Playing time expectations

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:actually that's a great idea. I am sure the club and coach would love the publicity. After all -- there is a poster here who thinks it is a good idea to play 9 and 10 year olds less than others. The club and coach should be proud to let the soccer world know about their winning ways with u9 and u10 teams, and their uniquely fabulous training techniques and incentives.

Or, do you think, the club leadership would be ticked off and DofC embarassed that such a thing was occuring?

Even at 9 and 10 years old, in travel sports playing time is not an entitlement. This is the fundamental difference between travel sports and recreation sports.

In travel soccer a player has 3 days a week to train, improve and earn playing time for games. A typical rec team will only practice one to two times a week. The level of commitment for self improvement is simply not a major part of the equation in rec.

Travel sports require a dedicated commitment to improve and to improve within the scope of the team. Development happens over the course of the week during practice. The game is the reward for that work. Kids who work harder, stay focused and implement the team concepts during the week will earn more playing time in games.

It is vital to know your own player and to know their abilities. If a player is at the bottom of the roster consistently then you should certainly seek out a lower level team within the club. In time a better outside player will push your kid out anyways. You can complain all you want about playing time but frankly your kid is just not good enough on that team and more game minutes are not going to improve your player, that is what practice is for.

Just a contributor to this thread here. Generically speaking here, I think sometimes clubs and coaches offer players on teams that aren’t at the correct level for them and it wasn’t a mistake either but we don’t have to go there. Some people here have said it as much.Some players work harder than starters at practice and have a team player but there is no change week after week. Believe if you want or look the other way I don’t really care. Maybe the coach finally sees the player’s value by the end of the season. Problem is that it’s too late by then and a player has lost considerable time playing in games. Even if the person finally sees his value, I have to wonder if more play time correlates to spring tryouts in any way.

Bottom of the roster players are always at risk of being displaced.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:actually that's a great idea. I am sure the club and coach would love the publicity. After all -- there is a poster here who thinks it is a good idea to play 9 and 10 year olds less than others. The club and coach should be proud to let the soccer world know about their winning ways with u9 and u10 teams, and their uniquely fabulous training techniques and incentives.

Or, do you think, the club leadership would be ticked off and DofC embarassed that such a thing was occuring?

Even at 9 and 10 years old, in travel sports playing time is not an entitlement. This is the fundamental difference between travel sports and recreation sports.

In travel soccer a player has 3 days a week to train, improve and earn playing time for games. A typical rec team will only practice one to two times a week. The level of commitment for self improvement is simply not a major part of the equation in rec.

Travel sports require a dedicated commitment to improve and to improve within the scope of the team. Development happens over the course of the week during practice. The game is the reward for that work. Kids who work harder, stay focused and implement the team concepts during the week will earn more playing time in games.

It is vital to know your own player and to know their abilities. If a player is at the bottom of the roster consistently then you should certainly seek out a lower level team within the club. In time a better outside player will push your kid out anyways. You can complain all you want about playing time but frankly your kid is just not good enough on that team and more game minutes are not going to improve your player, that is what practice is for.

Just a contributor to this thread here. Generically speaking here, I think sometimes clubs and coaches offer players on teams that aren’t at the correct level for them and it wasn’t a mistake either but we don’t have to go there. Some people here have said it as much.Some players work harder than starters at practice and have a team player but there is no change week after week. Believe if you want or look the other way I don’t really care. Maybe the coach finally sees the player’s value by the end of the season. Problem is that it’s too late by then and a player has lost considerable time playing in games. Even if the person finally sees his value, I have to wonder if more play time correlates to spring tryouts in any way.

That is the problem. Coaches often take up players that they know can't compete because it fills roster spots and brings in money. It'd be better not to pick up the players at all. Or if it was a genuine mistake, the coach should live with it by playing the player and then cutting them the following year.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:actually that's a great idea. I am sure the club and coach would love the publicity. After all -- there is a poster here who thinks it is a good idea to play 9 and 10 year olds less than others. The club and coach should be proud to let the soccer world know about their winning ways with u9 and u10 teams, and their uniquely fabulous training techniques and incentives.

Or, do you think, the club leadership would be ticked off and DofC embarassed that such a thing was occuring?

Even at 9 and 10 years old, in travel sports playing time is not an entitlement. This is the fundamental difference between travel sports and recreation sports.

In travel soccer a player has 3 days a week to train, improve and earn playing time for games. A typical rec team will only practice one to two times a week. The level of commitment for self improvement is simply not a major part of the equation in rec.

Travel sports require a dedicated commitment to improve and to improve within the scope of the team. Development happens over the course of the week during practice. The game is the reward for that work. Kids who work harder, stay focused and implement the team concepts during the week will earn more playing time in games.

It is vital to know your own player and to know their abilities. If a player is at the bottom of the roster consistently then you should certainly seek out a lower level team within the club. In time a better outside player will push your kid out anyways. You can complain all you want about playing time but frankly your kid is just not good enough on that team and more game minutes are not going to improve your player, that is what practice is for.

