At what age is it acceptable to play to win?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Always. That’s the point once you know how to play the game. I’d say with very young kids who need to learn, k, 1st and maybe 2nd, but IME by second at least the boys who hav been playing for years want to win and it’s no fun having kids who have no athletic ability come in a screw up the game.

This right here is what people mean when they say kids sports have become too competitive and not fun anymore. You sound like the parents in our little league who try to rig the draft for a 2nd grade team (so 7 and 8 year olds) to fill it with all stars. There are lots of kids this age that just love baseball but aren’t necessarily natural athletes. Let them play and have fun and enjoy the sport! Yes they should be practicing and working hard, but if they don’t have natural hand eye coordination so what. These kids likely won’t keep playing into high school (though a few might surprise you!). But the same is true for plenty of the supposed all stars. The kids are 7 years old. They’re going to win some games and lose some games. And literally none of it actually matters in the scheme of life. Stop sucking all the fun out of being a kid.

And for the record, my son is considered one of the strongest players on his team, so this isn’t coming from a parent upset their kid doesn’t play enough.

[Anonymous]

There are two different questions here.

First, should the players play to win? Always. That's easy.

Second, should the coach coach to win? That's harder. At younger ages and rec league, the coach should give all players PT (and maybe equal PT), rotate them through positions, and emphasize player development and having fun (I think I'm the first to mention prioritizing fun, which is kinda sad). That changes a little as they get older, and as they progress to travel and higher leagues.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:There are two different questions here.

First, should the players play to win? Always. That's easy.

Second, should the coach coach to win? That's harder. At younger ages and rec league, the coach should give all players PT (and maybe equal PT), rotate them through positions, and emphasize player development and having fun (I think I'm the first to mention prioritizing fun, which is kinda sad). That changes a little as they get older, and as they progress to travel and higher leagues.

No, someone upthread who also separated out the goals of parents and adults mentioned fun. However that poster pointed out a priority should be "a good time" over "fun" because sometimes sports aren't fun. Sometimes it's a grind where you aren't performing the way you like or whatever, even for younger kids at lower competition levels.

My kid said after game 1 of a double header last weekend that she was disappointed in herself for not focusing, adjusted for game 2, and was able to be proud of herself at the end of the day. I wouldn't say that it was "fun" exactly, but I would say it was a good time.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Always. That’s the point once you know how to play the game. I’d say with very young kids who need to learn, k, 1st and maybe 2nd, but IME by second at least the boys who hav been playing for years want to win and it’s no fun having kids who have no athletic ability come in a screw up the game.

It’s interesting how you only say the BOYS want to win. No boy in 2nd grade has been playing for years. It’s supposed to be a fun activity but there’s always one or two delusional parents who think their kid is a stand out and kids with no ability will ruin it. Truth is the parents of the natural athletes at this age don’t worry about the other kids, they just like to watch their child enjoy the game. It just does not matter at this age.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:My kid quit flag football after a season where he did not touch the ball one time.

You can blame fathers who coach but were never athletes themselves. Especially when you see where their child is placed.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Always. That’s the point once you know how to play the game. I’d say with very young kids who need to learn, k, 1st and maybe 2nd, but IME by second at least the boys who hav been playing for years want to win and it’s no fun having kids who have no athletic ability come in a screw up the game.

It’s interesting how you only say the BOYS want to win. No boy in 2nd grade has been playing for years. It’s supposed to be a fun activity but there’s always one or two delusional parents who think their kid is a stand out and kids with no ability will ruin it. Truth is the parents of the natural athletes at this age don’t worry about the other kids, they just like to watch their child enjoy the game. It just does not matter at this age.

Amen

[Anonymous]

Rec level should be about fun and development with equal play time.

[Anonymous]

All ages.
Sports is about competition, and learning to be graceful losers and winners.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:All ages.
Sports is about competition, and learning to be graceful losers and winners.

At the rec level it should really be about development. Especially with big age ranges. A 7 year old is expected to be better than a 5.5 year old.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:All ages.
A 7 year old is expected to be better than a 5.5 year old.

Exactly, and it helps the 5.5 year old become better competing against much better competition.

[Anonymous]

As noted earlier - no adult of a kid participating in a sport at any youth level, and at any age, should give a rats rear end about wins. Yes, losing every game is not fun. Youth teams are set up to limit those instances.

Interestingly, many professional sports are also set up so that teams do not lose all the time. And, to focus on individual development. Do you think the Orioles give a rats rear end if the Norfolk Tides “win”? The Tides exist to make Orioles prospects better players - not to win games.