Playing time expectations

[Anonymous]

Is this a record thread....21 pages of saying the same thing over and over again. When was the last time someone posted an original thought on this topic. Let this die please.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:And don't feel like you have to talk to the coach. If the fall and spring come and go, and this all stays the same, you pretty much have your answer. Just find somewhere else for him to play. If it's 50% now, it will likely go down as the years roll by. No big deal. Plenty of clubs to choose from.

They don’t know why their kid isn’t playing if they don’t talk to the coach and those unfixed issues will likely follow the kid to the next club.

After a year at the club, you always know. Even the OP already has his suspicions. Parents may not always like the reasons and the reasons may not be fair, but it's not a surprise. And the kid should also be capable of asking. It's often better if it comes from a player, not a coach.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Nah it's easy. Every kid, every game should be playing as much as possible at 9 and 10 (and 11 and 12 and ....., and 17 and 18.)

Why do you suppose we are not hearing about lack of playing time for kids from DA teams with limited substitution rules? Kids on the DA teams not want to play? Nope. The clubs long ago made sure that kids played a lot - even if it was in unofficial scrimmages. The points being (1) kids play a lot, and (2) college and professional coaches are given ample opportunity to see the kids play.

Now -- if you have a club 9 or 10 year old coach withholding playing time for a kid who is not as good as other kids on the team, and the coach has not explained to the parents and the kid the reasoning behind that decision (lack of attendance, not paying attention etc. . . ) then you have a bad coach. Period. The club may have another team though where the kid can fit in with a decent coach.
That is worth exploring so do have a conversation with the appropriate director about team placement.

There is no excuse for not playing a 9 or 10 year old who is showing up with a good attitude and otherwise following team rules as much as everyone else.

Every coach already knows who they are not playing and how their substitution patterns work. If the coach is not telling you why your kid is not playing then that is another sign of a very bad coach. Nothing should be a surprise to the player or the player's parents.

Finally, do not be shy about leaving and getting your money back. For a 10 year old you are talking about 10% of their lifetime doing something with a bad coach. Sorry no. Leave and get a porportion of your money back. Do not be shy. You will be doing your kid a big favor.

I agree with most everything you put, and the scrimmages and also PT status are ways they make sure players play. However I wonder if any club has ever refunded anyone because of playing time issues (or any other issues for that matter). That would be interesting if they did.

Sure. Good clubs make team placement mistakes regularly. If they cannot work a deal where the kid gets moved to a different team within the club they will refund money. As a said a while back in this thread, one of my kid’s had a teammate for a couple of weeks who was pretty obviously a much weaker player than the rest of the team. The parents did not want to move him within the club because of embarrassment issues. The club helped get him on a team at a neighboring club that was more appropriate for his then level of play and athleticism. As I found out much later, the Club refunded his money obviously, bought back his uniform and paid $1000 towards the new club’s fees. The parents weren’t happy the club misjudged the kid at tryouts, but were happy with how the club handled the issue.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Nah it's easy. Every kid, every game should be playing as much as possible at 9 and 10 (and 11 and 12 and ....., and 17 and 18.)

Why do you suppose we are not hearing about lack of playing time for kids from DA teams with limited substitution rules? Kids on the DA teams not want to play? Nope. The clubs long ago made sure that kids played a lot - even if it was in unofficial scrimmages. The points being (1) kids play a lot, and (2) college and professional coaches are given ample opportunity to see the kids play.

Now -- if you have a club 9 or 10 year old coach withholding playing time for a kid who is not as good as other kids on the team, and the coach has not explained to the parents and the kid the reasoning behind that decision (lack of attendance, not paying attention etc. . . ) then you have a bad coach. Period. The club may have another team though where the kid can fit in with a decent coach.
That is worth exploring so do have a conversation with the appropriate director about team placement.

There is no excuse for not playing a 9 or 10 year old who is showing up with a good attitude and otherwise following team rules as much as everyone else.

Every coach already knows who they are not playing and how their substitution patterns work. If the coach is not telling you why your kid is not playing then that is another sign of a very bad coach. Nothing should be a surprise to the player or the player's parents.

Finally, do not be shy about leaving and getting your money back. For a 10 year old you are talking about 10% of their lifetime doing something with a bad coach. Sorry no. Leave and get a porportion of your money back. Do not be shy. You will be doing your kid a big favor.

I agree with most everything you put, and the scrimmages and also PT status are ways they make sure players play. However I wonder if any club has ever refunded anyone because of playing time issues (or any other issues for that matter). That would be interesting if they did.