Just a contributor to this thread here. Generically speaking here, I think sometimes clubs and coaches offer players on teams that aren’t at the correct level for them and it wasn’t a mistake either but we don’t have to go there. Some people here have said it as much.Some players work harder than starters at practice and have a team player but there is no change week after week. Believe if you want or look the other way I don’t really care. Maybe the coach finally sees the player’s value by the end of the season. Problem is that it’s too late by then and a player has lost considerable time playing in games. Even if the person finally sees his value, I have to wonder if more play time correlates to spring tryouts in any way.

That is the problem. Coaches often take up players that they know can't compete because it fills roster spots and brings in money. It'd be better not to pick up the players at all. Or if it was a genuine mistake, the coach should live with it by playing the player and then cutting them the following year.

Not true at U9, U10 etc.

They get kids wrong in cattle call tryouts.

Sounds like they got your kid wrong. Get better, drop a team or move to another club. Your whining here isn’t making your kid any better. Blaming the system or a coach isn’t getting your kids touches either. You’re unwilling to control what you can control. But keep crying about how your kid has been thrown to the trash heap because a fall season at U10 didn’t go quite your way.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:actually that's a great idea. I am sure the club and coach would love the publicity. After all -- there is a poster here who thinks it is a good idea to play 9 and 10 year olds less than others. The club and coach should be proud to let the soccer world know about their winning ways with u9 and u10 teams, and their uniquely fabulous training techniques and incentives.

Or, do you think, the club leadership would be ticked off and DofC embarassed that such a thing was occuring?

Even at 9 and 10 years old, in travel sports playing time is not an entitlement. This is the fundamental difference between travel sports and recreation sports.

In travel soccer a player has 3 days a week to train, improve and earn playing time for games. A typical rec team will only practice one to two times a week. The level of commitment for self improvement is simply not a major part of the equation in rec.

Travel sports require a dedicated commitment to improve and to improve within the scope of the team. Development happens over the course of the week during practice. The game is the reward for that work. Kids who work harder, stay focused and implement the team concepts during the week will earn more playing time in games.

It is vital to know your own player and to know their abilities. If a player is at the bottom of the roster consistently then you should certainly seek out a lower level team within the club. In time a better outside player will push your kid out anyways. You can complain all you want about playing time but frankly your kid is just not good enough on that team and more game minutes are not going to improve your player, that is what practice is for.

Just a contributor to this thread here. Generically speaking here, I think sometimes clubs and coaches offer players on teams that aren’t at the correct level for them and it wasn’t a mistake either but we don’t have to go there. Some people here have said it as much.Some players work harder than starters at practice and have a team player but there is no change week after week. Believe if you want or look the other way I don’t really care. Maybe the coach finally sees the player’s value by the end of the season. Problem is that it’s too late by then and a player has lost considerable time playing in games. Even if the person finally sees his value, I have to wonder if more play time correlates to spring tryouts in any way.

That is the problem. Coaches often take up players that they know can't compete because it fills roster spots and brings in money. It'd be better not to pick up the players at all. Or if it was a genuine mistake, the coach should live with it by playing the player and then cutting them the following year.

Not true at U9, U10 etc.

They get kids wrong in cattle call tryouts.

Sounds like they got your kid wrong. Get better, drop a team or move to another club. Your whining here isn’t making your kid any better. Blaming the system or a coach isn’t getting your kids touches either. You’re unwilling to control what you can control. But keep crying about how your kid has been thrown to the trash heap because a fall season at U10 didn’t go quite your way.

Actually I wasn't talking about my kid. I was talking about kids I've seen it happen to. It's wrong to bench a 9 year old. If the coach made a mistake, he should live up to his end of the bargain and play the kid like he does the others. Too many times I've seen coaches take on players that they had to know those kids weren't at the right level. No way they didn't know. But a check is a check.

[Anonymous]

When will people start naming these clubs that bench 9 year olds? You are clearly proud of it, so name them. I want a list of what clubs not to go to.

[Anonymous]

Well there are two possible positions here:

1. That playing a kid at u9/u10 for only the league required minimum is a good thing.

2. That playing a kid at u9/u10 for only the league required minimum is a bad thing.

So - come on all you posters who say it is a good thing: prove it. Stand up for your position and tell us the u9/u10 clubs and coaches who uphold this stance so that they can be acknowledge. In short, name names. Or, alternatively, admit that the position is stupid and kids on the team should play as much as possible.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Well there are two possible positions here:

1. That playing a kid at u9/u10 for only the league required minimum is a good thing.

2. That playing a kid at u9/u10 for only the league required minimum is a bad thing.

So - come on all you posters who say it is a good thing: prove it. Stand up for your position and tell us the u9/u10 clubs and coaches who uphold this stance so that they can be acknowledge. In short, name names. Or, alternatively, admit that the position is stupid and kids on the team should play as much as possible.

