Playing time expectations

[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.

I'll tell you why, because games simply do not offer the amount of touches necessary to improve in technical areas of the game. At 9 years old if a kid doesn't truly understand the game regarding off the ball movement then yes watching can be a learning opportunity. BUT it will not work if what to look for is not explained or good play is not pointed out in real time by the coach and obviously if the player is tuned out.

Kids at 8 and 9 years old are picked just as much for their potential as they are their ability to immediately offer impact. Soccer takes a long time to learn from technical to tactical and then the ability to pull it all off in a game with parents yelling. Frankly, some kids need to be brought along more slowly and everyone learns the game at different rates and stages. If a kid continues to make the same mistake over and over in game a coach would be doubling down on that mistake by leaving them in the game. Correcting the mistake should be done during the week and not in a game.

But calling the starters the coaches "favorites" is burying your head in the sand regarding your own kid. And if you really do not want to explore how your kid can get better then frankly you will not be missed on a team with kids who do want to get better. Getting better is why kids play travel. Getting to play equal minutes without consequence for fun is why kids play rec. Figure which one is your kid.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

I'll tell you why, because games simply do not offer the amount of touches necessary to improve in technical areas of the game. At 9 years old if a kid doesn't truly understand the game regarding off the ball movement then yes watching can be a learning opportunity. BUT it will not work if what to look for is not explained or good play is not pointed out in real time by the coach and obviously if the player is tuned out.

Kids at 8 and 9 years old are picked just as much for their potential as they are their ability to immediately offer impact. Soccer takes a long time to learn from technical to tactical and then the ability to pull it all off in a game with parents yelling. Frankly, some kids need to be brought along more slowly and everyone learns the game at different rates and stages. If a kid continues to make the same mistake over and over in game a coach would be doubling down on that mistake by leaving them in the game. Correcting the mistake should be done during the week and not in a game.

But calling the starters the coaches "favorites" is burying your head in the sand regarding your own kid. And if you really do not want to explore how your kid can get better then frankly you will not be missed on a team with kids who do want to get better. Getting better is why kids play travel. Getting to play equal minutes without consequence for fun is why kids play rec. Figure which one is your kid.

If game time really has nothing to do with development, then everyone should play the same number of minutes, since it doesn't really matter anyways.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

I'll tell you why, because games simply do not offer the amount of touches necessary to improve in technical areas of the game. At 9 years old if a kid doesn't truly understand the game regarding off the ball movement then yes watching can be a learning opportunity. BUT it will not work if what to look for is not explained or good play is not pointed out in real time by the coach and obviously if the player is tuned out.

Kids at 8 and 9 years old are picked just as much for their potential as they are their ability to immediately offer impact. Soccer takes a long time to learn from technical to tactical and then the ability to pull it all off in a game with parents yelling. Frankly, some kids need to be brought along more slowly and everyone learns the game at different rates and stages. If a kid continues to make the same mistake over and over in game a coach would be doubling down on that mistake by leaving them in the game. Correcting the mistake should be done during the week and not in a game.

But calling the starters the coaches "favorites" is burying your head in the sand regarding your own kid. And if you really do not want to explore how your kid can get better then frankly you will not be missed on a team with kids who do want to get better. Getting better is why kids play travel. Getting to play equal minutes without consequence for fun is why kids play rec. Figure which one is your kid.

If game time really has nothing to do with development, then everyone should play the same number of minutes, since it doesn't really matter anyways.

No, if a kid is making the same mistakes under pressure, making poor decisions in a game they should not be in the game because those things cannot be corrected in game. They can be addressed in practice and over time those things improve.

Again, not every kid is ready for game pressure and that can be very destructive to confidence and reinforces bad habits. If the problems are first touch, well getting 2 maybe 3 touches every five minutes in a game is not nearly as developmentally productive as a high tempo practice with rondos or other touch heavy drills. A player who needs to develop first touch will get more touches in five minutes of practice then they would in a full soccer game.

Games offer more information to the coach about what needs to be worked on during practice.

But until you seriously question what your player needs to improve you are hardly in the best position to judge how they are actually being coached.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

I'll tell you why, because games simply do not offer the amount of touches necessary to improve in technical areas of the game. At 9 years old if a kid doesn't truly understand the game regarding off the ball movement then yes watching can be a learning opportunity. BUT it will not work if what to look for is not explained or good play is not pointed out in real time by the coach and obviously if the player is tuned out.

