, vs those with true potential.

certain positions may be more biased than others. defenders are more critical to team success so better defenders play a higher percentage of time. the higher the level of play, the more this becomes a factor

some game situations may change the balance of playing time. Again, the higher the level, the more emphasis there is on winning so the more this becomes a factor.

and one more that I forgot.

To go with the position affect, central players are typically more critical to team success than outside players and so will affect playing time balance. If you a reserve player and only play a forward wing position, this might be a red flag that you're lower on the depth chart.

[Anonymous]

This is why there should not be "travel" soccer at U10. By playing in that system, you've accepted non-equal playing time. And the notion that you even need to be playing games to measure your development instead of working on basic skills and concepts.

If equal playing time is your concern at this age, you've placed your child in the wrong league.

This is all compounded by parents in the DMV who cannot fathom their child isn't in the top 25% in athleticism, much less below average or in the bottom 25%. Some kids have parents who think the child is much better than he/she really is.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Can you explain to someone who knows nothing about soccer why a defender would stay in the whole game at that age/

W
This is pretty typical. Defenders don't need to be subbed as they are not running up and down the field like mids/forwards.
Many coaches do not sub those in those roles...and by U-11 only certain kids can really play that role.

If you are talking about large clubs that have 4+ teams, then yes this will happen on top 2 teams especially if its a club like Arlington.

If its a club with just 2 teams then maybe less so

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Can you explain to someone who knows nothing about soccer why a defender would stay in the whole game at that age/

W
This is pretty typical. Defenders don't need to be subbed as they are not running up and down the field like mids/forwards.
Many coaches do not sub those in those roles...and by U-11 only certain kids can really play that role.

If you are talking about large clubs that have 4+ teams, then yes this will happen on top 2 teams especially if its a club like Arlington.

If its a club with just 2 teams then maybe less so

Actually at U10, there should be NO set positions and therefore no set defenders. And no one should play the full game, unless the team has a small roster that affords that, which very few clubs ever do.

[Anonymous]

Defenders get more playing time for a variety of reasons, including:

a) they usually don't run as far during the course of a game and have more 'rest' time to recover.
b) a good chemistry in defense can really make a team solid, and mulitple substitutions in defense can lead to 'bonehead' errors where players lose track of who their position.
c) some kids specifically don't want to play defense (or are really really bad at it).
d) defenders making major errors lead to goals. Midfielders or strikers making errors lead to turnovers or wide shots, but it usually isn't game-changing.

But this all depends on the team. Some coaches play their best and strongest in midfield and have defenders as basically a 'safety' should one get past. Others play their strongest players in defense and let the kids up front make mistakes confident that not much will get past the kids in the back.

But at U10, I would agree that kids should be rotated around in a variety of positions. I also know from experience this doesn't always happen.

[Anonymous]

Back to the point at hand, these are the guidelines for Development Academy U-13s (and you can extrapolate these should apply to any team under U13).

1. Suggested Playing Time Recommendations for U-13: For the U-13 age group, players are expected to play a minimum of 50% of game minutes per month and recommended to start 25% of games, as part of the individual player development plan. ?

2. U.S. Soccer reserves the right to fine a club or disallow the addition of new players as a penalty for failing to make reasonable efforts for all players meet the 25% minimum start recommendation. The DA will also take this into consideration when reviewing a club’s membership for renewal.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Back to the point at hand, these are the guidelines for Development Academy U-13s (and you can extrapolate these should apply to any team under U13).

1. Suggested Playing Time Recommendations for U-13: For the U-13 age group, players are expected to play a minimum of 50% of game minutes per month and recommended to start 25% of games, as part of the individual player development plan. ?

2. U.S. Soccer reserves the right to fine a club or disallow the addition of new players as a penalty for failing to make reasonable efforts for all players meet the 25% minimum start recommendation. The DA will also take this into consideration when reviewing a club’s membership for renewal.

Those aren't bad, but at U10, expect even more pariety. These are 9 year olds. It is their first travel experience. They shouldn't be pigeon holed as defenders or goalies or anything else.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:On the 2nd or 3rd, it should be close to equal time. Those team do not matter at all. I have seen clubs strip a 2nd team before a tournament so that the top team has 5 subs for an easy league game.

Only the performance of the top team matters, right? So many parents just fall in line of doing what’s best for the club without realizing they’re not doing anything for your kid - i.e. ride the bench in an easy win vs actually play and contribute in a tournament.

Yes that is the way it is. Clubs really only care about wins(and the top few players) on their first team. If you do not know that you are pretty clueless. No one talks/cares about a clubs second team record. Example- last weekend at Arlington, the u12 girls coach skipped the second team’s tournament game for the first team’s scrimmage. LOL yes your kids on the second team are real important to the club!

So yep a second team at u10, all the players should get equal time and rotating through position. Should happen on the first team till u12 but clubs and parents want to win.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:On the 2nd or 3rd, it should be close to equal time. Those team do not matter at all. I have seen clubs strip a 2nd team before a tournament so that the top team has 5 subs for an easy league game.

Only the performance of the top team matters, right? So many parents just fall in line of doing what’s best for the club without realizing they’re not doing anything for your kid - i.e. ride the bench in an easy win vs actually play and contribute in a tournament.

Yes that is the way it is. Clubs really only care about wins(and the top few players) on their first team. If you do not know that you are pretty clueless. No one talks/cares about a clubs second team record. Example- last weekend at Arlington, the u12 girls coach skipped the second team’s tournament game for the first team’s scrimmage. LOL yes your kids on the second team are real important to the club!

So yep a second team at u10, all the players should get equal time and rotating through position. Should happen on the first team till u12 but clubs and parents want to win.