Sure. Good clubs make team placement mistakes regularly. If they cannot work a deal where the kid gets moved to a different team within the club they will refund money. As a said a while back in this thread, one of my kid’s had a teammate for a couple of weeks who was pretty obviously a much weaker player than the rest of the team. The parents did not want to move him within the club because of embarrassment issues. The club helped get him on a team at a neighboring club that was more appropriate for his then level of play and athleticism. As I found out much later, the Club refunded his money obviously, bought back his uniform and paid $1000 towards the new club’s fees. The parents weren’t happy the club misjudged the kid at tryouts, but were happy with how the club handled the issue.

That's impressive. Which club? I've seen the opposite happen. A parent speaks up and then the kid sees even less playing time and the club backs the coach with saying play time is up to the coach's discretion.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:And don't feel like you have to talk to the coach. If the fall and spring come and go, and this all stays the same, you pretty much have your answer. Just find somewhere else for him to play. If it's 50% now, it will likely go down as the years roll by. No big deal. Plenty of clubs to choose from.

They don’t know why their kid isn’t playing if they don’t talk to the coach and those unfixed issues will likely follow the kid to the next club.

After a year at the club, you always know. Even the OP already has his suspicions. Parents may not always like the reasons and the reasons may not be fair, but it's not a surprise. And the kid should also be capable of asking. It's often better if it comes from a player, not a coach.

A 9 year old is not going to ask.

All the OP stated is that their kid is the bottom of the roster but never said what the gap is or the deficiencies are. Is it first touch, off the ball movement, lack of aggressiveness? What? And nobody here has articulated what the shortcomings are either. And communication is a two way street.

And there was a long post citing multiple club playing time expectations and when a actual amount was listed it was 50%. The kid is not being abused playing time wise for travel. While the playing time is not ideal and that is why the parents should talk to the coach and then consider finding a better fit but they are not owed a refund.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Nah it's easy. Every kid, every game should be playing as much as possible at 9 and 10 (and 11 and 12 and ....., and 17 and 18.)

Why do you suppose we are not hearing about lack of playing time for kids from DA teams with limited substitution rules? Kids on the DA teams not want to play? Nope. The clubs long ago made sure that kids played a lot - even if it was in unofficial scrimmages. The points being (1) kids play a lot, and (2) college and professional coaches are given ample opportunity to see the kids play.

Now -- if you have a club 9 or 10 year old coach withholding playing time for a kid who is not as good as other kids on the team, and the coach has not explained to the parents and the kid the reasoning behind that decision (lack of attendance, not paying attention etc. . . ) then you have a bad coach. Period. The club may have another team though where the kid can fit in with a decent coach.
That is worth exploring so do have a conversation with the appropriate director about team placement.

There is no excuse for not playing a 9 or 10 year old who is showing up with a good attitude and otherwise following team rules as much as everyone else.

Every coach already knows who they are not playing and how their substitution patterns work. If the coach is not telling you why your kid is not playing then that is another sign of a very bad coach. Nothing should be a surprise to the player or the player's parents.

Finally, do not be shy about leaving and getting your money back. For a 10 year old you are talking about 10% of their lifetime doing something with a bad coach. Sorry no. Leave and get a porportion of your money back. Do not be shy. You will be doing your kid a big favor.

I agree with most everything you put, and the scrimmages and also PT status are ways they make sure players play. However I wonder if any club has ever refunded anyone because of playing time issues (or any other issues for that matter). That would be interesting if they did.

Sure. Good clubs make team placement mistakes regularly. If they cannot work a deal where the kid gets moved to a different team within the club they will refund money. As a said a while back in this thread, one of my kid’s had a teammate for a couple of weeks who was pretty obviously a much weaker player than the rest of the team. The parents did not want to move him within the club because of embarrassment issues. The club helped get him on a team at a neighboring club that was more appropriate for his then level of play and athleticism. As I found out much later, the Club refunded his money obviously, bought back his uniform and paid $1000 towards the new club’s fees. The parents weren’t happy the club misjudged the kid at tryouts, but were happy with how the club handled the issue.

That's impressive. Which club? I've seen the opposite happen. A parent speaks up and then the kid sees even less playing time and the club backs the coach with saying play time is up to the coach's discretion.