Kids at 8 and 9 years old are picked just as much for their potential as they are their ability to immediately offer impact. Soccer takes a long time to learn from technical to tactical and then the ability to pull it all off in a game with parents yelling. Frankly, some kids need to be brought along more slowly and everyone learns the game at different rates and stages. If a kid continues to make the same mistake over and over in game a coach would be doubling down on that mistake by leaving them in the game. Correcting the mistake should be done during the week and not in a game.

But calling the starters the coaches "favorites" is burying your head in the sand regarding your own kid. And if you really do not want to explore how your kid can get better then frankly you will not be missed on a team with kids who do want to get better. Getting better is why kids play travel. Getting to play equal minutes without consequence for fun is why kids play rec. Figure which one is your kid.

If game time really has nothing to do with development, then everyone should play the same number of minutes, since it doesn't really matter anyways.

No, if a kid is making the same mistakes under pressure, making poor decisions in a game they should not be in the game because those things cannot be corrected in game. They can be addressed in practice and over time those things improve.

Again, not every kid is ready for game pressure and that can be very destructive to confidence and reinforces bad habits. If the problems are first touch, well getting 2 maybe 3 touches every five minutes in a game is not nearly as developmentally productive as a high tempo practice with rondos or other touch heavy drills. A player who needs to develop first touch will get more touches in five minutes of practice then they would in a full soccer game.

Games offer more information to the coach about what needs to be worked on during practice.

But until you seriously question what your player needs to improve you are hardly in the best position to judge how they are actually being coached.

You don't even know that to be true. You assume that every time a player is not getting minutes, it's because they are doing something wrong. It could be they just aren't as big and fast.

Why are you so invested in families accepting so little minutes of 9 year olds? Are you a coach or something? Are you worried this will hit your club?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

I'll tell you why, because games simply do not offer the amount of touches necessary to improve in technical areas of the game. At 9 years old if a kid doesn't truly understand the game regarding off the ball movement then yes watching can be a learning opportunity. BUT it will not work if what to look for is not explained or good play is not pointed out in real time by the coach and obviously if the player is tuned out.

Kids at 8 and 9 years old are picked just as much for their potential as they are their ability to immediately offer impact. Soccer takes a long time to learn from technical to tactical and then the ability to pull it all off in a game with parents yelling. Frankly, some kids need to be brought along more slowly and everyone learns the game at different rates and stages. If a kid continues to make the same mistake over and over in game a coach would be doubling down on that mistake by leaving them in the game. Correcting the mistake should be done during the week and not in a game.

But calling the starters the coaches "favorites" is burying your head in the sand regarding your own kid. And if you really do not want to explore how your kid can get better then frankly you will not be missed on a team with kids who do want to get better. Getting better is why kids play travel. Getting to play equal minutes without consequence for fun is why kids play rec. Figure which one is your kid.

If game time really has nothing to do with development, then everyone should play the same number of minutes, since it doesn't really matter anyways.

No, if a kid is making the same mistakes under pressure, making poor decisions in a game they should not be in the game because those things cannot be corrected in game. They can be addressed in practice and over time those things improve.

Again, not every kid is ready for game pressure and that can be very destructive to confidence and reinforces bad habits. If the problems are first touch, well getting 2 maybe 3 touches every five minutes in a game is not nearly as developmentally productive as a high tempo practice with rondos or other touch heavy drills. A player who needs to develop first touch will get more touches in five minutes of practice then they would in a full soccer game.

Games offer more information to the coach about what needs to be worked on during practice.

But until you seriously question what your player needs to improve you are hardly in the best position to judge how they are actually being coached.

You don't even know that to be true. You assume that every time a player is not getting minutes, it's because they are doing something wrong. It could be they just aren't as big and fast.

Why are you so invested in families accepting so little minutes of 9 year olds? Are you a coach or something? Are you worried this will hit your club?

I don't have to know it to be true but I would certainly ask the coach why in their opinion my kid doesn't get more minutes. I would want to know what they can work on to get more minutes.

Again, if you are going to trot out the coach plays "favorites" then I have to laugh at you. A coach will play who they trust but they are kids he sees 3-4 days a week. These are not kids who are family. That narrative is a crutch.

I of course would want my kids to get more minutes but I also want to know why they are not getting more minutes. That is the disconnect. You are not interested in the why, you just want more minutes. You are a rec parent. If you believe maximum game time, regardless of the quality of play is crucial to your kids development then I urge you to play rec. Go and watch rec games and see how that equal playing time is making better players than travel soccer is. Report back with the success of this developmental model.

