How much playing time did your U13 (now U14) player get last year if you had a large roster?

[Anonymous]

A lot. No one seems to want to be a defender, but he wants to do it and does it reasonably well, so he played most of every game. I am sure it is due to the position and lack of interest from others in learning to do it vs. his talent (he's reasonably good, but nothing special).



Thats coming from the parent. So he really is on the lower end of the team all parents see their kid as better than everyone else.

Yes, you are right. He is on the lower end of the team so the coach plays him the whole game when there is a large roster. Makes sense.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Did your child's coach sit many of the players out or did they rotate? DC on a team where most everyone shows up to every game and I'm not sure how it's going to work with 18 kids and only 11 on the field. Last year we had many kids on the bench and it was really unpleasant for everyone.

Last season ds was a U14 and played right and left back for 65-75 minutes a game. It was NPL and he was one of the stronger players on the team. He moved up to ECNL so I’m a bit anxious to see how he transitions.

Our club believes that play time should be close to evenly distributed until u15 and up

The only team I’ve known like that is PAC. they truly do develop players. When a bottom level U11/12 team benches kids, it’s ridiculous. The bottom team is for development.

What is PAC? Where are they located? I think we should talk to the coach.

The coach / director of PAC is a former pro player who has forgotten more about soccer than you've ever dreamed of knowing. His son happens to be an MLS keeper who has made multiple starts for the USMNT. I encourage you to be all badass and try to teach him about soccer. He will, as always, be incredibly pleasant and accommodating. But, you've probably picked the wrong coach to lecture about results. Oh, and we're not with PAC. It was excruciating to not choose that club, but everyone has various factors to consider.

The PP was being sarcastic. Ppp said that PAG devolops their players and pp was saying 'lets talk to them" as if development is an anomaly in this area.

Im the PP and meant no disrespect whatsoever. I never heard of the team until now. I would be interested to check them out as a team for my son.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Sorry, I disagree. If you are paying a club to develop your player, they should be getting playing time. If my player was not getting at least 50% playing time, I would talk to the coach, then the age group director, then the technical director.

This is correct. To all of those disagreeing with this post; you are the paying customer! At the DA level, yes; at ECNL or MLS-Next level, okay. At any other level, your player should be getting minimum 50% playing time.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Did your child's coach sit many of the players out or did they rotate? DC on a team where most everyone shows up to every game and I'm not sure how it's going to work with 18 kids and only 11 on the field. Last year we had many kids on the bench and it was really unpleasant for everyone.

Last season ds was a U14 and played right and left back for 65-75 minutes a game. It was NPL and he was one of the stronger players on the team. He moved up to ECNL so I’m a bit anxious to see how he transitions.

Our club believes that play time should be close to evenly distributed until u15 and up

The only team I’ve known like that is PAC. they truly do develop players. When a bottom level U11/12 team benches kids, it’s ridiculous. The bottom team is for development.

What is PAC? Where are they located? I think we should talk to the coach.

The coach / director of PAC is a former pro player who has forgotten more about soccer than you've ever dreamed of knowing. His son happens to be an MLS keeper who has made multiple starts for the USMNT. I encourage you to be all badass and try to teach him about soccer. He will, as always, be incredibly pleasant and accommodating. But, you've probably picked the wrong coach to lecture about results. Oh, and we're not with PAC. It was excruciating to not choose that club, but everyone has various factors to consider.

The PP was being sarcastic. Ppp said that PAG devolops their players and pp was saying 'lets talk to them" as if development is an anomaly in this area.

Im the PP and meant no disrespect whatsoever. I never heard of the team until now. I would be interested to check them out as a team for my son.

Falls church- premiere AC. Many of the kids moved to top level teams and other programs as they get older.
http://www.premierac.org/Page.asp?n=40590&org=Premierac.org

[Anonymous]

We had 16 on roster for U13. 6 played entire game. The other 10 rotated. 2 only played about 20 minutes at best. We have 17 now for U14.

[Anonymous]

17 on roster for 11 v 11

2 goalies -each played half the game in goal and then at least 25% on the field (so let's say 1.5 between them)
Then four defenders played most of the game (let's say 3.5)

So those six players made up 5 solid spots, which leaves 6 spots for 11 players who had to share time.

Out of the 11 players for 6 spots - the best forward and the playmaker center mid played almost the whole game because they might leave for a different team. (So there is another 2 spots)

So now it is 9 players for 4 spots out of a roster of 17, which actually makes up the majority of the team. Lots of grumbling. Of course clubs love large rosters for the money, but it would make more sense if you want kids to have a lot of playing time for two teams to practice together with 26-28 kids, then split off and have two teams for games with 13-14 on each team. If they need more subs they pull from other team.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:17 on roster for 11 v 11

2 goalies -each played half the game in goal and then at least 25% on the field (so let's say 1.5 between them)
Then four defenders played most of the game (let's say 3.5)

So those six players made up 5 solid spots, which leaves 6 spots for 11 players who had to share time.

Out of the 11 players for 6 spots - the best forward and the playmaker center mid played almost the whole game because they might leave for a different team. (So there is another 2 spots)

So now it is 9 players for 4 spots out of a roster of 17, which actually makes up the majority of the team. Lots of grumbling. Of course clubs love large rosters for the money, but it would make more sense if you want kids to have a lot of playing time for two teams to practice together with 26-28 kids, then split off and have two teams for games with 13-14 on each team. If they need more subs they pull from other team.

9 players for a spots sounds like they can play 45% of the game. Almost 50%!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:17 on roster for 11 v 11

2 goalies -each played half the game in goal and then at least 25% on the field (so let's say 1.5 between them)
Then four defenders played most of the game (let's say 3.5)

So those six players made up 5 solid spots, which leaves 6 spots for 11 players who had to share time.