This is my first contribution to this thread but I thought I should pipe in. I had a U10 DD many years ago who was playing 30-50% in league games and 5-10 minutes in tournaments. She wasn't the only one. The team had a HUGE roster so the favorites played about 70% and the others 30%. No one was happy. The parents of the favorites wanted their little ones on the field the whole game. Multiple parents approached the coach expressing unhappiness so a team meeting was held. Coach told us players get better in practice and games are meaningless at the young age. And that they actually get better from "watching" the game being played. We are no longer with the club. I will leave it here for all to speculate as to the coach and club and to whether watching other kids play in games is more helpful than actually playing in them.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:And don't feel like you have to talk to the coach. If the fall and spring come and go, and this all stays the same, you pretty much have your answer. Just find somewhere else for him to play. If it's 50% now, it will likely go down as the years roll by. No big deal. Plenty of clubs to choose from.

They don’t know why their kid isn’t playing if they don’t talk to the coach and those unfixed issues will likely follow the kid to the next club.

After a year at the club, you always know. Even the OP already has his suspicions. Parents may not always like the reasons and the reasons may not be fair, but it's not a surprise. And the kid should also be capable of asking. It's often better if it comes from a player, not a coach.

A 9 year old is not going to ask.

All the OP stated is that their kid is the bottom of the roster but never said what the gap is or the deficiencies are. Is it first touch, off the ball movement, lack of aggressiveness? What? And nobody here has articulated what the shortcomings are either. And communication is a two way street.

And there was a long post citing multiple club playing time expectations and when a actual amount was listed it was 50%. The kid is not being abused playing time wise for travel. While the playing time is not ideal and that is why the parents should talk to the coach and then consider finding a better fit but they are not owed a refund.

That's been stated as a way to go, and not talking to the coach too for reasons as well. Is there a need to go another round of why and why not?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Nah it's easy. Every kid, every game should be playing as much as possible at 9 and 10 (and 11 and 12 and ....., and 17 and 18.)

Why do you suppose we are not hearing about lack of playing time for kids from DA teams with limited substitution rules? Kids on the DA teams not want to play? Nope. The clubs long ago made sure that kids played a lot - even if it was in unofficial scrimmages. The points being (1) kids play a lot, and (2) college and professional coaches are given ample opportunity to see the kids play.

Now -- if you have a club 9 or 10 year old coach withholding playing time for a kid who is not as good as other kids on the team, and the coach has not explained to the parents and the kid the reasoning behind that decision (lack of attendance, not paying attention etc. . . ) then you have a bad coach. Period. The club may have another team though where the kid can fit in with a decent coach.
That is worth exploring so do have a conversation with the appropriate director about team placement.

There is no excuse for not playing a 9 or 10 year old who is showing up with a good attitude and otherwise following team rules as much as everyone else.

Every coach already knows who they are not playing and how their substitution patterns work. If the coach is not telling you why your kid is not playing then that is another sign of a very bad coach. Nothing should be a surprise to the player or the player's parents.

Finally, do not be shy about leaving and getting your money back. For a 10 year old you are talking about 10% of their lifetime doing something with a bad coach. Sorry no. Leave and get a porportion of your money back. Do not be shy. You will be doing your kid a big favor.

I agree with most everything you put, and the scrimmages and also PT status are ways they make sure players play. However I wonder if any club has ever refunded anyone because of playing time issues (or any other issues for that matter). That would be interesting if they did.

Sure. Good clubs make team placement mistakes regularly. If they cannot work a deal where the kid gets moved to a different team within the club they will refund money. As a said a while back in this thread, one of my kid’s had a teammate for a couple of weeks who was pretty obviously a much weaker player than the rest of the team. The parents did not want to move him within the club because of embarrassment issues. The club helped get him on a team at a neighboring club that was more appropriate for his then level of play and athleticism. As I found out much later, the Club refunded his money obviously, bought back his uniform and paid $1000 towards the new club’s fees. The parents weren’t happy the club misjudged the kid at tryouts, but were happy with how the club handled the issue.

That's impressive. Which club? I've seen the opposite happen. A parent speaks up and then the kid sees even less playing time and the club backs the coach with saying play time is up to the coach's discretion.

This is my first contribution to this thread but I thought I should pipe in. I had a U10 DD many years ago who was playing 30-50% in league games and 5-10 minutes in tournaments. She wasn't the only one. The team had a HUGE roster so the favorites played about 70% and the others 30%. No one was happy. The parents of the favorites wanted their little ones on the field the whole game. Multiple parents approached the coach expressing unhappiness so a team meeting was held. Coach told us players get better in practice and games are meaningless at the young age. And that they actually get better from "watching" the game being played. We are no longer with the club. I will leave it here for all to speculate as to the coach and club and to whether watching other kids play in games is more helpful than actually playing in them.