[Anonymous]

No, if a kid is making the same mistakes under pressure, making poor decisions in a game they should not be in the game because those things cannot be corrected in game. They can be addressed in practice and over time those things improve.

Again, not every kid is ready for game pressure and that can be very destructive to confidence and reinforces bad habits. If the problems are first touch, well getting 2 maybe 3 touches every five minutes in a game is not nearly as developmentally productive as a high tempo practice with rondos or other touch heavy drills. A player who needs to develop first touch will get more touches in five minutes of practice then they would in a full soccer game.

Games offer more information to the coach about what needs to be worked on during practice.

But until you seriously question what your player needs to improve you are hardly in the best position to judge how they are actually being coached.

___________________________/


All of that can be addressed during the game. It is the best time to address it, because then the kids can work on it -- wait for it -- in the game under game conditions. Games are practices too. It is a place to continue to try and work on things that were worked on team practices. There are exactly zero games at 9 and 10 which are important to win so playing a weaker player another 5-10 minutes in a game is not going to be an issue at all -- unless the coach makes it one.

As far as 9 and 10 year olds and improvements -- they need to get better at everything. They're 9 and 10. They do nothing perfectly, and almost nothing particularly well. Seriously -- you are arguing that playing a 9 year old in a game for 30 minutes instead of 20 minutes will negatively affect his mental performance in the sport? Really? That's what you want to argue? Take a step back.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:No, if a kid is making the same mistakes under pressure, making poor decisions in a game they should not be in the game because those things cannot be corrected in game. They can be addressed in practice and over time those things improve.

Again, not every kid is ready for game pressure and that can be very destructive to confidence and reinforces bad habits. If the problems are first touch, well getting 2 maybe 3 touches every five minutes in a game is not nearly as developmentally productive as a high tempo practice with rondos or other touch heavy drills. A player who needs to develop first touch will get more touches in five minutes of practice then they would in a full soccer game.

Games offer more information to the coach about what needs to be worked on during practice.

But until you seriously question what your player needs to improve you are hardly in the best position to judge how they are actually being coached.

___________________________/


All of that can be addressed during the game. It is the best time to address it, because then the kids can work on it -- wait for it -- in the game under game conditions. Games are practices too. It is a place to continue to try and work on things that were worked on team practices. There are exactly zero games at 9 and 10 which are important to win so playing a weaker player another 5-10 minutes in a game is not going to be an issue at all -- unless the coach makes it one.

As far as 9 and 10 year olds and improvements -- they need to get better at everything. They're 9 and 10. They do nothing perfectly, and almost nothing particularly well. Seriously -- you are arguing that playing a 9 year old in a game for 30 minutes instead of 20 minutes will negatively affect his mental performance in the sport? Really? That's what you want to argue? Take a step back.

The bolded demonstrates your ignorance regarding youth soccer. No, the speed of the game and the decisions required in game do not allow in game corrections. You couldn't be more wrong and there are stacks of literature that disagrees with you as well. You coach during the week and observe in the game. Coaches adjust minutes and positions in the game and may change formations but a coach does not give direction during the game.

Take your kid to rec and shout at them from your chair because that is who you are and what you want.

[Anonymous]

All of that can be addressed during the game. It is the best time to address it, because then the kids can work on it -- wait for it -- in the game under game conditions. Games are practices too. It is a place to continue to try and work on things that were worked on team practices. There are exactly zero games at 9 and 10 which are important to win so playing a weaker player another 5-10 minutes in a game is not going to be an issue at all -- unless the coach makes it one.

As far as 9 and 10 year olds and improvements -- they need to get better at everything. They're 9 and 10. They do nothing perfectly, and almost nothing particularly well. Seriously -- you are arguing that playing a 9 year old in a game for 30 minutes instead of 20 minutes will negatively affect his mental performance in the sport? Really? That's what you want to argue? Take a step back.

The argumentative poster is nuts and doesn't know what he is talking about. As you say, all of the young players have many, many things they need to work on. The truth is that most coaches judge quality of play based on size, speed, and strength. Who is exhibiting better quality of play at U9? Is it the little kid who dribbles past two opponents and then, when under pressure, sends a pass to his teammate that doesn't quite make it there because it wasn't strong enough? Or the big fast kid who just keeps running straight ahead, kicking the ball and running after it and letting a blistering shot go from anywhere on the field, regardless of where teammates are and regardless of whether the shot as any chance of going in? I guarantee you that the latter kid is the one getting more minutes 8 times out of 10.Chances are, he will score a goal, probably more often than the kid who passed. "Quality" is usually more developed physically and those are the players given more playing time at many clubs.

