Soccer tournament- mostly on bench

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Well -- over now obviously.

This is not a unique situation -- sadly. But, it is time for a team meeting with all parents present. Everyone needs to be on the same page going forward as this will certainly not be the last time the team plays in the tournament.

Generally -- if you paid to be on a team then your kid plays at least half of every game, and likely more depending on numbers. A kid does not get better sitting on the bench. There are no ifs, ands, or buts about it. It is, and must always be the unwavering law. Every kid on the team gets at least 1/2 of the game in playing time.

If the club does not want to play a kid at least half of the game -- it is easy. Do not put the kid on the team. Do not take his parents' money. Now you do not have to play the kid at all. If you take his parents' money then you have to play the kid.

What if the kid is really not that good, and we really want to win a tournament? Train the kid up then. It is never optional to play a kid. What if the coach says he will play the kid more some other game, but in this game he will not play? Nope. Every game. Every time. No excuses accepted. If a coach does not want to do that -- then it is time for the club to get a new coach.

Just curious - are you a coach?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

The kids care and know if they won for not. I've seen this BS argument for so long in soccer - we're developing players, we don't care if we win! Well, if you are doing a better job than the next coach, you will win. It's such a dodge of responsibility. In no other sport in the US does anyone say 'we don't care who wins'. You have 10 - 12 years olds in Little League mastering the game - but at 10 in soccer we don't care who wins? More than a few years ago now, we had NCSL as the dominant local soccer league, but it had promotion and relegation, which required you to - horrors - WIN to stay in your division or else face relegation to a lower division. That league is now basically a shadow of what it was, so everyone can play in leagues that just require your check to clear.

I don't understand your point in the context of OP's post Winning is important so it is better for a coach to get players from elsewhere to give the appearance that his team won even though it wasn't his players who contributed to the win? Your argument might make sense if coaches were consistently training and playing he same group of players, not routinely adding and subtracting players to produce wins on any given day.

Tournaments are tiered. A good club/coach puts each team in the appropriate tier. If the team has no chance of winning without the guest players, then the coach isn't doing is job and the "win" is a cover.

Maybe my kids are weird, but at that age, the would have much rather played than won sitting on the bench.

Tournaments are bracketed, yes, but that is imperfect at best. The variability in a single bracket can be quite high.

My point is that the development and winning are incongruous idea is persistent throughout soccer, and it's a line of BS being pushed by people who would prefer to avoid accountability. If the OP's team was blown out all weekend, they would likely complain about the lack of development, or poor bracketing by the tournament. Thee were even complaining about how darn cold it was!

The way you have the most happy players and parents is to win. That should be the objective. Good development will enable that. So will good use of guest players when needed, a practice that has been significantly enabled by USYS's changes to the club pass system. An if your player finds he/she is not on the field as much as they would like - they have a choice to train and commit, or moving on.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

The kids care and know if they won for not. I've seen this BS argument for so long in soccer - we're developing players, we don't care if we win! Well, if you are doing a better job than the next coach, you will win. It's such a dodge of responsibility. In no other sport in the US does anyone say 'we don't care who wins'. You have 10 - 12 years olds in Little League mastering the game - but at 10 in soccer we don't care who wins? More than a few years ago now, we had NCSL as the dominant local soccer league, but it had promotion and relegation, which required you to - horrors - WIN to stay in your division or else face relegation to a lower division. That league is now basically a shadow of what it was, so everyone can play in leagues that just require your check to clear.

I don't understand your point in the context of OP's post Winning is important so it is better for a coach to get players from elsewhere to give the appearance that his team won even though it wasn't his players who contributed to the win? Your argument might make sense if coaches were consistently training and playing he same group of players, not routinely adding and subtracting players to produce wins on any given day.

Tournaments are tiered. A good club/coach puts each team in the appropriate tier. If the team has no chance of winning without the guest players, then the coach isn't doing is job and the "win" is a cover.

Maybe my kids are weird, but at that age, the would have much rather played than won sitting on the bench.

Tournaments are bracketed, yes, but that is imperfect at best. The variability in a single bracket can be quite high.

My point is that the development and winning are incongruous idea is persistent throughout soccer, and it's a line of BS being pushed by people who would prefer to avoid accountability. If the OP's team was blown out all weekend, they would likely complain about the lack of development, or poor bracketing by the tournament. Thee were even complaining about how darn cold it was!

The way you have the most happy players and parents is to win. That should be the objective. Good development will enable that. So will good use of guest players when needed, a practice that has been significantly enabled by USYS's changes to the club pass system. An if your player finds he/she is not on the field as much as they would like - they have a choice to train and commit, or moving on.