Out of the 11 players for 6 spots - the best forward and the playmaker center mid played almost the whole game because they might leave for a different team. (So there is another 2 spots)

So now it is 9 players for 4 spots out of a roster of 17, which actually makes up the majority of the team. Lots of grumbling. Of course clubs love large rosters for the money, but it would make more sense if you want kids to have a lot of playing time for two teams to practice together with 26-28 kids, then split off and have two teams for games with 13-14 on each team. If they need more subs they pull from other team.

9 players for a spots sounds like they can play 45% of the game. Almost 50%!

9 players for [4] spots

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Sorry, I disagree. If you are paying a club to develop your player, they should be getting playing time. If my player was not getting at least 50% playing time, I would talk to the coach, then the age group director, then the technical director.

The lack of playing time IS the developmental tool, as it should motivate the player to work harder to improve (both individually and in team training). Sometimes, though, a player doesn't fit a coach's preferred style of play or simply isn't good enough. If that's the case, then find a different team.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Did your child's coach sit many of the players out or did they rotate? DC on a team where most everyone shows up to every game and I'm not sure how it's going to work with 18 kids and only 11 on the field. Last year we had many kids on the bench and it was really unpleasant for everyone.

Last season ds was a U14 and played right and left back for 65-75 minutes a game. It was NPL and he was one of the stronger players on the team. He moved up to ECNL so I’m a bit anxious to see how he transitions.

Our club believes that play time should be close to evenly distributed until u15 and up

The only team I’ve known like that is PAC. they truly do develop players. When a bottom level U11/12 team benches kids, it’s ridiculous. The bottom team is for development.

I'm a big fan of PAC. Two of my sons played there. That being said, even at PAC on the bottom teams, playing time was earned. I remember the club director (EDR, not Sully) getting confronted by a large group of parents after practice (spring 2017, I believe) about this issue, and he held very firm on the idea that no one was owed playing time. It's not just about winning--rewarding effort and skill with playing time is a developmental tool.

For all the parents upset about this, I have two questions:
1) Are YOU upset about your kid not playing, or is your kid upset?
2) Is your kid working to improve? Really working?

If your kid is upset AND working to improve and STILL not getting game time, then it's time to find a new club/coach. It happens sometimes.

[Anonymous]

For all the parents who look at rosters and think they know who should play where and how much. I suggest to go get your coaching license and your own team and then you take on the task of figuring it out. Every situation doesn't work out for every player. If you must move on then move on. Way too many kids are placed on too high of a level in turn holding back the development of the better players. A reality check is needed for many parents who have kids that dont get much playing time. You cant develop every kid to be average. There will always be the worst kid on every team. In reality no matter how hard a player works not all can be middle of the pack average kids. Some just are not good enough and your kid might not be good enough.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Sorry, I disagree. If you are paying a club to develop your player, they should be getting playing time. If my player was not getting at least 50% playing time, I would talk to the coach, then the age group director, then the technical director.

The lack of playing time IS the developmental tool, as it should motivate the player to work harder to improve (both individually and in team training). Sometimes, though, a player doesn't fit a coach's preferred style of play or simply isn't good enough. If that's the case, then find a different team.

Well at this age confidence comes from starting and playing games not sitting on the bench. If your kid is not starting move to a different club. Not starting at u14 means the club is done with your kid. At this age club/coach has their favorites and they are not going change unless someone from outside the club comes in. The bench kid can work their a$$ off but they will never move up the roster. Everything is baked in. This goes for ECNL/GA etc.

If your kid is not starting he/she is not really on the team.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Did your child's coach sit many of the players out or did they rotate? DC on a team where most everyone shows up to every game and I'm not sure how it's going to work with 18 kids and only 11 on the field. Last year we had many kids on the bench and it was really unpleasant for everyone.

Last season ds was a U14 and played right and left back for 65-75 minutes a game. It was NPL and he was one of the stronger players on the team. He moved up to ECNL so I’m a bit anxious to see how he transitions.

Our club believes that play time should be close to evenly distributed until u15 and up

The only team I’ve known like that is PAC. they truly do develop players. When a bottom level U11/12 team benches kids, it’s ridiculous. The bottom team is for development.

I'm a big fan of PAC. Two of my sons played there. That being said, even at PAC on the bottom teams, playing time was earned. I remember the club director (EDR, not Sully) getting confronted by a large group of parents after practice (spring 2017, I believe) about this issue, and he held very firm on the idea that no one was owed playing time. It's not just about winning--rewarding effort and skill with playing time is a developmental tool.

For all the parents upset about this, I have two questions:
1) Are YOU upset about your kid not playing, or is your kid upset?
2) Is your kid working to improve? Really working?

If your kid is upset AND working to improve and STILL not getting game time, then it's time to find a new club/coach. It happens sometimes.

If the kid is held to accountability, so should the coach. If the kid isn't developing, there goes a lot into it. If the coach continues to play same formation, why not expand to other shapes to see what the kids can do?

If you're going to hold a KID to high expectations, coaches should as well.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Did your child's coach sit many of the players out or did they rotate? DC on a team where most everyone shows up to every game and I'm not sure how it's going to work with 18 kids and only 11 on the field. Last year we had many kids on the bench and it was really unpleasant for everyone.

You are kidding right?

18 on a roster for 11v11 is absolutely normal.

[Anonymous]

It was implied that if you kid didn’t get much playing time but played on an ECNL or MLS Next team, you’d be ok with it? Can someone share why they’d be ok with that and not move to a team where the kid would play? Is it just because you feel the training is worth the cost?