The funny thing is that those "quality" kids actually take away game touches from every player on the team because of poor first touches and impossible shots with the wrong body position. But they don't get pulled or have minutes reduced like the physically less developed kids. The lesson the kids receive is that the big kid is "really good" and that the bench kid isn't as good unless a coach tells them otherwise.

Ultimately, some of the big kids pan out, but many do not.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:No, if a kid is making the same mistakes under pressure, making poor decisions in a game they should not be in the game because those things cannot be corrected in game. They can be addressed in practice and over time those things improve.

Again, not every kid is ready for game pressure and that can be very destructive to confidence and reinforces bad habits. If the problems are first touch, well getting 2 maybe 3 touches every five minutes in a game is not nearly as developmentally productive as a high tempo practice with rondos or other touch heavy drills. A player who needs to develop first touch will get more touches in five minutes of practice then they would in a full soccer game.

Games offer more information to the coach about what needs to be worked on during practice.

But until you seriously question what your player needs to improve you are hardly in the best position to judge how they are actually being coached.

___________________________/


All of that can be addressed during the game. It is the best time to address it, because then the kids can work on it -- wait for it -- in the game under game conditions. Games are practices too. It is a place to continue to try and work on things that were worked on team practices. There are exactly zero games at 9 and 10 which are important to win so playing a weaker player another 5-10 minutes in a game is not going to be an issue at all -- unless the coach makes it one.

As far as 9 and 10 year olds and improvements -- they need to get better at everything. They're 9 and 10. They do nothing perfectly, and almost nothing particularly well. Seriously -- you are arguing that playing a 9 year old in a game for 30 minutes instead of 20 minutes will negatively affect his mental performance in the sport? Really? That's what you want to argue? Take a step back.

If a kid is derailing things in a game it lessons the development and in game learning for all the kids on the field. If a kid needs to be brought along more slowly than others there is nothing wrong with that or the kid. Some kids have simply played more than others and at 9 years old that difference is huge in a game. But that gap closes over time but it does not close over the fall season.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

All of that can be addressed during the game. It is the best time to address it, because then the kids can work on it -- wait for it -- in the game under game conditions. Games are practices too. It is a place to continue to try and work on things that were worked on team practices. There are exactly zero games at 9 and 10 which are important to win so playing a weaker player another 5-10 minutes in a game is not going to be an issue at all -- unless the coach makes it one.

As far as 9 and 10 year olds and improvements -- they need to get better at everything. They're 9 and 10. They do nothing perfectly, and almost nothing particularly well. Seriously -- you are arguing that playing a 9 year old in a game for 30 minutes instead of 20 minutes will negatively affect his mental performance in the sport? Really? That's what you want to argue? Take a step back.

The argumentative poster is nuts and doesn't know what he is talking about. As you say, all of the young players have many, many things they need to work on. The truth is that most coaches judge quality of play based on size, speed, and strength. Who is exhibiting better quality of play at U9? Is it the little kid who dribbles past two opponents and then, when under pressure, sends a pass to his teammate that doesn't quite make it there because it wasn't strong enough? Or the big fast kid who just keeps running straight ahead, kicking the ball and running after it and letting a blistering shot go from anywhere on the field, regardless of where teammates are and regardless of whether the shot as any chance of going in? I guarantee you that the latter kid is the one getting more minutes 8 times out of 10.Chances are, he will score a goal, probably more often than the kid who passed. "Quality" is usually more developed physically and those are the players given more playing time at many clubs.

The funny thing is that those "quality" kids actually take away game touches from every player on the team because of poor first touches and impossible shots with the wrong body position. But they don't get pulled or have minutes reduced like the physically less developed kids. The lesson the kids receive is that the big kid is "really good" and that the bench kid isn't as good unless a coach tells them otherwise.

Ultimately, some of the big kids pan out, but many do not.

Exactly, they all have things to work on. No one is demonstrating savant, professional grade soccer. So let them all play. And if you want them watch how it's done, assign a professional match to watch. My kids' coaches did. It's also a better viewpoint to learn those lessons from. That's actually why the DA requires filming: so players can study it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

All of that can be addressed during the game. It is the best time to address it, because then the kids can work on it -- wait for it -- in the game under game conditions. Games are practices too. It is a place to continue to try and work on things that were worked on team practices. There are exactly zero games at 9 and 10 which are important to win so playing a weaker player another 5-10 minutes in a game is not going to be an issue at all -- unless the coach makes it one.

