Good/bad coaches - development and ethical behavior

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Listen, I'll be snarky for a minute - but it's really hard for both all players to play at least half the game AND for the best (or better) players play significantly more. Unless you have a relatively tiny roster (14 or less on an 11v11 team), there's going to be haves and have nots. I think that's important to make sure that spread happens at younger ages, but I think where folks draw the line of when that shift should happen is individual. Personally, I'd argue somewhere in the U12-U14 range is the right place.

This just isn't true.

My DS' U16 team has a roster of 18 on gamedays (20 total - but injuries have meant this has not yet caused anyone to sit out when healthy). That's two goal keepers and 16 field players. The goalkeepers play a half each - always. Games are 2x40 minutes so there are 800 minutes total available for the other sixteen players. This is usually shared so that 5-7 players receive about 60 minutes and the remaining 9-11 players receive about 40-45 minutes each. We have had one "important" game (out of probaby 15 or so games and scrimmages) so far this season and the only changes were that two of the players played the whole game, and two others received only about 25 minutes.

+1
This can easily be done if the coach gives a s*@(. Some only care about winning and looking good to their club. It's not a way to develop players at this age and kids in this situation should demand their money back. I don't know of a big club director that would allow this at U14.

Or at any age.

Arlington is arguably the top boys club in the DMV (and if you think BSC is the top club that's fine - I'm not picking a fight about that - the point is that Arlington's top teams are extremely successful). On their top teams - right up to U19 - every kid plays at least half the game in 90% or more of the games they play.

If I'm not mistaken Arlington actually rests players and not play them at all sometimes. I have no idea how that is decided but I know my friend's son sat the entire game and I asked why and he said that it was his day to rest. Maybe it's just because they have like 22 kids on the roster and bring up guest players sometimes.

[Anonymous]

It's a rotation? So kids expect it right? They go to a game and dress up in case they are needed but if all goes according to plan they just don't play? Interesting but very different from a kid driving 1-2 hours in the hopes she gets to go in for 5 minutes and bad form if this is not expected by the families paying thousands of dollars.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Listen, I'll be snarky for a minute - but it's really hard for both all players to play at least half the game AND for the best (or better) players play significantly more. Unless you have a relatively tiny roster (14 or less on an 11v11 team), there's going to be haves and have nots. I think that's important to make sure that spread happens at younger ages, but I think where folks draw the line of when that shift should happen is individual. Personally, I'd argue somewhere in the U12-U14 range is the right place.

This just isn't true.

My DS' U16 team has a roster of 18 on gamedays (20 total - but injuries have meant this has not yet caused anyone to sit out when healthy). That's two goal keepers and 16 field players. The goalkeepers play a half each - always. Games are 2x40 minutes so there are 800 minutes total available for the other sixteen players. This is usually shared so that 5-7 players receive about 60 minutes and the remaining 9-11 players receive about 40-45 minutes each. We have had one "important" game (out of probaby 15 or so games and scrimmages) so far this season and the only changes were that two of the players played the whole game, and two others received only about 25 minutes.

+1
This can easily be done if the coach gives a s*@(. Some only care about winning and looking good to their club. It's not a way to develop players at this age and kids in this situation should demand their money back. I don't know of a big club director that would allow this at U14.

Or at any age.

Arlington is arguably the top boys club in the DMV (and if you think BSC is the top club that's fine - I'm not picking a fight about that - the point is that Arlington's top teams are extremely successful). On their top teams - right up to U19 - every kid plays at least half the game in 90% or more of the games they play.

If I'm not mistaken Arlington actually rests players and not play them at all sometimes. I have no idea how that is decided but I know my friend's son sat the entire game and I asked why and he said that it was his day to rest. Maybe it's just because they have like 22 kids on the roster and bring up guest players sometimes.

ECNL only allows 18 players to dress on game days and the Arlington teams have ~20 on the roster. Most of the time this isn't a issue because of injuries - but if everyone is healthy then one or two kids need to sit out. If this happens (and injuries mean it doesn't more often than it does) then the kids that sit out are rotated - it's not the same kid that sits out every week, although if a kid misses practices then he will likely be one of the ones sitting out.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It's a rotation? So kids expect it right? They go to a game and dress up in case they are needed but if all goes according to plan they just don't play? Interesting but very different from a kid driving 1-2 hours in the hopes she gets to go in for 5 minutes and bad form if this is not expected by the families paying thousands of dollars.

See previous message. Yes - rotated. They are not eligible to play per ECNL rules. They usually attend games to watch, but would not be penalized for not doing so especially for an away game a long way away. Also note that this only happens when all players are healthy which is unusual at these age groups.

[Anonymous]

Good system. How hard is it to get on a team for Arlington?