OP stated that the guest players were not players from the same club. But in any event, the point of club passes is not to stack lower level teams with higher level players, although that is what most clubs actually do. The point was to let players developing more quickly play up or to allow a player to rehab by playing at a lower level. It was never meant to make lower level teams better by allowing top team players to guest play.

Where are you watching/coaching? I have rarely seen a coach or club focus on development of players over winning. The problem with emphasizing winning is that kids become pawns and do not necessarily develop. You get players the team needs, usually from outside of the club, and sit the not quite there yet players you picked who are actually on the team.

[Anonymous]

How in the world does a coach play an entire half a man down without noticing? I have seen a team have one too few or one too many for a minute or two, but a half, good grief. That's on the coach.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Well -- over now obviously.

This is not a unique situation -- sadly. But, it is time for a team meeting with all parents present. Everyone needs to be on the same page going forward as this will certainly not be the last time the team plays in the tournament.

Generally -- if you paid to be on a team then your kid plays at least half of every game, and likely more depending on numbers. A kid does not get better sitting on the bench. There are no ifs, ands, or buts about it. It is, and must always be the unwavering law. Every kid on the team gets at least 1/2 of the game in playing time.

If the club does not want to play a kid at least half of the game -- it is easy. Do not put the kid on the team. Do not take his parents' money. Now you do not have to play the kid at all. If you take his parents' money then you have to play the kid.

What if the kid is really not that good, and we really want to win a tournament? Train the kid up then. It is never optional to play a kid. What if the coach says he will play the kid more some other game, but in this game he will not play? Nope. Every game. Every time. No excuses accepted. If a coach does not want to do that -- then it is time for the club to get a new coach.

Just curious - are you a coach?



In a past life.

Interestingly, the whole point of high level club play finally, DA and ECNL, is to develop players to keep moving on up.

It has taken a while, for sure. But, if there are any coaches out there these days who think it is more important for a u10 team to win a game over playing kids (absent a disciplinary issue) then they absolutely should be fired.

How to handle things now? Set up a meeting towards the end of a practice. The coach and club development director for that age group should both be there. All team parents should be present - if they can make it. The club policy on playing kids at that level should be reviewed and restated. The club policy on guest players should be reviewed and restated. Guess what? No club has a policy that says kids won’t play a half game in a tournament at u10, or that a team will take guest players on to try and win a u10 tournament.

Finally, as an aside; I would be very concerned about a coach who could not figure out their team was down a player for an entire half. For a minute - sure. “I forgot to tell John he is in to start the half”. To let it go for an entire half? That’s not normal.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

The kids care and know if they won for not. I've seen this BS argument for so long in soccer - we're developing players, we don't care if we win! Well, if you are doing a better job than the next coach, you will win. It's such a dodge of responsibility. In no other sport in the US does anyone say 'we don't care who wins'. You have 10 - 12 years olds in Little League mastering the game - but at 10 in soccer we don't care who wins? More than a few years ago now, we had NCSL as the dominant local soccer league, but it had promotion and relegation, which required you to - horrors - WIN to stay in your division or else face relegation to a lower division. That league is now basically a shadow of what it was, so everyone can play in leagues that just require your check to clear.

I don't understand your point in the context of OP's post Winning is important so it is better for a coach to get players from elsewhere to give the appearance that his team won even though it wasn't his players who contributed to the win? Your argument might make sense if coaches were consistently training and playing he same group of players, not routinely adding and subtracting players to produce wins on any given day.

Tournaments are tiered. A good club/coach puts each team in the appropriate tier. If the team has no chance of winning without the guest players, then the coach isn't doing is job and the "win" is a cover.

Maybe my kids are weird, but at that age, the would have much rather played than won sitting on the bench.

Tournaments are bracketed, yes, but that is imperfect at best. The variability in a single bracket can be quite high.

My point is that the development and winning are incongruous idea is persistent throughout soccer, and it's a line of BS being pushed by people who would prefer to avoid accountability. If the OP's team was blown out all weekend, they would likely complain about the lack of development, or poor bracketing by the tournament. Thee were even complaining about how darn cold it was!

The way you have the most happy players and parents is to win. That should be the objective. Good development will enable that. So will good use of guest players when needed, a practice that has been significantly enabled by USYS's changes to the club pass system. An if your player finds he/she is not on the field as much as they would like - they have a choice to train and commit, or moving on.

OP stated that the guest players were not players from the same club. But in any event, the point of club passes is not to stack lower level teams with higher level players, although that is what most clubs actually do. The point was to let players developing more quickly play up or to allow a player to rehab by playing at a lower level. It was never meant to make lower level teams better by allowing top team players to guest play.