As far as 9 and 10 year olds and improvements -- they need to get better at everything. They're 9 and 10. They do nothing perfectly, and almost nothing particularly well. Seriously -- you are arguing that playing a 9 year old in a game for 30 minutes instead of 20 minutes will negatively affect his mental performance in the sport? Really? That's what you want to argue? Take a step back.

The argumentative poster is nuts and doesn't know what he is talking about. As you say, all of the young players have many, many things they need to work on. The truth is that most coaches judge quality of play based on size, speed, and strength. Who is exhibiting better quality of play at U9? Is it the little kid who dribbles past two opponents and then, when under pressure, sends a pass to his teammate that doesn't quite make it there because it wasn't strong enough? Or the big fast kid who just keeps running straight ahead, kicking the ball and running after it and letting a blistering shot go from anywhere on the field, regardless of where teammates are and regardless of whether the shot as any chance of going in? I guarantee you that the latter kid is the one getting more minutes 8 times out of 10.Chances are, he will score a goal, probably more often than the kid who passed. "Quality" is usually more developed physically and those are the players given more playing time at many clubs.

The funny thing is that those "quality" kids actually take away game touches from every player on the team because of poor first touches and impossible shots with the wrong body position. But they don't get pulled or have minutes reduced like the physically less developed kids. The lesson the kids receive is that the big kid is "really good" and that the bench kid isn't as good unless a coach tells them otherwise.

Ultimately, some of the big kids pan out, but many do not.

Lots of assumptions here. We know none of the context. So far the other players have been called favorites. The OP ADMITTED that their kid was not as talented. Parents form all kinds of crazy biases in their head and let their imagination run wild. But only the coach knows the real reason so for all your sky is falling speculation and hand wringing and hurt feelings the cost of a email or phone call to the coach is free. IN the coaches eyes, your kid is not good enough and until you actually talk to the coach you are just speculating nonsense.

All we know is some kids get less minutes than others. The bigger question is why and be willing to ask why. Perhaps it is because of everything you say. Perhaps it is none of what you say. But when it is your kid regardless of all the nonsense being spouted here is TALK TO THE COACH!

After that do whatever the hell you want to do.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

All of that can be addressed during the game. It is the best time to address it, because then the kids can work on it -- wait for it -- in the game under game conditions. Games are practices too. It is a place to continue to try and work on things that were worked on team practices. There are exactly zero games at 9 and 10 which are important to win so playing a weaker player another 5-10 minutes in a game is not going to be an issue at all -- unless the coach makes it one.

As far as 9 and 10 year olds and improvements -- they need to get better at everything. They're 9 and 10. They do nothing perfectly, and almost nothing particularly well. Seriously -- you are arguing that playing a 9 year old in a game for 30 minutes instead of 20 minutes will negatively affect his mental performance in the sport? Really? That's what you want to argue? Take a step back.

The argumentative poster is nuts and doesn't know what he is talking about. As you say, all of the young players have many, many things they need to work on. The truth is that most coaches judge quality of play based on size, speed, and strength. Who is exhibiting better quality of play at U9? Is it the little kid who dribbles past two opponents and then, when under pressure, sends a pass to his teammate that doesn't quite make it there because it wasn't strong enough? Or the big fast kid who just keeps running straight ahead, kicking the ball and running after it and letting a blistering shot go from anywhere on the field, regardless of where teammates are and regardless of whether the shot as any chance of going in? I guarantee you that the latter kid is the one getting more minutes 8 times out of 10.Chances are, he will score a goal, probably more often than the kid who passed. "Quality" is usually more developed physically and those are the players given more playing time at many clubs.

The funny thing is that those "quality" kids actually take away game touches from every player on the team because of poor first touches and impossible shots with the wrong body position. But they don't get pulled or have minutes reduced like the physically less developed kids. The lesson the kids receive is that the big kid is "really good" and that the bench kid isn't as good unless a coach tells them otherwise.

Ultimately, some of the big kids pan out, but many do not.

Exactly, they all have things to work on. No one is demonstrating savant, professional grade soccer. So let them all play. And if you want them watch how it's done, assign a professional match to watch. My kids' coaches did. It's also a better viewpoint to learn those lessons from. That's actually why the DA requires filming: so players can study it.

Size is temporary. But small kids still need to learn how to play against bigger kids. That, like everything else takes time. Getting blown up in a game consistently doesn't help a kid.