Thank you for sharing.

[Anonymous]

I agree with most everything you put, and the scrimmages and also PT status are ways they make sure players play. However I wonder if any club has ever refunded anyone because of playing time issues (or any other issues for that matter). That would be interesting if they did.

Sure. Good clubs make team placement mistakes regularly. If they cannot work a deal where the kid gets moved to a different team within the club they will refund money. As a said a while back in this thread, one of my kid’s had a teammate for a couple of weeks who was pretty obviously a much weaker player than the rest of the team. The parents did not want to move him within the club because of embarrassment issues. The club helped get him on a team at a neighboring club that was more appropriate for his then level of play and athleticism. As I found out much later, the Club refunded his money obviously, bought back his uniform and paid $1000 towards the new club’s fees. The parents weren’t happy the club misjudged the kid at tryouts, but were happy with how the club handled the issue.



That's impressive. Which club? I've seen the opposite happen. A parent speaks up and then the kid sees even less playing time and the club backs the coach with saying play time is up to the coach's discretion.

This is my first contribution to this thread but I thought I should pipe in. I had a U10 DD many years ago who was playing 30-50% in league games and 5-10 minutes in tournaments. She wasn't the only one. The team had a HUGE roster so the favorites played about 70% and the others 30%. No one was happy. The parents of the favorites wanted their little ones on the field the whole game. Multiple parents approached the coach expressing unhappiness so a team meeting was held. Coach told us players get better in practice and games are meaningless at the young age. And that they actually get better from "watching" the game being played. We are no longer with the club. I will leave it here for all to speculate as to the coach and club and to whether watching other kids play in games is more helpful than actually playing in them.

Thank you for sharing.

I've noticed play time increases when the favorites no longer produce results. Agree that improving in practice and games isn't a factor.

[Anonymous]

This is my first contribution to this thread but I thought I should pipe in. I had a U10 DD many years ago who was playing 30-50% in league games and 5-10 minutes in tournaments. She wasn't the only one. The team had a HUGE roster so the betterplayers played about 70% and the others 30%. No one was happy. The parents of the stronger players wanted the kids who are committed to getting better to play more than those who simply want more minutes without extra work to get better. Multiple parents approached the coach expressing unhappiness so a team meeting was held. Coach told us players get better in practice and games are meaningless at the young age. And that they actually get better from "watching" the game being played. We are no longer with the club. I will leave it here for all to speculate as to the coach and club and to whether watching other kids play in games is more helpful than actually playing in them.

I fixed it for you.

To the OP, look at the tone of the complainers. If a kid is getting more time they are labeled as "favorites" and not considered to be better. Sure parents were unhappy and I'll give them credit for talking to the coach. But all they wanted was unilaterally more playing time without a consideration of how their kids could actually improve to earn more minutes. But they've covered the fruitlessness of that endeavor because in their eyes the other kids are "favorites" and not actually deserving or better players in a travel environment.

Similar things have been echoed by other "take my ball and go home" parents who have used words or statements like "believe" or the coach just isn't "interested in my kid".

The bottom line is that in order for a kid to actually get better and become a better player they have to admit that they actually need to get better. Simply leaving a club for greener pastures will not in and of itself make the player better in the long run.

Where this whole thread is really divided is there are two lines:

I am advocating that the real issue is how to help the kid get better as a player. I have made no statements about staying or leaving the current team. To me that is secondary and one should always go where they are happy, appreciated etc...

The other side is really only interested in the minutes and not really about the development. Not one of the opposing statements have mentioned anything about how their kid can improve. They believe playing time and development are one and the same. The coach is right about training being more important than games. Games are fun but they are not the development tool you believe them to be. The desire to play is strong and a kid should play where they can be impactful but that is not as important at 9 years old. Practicing with and against stronger players 3 times a week is more important than 5 more minutes in a game.

[Anonymous]

^^^

The assumption that the reason is always talent based shows you don't know what you are talking about. It discredits whatever else you may have to say.

The poster did the correct thing and moved his DD.

[Anonymous]

I fixed it for you.

To the OP, look at the tone of the complainers. If a kid is getting more time they are labeled as "favorites" and not considered to be better. Sure parents were unhappy and I'll give them credit for talking to the coach. But all they wanted was unilaterally more playing time without a consideration of how their kids could actually improve to earn more minutes. But they've covered the fruitlessness of that endeavor because in their eyes the other kids are "favorites" and not actually deserving or better players in a travel environment.

Similar things have been echoed by other "take my ball and go home" parents who have used words or statements like "believe" or the coach just isn't "interested in my kid".