Where are you watching/coaching? I have rarely seen a coach or club focus on development of players over winning. The problem with emphasizing winning is that kids become pawns and do not necessarily develop. You get players the team needs, usually from outside of the club, and sit the not quite there yet players you picked who are actually on the team.

USYS has nothing to do with club passes. Whether to allow clubs to move players between teams is usually a league policy. Tournaments will also have rules on how many guest players to allow.

OP stated that the players were from "the elite team" in the same club.

I agree the point of club passes is not to stack lower level teams with higher level players. It is mostly meant for threshold type players - meaning bottom of the roster A team kids and top of the roster B team kids. Especially at larger clubs, there's often not a lot of difference between them, and what differences do exist when the teams are picked in May could be erased or reversed by November. The kids who are usually subs on the higher team can benefit from getting some games with the lower team where they will be (and feel) more important and play more prominent roles. The top kids on the lower team will also benefit from getting some minutes playing with and against better players in the more challenging games with the higher team. That's how it is supposed to work. If a club is moving its best players down from a higher team just to help a lower team get results, that's almost never a good thing.

Developing players with a competitive winning mentality is a critical part of soccer development. So players absolutely 100% should be taught that winning matters, and they should go out there and do everything in their power to help their team win. For the adults in charge though, development should come first. I agree that bringing in "ringers" just to win a few games in a tournament only helps the coach avoid accountability. If a coach wants to prove they are doing a good job at development, the best way to measure that is for the team to play some of the same teams at multiple times during the year - without bringing in new players. The results and quality of play (both individually and collectively) should improve in comparison to the those teams throughout the year. If not, it means the other coaches have done a better job.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

The kids care and know if they won for not. I've seen this BS argument for so long in soccer - we're developing players, we don't care if we win! Well, if you are doing a better job than the next coach, you will win. It's such a dodge of responsibility. In no other sport in the US does anyone say 'we don't care who wins'. You have 10 - 12 years olds in Little League mastering the game - but at 10 in soccer we don't care who wins? More than a few years ago now, we had NCSL as the dominant local soccer league, but it had promotion and relegation, which required you to - horrors - WIN to stay in your division or else face relegation to a lower division. That league is now basically a shadow of what it was, so everyone can play in leagues that just require your check to clear.

I don't understand your point in the context of OP's post Winning is important so it is better for a coach to get players from elsewhere to give the appearance that his team won even though it wasn't his players who contributed to the win? Your argument might make sense if coaches were consistently training and playing he same group of players, not routinely adding and subtracting players to produce wins on any given day.

Tournaments are tiered. A good club/coach puts each team in the appropriate tier. If the team has no chance of winning without the guest players, then the coach isn't doing is job and the "win" is a cover.

Maybe my kids are weird, but at that age, the would have much rather played than won sitting on the bench.

Tournaments are bracketed, yes, but that is imperfect at best. The variability in a single bracket can be quite high.

My point is that the development and winning are incongruous idea is persistent throughout soccer, and it's a line of BS being pushed by people who would prefer to avoid accountability. If the OP's team was blown out all weekend, they would likely complain about the lack of development, or poor bracketing by the tournament. Thee were even complaining about how darn cold it was!

The way you have the most happy players and parents is to win. That should be the objective. Good development will enable that. So will good use of guest players when needed, a practice that has been significantly enabled by USYS's changes to the club pass system. An if your player finds he/she is not on the field as much as they would like - they have a choice to train and commit, or moving on.

OP stated that the guest players were not players from the same club. But in any event, the point of club passes is not to stack lower level teams with higher level players, although that is what most clubs actually do. The point was to let players developing more quickly play up or to allow a player to rehab by playing at a lower level. It was never meant to make lower level teams better by allowing top team players to guest play.

Where are you watching/coaching? I have rarely seen a coach or club focus on development of players over winning. The problem with emphasizing winning is that kids become pawns and do not necessarily develop. You get players the team needs, usually from outside of the club, and sit the not quite there yet players you picked who are actually on the team.

USYS has nothing to do with club passes. Whether to allow clubs to move players between teams is usually a league policy. Tournaments will also have rules on how many guest players to allow.

OP stated that the players were from "the elite team" in the same club.

I agree the point of club passes is not to stack lower level teams with higher level players. It is mostly meant for threshold type players - meaning bottom of the roster A team kids and top of the roster B team kids. Especially at larger clubs, there's often not a lot of difference between them, and what differences do exist when the teams are picked in May could be erased or reversed by November. The kids who are usually subs on the higher team can benefit from getting some games with the lower team where they will be (and feel) more important and play more prominent roles. The top kids on the lower team will also benefit from getting some minutes playing with and against better players in the more challenging games with the higher team. That's how it is supposed to work. If a club is moving its best players down from a higher team just to help a lower team get results, that's almost never a good thing.