[Anonymous]

Should have said boys side. DC is only U10 at another big club nearby and looking for alternatives for next year.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Listen, I'll be snarky for a minute - but it's really hard for both all players to play at least half the game AND for the best (or better) players play significantly more. Unless you have a relatively tiny roster (14 or less on an 11v11 team), there's going to be haves and have nots. I think that's important to make sure that spread happens at younger ages, but I think where folks draw the line of when that shift should happen is individual. Personally, I'd argue somewhere in the U12-U14 range is the right place.

This just isn't true.

My DS' U16 team has a roster of 18 on gamedays (20 total - but injuries have meant this has not yet caused anyone to sit out when healthy). That's two goal keepers and 16 field players. The goalkeepers play a half each - always. Games are 2x40 minutes so there are 800 minutes total available for the other sixteen players. This is usually shared so that 5-7 players receive about 60 minutes and the remaining 9-11 players receive about 40-45 minutes each. We have had one "important" game (out of probaby 15 or so games and scrimmages) so far this season and the only changes were that two of the players played the whole game, and two others received only about 25 minutes.

I suppose I would call this proving my point not against it. I don't think 15min more is significantly more, but it also sounds like this team is relatively balanced (1/3 of roster is in the very good category), which I applaud.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Listen, I'll be snarky for a minute - but it's really hard for both all players to play at least half the game AND for the best (or better) players play significantly more. Unless you have a relatively tiny roster (14 or less on an 11v11 team), there's going to be haves and have nots. I think that's important to make sure that spread happens at younger ages, but I think where folks draw the line of when that shift should happen is individual. Personally, I'd argue somewhere in the U12-U14 range is the right place.

This just isn't true.

My DS' U16 team has a roster of 18 on gamedays (20 total - but injuries have meant this has not yet caused anyone to sit out when healthy). That's two goal keepers and 16 field players. The goalkeepers play a half each - always. Games are 2x40 minutes so there are 800 minutes total available for the other sixteen players. This is usually shared so that 5-7 players receive about 60 minutes and the remaining 9-11 players receive about 40-45 minutes each. We have had one "important" game (out of probaby 15 or so games and scrimmages) so far this season and the only changes were that two of the players played the whole game, and two others received only about 25 minutes.

+1
This can easily be done if the coach gives a s*@(. Some only care about winning and looking good to their club. It's not a way to develop players at this age and kids in this situation should demand their money back. I don't know of a big club director that would allow this at U14.

Then we're not playing the same clubs that you are, because I haven't seen a team do this across the 2 age groups my kids are in (1 boy/1 girl) - and I don't mean just my club, I mean our opponents. There are always a couple players we play who leave the field for less than 5 minutes a half, and that makes the math hard to get everyone in there for > 50%. I whole heartedly agree that the way to develop players is to get them gametime and that there should be a good spread. I also happen to believe that the best way to do this is with smaller rosters and more teams, while letting players move between teams if you have injuries and need an extra body or two, and larger clubs are perfectly capable of that when they have 2+ teams/age group. It also provides a greater ability to pull players up who deserve a shot at a faster paced game, while giving players who are struggling or working on something at the bottom end of the roster to get the time in a better game situation. If you've got a roster of 18-20, you aren't developing and giving players elsewhere in the club a shot, because you don't have minutes to give them. Players don't develop by playing so far above their heads that they don't know what to do, neither do the good players develop to their potential because they won't have other good players moving to the right spots to show them the situation during a game. That's not just true of soccer, but of any sport. Should the coach give more playing time? Absolutely. Should there be rosters of 17/18 at U13? No. 12 or more at 7v7? No. But that's what we see, many times because we as parents can't bear the thought of our poor child not being on the top team, even when it's clearly not what's best for them or the team.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Good system. How hard is it to get on a team for Arlington?

Any Arlington team- not hard. An academy team, very hard

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Listen, I'll be snarky for a minute - but it's really hard for both all players to play at least half the game AND for the best (or better) players play significantly more. Unless you have a relatively tiny roster (14 or less on an 11v11 team), there's going to be haves and have nots. I think that's important to make sure that spread happens at younger ages, but I think where folks draw the line of when that shift should happen is individual. Personally, I'd argue somewhere in the U12-U14 range is the right place.

This just isn't true.

My DS' U16 team has a roster of 18 on gamedays (20 total - but injuries have meant this has not yet caused anyone to sit out when healthy). That's two goal keepers and 16 field players. The goalkeepers play a half each - always. Games are 2x40 minutes so there are 800 minutes total available for the other sixteen players. This is usually shared so that 5-7 players receive about 60 minutes and the remaining 9-11 players receive about 40-45 minutes each. We have had one "important" game (out of probaby 15 or so games and scrimmages) so far this season and the only changes were that two of the players played the whole game, and two others received only about 25 minutes.

+1
This can easily be done if the coach gives a s*@(. Some only care about winning and looking good to their club. It's not a way to develop players at this age and kids in this situation should demand their money back. I don't know of a big club director that would allow this at U14.