No, you haven’t read anything at all. The position that keeps getting stated but never understood is:

Playing time in travel is earned. 50% is a reasonable expectation for all players and anything more is earned. If your kid cannot crack more than 50% of playing time on the current team then the kid should drop a level where they should get more playing time at an appropriate level. There are A, B, C and D teams for this very purpose.

So, if a kid wants more playing time on their current team then train and get better otherwise look for a lower level team that is more appropriate skill level wise. There is a travel team level for nearly every kid.

[Anonymous]

If you are proud of your club's playing and not playing 9 year olds, say their name. Or else you aren't as proud as you pretend.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:If you are proud of your club's playing and not playing 9 year olds, say their name. Or else you aren't as proud as you pretend.

Worry about training and the rest will take care of itself.

What will your excuse be in four years?

[Anonymous]

its ok when the u11 roster is announced and there are a few kids missing from your u10 last yr. it will be those kids who were mistakenly selected for u9 then u10 before. as you get older the gap in talent only widens. as they say the cream rises to the top.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If you are proud of your club's playing and not playing 9 year olds, say their name. Or else you aren't as proud as you pretend.

Worry about training and the rest will take care of itself.

What will your excuse be in four years?

In 4 years? If I had been in a club like that, it wouldn't take me 4 years to change clubs. And benching a 9 year old is just a symptom. A club like that isn't be good at development, so I would end up leaving over coaching issues. Starters left McLean when they were unhappy with the coach. Starters left Richmond when the DA came out and because of coaching issues. It's not only the bottom third that leaves.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If you are proud of your club's playing and not playing 9 year olds, say their name. Or else you aren't as proud as you pretend.

Worry about training and the rest will take care of itself.

What will your excuse be in four years?

In 4 years? If I had been in a club like that, it wouldn't take me 4 years to change clubs. And benching a 9 year old is just a symptom. A club like that isn't be good at development, so I would end up leaving over coaching issues. Starters left McLean when they were unhappy with the coach. Starters left Richmond when the DA came out and because of coaching issues. It's not only the bottom third that leaves.

the bottom third doesn't leave . they are cut and replaced by better players

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If you are proud of your club's playing and not playing 9 year olds, say their name. Or else you aren't as proud as you pretend.

Worry about training and the rest will take care of itself.

What will your excuse be in four years?

In 4 years? If I had been in a club like that, it wouldn't take me 4 years to change clubs. And benching a 9 year old is just a symptom. A club like that isn't be good at development, so I would end up leaving over coaching issues. Starters left McLean when they were unhappy with the coach. Starters left Richmond when the DA came out and because of coaching issues. It's not only the bottom third that leaves.

the bottom third doesn't leave . they are cut and replaced by better players

That's club dependent. There are bottom third players that stay year after year. And some clubs just keep expanding their roster.

Still, you missed the point entirely. Which has been typical of this thread.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If you are proud of your club's playing and not playing 9 year olds, say their name. Or else you aren't as proud as you pretend.

Worry about training and the rest will take care of itself.

What will your excuse be in four years?

No names? Are you afraid to identify the clubs and coaches who you believe support limiting playing time at u9 and u10? It’s simple. If it is a good thing to do then everyone will certainly applaud and be happy to know these fine clubs and coaches. Or, alternatively you can admit it is actually a really bad thing to do to 9 and 10 year olds. There is no alternative.

I will pass along something the DofC of a club 2 of my kid’s played with for many years said that he learned over 25 years of youth coaching. The best u9 players are never the best u12s, and it all changes again by u16. I would add to that by college it can all change again. Take a look at any college team roster on line. Count the seniors. Now go back 4 years and see how many were in the freshman entering class. If 50% are still playing as seniors that school is doing pretty good. Many schools don’t keep more than a third.

So - again - coaches and club names please.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If you are proud of your club's playing and not playing 9 year olds, say their name. Or else you aren't as proud as you pretend.

Worry about training and the rest will take care of itself.

What will your excuse be in four years?

No names? Are you afraid to identify the clubs and coaches who you believe support limiting playing time at u9 and u10? It’s simple. If it is a good thing to do then everyone will certainly applaud and be happy to know these fine clubs and coaches. Or, alternatively you can admit it is actually a really bad thing to do to 9 and 10 year olds. There is no alternative.

I will pass along something the DofC of a club 2 of my kid’s played with for many years said that he learned over 25 years of youth coaching. The best u9 players are never the best u12s, and it all changes again by u16. I would add to that by college it can all change again. Take a look at any college team roster on line. Count the seniors. Now go back 4 years and see how many were in the freshman entering class. If 50% are still playing as seniors that school is doing pretty good. Many schools don’t keep more than a third.

So - again - coaches and club names please.

Simple, every travel team. Kids don’t get, nor can they expect equal minutes at travel.

And, yes the tired old story of super star 12 year olds passed by. This is true only for kids that work for it and don’t complain about game minutes. Instead they work harder to earn minutes or they move to a more appropriate level. The kid of the OP will not be playing competitive soccer in four years because they don’t understand.