Playing time expectations
![[Post New]](/jforum/templates/default/images/icon_minipost_new.gif){kind=icon}
Anonymous
And you keep posting that position as if it is actually up for debate. NOBODY SAID KIDS SHOULD SIT!! You don't need to keep stating that point as if people are disagreeing with you. |
Anonymous
Actually posters did. They said this is travel, win at all costs, go back to rec soccer, take the kid to karate lessons. They did. And if you don't have a complaint with what I'm saying, then you have nothing further to post. You agree with me. Great, subject closed. |
Anonymous
No, they said it is travel and that in travel it can be expected. That doesn't mean they agree with it. That means they are describing a real expectation or experience. This just demonstrates that you fail to understand the point which is why we are still here. I can say" it snows in Virginia in the winter". That is not a value statement. It does not imply what my opinion for or against winter actually is just that it snows. A statement of fact. |
Anonymous
They said it was "best practice" . That is agreeing with it. |
Anonymous
| Troll is trolling. |
Anonymous
|
Anonymous
No it doesn’t. “Best practices” simply means “industry standard”. 50% of playing time is a threshold that CLUBS agree is reasonable and achievable MINIMUM amount of playing time. A club may promise more but club to club a parent should not expect less. And this applies only if the club even has a playing time policy. None of the above at implies what I believe. |
Anonymous
|
Isn’t it irrelevant what people say in this forum?
All it matters what a club, team or coach does. Some play players equally, some based upon the best chance for a team to win. Some players are best at forward, midfield or backs so coaches plays them based upon this. Some coaches rotate players to every position. At the same time, some players only want to play at certain positions. I’ve seen teams where the girls only want to play forward and some only want to play back. Most girls don’t want to play goalie. So is it fair that a goalie plays the entire game cause no one else wants to play there? My point is, some like Coke, some like Pepsi. Some like Chik-Fil-A some like Popeyes Chicken sandwiches. Does this make one is better than the other? NO. It’s based upon individual preference. Same with travel soccer. Some people would like a certain club/team/coach for its culture and playing time, some don’t. Don’t buy a Coka and expect it to taste like Pepsi. |
Anonymous
Not sure this analogy works the way you think since the new Popeyes sandwich is vastly superior to Chik-fil-a regardless of personal preference. 
|
Anonymous
Very true. I haven’t heard anyone fight or gotten shot over a Chik-Fil-A sandwich yet. LOL |
Anonymous
Maybe you disagree with it, so that's why you are arguing against it. Good, we are on the same page. But plenty of posters think it is correct, said players learn from the bench, that games don't matter and a host of other things. What you are saying is not in step with several posters. I'm glad you do think playing time should be better than that, so you and I agree. Great, fantastic. Some clubs do get it right. Luckily we live in an area with many options. People can find one that works, and I encourage them to. |
Anonymous
I get your point, and I agree. With so many options, find the better fit. I would add though that at U10, players should really play multiple positions on the field, for development. A good coach will do that, and it makes them better players down the line. |
Anonymous
NO, I am arguing against your basic position that factual statements are value statements. "But plenty of posters think it is correct, said players learn from the bench" This is factual. You do learn by watching the game being played. Every coach will tell kids to watch the game on TV. Watching from the bench can teach as well. This does not imply the amount of time on the bench nor did anyone state a certain amount nor does it imply that they agree with any particular amount of bench time. There is balance with things and you are arguing against people because you confuse a fact with a value and you are also confusing general sentiment with an absolute. Context matters. If a team has a roster of 14 kids then 50% of a game is probably fair in a relative sense. The playing time isn't really the issue and the coach is actually doing a pretty good job to ensure kids are playing. The real issue is that of roster size. But that is also a temporary problem as the game goes from 7v7 to 9v9 to 11v11 as well as game length increases providing more minutes per game. So, for U10 in 7v7 14 kids sucks but within a year that roster has gone from 7 subs to 5 with longer games. So, people are not exactly disagreeing that in the particular context of 7v7 with 8 kids 50% of game time could be better, people are also offering some bigger picture perspective that the situation 6 months from now improve simply because that same team will go from 7v7 to 9v9. The problem will then be, they only have 8 players currently when they will need a minimum of 9 just to play a game. So people are not really agreeing with the playing time but they are suggesting that, based on experience, to take a deep breath, take a step back and go form there. This exact situation only has 3 months left in it. These are facts, not agreement. These are nothing more than perspective. So I have sympathy and empathy but I also have enough time in this to know that the sky is not falling either. |
Anonymous
| And the context is that they have 8 players, so that's why this has caused such upset. |
Anonymous
This is not anyone trolling. This is two (or more people) very earnest people who will not stop making the same points until they can get the other to agree or until they have the last word. I think we could reach 100 pages by Christmas unless there is an intervention. |