[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 was the person who said "favorites" and I stand by it. Some of those starters/favorite players regularly missed practices and had less commitment than those who came to every practice and played fewer minutes. Additionally there was not much of a difference in skill level between those playing 70% and those playing 30%. The main problem at the time was that the team had 15 players and they were playing 7 vs 7 with a full-time goalie. So you had 14 kids rotating for 6 field spots. There were probably 2 players who were noticeably better and the rest were pretty much equal in my (and all the other parents) eyes. The only thing I could see was the coach seemed to like the little girls who were more outgoing and the girls who were more shy seemed to play less. Looking back now 4 years removed. I will say that 4 of the "favorites" have left soccer for other sports or have fallen off and no longer are the superstar everyone thought they would be when they were 8-9 years old. 6 of those bench players ended up leaving for other clubs and are all on various competitive ECNL or DA teams and doing fine. Too bad this coach didn't have a crystal ball. He's still out there coaching little girls, overloading rosters and chasing off players because they aren't good enough at 8 years old.

[Anonymous]

Look at it this way your paying for training actually more than you are games usually 3 nights per week 1.5 hrs each session. Games 1 per week 1 hr. So in theory your kid is involved with the entire team "on the field" more than 75% of the time. If your kids not keeping up with the rest of the team as far as development sorry. Its a team game if you want to remain on the team keep up wit everyone else. Its not fair for you to slow down everyone elses development waiting for your kid to catch up.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

All of that can be addressed during the game. It is the best time to address it, because then the kids can work on it -- wait for it -- in the game under game conditions. Games are practices too. It is a place to continue to try and work on things that were worked on team practices. There are exactly zero games at 9 and 10 which are important to win so playing a weaker player another 5-10 minutes in a game is not going to be an issue at all -- unless the coach makes it one.

As far as 9 and 10 year olds and improvements -- they need to get better at everything. They're 9 and 10. They do nothing perfectly, and almost nothing particularly well. Seriously -- you are arguing that playing a 9 year old in a game for 30 minutes instead of 20 minutes will negatively affect his mental performance in the sport? Really? That's what you want to argue? Take a step back.

The argumentative poster is nuts and doesn't know what he is talking about. As you say, all of the young players have many, many things they need to work on. The truth is that most coaches judge quality of play based on size, speed, and strength. Who is exhibiting better quality of play at U9? Is it the little kid who dribbles past two opponents and then, when under pressure, sends a pass to his teammate that doesn't quite make it there because it wasn't strong enough? Or the big fast kid who just keeps running straight ahead, kicking the ball and running after it and letting a blistering shot go from anywhere on the field, regardless of where teammates are and regardless of whether the shot as any chance of going in? I guarantee you that the latter kid is the one getting more minutes 8 times out of 10.Chances are, he will score a goal, probably more often than the kid who passed. "Quality" is usually more developed physically and those are the players given more playing time at many clubs.

The funny thing is that those "quality" kids actually take away game touches from every player on the team because of poor first touches and impossible shots with the wrong body position. But they don't get pulled or have minutes reduced like the physically less developed kids. The lesson the kids receive is that the big kid is "really good" and that the bench kid isn't as good unless a coach tells them otherwise.

Ultimately, some of the big kids pan out, but many do not.

Lots of assumptions here. We know none of the context. So far the other players have been called favorites. The OP ADMITTED that their kid was not as talented. Parents form all kinds of crazy biases in their head and let their imagination run wild. But only the coach knows the real reason so for all your sky is falling speculation and hand wringing and hurt feelings the cost of a email or phone call to the coach is free. IN the coaches eyes, your kid is not good enough and until you actually talk to the coach you are just speculating nonsense.

All we know is some kids get less minutes than others. The bigger question is why and be willing to ask why. Perhaps it is because of everything you say. Perhaps it is none of what you say. But when it is your kid regardless of all the nonsense being spouted here is TALK TO THE COACH!

After that do whatever the hell you want to do.

You've said that multiple times. Do you think saying it more often makes it sound better? Or are you trying to Stockholm syndrome convince us through repetition?

1. Any club worth its salt should be doing evaluations already.
2. If a parent wants to try talking to a coach, that's fine. Maybe they will get lucky and get that refund, but reality is it is likely to keep things the same or make them worse. However, talk away if anyone wants.
3. None of that changes what many of us feel: that 9 year olds should be allowed to enjoy the game and PLAY. Let them taste the joy of the game.