Then we're not playing the same clubs that you are, because I haven't seen a team do this across the 2 age groups my kids are in (1 boy/1 girl) - and I don't mean just my club, I mean our opponents. There are always a couple players we play who leave the field for less than 5 minutes a half, and that makes the math hard to get everyone in there for > 50%. I whole heartedly agree that the way to develop players is to get them gametime and that there should be a good spread. I also happen to believe that the best way to do this is with smaller rosters and more teams, while letting players move between teams if you have injuries and need an extra body or two, and larger clubs are perfectly capable of that when they have 2+ teams/age group. It also provides a greater ability to pull players up who deserve a shot at a faster paced game, while giving players who are struggling or working on something at the bottom end of the roster to get the time in a better game situation. If you've got a roster of 18-20, you aren't developing and giving players elsewhere in the club a shot, because you don't have minutes to give them. Players don't develop by playing so far above their heads that they don't know what to do, neither do the good players develop to their potential because they won't have other good players moving to the right spots to show them the situation during a game. That's not just true of soccer, but of any sport. Should the coach give more playing time? Absolutely. Should there be rosters of 17/18 at U13? No. 12 or more at 7v7? No. But that's what we see, many times because we as parents can't bear the thought of our poor child not being on the top team, even when it's clearly not what's best for them or the team.

Are your children in top tier teams? We have seen the opposite regarding playing time (everyone plays) for two children, but our DCs are not on extremely competitive teams. If you're the top team for McLean or Alexandria, Arlington maybe it's different.

Good point about the rosters. Also noticed the top team rosters can be inflated but the way we have seen in our kid's leagues is that they sub 3-4 or even 5 kids out at a time. Our DC1's team size is not bad but some of the competing teams are huge and in the middle of some games DC1s team is exhausted but the other teams sub in half their teams with well rested players.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Good system. How hard is it to get on a team for Arlington?

Hard.

But that's not the point.

I used Arlington as an example because some people are suggesting that limiting playing time is justifiable when things get very competitive at a high level and older age groups. And my point was that the (arguably) best teams in northern VA, playing at the highest level, do not find it necessary to do this.

If Arlington can provide at least 50% playing time for all players in DA and now ECNL where their teams are highly successful, why is any other club justified in not doing so?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Then we're not playing the same clubs that you are, because I haven't seen a team do this across the 2 age groups my kids are in (1 boy/1 girl) - and I don't mean just my club, I mean our opponents. There are always a couple players we play who leave the field for less than 5 minutes a half, and that makes the math hard to get everyone in there for > 50%.

Even if 2 kids play the whole game, that still leaves an average of 46 minutes for the other 14 field players on an 18 man roster with 2 GKs. Assuming 4 more play 3/4 of the game that leaves 400 minutes for the other 10, or 40 minutes each. I'm not saying that all coaches do this, just that they should. And that not doing it cannot be justified.

I whole heartedly agree that the way to develop players is to get them gametime and that there should be a good spread. I also happen to believe that the best way to do this is with smaller rosters and more teams, while letting players move between teams if you have injuries and need an extra body or two, and larger clubs are perfectly capable of that when they have 2+ teams/age group.

I agree on this. But even with rosters of 18-20, it is perfectly possible to give players enough playing time. Over 20 and I agree that time can definitely begin to get squeezed.

[Anonymous]

There are always a couple players we play who leave the field for less than 5 minutes a half, and that makes the math hard to get everyone in there for > 50%.

Right, but that potentially backfires terribly. My son is currently his team's 6. Before he played that position, another kid played 100 percent of the time every game as the 6. No one was cross-trained to do it. When that kid moved, my son had to learn how on the fly and it was tough at first. Now, no one is cross training with him, and he is having problems with his foot.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I've been known to directly loudly compliment a player from the sidelines when an *sshole teammate loudly mouths off at them.

Ditto. I've said things like "You did the right thing <insert name here>" loudly. Unless the asshole really is an asshole (mostly they're not - just frustrated kids) - this usually has the effect of the frustrated kid apologizing and acknowledging he shouldn't have torn his teammate down.

This is dumb. You’ve just over complicated the situation with BS. Your feedback should be honest and tactfully done, not an outright lie that confuses everyone and causes potential backfire. You will eventually lose both players like this. One will think they are great, and not be, the other will think you and the others were idiots. I cant believe we pay for this.

[Anonymous]

I don't think that PP is saying he tells the kid he did the right thing when he did the wrong thing, but compliments some other aspect of play.

Maybe the player loses the ball due to a passing it straight to the opposition. But it took a lot of hustle to get there in the first place to get the ball. You could tell the child, "Way to get there." "Good run."

I don't think anyone is screaming great pass when the pass goes out or flying straight to someone on the other team.