Developing players with a competitive winning mentality is a critical part of soccer development. So players absolutely 100% should be taught that winning matters, and they should go out there and do everything in their power to help their team win. For the adults in charge though, development should come first. I agree that bringing in "ringers" just to win a few games in a tournament only helps the coach avoid accountability. If a coach wants to prove they are doing a good job at development, the best way to measure that is for the team to play some of the same teams at multiple times during the year - without bringing in new players. The results and quality of play (both individually and collectively) should improve in comparison to the those teams throughout the year. If not, it means the other coaches have done a better job.

The US club ecosystem - clubs, tournaments, leagues - have been very open to club pass for a long time. USYS ecosystem is a more recent convert.

[Anonymous]

^ well said +1
Parents want to win with the team they have not win with players no one knows or with those that lack team chemistry.
Bringing guest players should only be done when you're short in players or have a special person that can help bring the team to the desired level of play.
Did the guest player work out ?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:^ well said +1
Parents want to win with the team they have not win with players no one knows or with those that lack team chemistry.
Bringing guest players should only be done when you're short in players or have a special person that can help bring the team to the desired level of play.
Did the guest player work out ?

U9’s should be training as a group - all teams together. The guest players should be players everyone knows because they are training together. If your club separates team at u9 for training, that’s not a good sign.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:OP here. I should clarify. The league they play in actually has rules that state players in a higher division cannot play down. Coach skirts the rules by getting players from an elite team not in the same league.

You said it was a tournament... rules are typically different in tournaments. Players that are carded with a club can typically play on any team at that age group for their club.

[Anonymous]

For a tournament, I can completely understand using guest players. Tournaments have lasting effects on the team and club in regards to ranking and future tournaments. You should welcome guest players that will help make the team successful. Even if your son does not play, he will benefit from the higher level of competition that is a result of doing well.

Also, I think it is good that kids realize they need to perform well in order to play. Otherwise, they can get to comfortable and stop developing.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:How in the world does a coach play an entire half a man down without noticing? I have seen a team have one too few or one too many for a minute or two, but a half, good grief. That's on the coach.

especially at U10! There are only 7 kids on the field!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP here. I should clarify. The league they play in actually has rules that state players in a higher division cannot play down. Coach skirts the rules by getting players from an elite team not in the same league.

You said it was a tournament... rules are typically different in tournaments. Players that are carded with a club can typically play on any team at that age group for their club.

I was the PP who misunderstood and thought that the "elite" players weren't from the same club because the OP mentioned a different "league." I was confused because usually league placement has nothing to do with the ability to guest play in a tournament.

I agree the point of club passes is not to stack lower level teams with higher level players. It is mostly meant for threshold type players - meaning bottom of the roster A team kids and top of the roster B team kids. Especially at larger clubs, there's often not a lot of difference between them, and what differences do exist when the teams are picked in May could be erased or reversed by November. The kids who are usually subs on the higher team can benefit from getting some games with the lower team where they will be (and feel) more important and play more prominent roles. The top kids on the lower team will also benefit from getting some minutes playing with and against better players in the more challenging games with the higher team. That's how it is supposed to work. If a club is moving its best players down from a higher team just to help a lower team get results, that's almost never a good thing.

Totally agree that the subs from a higher team stand to benefit from "playing down" and tournaments provide a great opportunity for those players to get more playing time. At most clubs, there isn't a huge difference between the bottom part of a "top" team and the top of a second team. Makes perfect sense . . . if this actually happened My kids' experience has always been that the top of the top team gets invited to play with lower teams if they are free on tournament weekends. I've seen this happen, time and time again, on clubs that post on social media constantly about "developing every player" and having a place for players at every level. Nope. They will take money from players at any level, even those players who should be playing rec. But in terms of interest and opportunity . . . that goes to who they deem as "best" at the time. This is another way that players who are the "best" at young ages keep getting better, while those bench players at any level struggle to get on the pitch at all.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Wow! I would be furious. How much have you
paid the league to be on this team?

We aren’t in DC so costs area probably different. $500 to join after being selected, almost $1000 for uniforms, $200/month.

For a 10 year old? This is ridiculous. So glad we did not go the travel route with ds.

hand embroidered uniforms?

they don't normally cost that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP here. I should clarify. The league they play in actually has rules that state players in a higher division cannot play down. Coach skirts the rules by getting players from an elite team not in the same league.

You said it was a tournament... rules are typically different in tournaments. Players that are carded with a club can typically play on any team at that age group for their club.

so bring in one or two. If you plan on having six subs and not playing them, tell a few kids to stay home for the tournament.