The bottom line is that in order for a kid to actually get better and become a better player they have to admit that they actually need to get better. Simply leaving a club for greener pastures will not in and of itself make the player better in the long run.

Where this whole thread is really divided is there are two lines:

I am advocating that the real issue is how to help the kid get better as a player. I have made no statements about staying or leaving the current team. To me that is secondary and one should always go where they are happy, appreciated etc...

The other side is really only interested in the minutes and not really about the development. Not one of the opposing statements have mentioned anything about how their kid can improve. They believe playing time and development are one and the same. The coach is right about training being more important than games. Games are fun but they are not the development tool you believe them to be. The desire to play is strong and a kid should play where they can be impactful but that is not as important at 9 years old. Practicing with and against stronger players 3 times a week is more important than 5 more minutes in a game.

______________________________________________/

Start with explaining how the kid is getting better sitting on the bench? Remember we are talking about kids who show up to every practice with good attitudes and work hard. Are they learning better passing skills sitting on the bench? Are they learning spacing? Are they getting better with their dribbling in game conditions sitting on the bench? What, exactly, are they getting better at by sitting on the bench? And, if they are, in fact, getting "better" shouldn't the kids on the field also be getting "better" in the same manner? Why are those kids being penalized by playing the games? Why is it so important that player A sit on the bench for half or more of a game, but player B plays most of the game? Is player A benefiting from sitting on the bench more than player is benefiting from playing in the game? Really -- with your theory -- player B should just sit and watch the entire game, because he will then improve more.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:^^^

The assumption that the reason is always talent based shows you don't know what you are talking about. It discredits whatever else you may have to say.

The poster did the correct thing and moved his DD.

When one uses words like "favorites" you really can't be taken seriously and your appraisal of not only other players but of your own is more than biased.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I fixed it for you.

To the OP, look at the tone of the complainers. If a kid is getting more time they are labeled as "favorites" and not considered to be better. Sure parents were unhappy and I'll give them credit for talking to the coach. But all they wanted was unilaterally more playing time without a consideration of how their kids could actually improve to earn more minutes. But they've covered the fruitlessness of that endeavor because in their eyes the other kids are "favorites" and not actually deserving or better players in a travel environment.

Similar things have been echoed by other "take my ball and go home" parents who have used words or statements like "believe" or the coach just isn't "interested in my kid".

The bottom line is that in order for a kid to actually get better and become a better player they have to admit that they actually need to get better. Simply leaving a club for greener pastures will not in and of itself make the player better in the long run.

Where this whole thread is really divided is there are two lines:

I am advocating that the real issue is how to help the kid get better as a player. I have made no statements about staying or leaving the current team. To me that is secondary and one should always go where they are happy, appreciated etc...

The other side is really only interested in the minutes and not really about the development. Not one of the opposing statements have mentioned anything about how their kid can improve. They believe playing time and development are one and the same. The coach is right about training being more important than games. Games are fun but they are not the development tool you believe them to be. The desire to play is strong and a kid should play where they can be impactful but that is not as important at 9 years old. Practicing with and against stronger players 3 times a week is more important than 5 more minutes in a game.

______________________________________________/

Start with explaining how the kid is getting better sitting on the bench? Remember we are talking about kids who show up to every practice with good attitudes and work hard. Are they learning better passing skills sitting on the bench? Are they learning spacing? Are they getting better with their dribbling in game conditions sitting on the bench? What, exactly, are they getting better at by sitting on the bench? And, if they are, in fact, getting "better" shouldn't the kids on the field also be getting "better" in the same manner? Why are those kids being penalized by playing the games? Why is it so important that player A sit on the bench for half or more of a game, but player B plays most of the game? Is player A benefiting from sitting on the bench more than player is benefiting from playing in the game? Really -- with your theory -- player B should just sit and watch the entire game, because he will then improve more.

No, of course not. Game experience is part of development and the more you have, the more you develop. The less you have, and the further you fall behind. If a club cares, they will do as one poster said and release the player, or allow time on another team, organize scrimmages, many things to help close the gap.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:^^^

The assumption that the reason is always talent based shows you don't know what you are talking about. It discredits whatever else you may have to say.

The poster did the correct thing and moved his DD.

When one uses words like "favorites" you really can't be taken seriously and your appraisal of not only other players but of your own is more than biased.

I didn't say "favorites" and I'm not talking about my own kids. However playing 5 minutes in a tournament isn't worth even going. For 9 year olds, that's a real shame. Good thing he moved his DD.