No, even at U10, all teams and players should rotate. No coach can possibly know and lock a player into defense at 9. If any club is doing that, find another club. Maybe playing time isn't 100% equal, but for the poster bringing up U13 guidelines, that's not a bad look. Every player should start at least 1 game in 4 and play on average half the games. Maybe which games depends on the competition, but if your 9 year old is playing 10 minutes a game, or is already locked as only a defender (or only a striker actually, which is a valid fear for that fast kid with low technical skill), then run!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Just curious what parent expectations are regarding playing time for your kids. Is it ‘win or die’ even at age 10 with kids riding the bench for extended periods of time, or is complete equity no matter what? I’m assuming most parents are somewhere in between and I’m most specifically curious what’s the minimum you’d be okay with and how long you think kids should be sitting while they’re out.

In my specific situation, I’ve got a young kid on a team that’s not the top team for that age group. What’s a reasonable expectation?

my expectations :

the need to win is a built in byproduct of our american pay to play system and will affect balance of play no matter where you go. It is perhaps not the best way, but in our current system, it is a reality, so I expect it.

the younger the age, the broader the development net should be. This should tend towards more balanced playing time at younger ages

the higher the level of play, the more the balance is shifted to the kids the coach deems have the greatest potential. Sometimes coaches don't get it right, and focus on kids who have matured earlier physically, vs those with true potential.[/list]
[list]certain positions may be more biased than others. defenders are more critical to team success so better defenders play a higher percentage of time. the higher the level of play, the more this becomes a factor

some game situations may change the balance of playing time. Again, the higher the level, the more emphasis there is on winning so the more this becomes a factor.

So kids that have matured earlier don't have true potential? I guess your kid is the scrawny kid who gets pushed off the ball every play and just keep saying...wait til his growth spurt.

[Anonymous]

It really depends on the club and the team profile. If it's a large club, yes, I totally agree. Play whomever you want as much as you want. There's a bus of people wanting to be on Arlington or Loudoun Red.

Anyone else...50% minimum from U9-U13 for a couple of reasons. One, risk losing players. Even the 50% or 100% players are at risk for leaving to better teams, ENCL, DA. Two, if US soccer recommends this approach, all clubs should do the same in all regular and tournament games. Aside from needing the numbers, if one kid comes off the field feeling like they didn't have a chance to contribute to a win (or loss), the club has done something wrong. Period. That's not what I call a team and as adults, let's not lose perspective on youth sports.

Playing defenders and central mid the entire game....idk, what happens when the defenders and center mid allow goals in on a consistent basis, offense can't score, and you can't win a game? Do you stick with your lineup?

Anything less than 50% play time, run.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Just curious what parent expectations are regarding playing time for your kids. Is it ‘win or die’ even at age 10 with kids riding the bench for extended periods of time, or is complete equity no matter what? I’m assuming most parents are somewhere in between and I’m most specifically curious what’s the minimum you’d be okay with and how long you think kids should be sitting while they’re out.

In my specific situation, I’ve got a young kid on a team that’s not the top team for that age group. What’s a reasonable expectation?

my expectations :

the need to win is a built in byproduct of our american pay to play system and will affect balance of play no matter where you go. It is perhaps not the best way, but in our current system, it is a reality, so I expect it.

the younger the age, the broader the development net should be. This should tend towards more balanced playing time at younger ages

the higher the level of play, the more the balance is shifted to the kids the coach deems have the greatest potential. Sometimes coaches don't get it right, and focus on kids who have matured earlier physically, vs those with true potential.[/list]
[list]certain positions may be more biased than others. defenders are more critical to team success so better defenders play a higher percentage of time. the higher the level of play, the more this becomes a factor

some game situations may change the balance of playing time. Again, the higher the level, the more emphasis there is on winning so the more this becomes a factor.

So kids that have matured earlier don't have true potential? I guess your kid is the scrawny kid who gets pushed off the ball every play and just keep saying...wait til his growth spurt.

DP, I agree with you and actually it's the early maturers I fear for. It's easy to put a big fast kid at forward. Those are the kids that score a ton of goals early on but don't get developed properly and later on find themselves sidelined, their time cut and they stop scoring.

I don't want to see some scrawny kid overlooked, fine. But let's not abuse the big kids when they are young for some wins and then throw them away later.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It really depends on the club and the team profile. If it's a large club, yes, I totally agree. Play whomever you want as much as you want. There's a bus of people wanting to be on Arlington or Loudoun Red.

Anyone else...50% minimum from U9-U13 for a couple of reasons. One, risk losing players. Even the 50% or 100% players are at risk for leaving to better teams, ENCL, DA. Two, if US soccer recommends this approach, all clubs should do the same in all regular and tournament games. Aside from needing the numbers, if one kid comes off the field feeling like they didn't have a chance to contribute to a win (or loss), the club has done something wrong. Period. That's not what I call a team and as adults, let's not lose perspective on youth sports.

Playing defenders and central mid the entire game....idk, what happens when the defenders and center mid allow goals in on a consistent basis, offense can't score, and you can't win a game? Do you stick with your lineup?

Anything less than 50% play time, run.

+1.

[Anonymous]

OP here. Appreciate all the responses. I’m upset about my kid’s lack of playing time because he’s upset. It’s so obvious that it’s demoralizing for him. Moping little kids are kind of pathetic. My spouse is more of the ‘what do the rules say’ so I’m curious on both fronts.

In this case, I’m well aware he’s in the bottom quarter of the team in performance, but I think playing 50% of a game where there’s only 8 kids in attendance seems low. I also don’t love that he never starts and kids who are late to warmups (ie show up at game time) start before him. And he’s on the bench for such long stretches (15+ minutes) that it seems like it would be hard to perform well after that.

We know he’s not that great of a player, but he seems to love it and I do think he can improve if he’s not run out of the sport.